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.
I saw that nut job touting nut tanning. The depravity never ends.
That's a hard question. I'll read the last 10k when I have more time which should help on that. I listened to the call and most of the analysts sounded surprised that Helen chose a company that had a commercial emphasis, so the focus was on that side of the business during most of the discussion. The non-commercial side certainly has a value, but I'm guessing it's not large. Helen did clearly explain the advantages of the sub-cu T replacement product in comparison to competition (no cross contamination as with patches, etc.) and for those reasons they might have a winner in that space. The question is how large is the market? What do you think it might be? (And thanks for clarifying the transaction cost.)
According to this article the price is 960 million.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/halozyme-acquire-antares-pharma-create-100000000.html
I agree that HALO will probably unload the few drugs in ATRS's portfolio, or at least out-license them. I wonder, though, how you come up with a $billion valuation for that part of the company?
Agreed about the intent of the deal. I haven't listened to the conference call yet, and I'm glad you say the analysts sounded positive.
I'm not sure about the extent of ATRS's IP for these injection devices nor their longevity and barriers to other competitors for similar products.
Overall, not too exciting but at least not a resoundingly bad deal.
The other takeaway is that this is the only acquisition we'll be seeing for a while. Helen has expended all of her powder on it, and it will take a while for HALO to accumulate more.
This is the company we'll have for the foreseeable future: Enhanze plus injection devices.
Firtst impression: Looks like we just bought an injector company. That makes some sense at least, given HALO's subcu emphasis. It adds about 200 million in revenue to the bottom line annually, so I think they didn't over-pay. On the other hand, not much else there, but the addition is not a disaster so I'll take it.
That's that as far as our foray into the market as a buyer.
We've expended our strategic capital.
Still stuck here and no sign of a breakout. Helen has already announced the one deal she alluded to at the last call. Does she have anything else to show for all the cash we are giving her? She is out of ideas, clearly.
The way I read it, either way, HALO gets paid. Anyone else have a different take?
That caught my attention also.
The breakout theory will not be confirmed in my estimation until we clearly and substantially breach the current resistance point hereabouts at ~$42. This is the third attempt.
The options action show on CNBC this afternoon featured all three analysts saying XBI is poised for a breakout. This, along with the Street dot com article shows biotech is back in favor, so it should be a better year, at least on the macro level.
Good find, thanks. BMY already has Opdivo-Enhanze combo in Phase 3 trials for renal cell carcinoma. I'd imagine that will be a fairly near term catalyst assuming good results.
That was an exceptionally perceptive close reading of the tea leaves, Dew.
Exemplary!
This is why I think Helen needs to go. They've completely lost focus, have no clear strategic plan and are flailing in different directions which contradict and hinder each other.
I hope the BOD is independent enough to see this and make the appropriate adjustments. Some BODs are detached enough to have a clear minded assessment of the CEO, other Boards are in thrall to a CEO who has the BOD in his or her pocket. I hope HALO's Board is the former rather than the latter.
The M&A stuff stands out, of course, but that type of position (at the BOD level) is a step or two removed from nuts and bolts of cutting deals, or so I understand anyway. She has a full-time job elsewhere and the BOD meets infrequently, so I'm not too excited about it. Also, I wasn't aware that there was an opening on the board, so I am a little surprised. Not sure what to think beyond that.
Your thoughts?
That puts us in September, which is fine with me. Do you think they'll wait until then to go to the financing well or will they be forced to move sooner than that?
Thanks for the clarification.
What catalyst do you see ahead that can provoke this short squeeze?
Berenberg Bank lowers PT to $56 from $58. Maintains buy rating.
The 2 charts do line up pretty well.
Thanks for that. Really enlightening. Folllow up question:
If that elastic bounces back (for instance if a share count or acquisition/merger is to take place) then the PPS shoots up like a rocket because everybody needs to FORCED close short positions. A Qualcomm alike effect
Protector, I wonder what your thoughts are on why the share price has tumbled from the low 50's to the low 30's within the last 12 months?
HALO Institutional holdings as of 12-31-2021 per NASDAQ is 92.99%
https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/halo/institutional-holdings
Did you catch what she said about the new deal pending and that this money was included in their 2022 projections? I thought this was weird and unorthodox and only added to my impression that she was trying really really hard to move the needle.
I think I heard her say that a new deal will be announced soon, which will certainly help return momentum. I do agree that geopolitical issues make this a play for safety also. However, the size of the pending deal sounded smallish, if I understood her correctly, so that will provide a limited boost if I'm correct in my surmising.
Other than that, she sounded like a person somewhat desperately trying to convince the BOD that she should be retained. Just my humble opinion.
My mistake. You are correct. Thanks for pointing that out. What were your impressions from the call?
Piper Sandler PT raised from $42-43 maintains neutral rating.
Yes, I remember seeing simultaneous phII/III studies here and there, now that you mention it. So fair enough on HALO's end. Helen said recently there will be 5 new ph III studies this year, so one down and 4 to go. I'll take it. I'd think that Roche wouldn't go forward with this if they didn't have confidence in the economics, unless they have another motive....
Do you mean that they skipped over phase II?
Strangely, HALO has this study at phase I.
https://halozyme.com/enhanze/#partners
The HALO web site is obviously not up to date.
Good find, thanks for posting that.
All of the things you mention are the concrete manifestations of the drift I am complaining about and for which Helen appears to have no answer. The solution for these issues is above my pay grade. Helen is being paid millions to stand in place and that is not acceptable. New creative leadership, worth the many millions of dollars of compensation that we as shareholders give out, is now required to plot a course through this new phase of the company's development.
By the way, the 8K out today has a little more color on the CFO's departure.
On February 2, 2022, Halozyme Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) announced that Elaine Sun is stepping down from her position as Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, effective immediately, to pursue another opportunity. The Company intends to enter into a separation agreement with Ms. Sun which we expect to provide benefits consistent with those previously disclosed by the Company on its Current Report on Form 8-K filed on December 13, 2018. The Company would like to thank Ms. Sun for her contributions during her tenure with the Company.
We are stuck in this rut of underperformance and instead are given financial card tricks to keep us distracted instead of real meat on the bone momentum. Helen came aboard at a similar point in the company's development and re-focused the strategic plan with good results. Kudos for that, but I've come to believe another CEO is now necessary to move us forward. She's had ample time to demonstrate what she can do. She was good for a time but it's time to get some fresh blood. Glad to see Elaine gone, but this is only a start. All in my humble opinion.
I'd like to see new leadership. Hopefully the BOD has enough independence from Helen to make a good assessment. That is never something to be assumed, though, in today's corporate governance milieu.
The other thing that stands out about her departure is that it happened just 2 weeks before the Q and the conference call. The timing is a little odd there, but again, just reading the tea leaves.
I disagree only to the extent that the wording is not a lie if she tenders her resignation, albeit under duress. That's the leverage over every professional in such cases. Resign and walk away with your dignity and reputation intact, or insist on getting fired publicly. Most take option one.
What do you think? It's definitely an unexpected and unusual turn of events, or so it seems to me.
She walked in the door less than 24 months ago (can't remember exactly). She was compensated generously with options, bonuses(!!!) and salary, and I don't see any announcement of her new position anywhere.
Her furious spinning of wheels and financial shell games gutted the share price. I think it's likely that she was asked to leave, but I'm speculating based on my sour assessment of her time here.