We have enough data to see that NEU's short position seems to...

We have enough data to see that NEU's short position seems to have finally levelled out. Although the data is much more delayed in the US, the same is occurring for ACAD. ACAD is nearly +20% up from its low which is a good sign going into earnings that at least the bears are worried about an acceptable earnings report. At these levels 'business as usual' should be well received, and a positive suprise should be incredibly well received for Acadia (and therefore NEU). But does the shorting actually make a meaningful difference to the share price? I don't know.

When it comes to NEU we weren't punished as hard as ACAD when it comes to Daybue (nor should we), but the bounce is lagging also. I think it is pretty clear that the trading for most of this year has revolved around Daybue with little to no attention given to NNZ-2591. Whether that is right or wrong, eventually this will change if we keep hitting milestones and delivering strong results.

If we get a positive suprise for Daybue it will help our bottom line even more, but it will change sentiment substantially. We are lucky that we're well funded regardless and the amount of Daybue income % isn't a company maker or breaker (right now). The market is very forward looking to the potential that our revenue from Daybue may not be that large as first expected, but there is no consideration that NNZ-2591 might be 10x+ this.

I am still in the camp that Daybue is an important and effective treatment, but its sales success will be somewhere in the middle of what analysts expected prior to approval. Right now the analysts' estimates are all over the place but a 1bn+ peak sales drug (in all markets) is a good outcome (IMO), and this certainly isn't a stretch. If we hit between 370m to 400m~ to grow to somewhere near 600m USD with the final 40% to come from other markets (more patients but less $ per patient) seems reasonable as a base case.

Prior to Phase 3 and approval, I was most worried that Daybue wouldn't translate to enough real-world benefit for patients. It seems like the side effects are more of a concern than the lack of improvement for most people who discontinue. This is actually a better outcome because side effects can be managed. If the drug simply didn't do much to change the disease state the insurers and medical community wouldn't be likely to recommend it (and approval may not have been granted in the first place). Improvements in ambulation/limb use is one of the hardest things to fluke - whereas other markers such as eye contact/mood are far more difficult to measure objectively. When I see real world scenarios of improvements in this area it makes me so happy for these patients that there is a tangible improvement to their lives.