I disagree a bit with the criticism of management.
"It must be execution" I think is simplifying way to much. Once they had to GIA 50-75% of the price drop was factored in. At that time they did state NCE was an overhang on negotiations. FDA deciding to review NCE procedures happened to coincide with Vascepa approval thus hard for me to blame management for not knowing the NCE delay was coming.
It was 6 months from approval to launch, not sure why you put 9 months, might be a case of a negative view point skewing reality? And it was never a delay, they gave a time frame of 1Q 2013 from pretty early on.
Pawning of all assets makes it sound like they sold some stuff when they just used collateral, collateral that would only come into play if sales for Anchor are disastrous. I don't see patents as collateral as meaningful in anyway because if that ever comes into play the stocks near BK already due to massive sales failure so won't own the stock at that point anyways.
Clearly they needed more money. Tying the recent dilution and the other raise is not an either/or, they needed both. In December they clearly thought they could work out some kind of partner/BO that involves cash coming in thus avoided dilution at the time. Now 7 months later they obviously feel differently thus the need for more money and dilution. It's very possible partners are low balling thinking
1)AMRN cannot launch Anchor alone successfully
2)AMRN cannot last with current cash situation
Without knowing what is going on in negotiations impossible to criticize strongly except everyone should agree dilution should have been done in December and then loan today. However, it's unclear whether they could get the same loan now, unclear what changed behind the scenes from December to July.
Also sales are not "above average" when you consider analysts had Q1 sales at 15 million and 1 year sales in the 90's and we have 2Q sales at 10 and first year sales probably 58 million.
I think those analysts numbers overestimated the sales potential and that sales are going almost as well as can be expected. Since they focus on cardiologists and within 6 months sales reps have seen all of them and 75% of them 5-6 times it seems 275 reps was a pretty good number. Since 50-75% of Lovaza is of label I just think the Marine population is not as big as people expected.
"something is wrong" seems a longs worry when things go wrong. Like shorts have inside info.
Well, they don't but they knew WS does not like GIA small biotech, they knew AMRN needed more cash. It went from 12 to 7.70 off the GIA news. Dilution takes another dollar off that market cap so 6.70 from going it alone decision alone. Sales estimates dropped before and after Q1 accounts for most of the rest, pretty simple.
So, there is some blame to management for the stock price, but since GIA decision and analysts original estimates being too high are a big part of it I can only really criticize them for not diluting in December at 7.70 vs, 5.60 now. They would never have gotten 12 as everyone knows dilution meant GIA which meant $8 price range. It's likely they get a higher price last July right after approval but I think, at that point, they thought NCE decision and BO. Again, with price near 15 due to BO talks unclear what price they could get investors in knowing dilution meant GIA. So. to me they blew 40 million or so in money they could have raised for same dilution but not knowing behind the scenes partner/BO negotiations its hard to say the December raise vs. dilution decision was a terrible one. Hindsight, yes, but facts of the December time frame....not sure?
Once GIA was clear, longs really had 2 things to support stock price going up
1) NCE approval-still delayed
2) Anchor partner deal followed by Anchor approval and good Anchor sales-Timing issue as months away
