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.
Hmmmm can someone chime in on this? For Clackson it looks like an option exercise in the 7s with a current stock price in the 8s. In order to cover the cost of the option he exercises and immediately sells the amount of shares to cover the strike price in the aggregate. No tax implication what-so-ever to the individual (clackson) he takes a basis in the stock equivalent to the strike price.
For all the others transactions it appears that it wasn't option exercises....... Some type of 0 basis restricted stock. Im less familiar with the tax implication to the employee for this but I wouldn't be surprised if it was taxed based on the exercises. Looks like all these people are selling approximately 1/2 of the exercised amounts. Makes sense if they are in the 35% tax bracket and in a local tax jurisdiction with a high local tax.
Can anyone comment on the tax implication of receiving stock with a 0 basis. Im a bit surprised that it wouldn't be similar to options where the employee would only have a taxable event at the time s/he disposes of the stock.
I guess Im not a very good CPA, although this ain't my specialty.
Summer begins June 21
I like this analogy! Accurate and funny too
I don't think anyone thinks the 483 contributed to ARIAD'S problems with the FDA in October 2013. As you indicated the 483 occurred after that event. Its actually the inverse, the problems with the FDA in October 2013, and the pulling of Iclusig, should have been a wake up call to the company. Don't mess with the FDA. A tone from senior management of 100% compliance with FDA requests and regulations should have been coming from the top down.
Maybe you missed the fact that the 483 turned out to be true. Why apologize to them if indeed there was one issued.
If it was a hoax something could be brewing. Would be a bold move by a short exposing them to legal repercussions.
If this is a hoax then the company should bring legal action against these people. It might be a hoax and if it is the company should do something about it.
There is nothing Harvey could do to make me want him to stay. It's not in his nature to care more about shareholder value than his own interest. That was proven long ago when he was negotiating the supposed arms length deal to acquire the ip which he held a substantial ownership interest in and 4 board members resigned in protest. Even if he turned a new leaf i disagree with his strategic decisions. It's not enough, at this stage of the game, to have a drug development platform or valuable molecules. Harvey's major flaw is and has been for years that he is more interested in preserving his hold on the reins of the company as opposed to bringing drugs to market as efficiently as possible. I don't try to understand the root cause of his behavior. I can't say that it's because of greed or because he thinks he can do a better job. I just know he has failed to monetize his drug platform in a manner that is acceptable. He's not a CEO. He's not a business person. He is a scientist who has been running a company in a sub optimal way for 25 years. At this point shareholders and patients will be better served by putting the company in the hands of a business person. He may have been the right guy for the job early on. He isn't now. This is a for profit company and anyone that bought the stock 25 years ago and held would still have not made money. That's not a track record that should be acceptable on Wall Street
Your question is extremely one dimensional. It assumes that a decision can be made entirely in a vacuum solely based on this one event. Its a huge factor but don't expect that everyone who participates on this board is like you and makes their decision in advance and doesn't reassess their criteria for evaluation based on new or enhanced information.
What if HB won and the next day 113 got accelerated approval. What if HB won and the next day partnered Pona in the US for a huge up front payment.
On this topic you and I are finally in FULL agreement!
This is a corporate governance issue plain and simple. You sure don't expect a CEO or a board to spend their time filing reports or taking out ADs but you surely expect them to have the mechanisms in place to ensure compliance, and given the FDA debacle, I would expect a more than usual level of attention from the CEO and Board.
After having your drug pulled from the market you would think that compliance with the FDA would be of paramount concern. The things they missed don't seem like they are hard to comply with. Taking out ADs? How hard would it have been to do that? I mean come on its like management is asking for trouble. Total amatuer hour over there.
My god............. Maybe Ariad should hire one more VP in charge of Compliance and Risk Management. In this instance it might actually be worth the money.
Typically spikes in the stock price due to irrational exuberance ie the spike to 47 in 2000 isn't considers a wealth building accomplishment that a CEO gets credit for. No one views that as a CEO building wealth for his shareholders.
Clovis and ariad are two different companies. Irrational exuberance often propels biotech stocks vertically north. However ariad is no biotech spring chicken and the investing community no longer believes in her promises. Ariads stock will rise at a time that her drug prospects move closer to fruition or on buy out rumors. Hope and potential is not something an ariad investor can bank on for returns. It's a wait and see company now.
The path to winning (ie making money) is never easy in investing and has never been easy when investing in ariad. The notion that no matter what happens with this proxy fight, we all win, is eerily similar to the position held by many ariad investors who lost millions of dollars when the rug was pulled out from under us. Anyone investing in ariad now should know this is no sure thing. The strategic decisions made by the company will decide the direction of the stock price. This is anything but a sure thing.
Proud no. Who cares about pride in investing. That's the problem with many on this board. They think there is something virtuous about holding at all costs. I made some money but left way too much on the table and lost a ton when the crash happened. Any long on this board who is critical of a poster for wanting a double needs to ask himself how well they did holding for the big payoff. History repeats. Get caught holding the bag once shame on Harvey . Get caught twice shame on you. Not proud here just not going to criticize somone who wants to make money because that's the point of investing.
Not sure when you got in, eg what your basis is in the stock, but you had an opportunity to do a lot more than double your money. 25 percent of the shares i held had a basis sub $1. I sold half my shares before it reached 20. Held the other half. My mistake. To think that a double would be something you wouldn't take now is mind boggling. This person your are responding to, if new to the stock, wanting to double his money in a year is an amazing feat.To hold out for more perpetually is to partake in a pipe dream. It shouldn't be encouraged
I agree with your position 100 percent. Id say 110 percent but it's cliche. Doesn't matter how many good things are on the horizon. Harvey has had one quarter of a century to monetize them and guess what the only person to make money off ariad other than shorts and swing traders are Harvey and his inner circle. (I did make some as a long but only because I was selling on the way up. Would have made a lot more if I had sold it all). To think he will do the right thing now is the definition of insanity. Get him out and let's make some money.
On a ARIAD Stock price note........ Its sure nice to be up 2 1/2% today when the overall market is down 1 1/2%.
For years Harvey has set time frames for numerous items that he then failed to meet.
Examples: 1. Start of various trials 2) Various timeframes for partnerships 3) Announcment of details of the new molecule. These things have been discussed ad nausuem on this board so Im a little surprised that you find this comment to be out of alignment.
I didn't say that "my side" (your term) was 99% of the population I said "most" people. The reference of 99% was used in what I pointed out was an analogy.
Most people don't believe Harvey is credible. Just because 2 do doesn't mean those two arguments areplausible. As an analogy 99% of the world's climate scientists believe in climate change. The other 1% don't. Just because you have 1% that dissent doesn't call into question the view of the other 99%.
First how did we get down to being in the black in 2 years? Second, given berger's track record on delivering in a timely manner why would you believe we would be there in 3? Because he said so? He hasn't delivered timely on anything else and often his predictions are just a few months out. How can anyone take his prediction of profitability in 3 years as reliable? While many biotechs can't make that claim, we can't believe ours until its uttered by a CEO with credibility.
When a stock crashes from the mid 20s to the mid 2s and the CEO who was in place for the plunge then takes the stock from 2 to 8 over an 18 month period its pretty hard to sing his praises based solely on the stock price appreciation post crash. Great timing on your investment, no doubt, but I'm certainly not in the mood to thank Harvey for anything.
You can infer that............... but he didn't sign it last year either. It might just be his MO.
I would avoid signing something too if I was planning on being a change agent. I wouldn't read to much into it though.
There is Zero implication to Denner not signing the 10-k.
First, he didn't sign it last year so nothing has changed and second he isn't required to sign it. The rule for signatures is as follows emphasis added:
The report must be signed by the registrant, and on behalf of the registrant by its principal executive officer or officers , its principal financial officer or officers , its controller or principal accounting officer, and by at least the majority of the board of directors or persons performing similar functions. Where the registrant is a limited partnership, the report must be signed by the majority of the board of directors of any corporate general partner who signs the report.
We will as soon as Harvey is fired this June
Over promise and under deliver. Classic Harvey Berger
If this is true, please sell now. The rest of us will thank you in 11 minutes.
I'll take a look tomorrow.
I haven't been following the board composition matters. When did they do this and what do you think the intent was? Was it just a coincidence or do you think it was designed to assist in surviving the proxy battle?
I knew all about the BTD program before we started talking about it here and I know about you looking at time to approval on your blog. You see though when a company doesn't file an NDA the drug can't be approved. Ariad hasn't filed an NDA so there will be no surprise approval tomorrow. Additionally the company also disclosed that no NDA will be filed in 2015 but instead late 2016. That timing may certainly change but until it does there will be no approval in 2015 no matter what the mean or median time to approval was for the anecdotal information you analyzed.
Stick to the facts 15 minutes ago you thougha drug could be approved that has BTD without filing an NDA. IT CAN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes Im actually certain that 113 can't be approved until ARIAD files and the FDA approve the NDA. Ariad has disclosed it doesn't plan to file that NDA until 2016 so given the facts we know once can conclude that 113 won't be approved in 2015. I'm done discussing this. IF you want to believe it will be approved next month do so.
If I were Alex denner and I found out that my cousin was on the ariad investorshub message board disclosing that he talks to me about matters related to ariad, throwing my name around on the board, and giving advice on ariad as an investment I'd cut that cousin out of my will.
That's my hope too. The sooner the better. I just can't believe people who are invested in this company are hoping for 113 to be approved in the coming months as a possible catalyst. Its not possible as a matter of procedure.
They need to file an NDA. The BTD allows them to work more closely with the FDA through all aspects of the process and also the FDA will review data thoruhgout the trial rather than all at once with the submission. This decreases the time to approval but doesn't alleviate the requirement for a New Drug Application. They must file an NDA.
Also no I don't believe everything the company says but if they say they are going to file an NDA in 2016 why would anyone think they were going to file substantially sooner? Sure the date could move up with positive developments. Maybe a quarter or even two but they aren't filing this year. Absent a development that's not happening so telling people on this board that the drug may be approved in 2015 is just not true.
Yes it can be approved in any phase but and NDA is required and if the company says they aren't filing one this year it won't be approved this year.
There is a chart at the bottom of this page that shows the differences in the FDA programs. All of them still require filing an NDA. The way the FDA collaborates and review times are different based on the program. Break through fastest but they just don't approve drugs without NDAs!
http://www.natap.org/2013/HCV/022213_01.htm
Are you saying that it can be approved without filing an NDA?