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.
Teva Pharmaceutical (NASDAQ:TEVA), the largest generic drug maker in the world, was climbing 1.02% to $48.51, trading 2.5% above calculated support at $48.51, following comments from Oppenheimer. The firm believes the recent weakness in shares of Teva presents a long-term buying opportunity, as it continues to view 2011 as a back-half loaded year. In their view, detailed data read-out from the Phase III ALLEGRO study of Liquinimod could provide a modestly positive clinical catalyst in April, with potential approval of its version of generic Lovenox providing a positive regulatory/commercial catalyst around the middle of the year-2011. Oppenheimer maintained its target price at $65 per share.
http://www.tradershuddle.com/20110323189542/Stocks/stock-futures-fluctuate-on-global-woes-stocks-to-watch-amzn-aapl-armh-bac-gis-jbl-teva-tm.html
The only good news right now would be that Cortex found a significant source of funding. nothing else really matters without money.
IF NVS had any significant interest in MNTA they would just buy the company. The stand-still agreement died years ago.
I'm not so sure you can judge nvs degree of interest in buying mnta. Speculation concerning nvs buying Chiron went on for years as well. Time lines for these events are beyond outside observation.
This is a good post from si about the Teva pr by a reliable person.
http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=27118132
tEva files citizen's petition over copaxone
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Teva-Files-Citizen-Petition-bw-1821546286.html?x=0&.v=1
Oncologic Drugs AdComm
Meeting Date: 2/9/11-2/9/11
On February 9, 2011, the committee will discuss biologics license application (BLA) 125377, with the proposed trade name YERVOY (ipilimumab), submitted by Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.. The proposed indication (use) for this product is for the treatment of advanced melanoma in patients who have received ...
Is there any chance pfe would live with the tacit admission of inferiority of their product and partner with aria
What you say is true. However, the same could be said for any biotech. Margin for error doesn't really exist except if you're talking about survival of the entity. Biotech blowups are always hard to the downside with a special power to safety problems. If Aria, which you presently consider undervalued, has a slip in either of its drugs, the downside will be a high percentage of its present share price. I think it's the nature of the game. If incyte or aria succeed in timely fashion, their share prices should appreciate. You could argue that Incyte has significantly less upside due to it's market value but margin of error is much more a frailty of the sector in general. It is the blowup factor that any investor should fear.
December 2, 2010
Oncologic Drugs AdComm: During the morning session, the committee will discuss biologics license application (BLA) 125377, with the proposed trade name Yervoy (ipilimumab), manufactured by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.
Momenta can't do anything about the rumor. The question is whether there is any reason to doubt the confidence that several people at Teva have expressed recently. A quote from r and d made to an Israeli paper-- "We are waiting to receive the approval soon and the chances of receiving it is high." I believe Teva has reason to think this is true.
The Hill: On Monday, experts warned during a Capitol Hill discussion hosted by the Congressional Health Care Caucus that "the absence of mandatory clinical trials for biosimilar drugs could compromise their safety and effectiveness." The recently passed health reform law "outlined a pathway for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve next-generation biopharmaceuticals modeled on original breakthrough drugs. But the provision is vague, the critics say, and leaves FDA with a great deal of leeway to okay those drugs - including the flexibility to decide whether clinical trials are necessary at all" (Mike Lillis, 7/19).
Congressional Daily: "The law allows the FDA to determine that a biosimilar drug is 'interchangeable' with a brand name drug if the treatment is 'expected to produce the same clinical result' as the brand name drug, but the legislation does not exactly define the test for biosimilarity." However, "the FDA is expected to begin holding public meetings later this year to solicit comment on how the process should work. ... But some health policy experts argue that regardless of what approval pathway the FDA establishes, generic drug companies might be better off arguing their products are entirely unique to brand-name drugs, given the long period of exclusivity that brand-name drugs have" (Meghan McCarthy, 7/20).
This information was reprinted from kaiserhealthnews.org with kind permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives and sign up for email delivery at kaiserhealthnews.org.
Barclay has been appointed ceo at Hansen Medical which is a company teetering on collapse. His move is hard to understand. Strange.
What about Mann causes you to characterize him as a charlatan? Past success? The amount of money he's invested in the company?
With even a cursory glance at founder and financial lifeline Alfred Mann's career, you'll see that he's very far from a scam artist. That's not to say that their product will be successful, only that the company is undeserving of your comment.
Do you have a time frame?
No one is going to hiss or boo. Your interpretation is a guess as are all speculations on price. The trend certainly hasn't been up.
I don't understand the fda here. They refused to approve the drug over a period of years. Nothing was really new in the data. Why would they have changed their thinking? I think the sole advantage of the drug is less weight gain. This decision makes the whole review process seem somewhat arbitrary. It's all in the timing.
So your remedy for Cortex at this 27 cent point is to install new competent management that is going get sufficient funding to advance the pipeline? Any ideas who these saviors are? Perhaps railing at Stoll and Varney serves no purpose unless you have a real alternative. The fact that they have not been able to attract enough money to pursue development is undeniably their failure. You've decided that they haven't played their hand as well as they might have. Others have the opinion that the hand they were dealt didn't offer them enough leverage to win the game up to now. If the company could bring in new management with money, your solution might offer the best chance for success. Do you think that alternative is really available?
For the sake of definition--are you saying that rprx is falsely promoting the development of a drug that they know can never be approved?
They have to repay substantial debt in 2011 I think and albuferon, lupus drugs are iffy. In addition, they were supposed to get 160 mil for abthrax from the government this year but payment has been delayed which added to uncertainty. They've had numerous clinical failures in their past so this could be their last chance. Bad profile for this market.
Wasn't trying for flip. Genuinely interested in why you devote time here. number two seems possible. Partnership shouldn't really matter unless you view it as validation. Funding will cause dilution which may in turn lower the price per share. And your theory over safety would still remain. Thanks.
Where do you put the odds that you'll invest in rprx. Given your reasoning, it seems highly unlikely.
You've always been negative so leaving makes good sense. Congratulations.
It's possible there is no outcome yet.
This is a four part series on Dr. Lynch in the la times starting today: http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-na-memory-series,0,3544906.special?coll=la-home-center
OT Is Pozen's predicament the same problem that surfaced with Cortex and would that mean that their timeline for resolving the issue would be similar to Cortex's?
Someone on cnbc just said cor was a good candidate for appreciation--
Gilead did today.
Yep, you're right. You're just giving greater detail than I did. I don't know where the fault lies. I tend to blame chance and not management. A bad investment is when you lose money. From the investor's point of view, it doesn't really matter where the fault lies, whether it's the science or the management. you lose either way. But if one has stayed with a company for eight years and you really believe in the science, then I think it's understandable to want to assign a lot of blame to the company. I've lost money before. Unfortunately I've never found any therapeutic strategy to make myself feel better
So this is an ongoing issue with all biotechs. If the stock is way down, is it automatically the fault of management or is it simply problems with the drug in development? Management can be blamed for poorly designed trials, bad business judgment in deal making or raising funds and the ill considered waste of funds on hand. In the end though, the drug has to go through testing. Testing means that the company thinks they have a pathway for a successful drug but the outcome has no guarantees. No one knows exactly either the best framework for testing or whether the drug will actually work in the designed setting. Development is an educated art. There is a large factor of the unforeseen in the act. the people who defend management likely think that the main reason for the stock decline lies in development problems that could not be anticipated. If one thinks otherwise, that management issues are to blame and not the science, then perhaps the investor feels more frustrated and less to blame for the poor investment. It also makes it harder to give up on the company if you still believe that success is achievable. That has to be the reason that you have maintained your investment for eight years. Your education is fine and your frustration is understandable.
I guess that depends on the terms of the deal and with whom. And of course the idea that there is new financing is probably the most obvious speculation. In the short long term, most important is the outcome with the fda.
Sometimes you get a run up prior to a financing deal
Aloxi isn't going generic. It's a competitor's drug that is going generic and sooner than mogn anticipated. Aloxi is a better drug but the generic is cheaper.
every dow stock was down