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.
No one is arguing with you that market cap has to equal intrinsic value. I've re asked my question to you In several posts you just have chose to ignore it and make comments about something totally unrelated. The question is how do you reconcile your statement that ariad has zero intrinsic value to your assertion that you are a holder of the stock.
Now that's good news. Nice to fully collect. Bird in hand.
Keep it simple if you believed the true value of Ariad was nothing you wouldn't be invested in it. Plain simple done.
That is actually a valid point. They are only mutually exclusive if someone is making an informed rationale decision
Yes please do, because as I understand it someone invests or maintains their investment in a company when they believe the intrinsic value, true value, whatever you want to call it exceeds the current value assigned by the market. One sells or doesn't invest in a company when they believe the intrinsic value is less than the current value assigned by the market. I have no problem understanding your comment that Ariad as zero intrinsic value. I don't agree with you, but thats ok we can agree to disagree. What I can't reconcile is your stated position that the company has zero intrinsic value, while the market assigns a $6.50 pps and at that same time understand why you would be invested in the company. Thats what you should reconcile. Because your two statements of 1) I am long Ariad and 2) Ariad has zero intrinsic value, are mutually exclusive.
How do you define short term when you say the shorts control the price in the short term. I've heard this theory on this board for well over a year now. That theory of short term price manipulation can't hold water forever.
Oh so the intrinsic value of the company is worth nothing but the market is assigning a billion dollar value. Well that makes no sense. No seriously if the intrinsic value of the Company is 0 but you can sell your shares for 6.50 today why haven't you. Please explain it to me. I can't connect the dots.
To the contrary the company is currently valued at over 1 billion dollars. This far exceeds your assertion of "no vale"
Of course Australia isn't one of the 9 asian countries. First, its not in Asia and second Ariad already has an agreement in place with Specialised Therapeutics Australia Pty Ltd in Australia. It would be highly unlikely to expect a partnership agreement in Australia given the agreement already in place with STA.
http://investor.ariad.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=118422&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1894128
I do remember Merck. The stock fell on the announcement of that partnership too and that decline wasn't short lived. Hopefully history doesn't repeat. I do think that 77.5M up front is a decent upfront payment (depending on other terms) and if the rest of the terms are good the market could view this deal as favorable. For the naysayers who say that they can't, won't or haven't disclosed information similar to what Im asking for, here is an excerpt of ARIAD's disclosure the last time they inked a partnership.
NOTE THE FOLLOWING S AN EXAMPLE FROM THE 2007 PRESS RELEASE AND IS NOT RELATED TO TODAY's PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT
The agreement provides for an initial payment of $75 million to ARIAD, up to $452 million more in milestone payments to ARIAD based on the successful development of AP23573 in multiple cancer indications (including $13.5 million for the initiation of the Phase III clinical trial in metastatic sarcomas and $114.5 million for the initiation of other Phase II and Phase III clinical trials), up to $200 million more based on achievement of significant sales thresholds, at least $200 million in estimated contributions by Merck to global development, up to $200 million in interest-bearing repayable development-cost advances from Merck to cover a portion of ARIAD's share of global-development costs (after ARIAD has paid $150 million in global development costs), and potential commercial returns from profit sharing in the U.S. or royalties paid by Merck outside the U.S.
A relatively good performance had we not inked a partnership agreement today. Come on, most on this board were talking about the Japanese partnership as a second coming of Christ. To be down is disappointing irrespective of what the general market or biotech sector is doing today.
That quote you reference is from Ariad's press release it is not a quote of the boston globe, but instead is the boston globe repeating what ariad said.
I'm not inferring that its bad news. All I'm saying is that if they want to alleviate cash concerns disclosing some terms of the milestones, if possible, would be good. For example, how much on approval? Is it 10M or is it 50M? If you remember they did this in the RIDA agreement. We knew what the early milestone amounts were. Not every milestone was disclosed but certainly amounts upon initial approval. Again, if the terms are good and the milestones that would occur sooner rather than later are significant, it behooves them to let the investing public know more details. The projected cash balance is a major focus item for ARIAD
I don't expect them to float the un-redacted contract on the internet. Insight into some of the deal terms beyond just the upfront figure would not be unusual.
I doubt it Harvey has never been one to be transparent, but don't think people won't be asking on analyst calls. Modeling the cash burn is an area focus. If the milestones are good you would think that the company would want to make some of the information available over time to alleviate concerns. Im not saying that they won't, hopefully they give more insight into the deal as time goes on.
This extends the ramp but certainly doesn't solve the cash problems. Ariad will use approximately 150M in cash in 2014. If 2015 has a similar burn they just bought themselves 2 more quarters.
On a related note, I'd be interested in knowing more about the milestone terms. Understanding the amount of the milestones, timing etc will give better perspective of how well this deal may improve the cash position. In the last deal with RIDA, the original partnership agreement, Ariad did give more details as to the nature of the milestones. Hopefully they will provide additional information about this partnership agreement. What we have in front of us, in terms of information, isn't enough to fully assess the deal.
7 in june and 7 now that sounds like side to side trading to me.
Interesting point on financing. You are right. Ariad needs to do two things to see appreciation in its stock price from the announcement of the new molecule. First, the obvious, announce something that appears to have real viable commercial appeal, I.E a potential blockbuster and second, lay out their plan bring the molecule to market. Everyone on Wall Street knows they are burning cash, can't likely raise more funds through another offering, don't have room on their balance sheet for more debt and have this far done nothing on the partnership front. So announcing the new molecule without explaining how they will fund the trials is not gonna be enough to get a serious response in the stock price.
I don't see any reference in the link to trials aimed at controlling the adverse events mentioned in the abstract. Just hypothesis. However , I think everyone would agree it would be wise for Ariad to pursue such trials if they had the financial resources available to them.
that might be a great idea but without a trial and follow up it won't happen so any revenues from this idea are years and years away and then won't be sustained because the idea is to start on iclusig and move away to another drug.
I can say that even when times were good in wasn't a fan of Harvey and never thought he was a particularly good CEO. I always shared a similar view to that of dew diligence
This was a very reasonable post. Wish we had more thoughtful discussion like this
You and I got in around the same time. I actually bought some in 2003 (very small amount) then bought more when the Rida partnership was announced. I was very surprised to see the price drop after that partnership. Lucky for me I did the majority of my purchases in 2008 some of which were under a buck. I sold some of my holdings on its run up to 20 so I made some good money. However when it crashed I still had very substantial holdings in the context of my net worth. I'd like to see the stock price get back to double digits. Would love a buy out so that my exit strategy requires little to no thought. I've shown myself to be too reluctant to sell in the past. A mistake I hope to avoid should we get some price recovery here.
You and I aren't that far apart on what we think needs to happen for ariad. My problem is I don't think Harvey will take the right path unless forced. Time will tell. Either way thanks for your thoughts. Happy holidays to you too!
When will they start working on this? Where are the trials looking at different combinations or dosing? They can't do this in the lab without trials. Trials take time and money. Its not that all the negative comments are to say the drug is no good. My discontent is focused on how is ARIAD going to monetize this drug or how is ARIAD going to help patients. The two are closely aligned. The company is making little progress on this because they don't have the resources and are too bloody stubborn to seek a partner or sell the company. We are more than a year out now, where are the trials? They've lowered the dosage and have sat back to see what happens. Well guess what, even at lower doses there are new AEs that are still occurring in patients who have been taking the drug for a long time. This isn't normal and this isn't good enough to move the drug to earlier indications. So yes the drug is effective and there might be solutions to the AE problem. But Ariad Management hasn't done anything other than hypothesis in a lab, and that won't be enough to solve the problem.
If you read my post more closely you will see that concerns would need to be alleviated for the drug to go to first or second line. I don't hear any clinicians saying they want it front line or would be comfortable with front line. I didn't say they have concerns using it under its current indication! However, given that the AEs continue to be significant and other drugs such as gleevac are very well tolerated it will not move to earlier indications until as I said in my previous post.
The efficacy in heavily treated populations with no other options continues to be astounding. No one can debate that. But in terms of turning this into a front line or second line blockbuster it will never happen until they find a risk mitigation strategy that is not only effective, but is also tested and accepted by the clinical community as safe.
What is amazing about it?
Here is evidence of Harvey making claims that never came to fruition. Ariad has lots of potential that Harvey has had a hard time getting across the finish line. History tends to repeat itself. Might be time for a new leader to guide this ship
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=6095686
I never said Anything about discrediting Jaybe. The original poster said he was the most objective poster he had ever seen. I stated that he was pretty pro ariad and that I thought there were other posters who took a more balanced approach citing biomavin and don shimonda. I really don't enjoy having words put in my mouth. Feel free to read the original posts for context, next time maybe you should do it before hitting reply.
Jaybe seems pretty pro ariad to me. Well informed yes l, but the most objective? I think there are others who are more objective. Biomavin and don shimonda to name two. Speaking of fair and balanced why don't you ask Jaybe about what he thinks of your price predictions. Start with 300 and work your way down to 50. Jaybe seems pretty smart if he endorses any of your price targets I'd start listening.
I agree with your assessment although we don't really know what the value of giving up their royalty rights should be.
I wanna say 10% but I'm not certain.
Completely agree about first line and In light of the current data, absent a more effective, risk mitigation program agree with your view on second line too.
With that being said whoever deleted BRs post should resign as board moderator. Your bias is inappropriate. Your are censoring. His post, although incorrect in conclusion, did not violate the TOS.
It's not finished. That's not a fact that's your opinion. Iclusig certainly will play an important role in late stage cml or in patients with mutation. Tell me why it won't. Support your assertions
Here is data from biotech value board supporting the assertion.
Quote:
22% of CP-CML patients experienced an arterial thrombotic serious adverse event (SAE), and 27 percent of CP-CML patients experienced any arterial thrombotic event
Iclusig arterial thrombotic SAE rate continues to rise even after significant dose reduction. Compare the above numbers from 38-month follow-up against ASCO2014 30-month follow-up of 16% arterial thrombotic SAE, and 23% any arterial thrombotic event.
I think the reason for the tempered response to the AE data is that, although it showed improvement, it still showed new AEs. My understanding is that AEs specifically pulmonary/coronary type AEs typically develop early in treatment. The fact that new ones continue occur in patients who have been on the drug for a significant time period is concerning and although dose reduction did help, New AEs still appear. This isn't a threat to the current approved indications but it is problematic for moving to earlier indications.
I think there is enough opinion, naysaying, and hyperbole in your post that outweigh any facts you might post. And this is coming from a "skeptic" on ariad.