RE:RE:Question For BearsDeferring half of the Cinven payment made sense for the company from a financial managment perspective. Although they might have had enough cash to pay both instalments in Q4, they would have ended the year with about $50M to $70M in cash before the note issuance. That is too low given the size of the company. So now they deferred the second instalment for a couple of months when they know they will have plenty of liquidity to pay the second instalment.
The bridge loan kicks up to above 11% in Oct, 2017 so I would not discount a payment of that debt from the note issuance proceeds.
Half of the public float shares traded in a day on Friday and end up 13.9% (but were up almost 40% intraday) after going up abut 12% the day before. Those are not bearish signals. Was it short covering and repositoning of short positions? To a certain extent that is probably what it was, but more than half of the public float traded on Friday. It was more than just short covering imho. There could very well have one one or more big players taking significant positions or increasing a position such as Point 72. We will know soon...
Craigbad wrote: If you trusted their numbers, they should have had enough cash to pay the earnout without deferring. They deferred and then issued more high interest debt. Some argued they were issuing debt at a lower interest rate to pay of higher interest debt, but they issued at 9% and the rate is much higher when you take into account Goldmans commission. More insider selling on Friday. The facts only point one way now regardless of how people try to spin it. When half your outstanding shares trade in a day and the stock only moves up 73 cents something seems wrong. This will be a traders stock until the truth is finally revealed.
Lumberfeverlong wrote: Do you have any basis for thinking Q3 will be a bad quarter and miss revised guidance in a substantial way? Do the WoW scripts data over the entire quarter indicate more erosion in their NA drugs? Are you aware of any new competition for any of their leading drugs? It is one thing for longs and bears to speculate, but does anyone have any hard facts that would point in one direction or another?