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.
FishyFingers is a legend IMO. Due mainly to this absolute gem:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=121463258
Um...because it isn't something of significance. $1m means nothing.
Agree. Material information. Would need to be disclosed.
ha...yep...its 100%. Hence the massive buy-in from billion dollar hedge funds.
Due to both the FDA and AMRN management. AMRN had the chance to sell the company in 2012 but they got greedy and rolled the dice. Everyone in biotech with a brain knows that the FDA and regulatory risk is always a huge concern. AMRN assumed Anchor was a "slam dunk" and JZ got real cocky and the greed set in. He demanded not a penny under $30. And not a single BP was willing to pay it.
GIA was a terrible horrible decision that set AMRN way back. They took on a dreadful loan instead of diluting at $12 a share.
AMRN had absolutely NO contingency plan post ADCOM. They assumed it was a victory tour and took absolutely on steps to prepare for a negative outcome.
Management has continued to refuse to partner, which could raise much needed cash, expand sales, lower marketing expenses, and allow for further indications to be explored.
Blame the FDA all you want, but AMRN management has done nothing right since 2012. You can't ignore the impact the FDA has. And you also can't ignore the impact management has had. They have both gone hand in hand in destroying things.
The issue is that for some reason Thero and the rest are considered top talent. Why in the world would John Thero, with no executive experience and a bachelor's degree, be considered "top talent" that needs to be retained at all costs?
I never said it was. I am just stating this person has no higher business education. He didn't go through Wharton or any other reputable business school. So we just have to trust he knows what he is doing based on what exactly? He also has no executive experience in his background.
I would be interested to hear why you didn't include stock awards that vested well.
On 2/2/2015 he was granted 400,000 shares at $1.02 a share.
"The options vest monthly over 48 months beginning on February 28, 2015."
So 10/48 * 400,000 = 83,333
(1.80 - 1.02) * 83,333 = 65k.
So there is another 65k you left out.
And why are you not including vesting events for awards for years prior to 2015? Interesting that you did not include those.
Btw, as I have stated, in January this year he received a huge vesting event which was worth hundreds of thousands. I know you aren't including it since it was in January 2016, and not December 2015. But it is over and done with and was a result of 2015 awards so if you include that (and prior vesting events) you are all the sudden way above $2m.
And I will ask you, is there any amount that you would ever consider too much compensation? If it was $3m would you be ok with it? $5m? At what point would you consider it too much???
For this company and its current financial situation, no more than $400,000. I would provide reward for actual accomplishments, not faux accomplishments. There is nothing JT has done since he became CEO that can be considered an actual worthwhile accomplishment that has moved the needle in any way. Nothing. He hired some high priced lawyers and sat back while they won some meaningless court cases. And for that he deserves all this?
I would love to see what he does every day. I can't imagine much. All they are doing is sitting back and waiting for a drug trial to end. It must be exhausting, time consuming work to wait.
Do you also realize that JT has no more than a Bachelors degree?
You think it is $1.3m because HD said that, right? You didn't actually do any calculation yourself. He made $1.2m in just straight CASH. So $1.3m is way off. This is a stupid exercise and I am not wasting my time coming up with an exact number. But with 10 minutes of research you can see its much higher than $1.3m. The vesting event from this January alone was worth close to $500,000 at today's stock price.
For a company booking huge losses, a stock that has cratered, and with no break even in sight, with more dilution on the horizon, This CEO should not be making anywhere near what he is. The stock awards are the kicker since they drag down EPS and valuation over time. These stock awards follow us around forever and make it harder and harder to book a profit, and they DIRECTLY lower valuation, which means they directly influence the stock price downward. I mean he is getting millions of shares given to him, this is not insignificant.
I can tell you he made AT LEAST $1.6m. And in January 2016 he had another huge vesting event (from 2015 stock awards) that was worth several hundred thousand more dollars. So he really made at least $2m from 2015. And I think I am probably missing more compensation as this estimate was cursory and I did it quickly.
Of course coming up with an actual hard figure is time consuming and not worth the effort. You can say it "wasn't all earned" in 2015 but vesting will ensure he earns it all over time. Each January for the next two years he gets huge stock awards vesting. And at most the vesting takes 4 years (48 months or 16 quarters). So in a few year he will have it all vested.
He is grossly, absurdly overpaid, along with the other executives (they also made tons of money for some reason). When you constantly have to go back to the well for dilution, then this amount of compensation is not even close to being justified. They aren't even close to turning a profit and the Vascepa launch and script growth has been quite pathetic.
But hey, we have de facto NCE so yay! Give JT everything!
Of course. It is a corrupt and immortal system. Which is why income inequality continues to get out of control in this country. JT has done nothing to earn all this money. And it is a slipper slope when you start paying huge amounts to people based on what "may" happen in the future. Furthermore, management is making sure they walk away from AMRN filthy rich REGARDLESS of what happens with REDUCE-IT. This company could go belly up, all shareholders on this board could lose everything they invested, and JT and the boys would walk away multi multi millionaires. But hey, again, we have de facto NCE so who is complaining?!!
When does your prediction of the run to $10 start?
Invest, it is pointless to discuss this issue with this board. No matter what management is paid, longs will be a-OK with it. I mean hey, we have 'de facto' NCE so lets give them the moon and the stars! JT could seriously get $50m and they would defend it. There doesn't appear to be an upper limit to what compensation level they deem reasonable. Because ya know, REDUCE-IT will succeed and this stock will be $5b-$50b in market cap. So of course they are worth all this money! Expense to shareholders? Who cares about that when it is about to rain money!
Yep, now its back to reality. I love the 30 second freak out as the stock briefly pops then sells quickly off. As if AMRN can hold any sort of gain.
Good point. I stated earlier I expect an ambiguous result. An example of the results I expect include something like this:
-Vascepa shows 7% decrease in events
-No statistical difference in death rate
-Time to first event is 5 months longer under the Vascepa arm
Now, what would a result like this do to the stock and Vascepa's future prospects?
I know a lot of people think this study is 100% clear cut, but I don't it that way. I think there will be a lot of gray area.
They trade on potential. Which is why many bios get way overvalued. Because investors are looking for potential only. And apparently AMRN has the most potential of them all. And sub $300m market cap. In a sector where potential rules, this stock has been a DOG.
But hey, you know biotechs. So good luck!
I wasn't referring to you. And yeah, I agree, on face value this appears like a low risk buy. Which is what makes this sooo disturbing. Its such a low risk, huge reward stock. Yet no one will buy it and institutions are unloading? Hmmm.
ha...nope. They have had ample opportunity to buy as much as they wanted. JT did buy late last year. It was just a ridiculously small number of shares. He could have bought a lot more had he wanted.
If REDUCE-IT has a 99% chance of success, as one respected poster says, what exactly is the risk? Again, if there is a 10% chance of success, the current market cap is ridiculously low. Why in the hell would investors be skittish of this investment given the $5b-$50b "in the bag" predictions? I am confused on why $1.70 a share is "scary" to large investors. It is funny to act like AMRN is soooooo risky if REDUCE-IT is such a guarantee as this board believes.
Again, let me try to explain to you how things work. If there was an 80% chance of $10b market cap post REDUCE-IT, a stock would not trade at a sub-$300m market cap. Do you not understand that the market would step in and close that gap, and bid it up to near an $8b valuation. It wouldn't sit at this low valuation for YEARS. $300 compared to an expected $8b valuation. Do you not see the disconnect???? Even if the market had it 80% wrong, and the true chance of success was only 16%, this would STILL trade at around a $1.6b valuation which is $8-10.
Your right, a stock price is completely irrelevant to the future of a company and the belief in its success. Where in the hell were you educated?
Probably nothing. Much like the 967 announcement. Maybe skyrocket to $1.85 a share. That would just be an administrative acceleration, it wouldn't speak to the results.
Many here predicted a major run-up to interim. Never happened. It has been a run-down.
And do explain $1.69 a share on the heels of a certain REDUCE-IT trial?
The difference is that I recognize that the trial is extremely risk and nowhere NEAR a certainty. The stock price confirms this. My opinion is that we will see ambiguous results. Results that may potentially show a benefit, but not a clear cut benefit. Glowing, clean results are a long shot. Just my opinion. And of course I put the chance of an interim stop at about 1-2%. If it was as easy as posters on here say, this would most certainly be at $15 a share. Reality speaks otherwise. Hence NO ONE buying....not even AMRN insiders!
Keep thinking that there is secret knowledge that only people on this board are aware of. Great strategy to go by.
You keep saying "if the stock price were to double". Which is isn't doing. It is pathetic price action the last year on the heels of interim, when posters on here claim the rally to the $5b-$50b. So your "hypothetical" about this going up are dumb, cause it isnt going up. And it wont go up.
And yes, when valuations increase before major events, that speaks to the probability of that event being successful. Tough concept for you to grasp, I know.
By the way, you still gonna weasel out of paying the $100 or what? Speaks volumes about your character.
We have posters here who claim that with just a little scientific knowledge and a few quick and easy calculations, one can determine that REDUCE-IT will succeed with near certainty. And yet despite this easy access knowledge that REDUCE-IT will succeed, which apparently only posters on this board are capable of obtaining, institutions have liquidated and the stock price has gone nowhere. Even recently had someone say $35 was a reasonable future price. Most on here think $10 a share is laughable and expect a valuation anywhere from $5b to $50b. And here the stock sits, under a $300m market cap. With no one buying. The lack of any interest whatsoever in this company, with everyone aware that the study will soon be completed, speaks VOLUMES about the ultimate chance of success. HD has said it will be a successful trial with 99% chance. If that was truly the case, the stock would currently be trading at $15 a share. Not $1.69.
One day we will find out why $1.69 is happening and not $15.
Well, one poster stated that things like an embarrassingly low stock price, lack of institutional buying (it goes down every quarter), no BP interest, etc are actually POSITIVES. So when people go to that point, they are completely gone and incapable of reason. When they get to that point, it is complete delusion. A stock price under $3 a share for 3 years straight is a "positive". Is this earth?
Correct. The only way the trial is getting stopped is if death rate is statistically different between the two arms.
Looks like a sharp decrease in Inst ownership.
With about 98% of institutions reporting (including all major holders), the aggregate shares owned by institutions at 3/31/2016 is 41.5m. This compares to ownership of 47.9m as of 12/31/2015.
That is a 13.4% decrease in ownership.
Baker Brothers sold 1.4m shares during the 1st quarter.
They went from owning 2.2m shares as of 12/31/2015 to owning 800k shares as of 3/31/2016.
Just think about it! Maybe the market will bid this up to $2.00 a share on this major potential!
Oh wait....no one is buying this stock and no one cares.
Keep the dreams going....in your head.
BP pays up and takes on risk. They require neither regulatory/trial certainty or a low price. Cases in point:
http://www.fiercebiotech.com/r-d/updated-deadly-tox-threat-kills-bristol-myers-2-5b-hep-c-prospect
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-11-21/gilead-to-acquire-pharmasset-for-11-billion-to-add-hepatitis-c-medicines
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-healthcare-mergers-idUSTRE8092GG20120110
This is a myth thrown out there by AMRN apologists to explain away why no BP has made a push to acquire AMRN (a so called $8m company) when the market cap is sub-$300m. The idea that no BP would be interested and would require REDUCE-IT results is absurd. The competitive landscape in BP is fierce and BPs will pay up. The lack of any bids (or even rumors of interest) is extremely disturbing.
"BPs want either complete trial & regulatory certainty, or they want dirt-cheap"
This is not true.
hahaha
Not as of yet. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for the time being and I trust he will pay. We still have the interim stop bet to come as well.
Well, there are plenty of posters on here who have said they would "content" with $20 a share. As if $8 a share would not satisfy them.
If you aren't looking for $20-$100, you just aren't long enough. Even people who say they are "ok" with $10 a share aren't pumping enough.
I love it when people say they would be "ok" with a 600% return from current levels. So if this went to $8 tomorrow you wouldn't be happy enough? That is laughable. A lot of confidence and chest pumping for a $1.50 a share stock.
Well, that is attempt to even out 15 posters pumping 100% of the time. So that means the board is 94% pumping. Hey, it is a start to get it to a realistic point. But woe is you that it is only a 94% pumping board instead of your desired 100%.
Interesting, considering you refuse to pay up on the $100 bet you lost more than a month ago.