u/xanti69

Dear little fish trying to short Moderna and coming to this subreddit without any facts, just repeating the same nonsense about overvaluation, blah, blah... Look, there is a chance that this could be overvalued and make a 20% to 30% pullback, maybe... or it keeps going up because of FOMO.

The market can behave completely irrationally for a long, long time, as we saw over the past 2–3 years with Moderna, and we took full advantage of it.

So, I strongly advise against shorting anything, because timing stocks is extremely complex and you have to pay borrowing fees. Aside from all the literature and information you can gather about this amazing company that backs up its future value and a future target of $1,000...But if you want to do it, please keep coming back and showing us how you've put skin in the game with real screenshots. Thanks!

Hello I have just listened carefully to the Merck -Wells Fargo 21st Annual Healthcare Conference, and this is what they talked about INT: (Apologies for the typos)

Analyst: Got it. Very helpful. Thank you. Going back to oncology, INT. Success we have seen with melanoma, again, I think phase II, it does look like, I don't know, data will reveal themselves, but with the early success in melanoma, how comfortable should we feel about the other indications you are also pursuing here?

Merck ( Dean Li) all and all, even though INT is not a conservative program, the way that we've actually prosecuted is reasonably conservative. We have focused INT where KEYTRUDA works and works in early stage.

That's where we focused, and then the other place we focused is in a span of tumors that have varying tumor mutation burdens. We've done that. In the situation with melanoma, it's highly sensitive to I-O agents and has a high tumor mutation burden. I think that when people see the data, when it gets presented, hopefully at a meeting this fall, they will study the phase II and ask how close is this to the phase II. Because if you can replicate something close to the phase II, which as a sort of oversimplified way of looking at it, what you have is you almost double the number of people who are cancer free on top of KEYTRUDA.

And it isn't like KEYTRUDA doesn't do.

Right. It does do something.

That's pretty good. But the also important sort of thing is, you know from a phase Il that if you look year 1, year 3, year 5, those people responded, stay responded.

When people see the phase III, I think it's not unreasonable to sit there and say how close this is to phase II. They may extrapolate and say, "This probably will look like this in phase in 5 years, 7 years maybe." I think that will be an important point. The stronger that data is, it's no different than when KEYTRUDA and OPDIVO came out. The stronger the data was for OPDIVO and KEYTRUDA in melanoma, the more likely you thought it was going to work in lung.

Which would make it more likely. I think it wouldn't be unreasonable that if you saw something close to phase II versus not seeing something close to phase II... sitting this. If you saw something close to phase II, your pretest probability, at least in some of these I-O sensitive and higher tumor mutations, I think many people will calculate in their brain that becomes more likely.

Analyst: Got it. I think you talked about melanoma is probably more immune sensitive, I-O sensitive tumor versus RCC is probably on the other spectrum. In an event that it works in phase II RCC trial, how big an opportunity does it open up for you

Merck: Well, I think what people will do is they'll consider them as bookends. They'll sit there and say, "Melanoma, okay, RCC is I-O sensitive, but it's a lower tumor mutation." So they'll go everywhere between melanoma and RCC and say, "Okay, non-small cell lung cancer becomes more likely, head and neck becomes more likely." That's how they'll calculate it. They'll sit there and say, "Well, RCC has around the same tumor mutation as MSS CRC, but MSS CRC doesn't have it." So I think what someone will do is they'll look at that bookend and they'll do the KEYTRUDA story over and probably probabilize that bookend. I think that's how people will interpret the data. To be very honest, that's probably how some of us would interpret the data.

Analyst: Got it. Makes sense. With all that clinical success, you are creating a good problem for your CFO. Obviously, with the success, you have to invest heavily in the R&D as well, which is the right thing to do. This is a question we get from investors a lot, that now that the pipeline is really vibrant and growing, you did some deals as well, what are the puts and takes when we think about the guidance for next year, how should we think about expenses and revenues for next year? I don't want you to give guidance

It would be very interesting to see if they present any updates regarding the phase 3 data.

https://feeds.issuerdirect.com/news-release.html?newsid=7687562478254249&symbol=MRNA

Moderna, today announced its participation in the following upcoming investor conferences:

Morgan Stanley 24th Annual Global Healthcare Conference, on Monday, September 14 at 10:00 a.m. ET

Bernstein Insights: Healthcare Leaders and Disruptors 3rd Annual Healthcare Forum, on Wednesday, September 23 at 8:50 a.m. ET

BioNTech SE (NASDAQ:BNTX) shares fell 10% Friday after the company announced it would terminate a Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating its investigational individualized mRNA cancer immunotherapy for colorectal cancer.

https://ng.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/biontech-stock-tumbles-10-on-cancer-trial-termination-93CH-2678985

This news is important context given what we've achieved with the Phase 3 readout.

https://feeds.issuerdirect.com/news-release.html?newsid=8840667429908036&symbol=MRNA

Summary of the news with Gemini and potential risk for us, overall I think this is a great move from our lovely CFO James :)

Moderna ($MRNA) Upsizes Convertible Debt Offering to $2.6B at 0% Interest — Bull Case vs. Real Risks for Stockholders Moderna just priced its massive convertible bond offering, upsizing it from $2.0B to $2.6B (up to $3.0B if banks exercise their $400M greenshoe). Here is what the numbers actually mean, why hedge funds bought it up so aggressively, and the real risks for equity holders.

📊 The Key Deal Terms

* Principal Raised: $2.6 Billion (with an option for $400M more).

* Coupon / Interest Rate: 0.00% (zero interest payments through maturity).

* Maturity Date: March 1, 2032 (~6 years).

* Reference Stock Price: $142.77.

* Conversion Price: $210.58 (47.5% premium).

* Capped Call (Dilution Shield): $392.62 (175% premium). Moderna paid ~$285M to buy this hedge.

* Use of Proceeds: Funding oncology pipeline R&D, debt repayment, and corporate growth.

🟢 The Good News (Why the CFO Executed a Solid Deal)

* Free Liquidity: Moderna secures over $2.5B in net cash with zero interest drag on their income statement during high-cost Phase 3 oncology trials.

* Heavy Anti-Dilution Protection: Thanks to the $285M capped call hedge, existing shareholders face 0% dilution from conversion unless the stock surpasses $392.62 (+175%).

* Settlement Flexibility: At maturity or conversion, Moderna has the right to settle in cash, shares, or a mix, allowing them to avoid issuing shares if they have the cash flow.

🔴 The Real Risks for Stockholders

1. Short-Term Price Suppression (CB Arbitrage Selling) Convertible arbitrage hedge funds bought this upsized deal to harvest volatility. Their standard playbook is to buy the bond and immediately sell short the common stock to delta-hedge. This typically creates mechanical downward pressure on $MRNA stock in the short term.
2. The 2032 "Maturity Wall" & Massive Downside Dilution This is the biggest structural risk. If Moderna's oncology pipeline underdelivers and the company continues burning cash through 2032: * Moderna will not have the $2.6B–$3.0B cash to redeem the notes. * If credit markets are tight, refinancing won't be an option. * Result: Moderna would be forced to settle the principal by printing massive amounts of stock at depressed valuations, causing severe dilution to long-term holders.
3. The Upside Cap (+175%) While the capped call shields shareholders up to $392.62, any explosive upside beyond +175% is no longer hedged by the bank derivatives. If the stock goes on an extreme multi-bagger run past $400, shareholder dilution will kick in above that threshold.
4. Derivatives Counterparty Risk The anti-dilution shield relies entirely on private derivative contracts with investment banks. If any counterparty faces distress or defaults between now and 2032, that layer of protection evaporates.
5. 💡 TL;DR Moderna leveraged its high equity volatility to borrow $2.6B+ at 0% interest with full anti-dilution protection up to $392/share. It gives them a huge cash runway for cancer trials, but it starts a 6-year ticking clock: if their pipeline fails to generate strong cash flows by 2032, paying back this debt will fall squarely on equity holders through forced dilution.

Interesting today's article about these kind of bonds from the financial time:

https://archive.is/20260828050336/https://www.ft.com/content/8e93c159-2c02-444a-9f22-dcda14bc451f

I think it makes some interesting points like regulators will have to change the current strain selection or the potential forecast for 27 and 28

https://www.pharmavoice.com/news/moderna-mrna-flu-vax-fda-nod-blockbuster-hurdles/827961/

I have just wanted to be extra careful with the title to not give a heart attack to anyone... I think It is a very interesting article...

Reddit is deleting the post so please Google the following:

mRNA Flu Vaccine Faces FDA Verdict: Approval Alone Won't Mean Coverage for Seniors

Fresh from the oven...

https://www.streetinsider.com/dr/news.php?id=26618720

Nothing new but very Interesting information....

https://www.investing.com/news/analyst-ratings/ubs-reiterates-moderna-stock-rating-on-melanoma-trial-catalyst-93CH-4710209

The firm cited the company’s Phase III INT adjuvant melanoma interim analysis as a major catalyst for 2026. Moderna has guided the interim analysis to occur in 2026, with UBS estimating a potential timeframe around October or November.

UBS assigned a probability of success above 50% for the interim analysis. The firm noted the stock could move 25% to 50% higher if the interim analysis meets its endpoint.

The firm acknowledged a scenario where the study does not stop for interim analysis and would require waiting for the final analysis. UBS stated this could occur if more time is needed for the survival curves to separate.