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.
Merck was only up 2% so I bought some.
Bypassing the retail investor. Here's the scenario. One arm of a broker likes the shares and recommends it. Based on that the commercial arm pumps it to institutions. The institutions say they are interested if they can get in cheap. The broker tells the company they have 20 mil or so available for the taking. The company doesn't really need the cash now but...sooner or later they will. They pay the broker 5% and take the cash. Now the institutions don't have to compete in the marketplace to establish a position to the chagrin of the retail investor.
From the company's point of view they get a cash influx with no wasted time selling the need to the masses. They get more institutional activity increasing critical mass.
Sangamo did this before with Piper Jaffray. Now they're doing it again with Cantor Fitz.
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/070518/sgmo8-k.html
It should be illegal. What do you think?
Dave
Very much on topic. I keep a close eye on institutional holdings of shares I own and follow.
Dave
Webcast Calendar
[Please see updating procedure at the end of this post. Events listed here are regular quarterly conference calls unless indicated otherwise. All times are U.S. ET. unless indicated otherwise.]
NOTE: ANYONE MAY UPDATE THIS FILE
Edits: SGMO
ACHN 5/23 1:30 pm (JPM)
BIIB 5/17 8:30AM (R&D Day) #msg-19581596
DNA 6/4 8pm (ASCO update)
COR 5/21 6:30 pm (JPM)
EXEL 6/2 7:30 pm (ASCO update)
GENZ 5/16 1pm (Analyst & Investor Day)
GSK 6/18 Time TBA (Oncology R&D Day)
GTCB 5/23 1pm (annual meeting)
IDIX 5/22 3:30 pm (Citi)
MATK 6/6 4:45 pm (FY2Q07)
MYL 5/24 10 am (FY4Q07)
SGMO 5/21 3PM PST (JMP)replay at http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=120938&p=irol-IRHome
---
Procedure For Updating Calendar
When adding or modifying entries, please follow these steps:
1. Copy the complete text from the old list. You can find a pointer to this list in the iBox at the top of the main message-board screen.
2. Make your additions or modifications, inserting any new items in alphabetical order.
3. Post the updated text in a new message in reply to the message with the old list.
Share buybacks depend on expected ROI. Directors must weigh the merits of new opportunities versus the expected returm from reducing the number of shares thereby increasing the value of the remaining shares.
Let's say you're a cash rich cigarette company. Pending litigation does not frighten you and you already sport a nice dividend. Faced with introducing a new brand or buying your own shares you'll probably decide to buy the shares. It will almost certainly give your shareholders a better return for every dollar spent.
If you think the shares will increase in value 20% per year it would be silly to spend that money raisng the dividend a lesser amount.
Dave
Biotechnology Index now includes SGMO, GNVC amongst 13 new entries.
http://biz.yahoo.com/pz/070511/119398.html
Market cap increases presumably.
Dave
Re GNVC I agree with your earlier assessmant that it's too early to judge the beneficial results of allowing endo administration of TNFerade. I doubt the SPA will be changed in midstream although interim results were robust. I'm very interested in other takes on the trial staus and the stock itself.
I believe PGS opinion re the trial power preceded the interim results.
Dave
Re investor days are very worthwhile. Agreed. Sangamo's was rich on science and status. I've gone back to it already.
Dave
Re ongoing patent strategy. Many companies succumb to excessive patent filings unaware of or forgetting this aspect of patent law:
"The court held that by filing a lawsuit on only one of its five patents, Novartis had effectively insulated the four method patents from a validity challenge until patent expiry, and by doing this had avoided a patentee's responsibility to cooperate in infringement challenges as required by US patent law. Although a district court had previously dismissed Teva's action, in light of a recent Supreme Court case between MedImmune and Genentech, the Federal Circuit overturned this ruling, deciding that Teva faced a real threat of litigation from Novartis if Teva was to market a generic. Therefore the Court concluded that Teva should be allowed to seek a declaratory judgement decision on the method patents.
This decision has eliminated the uncertainty and risk that generics manufacturers face when deciding whether to launch generic competitors. Generics manufacturers will now be able to file a declaratory judgement action and obtain a court decision on patent validity before deciding whether to market their products.
Teva Pharms. USA versus Novartis Pharms. et al.: http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1181.pdf
Great article. Early detection and preventing metastasis (resection) is the best hope given today's technology. Spend the education and research bucks here first.
Many good biotechs avoid cancer for easier targets. I wish they'd spend some of my shareholder bucks on easy, early detection. It's well within their capabilities.
Dave
Dendreon Effect should presage biotech reversal. Just as the Dendreon committee recommendation boosted biotechs in general they should go down after the approvable letter. I bailed out of most holdings and will await better entry points.
Dave
pgs .05 is arbitrary and is 95% chance of non random results. For pain relief and other broad applications for which there are many existing treatments perhaps that standard should be raised to .04 or .03. For orphan indications one could argue that the bar should be lowered to .06 or so.
Nowhere did I see David suggest that the bar should be lowered in most cases.
Regards,
Dave
Because GTCB's lead drug is approved for a miniscule indication in the EU only. The EU rights are licensed to LEO and GTCB is losing their ass on that licensing agreement as shown on any 10Q. The bigger indications on that drug has 0 enrollment in a P2 trial.
Or was that a rhetorical question?
Dave
Re naked RPRX calls. Consider hedging them or changing your mind.
I did that with AMLN with July 20 calls in the March before the April approvals of Byetta and Symlyn. The hedgies (I guess)kept the share price down until late summer and I lost it all. Then the shares rocketed.
The cards were all stacked against approval. Yuch. An inadvertant SPA trap okayed by the company. How unfortunate.
It seems to me that the contol arm should have been DTIC day 4, 29 & 54. Scans for both arms should have been 0 29 and 54.
Dave
Re GNTA David: What an unfortunate mess.
Please explain "scenario" in this context:
"Genta presented the correct equations in their presentation. While the PFS benefit shrank to clinical insignificance in some situations, none of the scenarios (or none but the most outlandish differential assumption, I don't quite remember) failed to reach statistical significance.
Thx,
Dave
Re rprx: I was long 3 times between 11 and 12 and managed to lose 10% twice. Lately I've been a "nervous Nellie" but have been fortunate on timing with my other holdings.
Despite the compelling P2 results I just get nervous. It's a tiny company. I think you guys are right about RPRX but I've decided to pass at these levels. It's a gut feel thing. No discipline.
Good luck.
Dave
Agree p=0.05 is so arbitrary. The common sense approach, a la the Provenge rec., has it's place. But, caveat emptor. Silliness prevails. I think the FDA is moving slowly in the right direction. They are just hopelessly undermanned. When they must rely on profit oriented companies to monitor post approval effectiveness they must err on the conservative side.
Dave
Fully invested again. Bought a huge slug of SGMO today thinking the Genentech partnership a wise and timely decision. I'm speculating. No specific terms were elucidated. My experience tells me they usually act in the long term interest of the shareholder.
So much for the "go away in May" philosophy.
Subject to change without notice.
I should add that a couple of RPRX trades went bad on me this year. The share price movements have been beyond my ken.
Dave
Re AA (Walker) article. The last paragraph IS highly inflamatory and indicative of extremism. However, if
"…Now, Genta has found a serious mathematical error in the FDA's analysis, rendering its results meaningless" this is true--- It's more reasonable to be incensed.
Dave
Re GTCB A profound difference in models IMHO.
Dave
I totally agree. Fundamental to this board. I found Walker's argument compelling but I respect Dew's opinion. I didn't know his raison d'etre was anti-FDA. Color please?
Dave
Re: Atryn/LEO I think that's a fair assessment. Put me in the non-belief category. On the other hand their patent moves and the blood factor deal look fine to me.
They appear to have serious competition in protein production from conventional manufacturing by big pharma and big biotech but we all know that. Perhaps this concept has its place on the very high volume needs.
Good luck.
Dave
I listened to the call too.
I note with interest that LEO has recruited 0 patients for the P2 trial. On the other hand GTCB has produced 10's of thousands of dollars in R & D money for Atryn "in excess of LEO transfer price". To my recollection this R & D breakout is never seen in the preliminary results PR. Only in the 10Q's. Hmmm.
It is my understanding that they are trying to get up to scale. Share owners should understand that the bulk of R & D expenditures are production scale expenses despite the fact that almost no production is needed.
Dave
I note with interest that LEO has recruited 0 patients for the P2 trial. On the other hand GTCB has produced 10's of thousands of dollars in R & D money for Atryn "in excess of LEO transfer price". To my recollection this R & D breakout is never seen in the preliminary results PR. Only in the 10Q's. Hmmm.
It is my understanding that they are trying to get up to scale. Share owners should understand that the bulk of R & D expenditures are production scale expenses despite the fact that almost no production is needed.
Dave
Re Raising capital I agree with Dew. A lot of liquidity.
I would add that biotech, as a result of the Dendreon effect, continues to be in favor with institutions.
Institutions have little desire to accumulate illiquid smaller biotechs in small increments over years. They put out the word that they may want $15 or $20 mil of an issue. The small companies grab it into their coffers to the chagrin of the small shareholder who want the institutions to compete in the open market for shares.
Dave
Re SGMO B4 Genentech I valued the protein production component as something like 5 to 10% of the market valuation of the shares or about 18 mil in market cap. Now it seems like it's worth at least a point or 35 mil more in market cap.
The archived conference call added meaningful color to the agreement.
Guestimates are fun.
Dave
Sangamo has "engineered ZFNs to facilitate the efficient generation of production cell lines with altered traits. Our technology has the potential to change the speed and efficiency of cell engineering to meet the increased demand for proteins in a variety of industries including pharmaceutical protein manufacturing."
By targeted I'm referring to the alteration of specific genes to enhance the capabilities or reduce the side effects of a therapeutic.
To date no drug on the market has utilized this capability.
One can see this technology being used to extend patents on existing drugs as well as creating newer more potent biologics with safer profiles. The size and number of companies licensing this protein production capability speaks volumes more than my meager attempt at explanation.
That Genetech expanded the license to cover commercial use lends a credibility that had been missing.
JMHO,
Dave
Big Biotechs' answer to biogenerics.
As it turns out the Sangamo/Genentech deal is much bigger than my initial read. It sets a precedent.
Here is a list of some of thecompanies licensing Sangamo technology for protein production:
Amgen
Pfizer
Genentec
Novartis
Novo Nordisk
Medarex
Medimune
Chiron
The difference with Genentec is that they secured a commercial license that comtemplates converting all biologic production to Sangamo derived protein and cell lines. Instead of using the word royalties the agreement spells out multiple commercial "milestones".
The advantage of Sangamo cell or protein lines is uniqueness. They can easily knock out a specific gene or 2 and are very targeted.
This commercial license sets the precedent. Follow-on agreements can be priced higher, at SGMO's option.
Dave
ELOS has a similar hocus pocus technology that includes light. It's difficult to short these reputed cosmetic enhancement companies. There's a sucker born every day and lots of women with too much time and money.
All of us wish for easy magic.
A few big expose!s would provide the needed impetus.
Duration is the real issue.
Dave
OOPS. Don't buy SGMO. I goofed. Protein production licenses are routine and no big deal. Jumped b4 I read the company's PR.
Dave
SGMO will leap today. Genentech has licensed their core technology for undisclosed terms.
I know they never sell that technology on the cheap.
Bought a bunch in premarket.
Dave
BDSI has interesting aspects. The 505(2b)approval process is being utilized.
Market cap is just 100 mil.
They concentrate on drug delivery through mucous membranes.
There are licensing and relicensing arrangements as well as warrant issues.
I intend to explore it more deeply.
Dave
Bought some MCU. Toe back in the water. Still mostly in cash equivs.
Dave
Re AGIX timing. 100/1 they knew Friday. Options are less well regulated than even shorting.
One can envision AZN PR employees calling the hegdies with the question, "How are we going to handle this?"
AGIX can always say they were wording the spin properly and legally over the weekend.
Dave
Re DNDN BSRdavid summation. Yes.
The lines are clearly drawn for the current stances on DNDN.
To me the heart of the matter is that "substantial evidence" is reaffirmed as the basis for most committees' recommendations. This is good for biotech value in the intermediate term.
Dave
CCR5 knock-out is better than inhibition. Here is a link to an article on SGMO's elegant solution.
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=120938&p=irol-newsArticle&t=Regular&id=90983...
Dave
Possible poll? The Dendreon Effect
I was of the opinion it might last a week. It seems to be having a more profound and longer lasting effect.
Is it causing hedgies to balk?. Did it pique the interest of institutions wishing to rotate? How long might the effect last?
I leave it in Dew's capable hands to structure such a poll (if any).
Comments?
MCU report correction. .05 is the target. The conference call indicated that a number just slightly better than that would garner a much faster FDA review.
Whoever wrote the article was a little confused.
Dave
Re MCU. See biowatch post. The last CC threw a lot of light on the trial. The 100 ng/BK will define MI if it occurs within the first 4 days. Most complications arise during that period. Taking Stroke out of the equation will help getting the p value away from the .028 and more toward the .008. I view immediate success chances > 67%. For pricing models I used $ 700 per patient. Total bypasses should be figured around 375,000 or less.
Good luck.
Dave