Spekulatius Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 Looks to me, like you need to assume at least a 75% chance that the deal goes though in order to be positive, if you assume it’s a zero when the deal breaks. I think you would get some recovery if the deal break , at least as a small investor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
writser Posted July 12, 2019 Author Share Posted July 12, 2019 Ilumina down 15% after hours on weak guidance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishwithwings Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 My portfolio is currently ~50% mergers and special situations. Maybe even more depending on what label you put on certain stuff. That percentage is not set in stone. It tends to be a bit lower but I currently have a few large positions in special situations that I think are very attractive. Also, I don't see any no-brainer investments at the moment. Gotta try to make money somwhere .. Do you mind sharing a few ideas and/or how you source these ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FF4F Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 Does anybody knows why it is tanking? News I am not aware of? I see no filings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHDL Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 Does anybody knows why it is tanking? News I am not aware of? I see no filings I think it's this: https://www.genomeweb.com/sequencing/european-patent-office-revokes-second-pacific-biosciences-patent#.XTHJ-S2ZNTY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FF4F Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 But i think that was published like 22 hours ago, so known yesterday? In small-cap land I am generally sceptical of 'leaked insider info'. Usually its just noise. Given that this is a much larger company, I have less conviction that also holds this time, but what do I know. Could not help myself - count me in as a future bagholder. Bought a small position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregmal Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 Probably worth taking another stab after this, although Im holding tight. Dont really want anything to do with this other than to see the outcome and sell either way once its revealed. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d307b9ded915d2fe8096fb8/Illumina_PacBio_Full_textP1_Redacted.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHDL Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d307b9ded915d2fe8096fb8/Illumina_PacBio_Full_textP1_Redacted.pdf Quickly skimmed through the document. I somehow get the sense that the regulators are basically saying “we’re gonna say no to this because Illumina is such a dominant player and their internal docs and 3rd parties suggest they’re trying to use this acquisition to solidify their monopolistic position; and yeah we’ve seen the data and numbers they gave us but we’re not gonna put much emphasis on that because those are all about the past and the industry is changing quickly.” Leaving aside the question as to whether they’re being reasonable or not, that sounds like a hard position for the merging parties and their lawyers to effectively argue against. More broadly, I see this as further confirmation that the antitrust regulators are really changing their views. AFIAK, these types of mergers used to go through without much discussion until not too long ago. On the positive side though, if the regulators are right about the potential of PacBio’s new product (Sequel II), it is not inconceivable that the company gets acquired by a different competitor or even starts doing well on their own. So there’s probably a price at which this becomes a buy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregmal Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 Its becoming more hostile for sure, but there is nothing wrong, or illegal with one trying to buy other companies to protect their market position. I could start up a business and overpay for competitors with the intention of creating or protecting a monopoly. But at the end of the day it is not that simple and certain conditions have to exist for something to be predatory and a detriment to competition. Its hard to make the case that Pac Bio will be successful as a stand-alone business. Its easier to make the case that ILMN is a monopoly like player, but you can do that with or without PACB. Mr. de Souza even discussed recently how the PACB deal really just added a complimentary product, and that this isn't somewhere they currently compete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorpioncapital Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 real power is not being able to be bribed. and why can't pacb sell out their entire UK business and get the deal done? why are they in a country that would rule against them. Go to cz or romania or hungary or ukraine. I am 100% certain they won't give a damn especially after throwing some money around. And that is exactly as business should be. Too much communism in the west. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregmal Posted September 27, 2019 Share Posted September 27, 2019 https://seekingalpha.com/news/3501960-pacific-biosciences-illumina-extend-merger-deadline-march-31-2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spekulatius Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 Negative decision from the Brits. Taking my chips off the table at $4.7. The problem with this play is that this company is not viable on a standalone basis. This wasn’t supposed to be that hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregmal Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 Yea, kinda odd they'd rather keep a quasi competitor on life support, in the game just for show. Thats governments for you. Oh well. Cant win them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorpioncapital Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 It's bizarre. It's a bit like China no? Pacb cannot go to the equivalent of Vietnam and change its supply chain to close the deal? Or is their entire business with uk Universities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
writser Posted November 13, 2019 Author Share Posted November 13, 2019 For all the bagholders, some interesting reading in the UK 'competition and markets authority' case file: https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/illumina-inc-pacific-biosciences-of-california-inc-merger-inquiry#history . Shares are up slightly today after PACB / ILMN submitted a remedies proposal: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5dcbc8ba40f0b64250f50116/Remedy_proposal.pdf . The CMA seems very pessimistic. There are two ways around a 'substantial lessening of competition' (SLC): a structural remedy (i.e. divestiture) or a behavioral remedy (i.e. IP licensing to competitors). The CMA asserts: "At this stage, the only structural remedy that CMA has identified as being likely to be effective would be prohibition of the Proposed Merger" "The CMA’s current view is that a behavioural remedy on its own is very unlikely to be an effective remedy to the SLC and/or any resulting adverse effects that it has provisionally identified. Given the dynamic nature of the market and the importance of innovation and non-price competition, any behavioural remedy would face acute specification and circumvention risks that would be likely to render it ineffective.". As a solution Illumina is proposing to give away certain IP licences perpetually for free to competitors. Seems unlikely that that will change the verdict but who am I to judge. Maybe the CMA is playing hardball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorpioncapital Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 Does cma say someone else can buy pacb but nor illumina because pacb is running out of money and it would be funny if the government killed the company) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spekulatius Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 Does cma say someone else can buy pacb but nor illumina because pacb is running out of money and it would be funny if the government killed the company) Killing PACB may actually be an Ok outcome for Illumina, which is a scary thought for PACB shareholders. The Brits wouldn’t care too much about killing an US company either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jurgis Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 Does cma say someone else can buy pacb but nor illumina because pacb is running out of money and it would be funny if the government killed the company) Killing PACB may actually be an Ok outcome for Illumina, which is a scary thought for OACB shareholders. the Brits wouldn’t care too much about killing an US company either. No company - especially one with bleeding edge tech and patents - is ever "killed". Even if it runs out of money, someone will scoop the assets. I am not a lawyer, but it might be possible even for ILMN to buy the assets out of bankruptcy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hielko Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 Does cma say someone else can buy pacb but nor illumina because pacb is running out of money and it would be funny if the government killed the company) Killing PACB may actually be an Ok outcome for Illumina, which is a scary thought for PACB shareholders. The Brits wouldn’t care too much about killing an US company either. The whole part of the document about PACB possibly exiting the market if the deal doesn't go through is pretty much completely redacted, but the conclusion of the CMA is that PACB would/could be viable as a standalone entity or that another party would be interested in buying it (perhaps not at the same price as Illumina, or they need to raise dilutive equity financing, but that's not a concern for the CMA). And I guess that's probably true. Their latest gen product doesn't seem to bad and if they can improve it more it could become more interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorpioncapital Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 Isn't it odd that the antitrust authority is asking pacb to find a plan b that ranges from a poorer deal to shareholder losses in the name of upholding competition because they have a technology so powerful even the company is clueless about it's prospects, although the company still has trouble making money? As a side note is it against anti trust for illumina to buy say a 49 percent stake instead of 100 percent ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hielko Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 I don't think that's particularly weird. Illumina has a huge market share, so it makes sense that any deal that they do raises competitive concerns. And quite possibly because they have such a dominant market position they are able and willing to pay more for a potential competitor than anyone else. If you have to approve every deal from the party that is willing to offer the highest price you can better just dissolve every antitrust regulatory agency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorpioncapital Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 It's a very odd situation. But I still don't understand why uk has any jurisdiction and if it can be made by agreement of illumina or pacb to dump the UK market. Has USA anti trust cleared the deal ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
writser Posted November 20, 2019 Author Share Posted November 20, 2019 Conspiracy theory on the CMA deal block: https://homolog.us/blogs/tech/2019/11/18/illumina-offers-donate-pacbio-patents-will-that-save-nanopore/ fwiw I think it is total nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregmal Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 Well, now the FTC... stick a fork in her.... continued government arrogance...Perhaps they could use one of these stupid green energy programs to buy PACB for $8.... since its apparently so friggin promising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spekulatius Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 Well, now the FTC... stick a fork in her.... continued government arrogance...Perhaps they could use one of these stupid green energy programs to buy PACB for $8.... since its apparently so friggin promising. 5:0 (FTC vote against the merger ) is a pretty clear score in a soccer match and this is no different here. I don’t think this merger is going to happen. PACB’s board need’s plan B and that means a merger with another partner, even if they pay less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now