LENZ

$LENZ chatter on StockTwits

• 
  Tommy Bahama@TickrTalk000710h

  $LENZ $1 in 2 years if they dont get another hope asset

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  Bojangles@Abundance1110h

  $LENZ I was able to get out over 6.00 the day after earnings, thank God. I touched 2300 in profits that morning , really wanted the squeeze but it came down a little quick so I closed it. Feel bad, probably be 4 or 5 years before they make 50 million annually. Gl

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  Javi@jGooooBullish17h

  $LENZ

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  John johnson@Max_RegardsBullish18h

  $LENZ I’m am willing to fully lose my investment in this company. The potential for this new market is too large to ignore. @Nicothebest we may give Nico grief for being short and aggressive in his communication but the guy knows the industry and knows what he is talking about. Take his guidance seriously because had I listened to it earlier I could have had a much better price point of my shares. That being said let’s get some traction here and wish leadership the best and trust they make the right calls.

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  Tom@Tomx24Bullish1d

  $LENZ @NICO Since you chose to notify me, I’ll answer publicly. You can criticise execution, but “no insider buying” is factually false. On March 27: • CEO Eef bought 28,089 shares (~$251K) • CFO Dan bought 7,500 (~$64K) • Director Jeffrey George bought 5,592 (~$50K) Total: 41,181 shares and ~$366K in open-market purchases. Management did not conceal the timing either. In Q1 Eef said new-patient starts were slower than desired and refill data would come in H2 because 3-packs delay reorders. I interviewed Dan directly after Q1 and reached a different view. That is not proof, but it is primary research. SEC filings and management’s public statements are proof. Facts can be discussed, but I will not accept baseless attemps to discret any members of the board. My criticism is directed at Citi and Piper: their target cuts should explain how they incorporate patient-level cohort persistence and July prescriptions up > +45%, rather than valuing the company solely through June’s rear-view mirror.

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  Tom@Tomx24Bullish1d

  $LENZ Today’s lesson for retail: stay away while the deep pockets are still sitting in the sandbox, throwing plastic moulds at each other. A double beat, validated refill cohorts, 45%+ July prescription growth and $220M in liquidity produced an opening spike of almost 30%. More than 100,000 shares changed hands in the initial buying wave. Then the entire move was sold back to flat. That is not institutional confidence. It is a private institutional brawl conducted in a public market—with retail apparently welcome as liquidity, but evidently not as a participant. Fine. We will meet again in Q3. If the July ramp holds, 11.86M short shares may discover that the powder keg was not another toy. Until then, enjoy the sandbox. Q3 will reveal who was holding the toys—and who was sitting on the powder keg. $LENZ

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  Tom@Tomx24Bullish1d

  $LENZ - The published Q2 transcript shows no question from Piper Sandler’s Biren Amin. Not one. The next morning, he cut his target from $12 to $7. This is the analyst who saw $67 when LENZ traded at $46.25, then gradually discovered $62, $39, $12 and finally $7 as the share price collapsed. WallStreetZen ranks him in the **bottom 6% of analysts**, with a –3.39% average return and a 42% win rate. Apparently the market was expected to overlook that distinguished record. At $7, LENZ’s implied equity value is roughly equal to its $220M Q2 cash balance—assigning essentially nothing to an FDA-approved product protected through 2044+, validated refill cohorts, Telehealth access or international economics. Perhaps his unpublished model proves commercial failure. Splendid. Publish it. Until then, this is not price discovery. It is yesterday’s chart dressed up as tomorrow’s analysis.

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  Javi@jGooooBullish1d

  $LENZ This company is poised to explode at the least expected moment.

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  Jimmy Jam.@extrodyne1d

  $LENZ has anything materially changed with this? it's still a late-stage phase3 candidate, right?

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  Anachart@anachartanalyst1d

  $LENZ https://anachart.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/1786554111_soc-img.jpg

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  Tony@US4nr1d

  $LENZ Here is why I think the PR gives mixed to bad signals. a) flat sales. Nobody can argue with this. And it's not that they have captured a huge market share so it has flattened out. They have almost no market penetration if you consider the presbyopia market size. b) They've put a lot of effort and money into this with no good results. Yes people will say "so far" but look at other successful product launches. This ain't it unfortunately. Hopefully they'll be better stewards of the remaining capital. They have plenty of cash. c) Management will always try to make things look better. They mention >45% increase from June so we can read between the lines. What if June was a dud and they only sold 1000 packs? Why didn't they just say the number? (unless I missed it, please share if they did) If you were the c-level team and actually had a good July, wouldn't you state the number? why give a percent that is not even against the monthly average of the last three months?

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  Tom@Tomx241d

  $LENZ 3/3 — And then there are Citi and Piper Immediately after these disclosures, Citi reportedly cut its target from $20 to $10, while Piper cut from $12 to $7. I have yet to see a substantive public explanation reconciling those cuts with the new cohort evidence, the July acceleration and the Telehealth launch. If the targets merely extrapolate two rounded quarters of ~$1.7M product revenue, they are measuring the accounting surface while ignoring the operating mechanics underneath it. Management has disclosed actual cohort behaviour and actual channel data. Citi and Piper have responded with dramatically lower numbers whose analytical bridge remains invisible. Until they show that bridge, I place considerably more weight on management’s disclosed operating evidence than on these reactive target cuts. The analysts are looking through the rear-view mirror. I am watching utilisation, reach and the cohorts beginning to overlap. **Long $LENZ.**

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  Tom@Tomx241d

  $LENZ 2/3 — Why the quarterly comparison misleads A three-pack sold in Q1 records three packs immediately but supplies the patient for three months. That customer may not reorder until late Q2 or Q3. The 25,000 Q1 packs were therefore never a quarterly base that should simply repeat. Q2 contained new patients, Q4 repurchases and only the earliest Q1 refills. Yet packs still increased 9% to 27,000. That is not proof of explosive adoption, but neither is it evidence of flat demand. It is a cohort business being judged through a quarterly snapshot. The remaining question is reach. Telehealth directly addresses it, and July prescriptions increased >45% from June even though Telehealth and national TV only launched on 6 July. Q3 must confirm the ramp. But Q2 strengthened the economic model. It did not weaken it!

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  Tom@Tomx24Bullish1d

  $LENZ **1/3 — Why I am bullish $LENZ** LENZ’s >$3B US model is built on two variables: 128M presbyopes × 6% penetration × 5 monthly packs × $79 = ~$3B. Q2 did not validate the 6% penetration assumption. It did something arguably more important at this stage: it provided empirical support for the utilisation assumption. More than 60% of ePharmacy patients have purchased multiple packs. Among these repeat users, the mature Q4 cohort exceeded five packs before completing a full year; Q1 is tracking towards five, and management says Q2 is following the same early pattern. This does not yet prove a five-pack average across every acquired patient. It does show that retained patients are behaving as the model requires. One of the two pillars of the $3B case is no longer merely theoretical.

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  John johnson@Max_RegardsBullish1d

  $LENZ insane to me how obviously this is a short squeeze with immense pressure building but we have zero volume. 150k shares traded at open pushed it to $6.41 That’s only 4.8% of the float being traded on volume. We have a massive pile of explosives but no lighter to start the fuse. Very frustrating.

  View on StockTwits ↗

Recent $TICKER stream from stocktwits.com — refreshed every 5 minutes. Sentiment tags are self-reported by posters. Not investment advice.