Discussion about this post

User's avatar
The Long View Investor's avatar

This seems like a good piece in most respects, but I think around the "short attack" section, things get a bit less objective.

The narrative that 'shorting stocks ensures that people with high risk do whatever it takes to mess up a company's reputation to push its stock price down' sounds like a true dynamic that exists with shorting, and I generally agree that this is a reason shorting might result in market manipulation. But often, shorts don't get involved just because they *want* a firm to fail, they get involved because they *already suspect* it will fail; that is why they are willing to take on so much risk. I think before they open a short position, they are actually being rather clear-eyed, and don't yet aim to "destroy the company" as is phrased in this article. Likewise in the case of Seres, I don't think its a simple as 'shorts bad.'

"In Seres case it had the first ever oral (tablet) microbiomic product approved by the FDA and the share price went down (quite dramatically)!"

This does seem very odd on the surface, but not necessarily a product of shorting so much as perhaps a product of short-sighted investors. Maybe they see the costs of commercializing VOWST as being greater than the potential revenues of VOWST in the short term? In the first year or two at least, this will probably be accurate, and the stock markets often only look a few years ahead. This seems more investor-driven than shorts-driven to me.

"The Shorters made sure that Seres had to cut its costs and this has meant a lot of damage to critical programs."

IIRC, Seres cut costs not because of shorts, but because of high cash burn on its road to commercialization, even after the large cash transfer by Nestle after the completion of their phase 3 trial for VOWST. As noted earlier in the piece, lavish spending at Seres has been a problem before. I don't think shorts should be taking the heat for that issue.

"...currently there is a pause in efforts to develop Microbiomic products for inflammatory bowel diseases (eg Ulcerative Colitis). This means a major potential upside for Seres is on hold."

This stoppage is likely also due to the cash burn concerns, as highlighted above. But on the pause in UC drug development specifically, Seres actually had a treatment in process, SER-287, that produced very lackluster results in a phase 2 trial. As a result, Seres shelved the treatment https://ir.serestherapeutics.com/news-releases/news-release-details/seres-therapeutics-announces-topline-results-ser-287-phase-2b . This was around the time the stock price fell significantly in 2021, so it may have contributed more to the stock price decline that year than shorting did.

"my take is that there is good initial acceptance [of VOWST]. The shorters went on and on about poor market acceptance within a month or so of the product launch!" I agree it is unfair to bring up poor market acceptance for a months-old entry into the market. However, what may be hampering the adoption is the price: VOWST is about $20,000 to buy a 12-pill course. It is therefore impossible for almost anyone to obtain without insurance, and as I understand it, many insurance providers are refusing to cover it without patients undergoing other treatments first, so Seres' market here is smaller than many think, and access to its only commercial product is being gatekept by insurance companies, and by its high price. None of this is the shorts' fault.

I agree that Seres has the potential to be a game-changing firm in biotech due to how its product can leverage the microbiome to revolutionize the treatment of various illnesses, but I don't think short sellers are such an impediment to the company's success, as certain setbacks here are circumstantial or self-inflicted by Seres itself.

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts