Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Did you see the first Seeking Alpha story? It talked about the data and had external links in it.
Another article came out today on Seeking Alpha.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4137232-hedgepath-pharmaceuticals-primary-concerns-addressed-mitigated-mayne-pharma-deal
In case you haven't seen it, this may help you get up to speed on the name:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4124253-hedgepath-pharmaceuticals-undiscovered-underfollowed-undervalued
Well if the final trial data is just as strong as the previous news releases hinted at and assuming they stay on track for submission and approval in the U.S., the stock could/should go up significantly. Hopefully the company shares the final trial data soon while they work on setting up a meeting with the FDA. They do need to raise cash somehow, so that's still a hurdle to get over.
What's your take?
I probably should've said a "green light" instead of a "green flag". Go HPPI!
HPPI receives what would appear to be a green flag on its future NDA filing...
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hedgepath-pharmaceuticals-receives-clarity-fda-130000738.html
TAMPA, Fla., July 25, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- HedgePath Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (HPPI), a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops and plans to commercialize innovative therapeutics for patients with cancer, announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has provided further guidance regarding HPPI's ongoing, open-label Phase 2(b) clinical trial studying the effect of SUBA-Itraconazole (SUBA-Cap) oral capsules in patients with Basal Cell Carcinoma Nevus Syndrome (BCCNS), also known as Gorlin Syndrome.
The FDA's guidance came in the form of a written response by FDA to HPPI's Type-C meeting background package. Such a meeting is a standard element of the regulatory review process leading to a potential New Drug Application (NDA) to FDA.
Nicholas Virca, President and CEO of HPPI, stated that, "We are pleased with the FDA's guidance, since we believe it adds clarity to our regulatory and clinical road going forward for the BCCNS indication of SUBA-Cap. FDA confirmed that we may follow the more streamlined 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which will allow us to reference safety data from previous third-party itraconazole trials, to be supplemented by our own safety database. The acceptability of this combined safety database will then be determined by the FDA during the course of its review of the future NDA. FDA also agreed that no additional nonclinical toxicology studies appear necessary to support filing an NDA for SUBA-Itraconazole under the 505(b)(2) pathway."
Importantly, FDA also indicated that it "[w]ould accept a single study to support an NDA if results show a significant effect on a clinically meaningful endpoint. The results of the single trial must be sufficiently robust and so compelling that it would be unethical to repeat the study . . . [e]vidence of an objective reduction in tumor burden that is durable is important in order to demonstrate antitumor effects of SUBA-Itraconazole in patients with BCCNS and these data should be collected and independently reviewed."
Mr Virca further stated that, "In light of FDA's additional guidance on what might constitute a clinically significant response, we are now undertaking further detailed analyses of individual tumor responses from our ongoing trial seeking to verify the robustness of our therapy in reducing the tumour burden in BCCNS patients. We intend to present the results of this additional analysis to FDA and continue discussions with them about the utility of such results in a potential NDA submission."
Readers are cautioned that no assurances can be given that (i) the final study results will match the results previously reported on May 30, 2017 or (ii) the study, when and if completed, will achieve its primary and secondary endpoints or (iii) that the study results will be found by FDA to be sufficient for the filing of a NDA, or that one or more additional studies will not be required or (iv) if an NDA is filed, that it will be approved by FDA. Further, HPPI is not committing to providing further interim updates prior to the reporting of the final study results.
Yeah, I hope so too, regarding the August timeframe.
Did you read his reports on his original/free site?
Also, fwiw, independent biotech analyst Jason Napodano covers HPPI and has written a few reports on the company going back almost a year now. The first 4 or 5 reports used to be on his "free" site www.bionapinc.com. But he's also started a subscription website biotech service (www.bio5c.com) where he covers many, many young biotechs. Just last week he transferred his previously available free reports from his original site over to the subscription site. While I don't subscribe to his www.bio5c.com service (at least, not yet), I have read his original 4 or 5 reports on HPPI and they're high quality and paint a pretty strong outlook for SUBA-itraconazole. He also wrote a new report (ahead of the company receiving FDA feedback in the very near term) on HPPI just last week, but that's on his pay site, so I haven't read that one yet.
While HPPI compensates Jason for covering the company and publishing updated reports, I was just happy to finally see this little company get some coverage a year ago.
I guess my point of this post is that if someone is looking to read some pretty detailed reports on HPPI and the outlook for the company, one can check out Jason's subscription site now and see 5 or 6 reports on HPPI.
Lastly, fwiw, Jason is also a shareholder in the company...he covers a lot of biotechs on his website(s) but isn't a shareholder of all of them. So take that fwiw I suppose.
Note, I don't work with Jason or anything, but an underfollowed name like HPPI needs all the help it can get in educating investors about its story and share price potential, assuming the FDA doesn't pull a fast one on the company.
If the FDA essentially green lights the company to file for approval in BCCNS on just this single Ph. 2 trial that are in very late stages -- and if the company communicates this fact to the investment community -- then the share price should begin to perform very nicely over the next year or so, imo. If the FDA requires another confirmatory study after this one, then, ughh, smh, I'd rather not think about that.
I see the filing on the EDGAR site now in the "insider transactions" part of the site. I hadn't noticed this part of that site before, learn something new every day I guess.
Hi Rosym, it's nice to see another (presumably) real-life shareholder of HPPI on this board.
Anyhow, this is a few weeks old by now, but I came across this insider filing recently. It looks like Frank O'Donnell, the principal of Hedgepath LLC, which is one of his private equity firms and one of the principal founding firms of HPPI (along with Mayne Pharma), sold 2.5M shares of HPPI for $0.20/share at the end of June in a private transaction. Very curious action there imo given the stock had been trading at $0.30-$0.35/share for quite a while. Frank is quite wealthy, so I'm quite sure the $500k this transaction netted him isn't critical to his personal life. It must be strategic in nature somehow, in the sense that an institution wanted to invest in HPPI but didn't want to have to buy in the open market, where the stock has very, very limited liquidity. I wish there was a way to find out who bought these shares from him, perhaps in time in a future filing it will be disclosed, but I'm not sure about that. It's also strange that this filing isn't on the SEC's EDGAR site yet.
http://insideri.com/1584617_000089924317018211_0000899243-17-018211
+1 to this. It is the reality of the situation. All the GE talks and workings and who knows what else go out the window if Doug isn't running the show imo. Spangenberg likely leaves at some point too.
While things look bleak now according to the stock price, this is a crisis of confidence moment for investors. To what degree this affects negotiations with other parties in litigation and future dealings with the GE's and Siemens's of the world is probably more important than the near term stock price imo -- as painful as that sounds.
If the company can get out from Fortress arrangement, then it can breathe again. The company is dirt, dirt cheap now if the company comes anywhere close to hitting their revenue guidance and the EBITDA margins mentioned on the last call.
Certainly added clarity, visibility, and real talk is needed on Monday's call.
The pushback to this kind of argument in MARA's case is that the financials in 2016 may not be sustainable if they don't continue to add portfolios and IP. That part of the story has been a bit dry here lately, so it's unclear really how optimistic the Street will be for the MARA story even if they do hit those numbers. The Apple, Signal, and Stryker (??) big settlements will likely be viewed as non-recurring and the Street just won't assume they'll show YOY growth in 2017 over 2016 without some kind of visibility or guidance from Doug.
TLDR, until Doug provides evidence that 2016 isn't a one-time kind of year for big revenue and earnings, we won't get a satisfactory valuation multiple on any of the traditional metrics I'm afraid. Doug isn't big on quantifiying things unfortunately, so....?????
Agree, it would be nice to hear something on the royalty front. And even if they do eventually confirm some royalties are involved we'll never know the amount or the split with RPI. But also I admit the headline $24.9M is quite disappointing - for me at least. I figured even in a settlement we'd get $40M.
I think Doug lost a bit of credibility here with some investors for agreeing to just ~10% of the damages sought. Yeah we get cash, but in totality (overwhelmingly positive IPR reviews, case in local RPI district, AAPL possibly motivated to settle given all their black eyes recently, etc.) I sure expected more.
My understanding is that they went after just AAPL first to establish the baseline for any future settlements with other fish in the same voice-recognition assistance pond.
Assuming they're successful with that by some means (settlement or verdict), then they'll quickly move to push against Samsung and all the other voice-recognition assistant knockoffs out there.
Doug feels it's simply more straight forward to bring others to the settlement table if they first see Goliath pay up.
So AAPL is the litmus test for this patent that others will go off of...at least that's the rationale as I understand it.
So that's the range I'm thinking as well, $40-$50M.
But also remember MARA will end up keeping around half of this amount due to contingency fees and such, so there's that too.
It would be nice to see some more patent purchases, but I guess some dominoes have to fall first for that to happen.
On a related topic, there hasn't been too much recently on the IPNav relationship funneling patents our way. It would be nice to see that pick up as well...but again dominoes I'm sure.
Maybe the Signal monetization events and ideally something from the AAPL case will push us along.
Here's an alternative question for the board.
What's the minimum settlement amount (assume no future royalties, just a single lump sum to walk away) you'd be OK with from AAPL in lieu of going to trial? You know, an amount that seems fair to you as a MARA investor that balances the risk/reward of the trial and subsequent appeals process and the lengthy journey that all entails, plus whatever other factors you think are important.
I won't taint the water and throw out my figure (yet), as I want to see what everyone else thinks.
I'm not sure what your reasoning is for that statement, but a stock that is down 80% on the year going into December is always a candidate for tax loss selling. Why wouldn't it be if there's no positive material news?
Good post. No two ways about it, we're totally in the quicksand right now. This has turned into a nightmare situation for investors and the company. And hey, what's that right around the corner, tax-loss selling? Super.
Why does the Apple trial keep slipping? Does Stryker even care that we shut down their German operations? Evidently that line of business isn't that material to them.
And I guess the lack of further patent deal flow has evaporated once our stock went south. Such a vicious circle right now with so many unknowns going forward as you mentioned.
3Q should be OK I suppose, but nobody gives a crap about this company or this sector right now. We could be sub-$1 by mid/late December with tax-loss selling and in the absence of any significant news (or dare I even say more negative news). That could be a great --or even GREAT-- buying opportunity should it happen, but probably only new investors to the company would look at it like that. Most of us are likely too jaded from this year's events -- or lack thereof -- to have the fortitude to buy at those prices in case 2016 is better.
Well the case was dismissed after 2Q, so perhaps that's the essential reason. I know sometimes companies mention important developments that occur following the quarter's end, but I guess that wasn't done in this case, perhaps non-nefariously. Or maybe since we didn't actually own the patents in play here maybe that makes a difference as well. Not sure exactly but my knee-jerk reaction is that it has to do with the first sentence.
Edit: Thanks btw for hunting down the Andrulis ruling and posting it
You conveniently skip Andrulis/Celgene. Case was withdrawn wasn't it? Why? No explanation. We know MARA will lose cases, that's ok, but tell us how much they spent on the portfolio because we should know the negative return.
I'd like more clarity on the Andrulis case as well. So we apparently lost a Markman hearing. What is the status of this case at this moment? And we may not technically be the plaintiff in this case but like the Schrader case showed, what's important is that we had an economic stake in it and some investors had some kind of expectation for it (rightly or wrongly!).
This Andrulis case was very under the radar to most folks, but it had a magnitude higher potential to MARA than even the Apple/Siri case did if we were to win the trial or reach a settlement with CELG, albeit all this was down the road quite a ways and perhaps had a lower chance of success...but who really knows at the moment?
So this negative ruling was kind of swept under the rug a bit with little fanfare, but does it mark the end of the road for that case and our pursuit of damages vs. CELG? Surely not I'd like to think.
It's pretty rare to see a public company with such a small number of shares outstanding (and small float) look to make that even smaller. Clearly he wants to up-list, so this move would achieve the minimum share price threshold hurdle required for the up-listing.
If the Apple suit goes to trial, when will we know if it's a jury or judge hearing?
Do we know whether the Scroeder appeal -- whenever that is -- will go before a judge or another jury? And even if we win that appeal, then Scroeder will appeal that appeal I'm sure, and the cycle continues I guess.
Anyhow, the same question regarding judge/jury for their other upcoming key trials?
I agree with that article someone posted last night that mentioned the company is apparently getting no credit for being much more diversified than the typical NPE. On top of the 50% slide since December, yesterday the market basically said "F you guys, you're just like VRNG" and slammed us another 35%.
Of course, the fact that this was the first high profile case adds additional weight to the matter I suppose, but sheesh that seems like a big overreaction. And it's not like we don't have additional home runs in the near term. But I guess the market doesn't give a rat's a$$ about that. "NPE's suck, MARA sucks, ha ha ha" is what it feels like.
Having said all this, we sure do need a clutch at bat from Doug and his team the next time up. Given yesterday's reaction, another high profile loss would be disastrous (of the nuclear kind) for market perception and sentiment towards the stock. Not to mention we'd crater to ~$2.
I heard this comment but I don't think he used the term Schrader. In fact, he said MARA wasn't the plaintiff in the case and that he wasn't at liberty to disclose who the plaintiff was, but that they had a financial stake in that trial. And I thought he said that was going to start on June 1, but maybe he said June 4.
OWKTM, do you know more about this case than you are letting on?
soooo frustrating when key court dates get pushed back 1-2 qtrs at a time like it's no big deal. Not just with MARA and within the IP space, but with other stocks I've been involved with as well. Big business can often use quite ridiculous reasons to push hearings back...frustrating to watch the wheels of justice keep stalling in the red zone.
very good read flyers, thanks for submitting that article
Well, to be fair, this passage is also taken from the transcript and is literally the last thing Doug said:
"It’s going to be a very fun Q2, Q3 and Q4 and I look forward to talking to everybody in May."
So I still think there is some uncertainty over Q1, despite my prior thinking that Q1 was quite active and should be gangbusters. But flyers knows how active Q1 was as well and only came to $3.5M. You had a figure 3x that amount initially. It's just not clear at this point.
If we could condition every investor to ignore the lumpy quarterly revenue picture and just look at yearly figures, that would be one thing. But we live in the real world where stocks overshoot and undershoot all the time based off of quarterly figures, it's the nature of the beast. And, not only was revenue weak in 4Q, but the expenses were also abnormally high, leading to the surprising earnings miss, which is affecting the sentiment toward the stock today (imo).
Anyhow, time will tell on Q1 of course.
Also, nice digging on the imminent patents we're apparently about to announce.
The December 2:1 stock split was supposed to address this. It hasn't.
Investors want to see results, and Q4 didn't really show that...despite the fact that 2014 was far better than 2013. The most recent results we have are Q4, and they left a lot to be desired, esp. when compared to 3Q14. That's the consensus and is what the market is saying.
And already for 1Q15 there is a pretty wide range of revenue estimate between 2 of the most knowledgeable posters on this board (flyers at ~$3.5M & hispeedsoul at $11M+). After bad news, what the market really hates is uncertainty. Apparently we already have some for 1Q. Even Doug mentioned that he was looking forward to Q2, Q3, and Q4 of this year...not necessarily Q1. I thought that was kind of interesting.
I haven't lost any faith in Doug's ability to grow this company over time, but I do (and did) question the merit of the stock split and not fully spelling out Q4 results in the press release.
If you think it's cheap enough right here, then buy some. I do think it's cheap, but signs continue to point to further weakness. Moreover, I don't have any additional funds to buy additional shares at the moment even if I was so inclined.
I can't explain why the market isn't fully appreciating the plethora of revenue/litigation events lined up for this year, but again, it is what it is. The entire sector is out of favor in a very big way. MARA is now below its 200DMA fwiw, usually not a great sign. Moreover, it hasn't really shown signs of stabilizing (or a sustainable reversal), and the fact that it seems to want to move lower off of Q4 results -- despite how mgmt and some investors want to frame the picture -- is telling.
There is tremendous value in the shares at current levels imo. But that doesn't mean it won't go lower before moving sustainably higher. YMMV
$1.344M in 4Q14 revenue fwiw.
I really, really hate it when companies try to camouflage a weak 4Q like this w/o breaking out the stand-alone Q4 results. I'm not saying this poor decision of omission changes my investment action whatsoever, but it just sends a poor signal about management imo. And in this case it sends the wrong message, because Doug is a high quality CEO, but one could question what management is trying to hide. But whatever at this point.
Q4 was weak, own it, show it, move forward.
Yeah, agree, I think msl is on to something w/r/t Opus and intertwining Spangenberg's new biz.
On a separate note, hey, Dirk Tyler...that name is straight out of Chattsworth if you catch my drift. I found some humor in it at least.
yeah, that makes sense for part of the draw down.
Maybe the remaining amount is for contingency payments, although I would have thought that those payments would just come right out of the cash payments MARA receives from settlements.
I picked up on this in the presentation as well and was going to reply to hispeed's summary post with the same question. They drew down $15M on the FIG financing already. I'm not sure if this goes to satisfy some contingency payments or what, but was wondering if anybody else had ideas on this $15M.
ahh, you know I saw the clarification release while on vacation and thought it said an average of $15M each qtr over a 4-qtr cycle rather than a minimum of $15M each qtr over a 4-qtr cycle.
Guess I misread their clarification in a very terrible way.
Anyhow, good thing my personal estimate was/is for a minimum of $50M in 2015 and that I view that $15M minimum as ridiculously low. I'm obviously assuming some of the larger settlements come through at some point.
I can see why Stetson's resignation on top of the CMO's "departure" a few weeks ago could seem to raise a red flag to investors and be cause for concern. But like some others here, I do think Stetson's departure is pretty meaningless over the medium/long-term. I never really understood what value he brought to the table anyhow. He was the CFO before Knuttel came along and has held seemingly every title at the company besides CEO. He is very young and has all these outside commitments and stuff, so to me this doesn't raise any red flags...except that appearances matter and this could appear worrisome to some investors. And I do think this step was made with an end-goal in mind, as somebody mentioned bringing Spangenberg onto the BOD or another heavy hitter coming on board.
The departure of the former CMO -- imo -- is more indicative that mgmt is pissed off at how the stock has traded since the 2:1 split. I don't think I've posted on this board since my comments about that in early December. I never liked the idea of the stock split given my fondness for maintaining a low float, and the stock hasn't traded like there is any institutional interest in the name (like there was supposed to be) since the split. That's management's only misstep imo in the ~16 months since I've been a shareholder. They misread that one badly (again imo) and we're still paying for it. Plus, anticipated weak Q4 results after a monstrous 3Q and subsequent stock surge are an overhang, and lack of material announced news flow, an adverse ruling against ACTG that is an overhang over the patent group, industry patent reform talk, etc. are all contributing to weakness in the stock for now.
There would appear to be quite a divergence between good news (Q1 settlements thus far -- even if unannounced --, Apple hearing around the corner, TPMS and Orthophenix settlements hopefully sooner rather than later, FIG financing terms that would imply a minimum of $60M in revs over the next year, the $50M war chest FIG is providing, tighter relationship with IPNav/Spangenberg going forward) and the recent trading action.
So to me, this is a great buying opportunity if somebody can look forward 6-12 months beyond the current stormy weather.
Fully agree, and you make some very good points btw in this latest post.
Full steam ahead MARA!
"Let me ask you a simple question, aren't we essentially dealing with the chicken and the egg here? How is the stock going to get to a point where it is trading volume at $30 absent enough shares for any institutions to buy? Regardless of whether a PM is seeking to buy 2% of a $100M market cap company, or 2% of a $200M market cap company, if the float is too small to allow them to even get an meaningful size position absent running up the stock many points, how is the manager going to even own it to begin with?
It seems you still aren't grasping my point. Even if the average trading volume at $30 is the same as it is here at $15, it's become twice as easy to buy a stake in MARA for a given fund allocation. Who says the float is too small at $30 to buy? Look, if we're talking about a $100M fund, a 2% position in that fund means $2M worth of MARA. At $15/share that equates to ~130k shares. It's not like he has to buy 600k shares for it to be a meaningful position in that fund. And you know what, at $30/share, that equates to just 65k shares. That's totally reasonable even with today's average trading volume. We may never have the super funds knocking on the door, but there are institutional accounts of all sizes that can participate in the stock right now if they so choose. Others will wait for the stock to appreciate more, it's just the nature of the game.
If a fund manager wants to be part of this growth name right now, he'd be willing to buy it at $15 if he sees $30 ahead even if that means he'll drive it to $16-$17. Why wouldn't he? I'm sure all the PMs you talk to are ones that aren't in it now. Why are they happy? Because it's easier to buy now...not that they're absolutely going to begin buying it right after the split. As a current shareholder, I'm all for a tighter float and making the institutions work to get into this very dynamic name.
And btw, the stock has moved from $6 to $15 in the last year presumably with very little institutional support. Yet, you seem to be saying with all the homerun potential settlements we have on our plate right now (TPMS, MedTech, Apple, etc.) that there's no way the stock is going higher without institutional support. I beg to differ. The company is much stronger here at $15 than it was at $6 and less of a speculative gamble. The story, while still under the radar of many, is much more known right now. I just don't buy that an institution isn't going to get involved w/o a split. When it makes sense for institutions to get involved they will, but why let the fish nibble on the hook at $15 when we have the goods to get to $25-$30 without them coming by.
Well, I work at an institutional fund, so I think I have some insight here as well.
What your explanation lacks is any discussion of position sizing at a fund. If a fund wants MARA to account for a 2% position of the fund, then you don't think it matters what the market cap of the company is? Buying 2% of a $100M market cap company is one thing, but buying 2% of a $200M market cap company is different. In the latter example, only half as many shares need to be purchased to hit the same 2% weighting as in the former example. Why? Because the underlying market cap of the company has increased, and to that specific fund, MARA trading 50k shares/day at $15 is tougher to justify than if it trades 50k shares/day at $30. So the underlying market cap of a company does matter.
So when you say "The daily trading value is irrelevant if they can't buy any shares and even get a position", this simply is not correct.
And when you say "yes the value dollar of the trading is higher, but that has no affect on liquidity whatsoever", that is also simply not correct.
And your next sentence: "In theory then, you would in essence be suggesting a fund manager more likely to buy stock in a company whose stock traded just 5000 shares at $100 than a company whose stock traded 50,000 at $10. Which one is more liquid by definition, clearly the latter"
I'm not saying he's more likely to buy shares of the $100 stock, but I am saying that the fund manager would be/should be indifferent. It's the same underlying position to the fund manager because those are equivalent market caps. He's not trying to buy the same number of shares of the company in your $10 or $100 stock example, he's looking to buy the same "market value" of the company. In the $100 stock example, he only has to buy 1/10 of the number of shares he does in the $10 stock example. To look past this point is a mistake, but yet you say daily trading value doesn't matter.
Many institutions care about daily trading value, or # of shares traded x share price. This is often the liquidity they care about. Also a consideration is that some funds don't want to become 5% shareholders or more. I just don't see a share split at current levels as being favorable for investors and positively impacting either of these liquidity considerations significantly.
I'll just reiterate my previous example: If the share price rallies to $25 or $30, then the daily trading value has doubled, making it easier for institutions to establish positions, even with no increase in share amounts. Plus, once the stock gets above $22 or $27 or whatever the conversion price is on the recent financing and when factoring in other warrants/options being converted, then the FD sharecount goes from 8M to closer to 10M.
So I'm not against institutions being involved in the name, I just don't see today's announcement outweighing the effect from a bigger float. And whatever today's float is, it will be twice that in a month. Still small, just not as small.
Let them get involved at a higher stock price if it fits their mandate. Plus, don't we all think the stock will get to $25 on its own from the TPMS, MedTech, Apple, and other homerun settlements as well as its inherent operating leverage? If so, then let the institutions get in as they see fit as the stock price naturally pushes the liquidity higher. Plus, they had the option of getting in on the recent financing deal I'm sure. Or if they didn't have the option, then that's a question for the CFO as to why they didn't.
If institutions want in, they can buy it now, later, or never, it's up to them.
Anyhow, it's a done deal, the stock split will happen, no use arguing about it. I simply see it differently than everyone else.
So I'll be the apparent lone dissenting voice on the stock dividend/stock split. A very tight float is a phenomenal thing to have in a company that has rocket boosters like we all think MARA has. With just 8M FD shares, many of those shares are in tightly held hands, many of those being insiders who aren't selling anytime soon.
After the stock split, really what has changed? Are those investors now going to sell some shares? If not, the float hasn't changed and institutions still won't have easy access to establishing a position.
I say if institutions (or anybody else) want shares, let them drive the stock price up while trying to get shares. I've never really heard of a deserving stock not going up because the float was too small. If anything, it's usually the opposite.
Sooner or later, institutions are going to get involved, and maybe with just 8M FD shares at ~$15/share it's not worth their time, but who's to say that once the stock hit $25 or $30 w/o them that institutions won't find it easier to get involved simply because the market cap has now roughly doubled and it makes more sense to get involved even with the small float. I'd rather have them finally start pushing the stock at $25 or $30 than at $15.
I personally think we just removed a super attractive share structure setup here at MARA. If one looks back at many multi-fold gainers over time, typically the tighter the float the better. We're about to make it less tight.
Let's see what happens going forward with MARA.
BTW, I find it interesting that Doug characterized the 3Q14 license revenue as "one-time, non-recurring". All the analysts are picking up on and using this language as well. And I wonder if this leads people to really wonder if 3Q is so off the beaten path that there is no way 4Q results could be in the same ballpark...which I'm not sure is really the case.
And if one thinks about it, aren't all the settlements we get -- either through RPX or not -- "one-time and no-recurring"? One could quibble and point out that the earlier RPX license a couple of quarters ago had some kind of yearly renewal fee or something from each of RPX's subscribers for those specific patents covered, but I'm sure this is nominal.
Anyhow, my point I guess is that Doug is essentially pointing out a characteristic of 3Q revenue that applies to essentially all revenue from any licenses in any quarter thus far. MedTech presumably will have some kind of recurring revenue to it down the road, but it kind of minimizes the strength of the quarter imo.
Medium to longer term, this is all noise anyhow, as I feel revenue, earnings, and the stock price have significant growth ahead. But just pointing out this observation I had that MAY be affecting the lackluster trading given such a seemingly solid quarter.