We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon
Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
While a certain discriminating group on this board have been analyzing, agonizing, criticizing, second guessing, and interpreting every move by IMMU management, and imploring and demanding "execution" from Behzad, behind the scenes institutions of all sizes and disciplines have quietly accumulated 192,536,896 shares or 100.52% of the outstanding IMMU shares. [Latest data from fintel ... Google Immunomedics institutional holdings, scroll down to fintel]. Add to that 10-20 million shares held by insiders including Dave Goldenberg, who is still mostly holding, and you come up with about 110% of the outstanding shares. Obviously, even with some short covering last week shorts have still borrowed or are naked 35 million shares plus or minus. Of course we have heard from pundits here that institutions and insiders know little about how all this stock stuff works and are frequently wrong, but still it is interesting that they would be accumulating now going into a perceived make or break event i.e. the resubmission, seemingly with nearly reckless abandon. Can anyone imagine what might happen if the biotechs strengthen or good IMMU news breaks out? What if another large buyer shows up? Will their big orders be filled by market makers, the public, profit takers? More shorts?
The institutional ownership certainly has to be counted as a positive, but on the flip side, many of us here built huge positions when there was very little institutional ownership. Where were all those brilliant investing minds in 2016? One cannot certainly rely on that metric alone to determine the wisdom of owning any given stock. I do think that there was a fair amount of risk here in the last few months, but events of the last few weeks have resulted in me reducing that risk assessment. I think the stock looks good into next year. Which is why I bought back most of what I sold in June about 10 days ago when we were down in the 12's. If IMMU was 5% of my net worth, I would not be quite so involved in its ups and downs nor quite so emotional about it, but like many here, it represents the bulk of my life savings, and I'm too old to rebuild that if this were to fall apart, so even a 10% chance of failure gives me heartburn. I do think that the the willingness of some on this board to give B a pass on the CMC failure drives me up a tree. Especially given that his whole shtick was he was the guy to trust to get this right. The upside of this stock is still tremendous, and DS 1062 falling off has improved that prospect. Frankly, I think if we get TNBC approval and BTD in bladder we could go over 40 dollars. Rationally speaking, we should get TNBC approval, but rationally speaking, we should have gotten it 8 months ago. Everyone else with BTD filing for AA gets approved, and we somehow manage to blow it up. That still makes me angry.
Curious how you know what “Dave” holds? BTW, welcome back. We missed your informative posts. I also meant to thank you for the compliment (implying that anything I might say would have folks buying/selling - millions of dollars worth of stock). I haven’t sold a share. Anyone reading this that sold as a result of negative management comments, you do not belong in the market if you trade based on anything a total stranger says. That being said , if any of my sheep are still on the board, immu is a BUY. I’ll expect to see heavy volume Monday.
re: "some on this board to give B a pass on the CMC failure"
To me it's more a matter of how to go forward rather than "giving a pass". I haven't been of the opinion that throwing the bums out and starting fresh with new faces was the fastest way to re-submission, I think it would have taken longer. I was surprised and disappointed with the CRL. I'm surprised and disappointed that it will take until at least October to re-submit, my initial thoughts were that it'd be much faster than that.
Yes, Captain B. bears some responsibility for those disappointments, whether through lack of oversight, or because the FDA blindsided everyone (remember it was around the shutdown), or because some of the board's hires annoyed the FDA, or, as I suspect, the board hired people who blew it. The management style "hire good people and get out of their way" can backfire.
All that said, I want the shortest path possible to resubmission/approval, and I do not believe that would have been accomplished by wholesale slaughter at the top level. So what could Captain B. do that would get you down from that tree? ;) I want him to bend all efforts to getting it right this time, no quarter, no excuses.
Of course if there's another screw-up I'll ask the entire board to jump off a cliff.