+0.0
net board stance
what this means
392.81
-10.2% · close 2026-09-08
-4% / +15% / +44%
1m / 3m / 12m
+3%
vs SPY since 2023-05-19
72%
of 52w range · -11.6% off high
—
hit rate as primary
Where we stand — 0 live ideas
No active idea holds this ticker. Anything below is history.
Where the winds are blowing
NET BOARD STANCE, LAST 46 EPISODES —
rising = the besties are building this position, falling = abandoning it. Replayed from
score_events; an idea counts from birth until its window closes.
PRICE VS SPY OVER THE SAME WINDOW, % — did the
talk lead the tape or follow it?
Who's pushing which way
each voice's net push ON THIS TICKER — their most recent stance per idea × the idea's direction × strength, so supporting a bearish idea pushes down. Not conviction (that lives on the idea); this is direction of travel per person. what w= means
Track record on AMGN
No closed window has used this ticker as its primary play, so there is no scored record here yet. Adjacent plays are listed but never scored.
| idea | call | play | verdict | R | α | closed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 📈 FTC merger-blocking chills early-stage biotech financing | ▼ SHORT | adjacent | MISS | -6.8% | -35.1 | 2024-05-19 |
The tape — what was actually said
every capture on any idea holding AMGN, newest first · quotes verbatim, timestamps deep-link into the episode
One is if we put in more conservative, Republican, Libertarian, etc., less regulatory regime in Washington that could open up M&A as soon as 2025, perhaps.
I don't know if I'd take the antitrust regime as being the core driver of M&A not being on the table. ... The biggest driver of concern is just all the return on capital metrics that the big buyers are having to face. Return on invested capital is becoming more important than it's ever been
the fact that regulators took 15 months to analyze the deal only to come to the conclusion that they basically weren't going to allow it, and then Adobe finally killed it, is going to have a chilling effect on M&A and Silicon Valley ... when you take half the potential exits off the table, you're absolutely making it tougher for VCs and founders to get a good return. It's that simple.
there is no viable M&A path for early stage venture capital businesses. So if you can't have a 20 billion dollar merger or a 40 billion dollar merger or a 15 or 20 billion dollar M&A with a high degree of confidence, then the path to liquidity through M&A is less than 20% of the outcomes
There's so few ways to have a good exit in the tech industry that when you take away M&A, it puts a damper on all risk-taking and the deployment of risk capital into the ecosystem.
Yeah, but Chamath, we're just not seeing a lot of the younger stuff get blocked. I don't think we've seen any attempts at blocking speculative portfolio acquisitions or speculative company acquisitions.
Look, it is hard enough to make money as either a pharma investor or as a VC that there's only two good outcomes, right? There's IPOs, there's M&A, everything else basically goes, everything else is a zero, it goes bankrupt. So if you take M&A off the table, you really suppress the already challenged returns of venture capital.
It is because the people that traffic in these stocks are the same ones that fund these early stage biotech companies. And I talked to a bunch of them, and they're like, if these guys block this kind of deal, we're going to get out of this game entirely. So just from the horse's mouth, what I'm telling you is you're going to see a pall come over the early stage venture financing landscape because a lot of these guys that are crossover investors, that own a lot of these public biotech stocks, that also fund the private stocks, will change their risk posture if they can't make money.