Replies to post #380932 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[JRoon71]

Thanks for the detailed reply, Dogn.

As you said, the lease is not as big a deal as some are making it out to be. And you can't look at the absolute cost. You have to look at the incremental cost above what it would cost for the minimum space needed.

And when they signed the lease, the framework of the company looked much different.

[Jasbg]

dogn, Thanks for the very thorough research on the matter. Great work

And yes the point you mention - that the lease of an office size (more like NY HQ IMB) - early 2019 - does indicate that market reaction to R-I (SP above $20) went to managements and BODs heads.

Specifically, p. 78 "Properties" for brief summary, "Effective February 5, 2019, we entered into a lease agreement for approximately 67,747 square feet of office space in Bridgewater, New Jersey. The lease commenced on August 15, 2019 for an 11-year period, with two five-year renewal options."

In fact the many information's you have dug out here is relevant in the Denner valuation of current mgt. and BOD - so maybe would be and idea to send it to Sarissa - if someone has the connections. Of course the way Denner works they will likely already have done similar research on an Amarim economical moves in the past.

Jasbg

[Jasbg]

JRonn, Dogn, I did overlook the statement of Dogn - that expenses to the huge office in NY - not in it self 'a big deal'.

I don't know if 'dividing out on shares is a fair way to valuate the expense though. Some would say Amarin has likely some 100 mill shares to many - as a result of the yearly Company F4 feasts.
---------------------------------------------

Having an 'what has been indicated 'a giant almost empty office in NY - 67,747 square feet - is a slap in the face of shareholders - when valuation of the Company ever decreasing since early 2020.

It didn't take the Company long to hire the big office - it sure would have been noticed - if they would have been just as quick adjusting expenses 'the other way' with the falling revenue.

As a number of posters have already pointed out. Had the mgt. and BOD understood how bad the Q1 results were - it would have been Smart' to announce the $100 mill expense saving round BEFORE Q1 announced - that might have kept the SP above $3 - instead of ending just above $1 in reaction to Q1.

Had KM at that time announced that every 'not absolutely necessary' expense would be cut - including looking at the size of Bridgewater lease - that would have been received well IMO - instead of waiting with the announcement of 'the rescue saving operation' - till the Company were hanging already over the cliff.