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.
Umm the evidence is in ariad's press release where they state their plan to submit their data for approval in 2016. If they aren't seeking approval in 2015 they won't receive approval in 2015. It's plain and simple. Doesn't matter what the average time to approval is. If they don't plan on submitting their NDA until 2016 to expect approval in 2015...... Does not compute.
They aren't even applying for approval until 2016. The said it in their press release. It won't be approved in 2015 plain and simple.
It's 400 million revenue not 400 million of profitability. Big difference.
No it doesn't preclude a buy out but how many major pharmas want to buy a company with their lead drug already partnered with one company and their upcoming drug soon to be partnered with likely a 2nd company. Major pharma doesn't buy biotech to play second fiddle
Who is they. I for one always said a buy out was preferable and absent a buyout a partnership would be necessary to have a viable business model. Just because one says that a partnership was necessary absent a buy out doesn't mean one thinks it was ideal. ATTENTION TO DETAIL.
The buyout number might be up but the likelihood of a buy out continues to go down.
I'm not sure if the participants in the trial with insurance won't still have to pay for the drugs. My mother was in a clinical trial comparing various approved cancer drugs. It wasn't free and her insurance still paid for the drugs. It's an important question to have answered
Start reporting them as TOS the link is at the bottom of the screen. I no longer receive his posts otherwise is do it.
The point I was making is that there is no correlation between that amount and the future milestones. It is obviously my opinion that they would be less individually. Although in the aggregate i would speculate they could be significantly more.
With all this being said, if the milestones individually are greater than 77.5 million the company should be talking about the near term ones that could reasonably come to fruition because it would be a good story to tell which could alleviate some of the financing concerns.
The future milestone amounts were not disclosed. They are likely less than 77.5 million.
Good bye. Its been real.
You are telling me if the vice president of investor relations leaves we will see a 75 cent increase in stock price. You just can't make this stuff up, or actually you can.
This actually is true. There are 21 VPs it at least there were recently.
He is also prohibited from selling during the black out period or when he has material information not yet disclosed to the street.
Classic debate tactic. Throw stuff [explitive] on the wall to see what sticks.
I'll bet you they your are 100% wrong. You see denner is a board member so when he or entities that he controls sell then filings with the sec need to be made.
Can I make a suggestion for the Ariad price contest. First prize a Cadillac elderado. Second prize a set of steak knives. Third prize, you are fired. Glengarry Glen Ross
If a stock in your portfolio, in this example Ariad, rises significantly over a sustained period of time a wise risk mitigation strategy is to do sometype of rebalancing selling off a portion of your Ariad holdings so that at any given time Ariad doesn't comprise too great a portion of your net worth. You aren't doing anyone any favors by encouraging them to hold their stock into perpetuity and allowing their holdings of Ariad to become too large a portion of their net worth. A lesson that should have been learned on its last run to 25 and subsequent crash to the 2s.
Then I count only 3 posts of yours today where you needed to be corrected for factual inaccuracies that were significant to the conclusions.
Why be factual when you can be misleading. Its amazing how one can take such a staunch position based on inaccurate data. Good correction on this one.
Don't think your math is correct there. Your math would only be correct if they sold the entire rights of iclusig. Instead they have partnered, maintain rights to a certain portion of the sales have obtained future cost sharing benefits and are also eligible for milestones. We don't have enough information to do a calculation but if you are doing a back of an envelope you would need to increase it substantially to reflect that we still receive a substantial portion of the sales proceeds and further milestones.
Thanks for the DD (due diligence not dew diligence)
I think calling Otsuka a 3rd tier pharma company is obviously aimed at supporting a negative position on the stock. With that being said I Was a little disappointed myself in seeing that Otsuka would be our partner. Otsuka brings money to the table, which is good, but they don't bring expertise in oncology. From what I could see on their website, this will pretty much be their only cancer drug. It would have been nice to get a partner with a deep expertise in the field. Who knows all the reasons why they went with this Otsuka. Otsuka may have been the highest bidder and that may have been the most important to ARIAD, they may have allowed ARIAD to keep more control of the process, etc etc. We don't know, but my initial reaction, right or wrong, with their partner choice was slight disappointment.
Thanks I appreciate it. Im just a curmudgeon who likes to argue with everyone. Just kidding :)
Why when confronted with a question, rather than answer you just pose more questions? Your original post was riddled with in accuracy and unsupported assertion. Care to address that?
Also on the subject of inaccuracy please post your source that shows the oncology market of China and Japan exceeds that of the US. I believe that assertion is also inaccurate.
Why? just a few days ago you said the intrinsic value is zero. Has your view on this changed?
Your post is inaccurate. They received 77 million up front a portion of sales future milestones and the partner will assume certain costs of future trials for additional indications. Try to get the facts correct of you are going to pontificate about the deal
Got it thanks
So if they had more money they could put more than one molecule into the clinic and gather more information on which would be the most likely to be effective and safe.
This better not mean some type of internal nomination. If they haven't even decided what molecule they are planning to move forward yet we are all screwed. Who knows though. Say what you will about the company's prospects their communication STINKS!
I think you are right but only when the trial data is not blinded. I can't remember but I believe that this trial is NOT blinded so it would allow for analysis as the trial proceeds. Can anyone confirm?
How much data do they have at this point. Don't you think the analysis of the data alone will take time or you think they won't require typical statically significant results
Sure. But seriously do you think it will be approved this year or just hope that it will? Absent some unknown 113 is getting approved. I just think 2015 is too soon.
This is a good bet for me to take because if i lose the bet undoubtedly I'll have fuller pockets :).
Well it's the trial they plan to use for approval. That's been stayed before ad naseum
Fair enough but as a betting man i wager it won't be approved in 2015. Do you disagree? If so fine. It's just a gentleman's bet
Yea that's wrong the pivotal trial is this trial. However that's not to say it will be approved in 2015. In doubt it will
Ok the company's problems are solved. Their drug is gonna sell like hot cakes cuz so and so knows someone brother in Vietnam. Great
The drug needs to be approved they won't be selling it in these countries in 2015. I'm not short but your blowing smoke
What you must have had an abundance of holiday cheer