I thought the whole concept of inhaled insulin was brilliant - no more daily shots, just breathe in the goodness. Or is that logic wrong because the shots are for one type of diabetes (I) and Exubera is for another (II)? I am not diabetic so I don’t know how attractive Exubera really in fact is to such patients and their doctors
I wonder because maybe this is that why the company’s stock has been on a steady decline for so long (over a year?). Is this why Pfizer kicked off its DTC ad campaign so late, and then more recently cut its promotional budget a bit?
Now it’s entered the high $8 range. I’m tempted to buy and hold on for the rest of the year. It’s last resistance level was supposed to be 9.4. Recent analyst reports (DB, Citi) peg it to 17 and 12~15 respectively.
But why the continuing slide??
I’m no expert, but doesn’t it make more sense to buy a stock that is already on a roll and looks like it will continue that way (such as Brazilian cable TV provider NETC, up 140% in the past year and not slowing down) as opposed to buying one that’s been sliding downhill for a year in the hopes that it will turn around.
Will NKTR turn around?
[quote=“Motley Fools”]Nektar plans on implementing $65 million in annual operating expenditure reductions to help reduce the cash burn on its $400 million stash of cash and investments. The cuts in spending will come mostly from research and development expenditures. . .
It’s tough to understand how cutting R&D expenditures will allow Nektar “to accelerate the development of its proprietary (drug) pipeline,” as the company said in a press release. If the cost-cutting is not having any meaningful impact on the development of Nektar’s pipeline, then it’s good to see the company try to slim down its operational spending.
Normally, cuts to R&D spending have the opposite effect, though. . .[/quote]
fool.com/investing/high-grow … tself.aspx
I think it depends on your fundamental view of the stock. Without considering anything other than price, something that has risen 140% would seem to be more likely to peak now than, say, something that has lost 50% would turn up. Why? Because of regression to the mean
But we do not (should not?) make such decisions based purely on price.
But inhaled-insulin? Doesn’t it sound great?
[quote]Considering that inhalable insulin product Exubera has become “one of the worst-performing products for a new launch” according to Nektar’s CEO, and there are no other products on the near-term horizon to bring Nektar to profitability, it makes sense for the company to conserve its cash until its internal drug programs can get closer to market.
It’s tough to understand how cutting R&D expenditures will allow Nektar “to accelerate the development of its proprietary (drug) pipeline,” as the company said in a press release. If the cost-cutting is not having any meaningful impact on the development of Nektar’s pipeline, then it’s good to see the company try to slim down its operational spending.
Normally, cuts to R&D spending have the opposite effect, though, and if these cuts are not affecting operations in any serious negative way, it begs the question as to why they weren’t done sooner. The full impact of the reduced spending will be felt in 2008 and beyond, but for better or worse, investors are getting a slimmer Nektar that will require less cash burn until its phase 2 programs can produce meaningful study results. [/quote]
Thanks for this link. I did hear about the cost-cutting.