Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Nice find!
Another 1-2percenter; I'll take it!
These alternative applications do tend to add up, don't they...
Wait till we get cranking with Pona/Iclusig!
Amazingly, I still don't think the greater biotech market gets the bigger(evolving)picture here yet...
Yes, I think it's still a minor obstacle(on 5-28-13, we were able to get through it temporarily, but couldn't hold it at the close(19.58)).
Nevertheless, from my POV, the current basing pattern, coupled with the maturation of the overall program suggests we'll take out both it and the sma200/long-term downtrend line(as always, barring some macro disaster), in the next month or two.
Or, more pertinently, to switch to Pona after only a few months of subpar response with any TKI.
I would expect that this will apply to a lot of cases!
So, I would assume this note means that since their PT was, and still is, $32, and that the $500ml GIST potential isn't yet included
TECHNICALLY,
despite all the fundamentally-based positive and negative gyrations to date,
I suspect traders are still wondering if we are ever going to break out above the nine-month downtrend line(of Oct 2012).
To do so, we need(coincidentally)to get above the sma200 at about $20.50 on high volume and stay there.
Despite 3 or 4 major attempts to achieve this, we've continued to fail to date-
Maybe(hopefully) this time will be different lol-
The basing pattern of the last few months suggests it might...
Regards,
bw
Sounds like it, if not before, b/c the trial is, after all, open label-
Another point Tim made was that the trial was being run at 3 centers that were very experienced in treating GIST-
Therefore, we can probably conclude that GIST KOLs are in charge, which is why, if they like what they see, the word should get around pretty quickly(and maybe even before any formal data review)...
Yes, I did.
His very positive and incisive presentation which was essentially like the last one, but with the addition of a review of the GIST trial.
Sounds like they should have some good data on this one in 4-5 months, which could/should provide a proof of concept, which, in view of the scant alternatives for those who have failed other TKIs, could create a situation where off label use may occur, particularly in areas where clinical trials aren't readily available.
Guess this depends on how good the results are, but these results should dovetail nicely with the EPIC results toward the end of the year, which should be all good.
Can't get into an extended discussion with you about this(going on a trip), but are you kidding?
Particularly in view of the multi-day trade down, and fact that the jobs number was likely to be underwhelming, but not terrible(not under 100k),
I thought this was the most likely outcome(b/c QE is likely to continue indefinitely)...
Right Now, it looks to me like the market has already decided that the jobs report will again support "Eternal" QE, so they're taking preemptive action...
Of course, the"smart guys" were buying it this morning lol!
What's important, IMO, is that the IBB holds a successful test of the sma50(which will probably be determined tomorrow)-
If we get that, things should perk up for us soon enough!
Of course, even if we don't, I don't believe we're going much lower here(brief repeat of low 15s worst case, and you don't want to blink if you're afraid of missing it)...
But, I don't think it will come to that b/c, for among other reasons, I think the jobs report will be in that underwhelming "sweet spot" that keeps QE forever alive!
Thanks, nice review...
Air Pocket (no/low volume bid)...eom
Kiss of Death-
I guess I should know better...lol
Relative Outperformance Day
Roughly -1% vs IBB -2%,
suggests market recognizes, in view of all recent developments, that Ariad is at or near trough value here...
Very bullish intermediate to long term.
Consistent with successful triple bottom test.
One possible major wildcard-will IBB test of ema50(an important biotech macro)succeed?
Regards,
bw
I think your post puts things in perfect perspective in terms of all the suggestions that have come(and will continue to)regarding the "questionable" safety of 113.
Thanks for drawing our attention to it!
Same Answer-not particularly material for them over a several year time course, and certainly not a fast money play, which, unfortunately, is what all the "investments" around these conferences are about.
Another way of putting it, is that people who bet on ASCO results don't sweat the relatively small percentage stuff.
So therefore, the only unknown(until today) was the apparent reversal of fortune re: 113 in egfr NSCLC.
Seeing as the slide we experienced seems to be correcting itself as I write, I don't think we need to postulate any occult difficulties.
Of course there always could be, but on a day when, for example, snta was down 35%, and the IBB was down as much as 3.6%, not to mention a bunch of other biotechs, I don't think we need to look too far afield.
Old(is that how we should address you-:),
I didn't even know all that background, but I would say that 200m over the entire course of a development pathway for a 50bil dollar company wouldn't be all that material, particularly when viewed through the fast money lens of ASCO.
Some disappointing 113 results related to egfr patients that were sicker than we would allow in Ph 2 is being used as justification by a bear to conclude that this transitory disappointment is the beginning of something bigger,
(based probably mostly on technicals, etc. and little if any appreciation of the intrinsic value of everything else Ariad has going on, which is why I was essentially taking the other side of that trade(http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=88579539),
although I will admit that if you're going to bet short, it's best to do so relatively short-term)...
regards,
bw
LDK/113/Brain Mets
I concur with what someone else mentioned that Novartis's failure to either mention or breakout efficacy in brain mets is probably telling,
in so much as that it's the estimated cause of failure in approx 50% of criz failures(apparently, they don't have anything good to report there, or I'm sure they would have!).
When you put that together with the admittedly higher side effects profile, and seemingly lower overall efficacy,
I think the verdict will come up big in favor of 113 over time!
True, we really can't say one way or the other whether 113 will be as effective(or even more so than CO-1686) b/c we have almost nothing to evaluate 113 with at the moment.
In addition, if a large number of the other 42 pts were T790s(undocumented, which appears likely, since recent estimates suggest that about 50% of erlotinib failures have T790), then the results are relatively less impressive.
For example, if half were T790, responses would amount to about a 19% rate of response(not nothing in egfr, but certainly a lot less impressive than 3 or 4 out of 6).
Nevertheless, the extremely low side effect profile coupled with the PRs apparently makes 1686 the current one to beat in egfr nsclc, a very large and important indication,
so the run up, while exaggerated(as usual), is not that surprising.
I'm sure we'll see some sort of a bump, but nothing like that-
no surprise element to speak of...
Not true-CLVS(at $82) mkt cap=2.2bil, we're still at about 3.1bil.
Read the following pr(they note the following):
Responses at places like ASCO are a "fast money" phenomenon.
And it looks like CLVS was the ticket-particularly ironic since much of their rise is related to results in egfr NSCLC that appear to eat our (imagined) lunch on that score.
Therefore, when you put together what looks like solid preliminary CLVS results in such an important indication, together with no clarity when some was hoped for(from Ariad), obviously, the fast money shift(particularly with this relatively modest volume) explains today's dynamic.
However, what we(as long-term Ariad investors) need to remember, is that this is probably a very short term event, in view of all the other shots on goal in Ariad's arsenal.
Hard to swallow, but recoverable over time...
BTW, I should have noted that all of this is occurring against the backdrop of the test of the ema50 in the IBB-
we better hope it's a successful test...lol
I made reference to this sustained downtrend last week when many people were projecting extremely optimistic short-term price targets.
However, apart and aside from the technical picture, I think a low in the 16s(as always, short of overriding external market factors) is going to be the bottom,
because most rational observers consider that the trough value of the company just on the basis of Iclusig.
Therefore, after bouncing around here(16s) for a little while, we will have formed a triple bottom, and we should get a big(though possibly choppy and gradual) bounce from that level.
So no, though I'm a little disappointed, I'm not worried, and yes, I've been selling intermediate to long term puts here.
Regards,
bw
Rachael(and Merill Lynch) currently have a PT of $27. That was an upgrade from $26 on 3-19-13.
Doesn't suggesting that it isn't amount to the same thing?
If you're suggesting that(owing to my interpretation) I'm just being a dreamer, you're sorely mistaken,
since we all know that's somebody else's department on this board!!!
Perhaps some speculation that their drug is an "also ran"(before it's even started to run, due to 113), is contributing to their downdraft...
That's essentially my view!
I'm largely in agreement with that assessment-
seeing as I have the overwhelming majority of my investment capital in the company.
However, the investment public determines the volatility we experience, and as long as they remain unconvinced, trading range behavior is what we will see.
To recognize this as well as the fact that it generally has little to do with the long term prospects saves a lot of time and negative energy.
i.e. it's always much better to deal with what is rather than what "should" be lol!
BTW, looks like we're getting close to put sale levels...
I don't know about the majority here-though there certainly are a "good" number who expect constant immediate gratification.
However, on the basis of your commentary, you also seem to consistently fall into that group, which because of the realities of the situation just sets you and others up for repeated disappointment.
Bottom Line: Ariad is still a "show me" story on many fronts-if they perform as I believe they will, we'll get our boom-boom.
However, until then, we are, and will continue to be, talking about trading ranges...
If you mean those boom-boom predictions,
I already registered my reservations regarding them earlier this week:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=88420438
However, short term trading patterns have little to do with the positive long term prospects here one way or the other-
Therefore, since most of the people on this board are long term investors, the current action isn't particularly relevant one way or the other.
Just as with the IBB, I think what we're seeing here is a preview(i.e. low volume version) of the typical post ASCO selloff-
Participants are betting that nothing transformative is yet to be revealed, and getting what they perceive to be a high percentage jump on the phenomenon.
The question remains whether Harvey et al. have any additional rabbits up their sleeves(regarding 113) to be revealed, that will trump this tide.
If not, this action will qualify(as it usually does)as a good trading call.
I would look for something near 18 as the bottom seeing as that level is a coincidence of a 1/2 retracement of the recent move, as well as the sma50 at about 18 and the bollinger 20 day.
From the pure trader's POV, if they're wrong on this one, they will be right with this strategy with the overwhelming majority of such plays, so the error here would simply qualify as the cost of doing business...
It's called "playing the percentages."
Since I'm a long term investor, I'm, as usual, looking to play by selling more puts if we get "there" or near there.
So yes, we have to hope that the immediate questions about egfr efficacy are temporarily obscuring the "market's" accurate appreciation of the program as a whole.
That's my most fundamental working theory(rationalization??? lol)...
Two obvious reasons:
1)b/c we only have the dose escalation data, which didn't provide particularly good efficacy b/c the average dosages were low, and the cohort they believe has the most potential wasn't well represented.
2)b/c even though Harvey believes(or is suggesting that he believes) that they have the goods for effective t790m egfr NSCLC treatment, that's only his clinical impression(short of more supporting data that may be provided on Sunday), and because, whether it's related or not, 2 deaths have been reported to date.
For all we know, or the market knows, there may be more, and Harvey's implicit confidence may turn out to be somewhat overblown...
In addition, the hx of EGFR tx hasn't been particularly encouraging from what I've been able to determine,
and some even suggest that the t790 mutation is transitory in nature, so that blocking it may not provide benefit for very long in cases where wild types of egfr disease resume(since 113 is specifically designed not to treat wild type(i.e. no mutation detected within the EGFR gene)so as to avoid all the rashes associated with the previous generations of egfr inhibitors).