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.
After reading your sentence fragment nothing is intuitively obvious. Please complete your thought and I'll humbly respond.
Well this an ariad board so when one refers to "we" and PE Its not a stretch to think the term "one" is referring to Ariad.
We have no P/E ratio. It's negative. You can't have a P/E ratio when you have a loss. If someone says we have a positive P/E ratio it's likely because they are pulling data from some misinformed 3rd party service operated by computers.
I prefer fire island
Most of wall street are already in the hamptons. It's a holiday weekend. Low volume is typical on a Friday before Memorial Day.
Agreed. The only thing that's says there's isn't something going on is the limited movement in stock price or volume as of late. If something was coming I would expect some price movement on the leak. Time will tell
Totally depends. Sometimes you get cash (taxable) sometimes you get cash and stock or just stock which depending on how it's structured may or may not be taxable.
Fair point. Who management will be remains to be seen but you are right we finally will have more alignment with shareholder interest.
This should put the NDA filing debate to rest once and for all. Couldn't be clearer than that! Thanks.
Given that ariad has disclosed they plan to seek approval in 2016
I would think the possibility of them having already filed is nil.
If the company stated they plan on filing in 2016 then they haven't filed. That would be intentionally misleading.
No I read it correctly. My comment, although in response to your post, because that's where I was referenced , was not criticizing your position. It was actually supporting it. Odd I know as we are normally not in agreement so totally can understand that you might think I'm arguing with you. But I'm not.
Personally I have zero desire to restart this argument But if ariad says they intend to file the application in 2016 then they have not yet filed it. That is 100% certain. To say they intend to file in 2016 and at the same time file now would be misleading. Any executive with this knowledge executing any trade would violate
Insider trading rules not to mention lying to the investing public is illegal. Now they certainly can move up the date that they file but they would need to stop saying they intend to file in 2016
I can not see how something that hasn't left the mouse models would get too much spotlight at ASCO. No clue why they have been so silent. Maybe a change at the helm will make them start talking.
I think that would be a valid reason to oust him. My only point is that while I don't think denner is gonna dump this tomorrow, if he intends to hold for beyond 12 months financing again becomes a concern.
If they don't sell in the next 12 months they need to raise additional money through yet another offering or dilute the revenue stream of a drug by partnering something with a sizable up front payment.
Ariad never had a best in class cml drug when it was priced in the twenties. They had a drug that had the potential to be best in class with 1 billion plus revenue. Had it already been best in class the stock price would have been higher. Sorry I have a penchant for accuracy and for you to purport that the stock price was in the 20s at a time they had a best in class drug is patently false. The 20 dollar price didn't reflect a market cap of a company with a best in class cml drug. It reflected the fair value of a company with the potential for a best in class cml drug discounted for risk. I don't think a buyout will occur in the 40s but that doesn't mean we should start mixing facts.
Will also be interesting to see what voluntary and involuntary management changes take place. Hopefully we keep the good scientists and lose the legacy mgt currently pushing paper around the office.
This is a valid point.
Hey Id take a quick sale for the right price. Personally I've been in this stock too long and am too emotionally connected. I'd be happy with a quick sale and you are right it can't be ruled out. I just have a hunch that it's not going to happen in 2015.
Personally I don't think a sales is on the short term to do's. I expect the following to take place a) new CEO nominated b) staggered board resignations c) announcement of change in strategic direction of their existing drugs strategies. For example putting in place a strategy to maximize pona's value by focusing on its use in later lines of therapy increasing the price etc, putting more emphasis on 113 etc and d) the announcement of a strategic partner or If not d) then e) sometime in mid 2016 the sale of the company.
I doubt after waiting almost 2 years to get rid of the Harv denner is gonna jump the gun with his plans for ariad.
That was not the articulate response referencing what someone can and cannot do that I was expecting from someone who purports him or herself as an attorney familiar with the industry. You had some bold statements on the cancelation of those plans. Let's see some corroboration of those statements
Interesting enough my message to you included case law so there really is no need. If this is an area of expertise for you why not provide a real answer rather than "not true" . When can a plan be canceled. Are you telling me since 2014 there hasn't been a chance? I think if you go back to my original post you will see that I acknowledge the interpretation of the flexibility is in fact an interpretation not black or white. Boy I'm giving alot of color. How bout you try. Either way this plan Could have been Canceled
At a minimum for a window of time after the filing of the companies 10q every quarter since inception of the plan and of that much i am
Certain. Weigh in. Please
if you don't agree cite your source, here is some of the text of the SEC's view on the matter. Seems like what I said was pretty true. If you have some information to rebut my view please provide it. I have provided my support below!
"After Rule 10b5-1 was enacted, the SEC staff publicly took the position that canceling a planned trade made under the safe harbor does not constitute insider trading, even if the person was aware of the inside information when canceling the trade. The SEC stated that, despite the fact that 10b5-1(c) requires trades to be irrevocable, there can be no liability for insider trading under Rule 10b-5 without an actual securities transaction, based on the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723 (1975).[6]
This staff interpretation raises the possibility that executives can exploit this safe harbor by entering into 10b5-1 trading plans before they have inside information while retaining the option to later cancel those plans based on inside information. Although paragraph (c)(1)(i)(C) does deny the affirmative defense to offsetting or hedged transactions, in that case there would still be an actual trade (whichever of the offsetting trades was not canceled) that could constitute insider trading and violate Rule 10b-5. The SEC's position is that there can be no insider trading without a trade, so that a person could cancel a planned trade based on inside information and avoid liability. Although technically any plan that is cancelable does not come under the 10b5-1 safe harbor, proving that an executed trade was hypothetically cancelable might be very difficult.
A few academic commentators have written about this issue,[7] arguing that insiders can make systematically above-market profits by using 10b5-1 plans that they are still able to cancel. One empirical study has found that insiders using 10b5-1 plans do in fact make above-market profits (the paper also alludes to other potential loopholes that might explain this result),[8] and another has found that the presence of publicly announced 10b5-1 plans has economic effects on securities markets that are generally associated with insider trading.[9] Others contend that rather than timing trades, executives may time news or press releases to move the stock before a 10b5-1 plan sale.[10]"
Everything you said is true. Also one could cancel the plan during periods when they are allowed to trade the stock. Additionally as pointed out on the biotech value board the canceling of a plan is not necessarily Akin to trading and the enforcement for canceling a plan during a period of blackout has been lax.
No true you can cancel one of those plans
One can cancel a 10b5-1 at anytime (which is a controversial statement given various interpretations of insider trading) but at a minimum can cancel during any time that isn't the black out period. In other words if tim didn't want to sell these shares he had plenty of opportunity to stop it.
Under this logic no man or woman in America should vote
There is indeed someone buying the shares. You can't tell when you buy stock whether or not it was stock sold to you buy a person who had previously held the stock or a short seller who is borrowing the stock. Either way you acquire a voting right.
I suspect he will fight. But who knows.
I would love for him to fight it and lose. That would be my favorite option. But because I believe is risk mitigation strategies as a way of life, I'd happily accept unjustly enriching him to get him out before the proxy fight. The greater good.
No one knows what he would gain in a negotiation. Depends on the leverage he is perceived to have. If Denners feels highly confident he would win I don't see why he would give Harvey much.
All I know is that your statement that he would lose his golden parachute is totally inconsistent how golden parachutes work.
Im fairly sure that is not true. Why would he lose his golden parachute if he loses the proxy battle? that's the purpose of the golden parachute. If you have facts to support this please put them forward, but golden parachutes are put in place for executives that basically lose there jobs for a various of reasons, change in power being one. Why would he lose his in this situation? Please explain?
I call it out because it's so blatantly lopsided on this board. If you can find one post referencing that we closed up because of manipulation I'd be amazed. In reality the manipulation case is made only when the stock closes down and people need something to point to other than the present situation as a cause for their investment being worth less at 4pm than it was at 930 am of that day.
It's also laughable to think that manipulation only takes place in one direction or that a stock price can be suppressed through manipulation in perpetuity. All the longs that constantly bring up manipulation have been doing so for years. You think we are at 9 because of manipulation or because Harvey is an ineffective CEO?
This argument is akin to the "whatever happens we win" argument deployed by others. In life to "win" one has to make good choices. Science sure it helps, but when you squander resources or deploy them with indiscriminately it makes accomplishing ones potential very hard if not impossible.
I don't think you can criticize an argument to ascribe zero value to an item that has not yet been announced with not clinical results nothing. Why would some ascribe value to this?
I wasn't referring to your prediction of price as an outlier. My only point is if we are going to hold the feet to the fire for people on the low end of the range why not the high end of the range. I'd love to see the DCF Jess has prepared to support his 40/50/60 buyout predictions. Just as dangerous to not challenge those price targets as it is to no challenge the lower ones.
Rum you and I are in the same camp on almost everything you said.
On a related note I do think is a bit one sided to criticize a poster for not putting forward his DCF for a price prediction of $25 and never ask for the DCF of those predicting 25/30/40/50. Seems a bit one-sided. If the low end of the poster's on this board price prediction warrant support then so does the high end.
I'm sure there is manipulation in the markets. But really, we were down 11 cents today and the market took a dive on the face. I just thinks its ridiculous that any negative on this board needs to be explained away by someone being out to get Ariad.
It is your imagination. Since you didn't take the time to look before you made the assertion of manipulation I'll provide you the closing price of Ariad's stock for option expiration from January 2014 until today
2014
Jan 17 - 6.90
Feb 21- 8.87
Mar - 21 7.84
Apr 17 - 7.10
May 16 - 6.36
June 20 - 6.66
Jul 18 - 5.20
Aug 15 - 5.87
Sep 19 - 5.77
Oct 17 - 5.44
Nov 21 - 6.52
Dec 19 - 7.22
2015
Jan 16 - 6.41
Feb 20 - 8.06
Mar 20 - 8.69
Apr 17 - 8.99
I've provided the facts, now please explain the manipulation that you purport has been occurring on option close, month after month for years.