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.
Global Demographic Tailwind
>>Watch 1.5 minutes of this video - from 6:30 to 8:00.
Pretty much the same theme. Great graphics too.<<
Gee - nobody cared that I forgot the link!
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html
micro
wallstarb
>>in my original post I mentioned we track NET CASHPER SHARE rations vs PRICE NCPS/PRICE<<
I can't even read that, but it's not what you said in your original post.
>>I look at a % above and below net tangible asset value, and I compare it against historical values <<
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=52438753
>>Also in YOUR example assuming company XYZ had 10mil shares @ $10 and $10m net cash then it's got $1 per share NET CASH (aka net tangible) if they sold $10m worth of stock they'd have 11m shares and $1.10 net cash per share<<
LOL! You think $20m/11m = $1.10?? Arithmetic is not your strong suit ... but what is?
I'll stop.
micro
Global Demographic Tailwind
>>The investing theme I call The Global Demographic Tailwind is alive and well regardless of what happens in the short run to any particular country’s economy.<< [Dew]
Watch 1.5 minutes of this video - from 6:30 to 8:00.
Pretty much the same theme. Great graphics too.
micro
Wallstarb still confused about valuations
Consider one particular company as a proxy for why your method of determining biotech valuation - collectively or individually - makes no sense. On July 20, company XYZ has a market cap of $100M and net tangible value of $10M. It sells $10M worth of shares, and on July 21 it has a market cap of $100M (stock price went down ~10%) and a net tangible value of $20M.
XYZ's pipeline didn't change from July 20 to July 21. Management didn't change. The FDA's hurdle heights didn't change. The economy didn't change. Yet the ratio of market cap to net tangible value just went down by a factor of 2. If you thought the stock was at fair value on July 20 - WOW! What a bargain it is on July 21!
And maybe it would be, if it had a quarterly burn of $10M. But what if it was cash flow breakeven when this happened? In that case the extra $10M in the bank is rather irrelevant.
This argument showing the absurdity of valuing biotechs solely on the basis of net tangible value works just as well with a collection of companies as for one.
The point is that cash or net tangible value is but one small component of determining what a company is worth. Particularly in the case of small cap biotechs it is a tiny piece of the story, but you act like it is the entire story.
>>But maybe you should figure out what the aggregate "pipeline value" is for the 300 or 400 small cap bios we track and let us know when they are "rich" or "cheap" comparatively.<<
I'm not nuts enough to track 300 or 400 small cap bios, but if I did there are a lot of parameters which I'd slop into a formula beyond net tangible value. (E.g. many analysts assign so many points for each Phase 3 candidate, a lesser number for each Phase 2 candidate and so on.)
I track a total of 8 companies right now, because the only way to really know what a company is worth is to study the CRAP out of it.
>>You sound like an investor who didn't get out recently while the getting was good, and I'm sorry for that.<<
You can tell how heavily invested I am simply from the fact that I trashed your method of valuation? That's impressive!
I try to avoid reading your moronic posts with booming headings signifying nothing, but occasionally I slip up.
I'll try to exert more self-control in the future.
micro
How walstarb values biotechs ...
>>I look at a % above and below net tangible asset value, and I compare it against historical values - I have been following it since about 1999. It's just a gauge of how much "premium" on average is being paid for the "pipeline" when you subtract out the liquid assets.<<
>>The companies we were tracking in 2003 are much different then now - but they are comparable, mostly small/mid caps < $5b with the majority in the $200 - $500m market cap area<<
LOL! All you are looking at is how hard it has been for companies to raise cash the previous few quarters. When the average company can raise cash, their net tangible asset value goes up and when they can't it goes down.
Undervalued or overvalued has much more to do with the comparison of market cap to pipeline value. But of course you aren't valuing the pipelines at all; you are essentially just looking at the cash!
***
You use the word "we" a lot, walstarb. "The companies *we* were tracking ...". I sure hope you don't invest with anyone else's money ...
micro
>>X-ray fluoroscopy actually produces a whole lot of radiation - say 60 mGy for a typical 3 minute procedure. That's about the same ballpark as 3 CT scans I believe.<<
Damn. I just looked it up and I think you're right.
This is ridiculous. Anybody here make medical devices? Here's a challenge for you - Find a way to properly place the needle containing contrast agent for an MRI w/o giving someone more than a decade's worth of background radiation!
Right now, it seems the only way that an MRI is safe is if they don't use a contast agent. But without a contrast agent you miss most of the good stuff. Without a contrast agent they couldn't tell if I had a completely torn tendon - which would have required surgery!
micro
>>One big problem I see is some patients died from the Delcath treatment. How do they justify treating early stage liver cancer if there's a risk of dying from the procedure?<<
All liver cancer patients die unless their tumor(s) are completely resectable - which is presumably not the patient population that Delcath is going after.
*If* survival time increases, how can PHP not be approved? Risk of dying from the procedure is of course folded into survival time.
micro
DCTH/PHP
>>I’m referring collectively to the latest generation of HCV drugs from the main drug classes.<< (Dew)
I apologize for not reading more carefully. I agree PHP doesn't appear viable as an HCV treatment, but what about localized primary liver cancer?
Seems like it could be used in some early stage liver cancer patients, many of whom would likely move on to Nexavar when/if they progress.
One thing I don't understand (because I haven't researched it thoroughly) is why PHP should be a significant improvement on TACE/chemoembolization, which is a rather old technique. Anyone?
micro
DCTH
Dew: "It’s highly unlikely, IMO, that DCTH’s PHP will have any role in the treatment of HCV. The latest HCV drug candidates concentrate in the liver on their own and don’t need the assistance of a device."
Sorry if this was discussed elsewhere, but what drug candidates are you referring to, Dew?
micro
O/T medical horror story
>>Overtreated: Too much medical care can make you sick; efforts under way to educate patients<<
>>Americans get the most medical radiation in the world, much of it from repeated CT scans. Too many scans increase the risk of cancer.<<
I needed an MRI to diagnose my rotator cuff (shoulder) injury recently. No worries, I thought. MRI is harmless.
When I showed up they took me into a room with a CT machine. We use this to determine where to place the needle to inject the contract agent. What happened to x-ray fluoroscopy, I asked? Oh, we can see much better with CT so we threw that machine out a couple years ago, they said. Well how much radiation am I going to get from the CT? I have no idea, was the answer.
They did three (3!) CT scans, using successive approximations for the position of the needle. Each scan cut across both my shoulders and chest. So I figure the equivalent of several hundred chest x-rays just so they can look inside my shoulder with a 'perfectly safe' MRI ...
I've been kicking myself for not walking right out of that place when I saw the CT machine. Something about medical establishments makes people docile. Like a cow being led into the slaughter house. By the time she figures out something's wrong, it's too late ...
micro
>>What is the y-axis measuring in slide 26?<< (Dew)
It is the natural logarithm of f/(1-f), where f is the ratio of da Vinci hysterectomy procedures divided by the total # of hysterectomies. So f is the market share fraction for that procedure.
Figure 22 (prostatectomies) is the same idea, but a bit clearer.
micro
Intuitive Surgical (ISRG)
I don’t know if anybody here follows this company, but for unknown reasons, Dew seems happy when I post on it, and of course we all like to make Dew happy.
In the April 17 post I am replying to, I pointed out that Intuitive’s procedure growth rate appeared to be dropping off a cliff.
>> Procedure growth last 6 quarters:
61%
60%
52%
49%
44%
37% (yikes!)<<
I concluded that post by saying:
>> Like all good things, Intuitive's hyper-growth phase may be coming to an end ...<<
At the risk of sounding like a typical ‘in love with his stock’ investor, I must revise my interpretation.
Now I think the quarterly data is mostly ‘noise’.
Three related reasons why I think that …
1. Here are the procedure growth rates for the past 6 years through 2009:
85%
67%
54%
71%
60%
51%
Note that the behavior is not monotonic (e.g. 67%, 54%, 71%) - which is not surprising. The procedure growth rate is a convolution of a huge number of changing situations, involving new da Vinci procedures gaining approval and catching on with surgeons, introduction of new instruments, introduction of improved versions of the da Vinci system, marketing pushes, changes in reimbursement, new international markets being entered, changes in foreign distributors, etc.
Any downward trend in the annual numbers above does appear to be mild, and incompatible with a 2010 number of ~30% or lower. (1Q10 was 37%, down 7% from the previous quarter.)
2. The reason I was initially surprised by the quarterly trend was that da Vinci hysterectomies ‘should’ have been reaching the steepest part of the adoption S curve right about now. However, in the April cc, the company pointed out that while oncologic da Vinci hysterectomies were still taking off, da Vinci benign hysterectomy growth – a much larger market opportunity - had slowed. The company pointed out that these are often elective (or somewhat elective) and were being pushed out for various reasons. The reasons included the resetting of some patients’ copayments and the face that some patients were falling off of COBRA.
These comments (from a no-hype company) suggest that the slow-down of benign hysterectomy adoption may only be temporary.
3. The main reason I want to revise my interpretation of the quarterly trend is as a result of a curve fitting exercise I carried out with the annual numbers, using the company’s own method of analysis.
http://www.slideshare.net/abmedica/ab-medica-dec-2009
See slides 22 and 26.
The result was (as suggested in #1) that the historical numbers do not support the sort of sharp drop off of procedure adoption growth, as suggested by the most recent 6 quarters – meaning the latter likely represents only a short-term trend.
Will procedure growth slow going forward? Of course. But my fits suggest it isn’t likely to drop much below 50% growth for ~5 more years, *very* roughly.
And that’s why I think the quarterly dip is mostly noise. More precisely, not noise, but a short-term rather than a long-term trend.
Time will tell!
micro
>>A few weeks ago I ran into one of my son's oldest friends. He had attended an Ivy League school, studying drama and music, and was now back living at home ...<<
Talk about a scary article. I just forwarded it to my kids who are undergrads at two of the top universities in the country - and both majoring in ... English.
I tried to talk them out of it! I mean what good is a degree that millions of other people have and says little more than you can read, write and find symbolism in novels???
micro
O/T Ozone hole >>If there's any fault so far it's the scientists themselves working in the political arena.
Our world governments have never fixed one thing correctly.<<
No offense, jbog, but that's just nonsense.
Ever hear of the ozone hole and chlorofluorocarbons?
>>Since the adoption and strengthening of the Montreal Protocol has led to reductions in the emissions of CFCs, atmospheric concentrations of the most significant compounds have been declining. These substances are being gradually removed from the atmosphere—since peaking in 1994, the Effective Equivalent Chlorine (EECl) level in the atmosphere had dropped about 10% by 2008. It is estimated that by 2015, the Antarctic ozone hole will have reduced by 1 million km² out of 25 (Newman et al., 2004); complete recovery of the Antarctic ozone layer is not expected to occur until the year 2050 or later.<<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Prospects_of_ozone_depletion
What man can screw up, man can also fix. It isn't always easy and it isn't always cheap. But what's really annoying is when people delay what is necessary on the grounds that it isn't easy or cheap or that there isn't even a problem. Then by the time everybody agrees there is a problem and it must be fixed it is a many times harder and a lot more expensive to fix!
micro
>>Except for radiation seeds, you don't mention radiation. Is there a reason?<<
Good question. Not a good reason.
I think 'radiosurgery' (Cyberknife) is probably the best method of treating prostate cancer with radiation. Compared to da Vinci my feeling is that it is a little less efficacious but there are a lot less side effects.
I think it is a little less efficacious, because since PSA doesn't generally go down all the way to 0 after radiosurgery, it doesn't kill all the prostate tissue. And if it doesn't kill all the prostate tissue, it means the chance that prostate cancer will come back is not 0. This is not the case with da Vinci, where PSA can actually go down all the way to 0 and stay there, and that happens something like 95+% of the time.
Regarding side effects of radiosurgery, I think it is too new to know for sure. You want hundreds of patients followed for 10 years or more, and that hasn't happened yet. But usually patients walk out of the treatment center with no obvious ill effects, and in the near term, most don't have severe problems with incontinence, impotence, etc. So it looks like a treatment which is much milder on the patient and preliminary studies indicates that it works pretty well on the cancer - though not as well as surgery as argued above.
micro
Warming ...
>>OT: If you're going to subscribe to that poppycock, at least give us some ersatz hockey sticks or pretend tree rings.<<
I didn't bring up the topic; somebody else did. And perhaps you will find my post 94371 more convincing.
But from your choice of wording, I doubt it. You've already made up your mind, most likely through politics rather than science, because the science is clear. But hang in there. With enough people thinking as you do, all you will have to do is live long enough to become convinced.
micro
Global warming
>>I don't think there is any dispute that the earth has gotten warmer just whether the majority of that increase is due to human actions or uncontrollable natural global changes. I'm a believer that human actions have had an immaterial impact to global warming.<<
Anyone who understands the CO2 - temperature plot should have great difficulty in doubting that human actions are directly responsible for global warming.
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-CO2-Temp.gif
http://whyfiles.org/211warm_arctic/images/1000yr_change.jpg
It's really that simple. Burn wood, coal and gasoline, and you release CO2 into the air. Release CO2 into the air and more radiation from the sun is trapped rather than re-radiated into space, by known and very well-understood chemistry. So the temperature goes up. If you don't believe the details of the modeling, that's fine. They are quite complicated and not all the effects are under good control. But at least believe the correlation, which is obvious from the graphs and from basic science. And appreciate from the plots that the CO2 concentration and temperature are increasing at an increasing rate . It is this acceleration of the problem that is the most worrying thing. At some point you are so far out of equilibrium that even reducing CO2 emissions to 0 won't solve the problem. The system approaches a new equilibrium state which looks less like our present Earth and more like the present Venus.
That's why we don't have the luxury to wait another decade or two until the models are accurate enough to determine whether when we will pass the 'tipping point', the point of no return. The answer may be that we've already passed it ...
"Reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."
micro
>>ISRG Posts Another Blowout Quarter (but shares dip slightly in AH session)
[I’ve preempted microcapfun in order to spare readers the ordeal of being called idiots for not focusing on the procedure count :- ) 1Q10 procedure volume was +37% year-over-year; procedure-volume-growth guidance for the full year remains unchanged at 35%.] << (Dew)
Drat. Forced to be consistent in recognizing procedures as the leading indicator of da Vinci adoption rather than system sales, I am compelled to admit that Q1 was not a blowout quarter but in fact a really crappy quarter - and indicative of a trend which is suprising and annoying to me.
Procedure growth last 6 quarters:
61%
60%
52%
49%
44%
37% (yikes!)
I'm surprised at the last couple data points, because Intuitive should be riding up the steepest part of the hysterectomy adoption S curve right about now, and the hysterectomy market is several times as large as the prostatectomy market. When I played with the numbers 2-3 quarters ago it looked to me like procedure growth would flatten close to 50% for several more quarters until hysterectomy adoption growth began to peter out. I thought the 44% might be an outlier, perhaps related to people putting off non-life threatening operations due to economic conditions, but the 37% number screams "downward trend!".
Like all good things, Intuitive's hyper-growth phase may be coming to an end ...
micro
ISRG
>>microcapfun would presumably say these findings are commercially irrelevant because patients continue to demand to be treated by ISRG’s da Vinci<<
I would not go quite so far, Dew.
I have noticed that there has been a lot of press in the past few months focusing on 2 or 3 studies which don't put da Vinci in the most favorable light. But there have been thousands of other studies which have received no mention in the press. I used to search for them once a week using Science Direct until a few years ago I couldn't handle the throughput anymore. The following are my personal observations and conclusions regarding da Vinci prostatectomy (dVP) vs open surgery, radiation seeds and watchful waiting from everything I've read over many years.
1. Not all studies agree. (D'oh!)
2. Some studies are based on old data from before the average dVP surgeon had hundreds of dVP's under his belt - from when he was still climbing the learning curve.
3. There have been 0 large scale prospective, randomized studies of dVP vs alternatives, and I don't really understand why. Seems like in poorer countries if somebody is willing to pay for treatment, a lot of prostate cancer patients would jump at the chance for any of the treatment options.
4. I believe the negative impact on quality of life is, in order of least to greatest, watchful waiting, radiation seeds, dVP, open prostatectomy.
5. I believe the treatment efficacy obtained, in order of worst to best, is watchful waiting, radiation seeds - and then there is a rough tie between dVP and open prostatectomy, with efficacy determined more from the quality and experience of the surgeon than the mode of surgery.
If I get prostate cancer (and just about all men do if they live long enough), I expect to get a dVP, because I believe it is at least tied for best efficacy with open surgery, and the impact on quality of life is less than open surgery (though not everybody agrees). If nothing else, you lose less blood and get your life back more quickly. Both procedures usually cause incontinence only briefly, and with both there is a significant risk of partial or complete impotence.
micro
>>Nonetheless, "biologic activity" can and must equate to clinical efficacy before one gets to go from the lab to the patient to prove whether it works. I mean you have to prove it works in the lab before anyone will let you prove it works (or not) in patients.<<
Again, every drug which makes it into the clinic works in the lab, and a high percentage show some sort of biologic activity in patients. Yet the great majority of them eventually fail for one reason or another, and I can't think of any which did not show clear efficacy after 5 years of clinical testing and yet eventually were successful.
>>So what chemo agent out there is completely non toxic?<<
It's a therapeutic window issue. As you increase the dose, you want to see efficacy before you reach severe toxicity. Geron's drug doesn't appear to have any therapeutic window.
>>The abstracts at AACR show promise<<
Cells and mice. Irrelevant at this point.
>>Okarma said he plans an 80 (OK, then he 50) center study for breast cancer. Surely that is not based on a drug that does not work.<<
LOL. At some point Okarma is going to have trouble finding any centers and any patients if that drug continues to fail in the clinic.
>>Okarma says these are disruptive technologies, so far besides his warped sense of time and tendency toward hyperbole I have given the benefit of the doubt.<<
I did for a while. But it's worthwhile to read the specific product-related claims he was making a dozen years ago and to realize how none have come to anywhere close to fruition thus far.
micro
>>Is dangerous warming occurring? No.<<
Even the Bush administration finally came to realize that Global Warming is not some fairy tale cooked up by left-wing academics. A few silly emails later and the flat earthers are all pumped up again.
The sad thing is that every year that we twiddle our thumbs will make it much more difficult and expensive to turn this problem around. Pay now or pay many times more later.
Or you reach a tipping point and its game over, Flat Earthers win.
"Reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
micro
Forgive my bluntness, but the prizes appear a bit lame. For winning the 25 million post contest I received $1500 cash. (Needless to say, that was *much* appreciated!) But the prize for winning the 50 million post contest is ... "ULTIMATE TRADER"?? What the heck is that, and why would anyone want it? I don't even plan to enter given the list of prizes. micro
>>Imetelstat has not be promulgated as a cancer cure particularly as a single agent<<
Actually there was a time when Okarma did use the word "cure" and it was hoped the drug would be efficacious as a single agent. When both hopes failed, the goalposts were widened and moved - par for the course with Geron.
To my knowledge - and if I'm wrong, somebody here will surely point it out in a millisecond or two - there has never been a successful cancer drug which did not show some clear signs of efficacy first as a single agent. And that includes Avastin, although Avastin turned out to be much more efficacious in apppropriate combinations.
Imetelstat has shown no signs of efficacy as a single agent after almost 5 years and numerous clinical trials applying it to a wide variety of indications. The drug has turned out to be quite toxic, whereas many predicted it would not be until one reached doses much higher than needed for efficacy. I don't rule out the possibility that imetelstat may eventually be shown to work, but the chances are quite slim at this point and the suggestion that some other drug not working is good news for Geron is like saying in September 2008 that some banks failing is good news for Lehman Brothers.
BTW - telomerase inhibition demonstrates biological activity, but NOT clinical efficacy.
>>Check out the current abstracts at AACR suggesting significant activity across broad cancer types.<<
Every drug that makes it into the clinic first shows activity against cancer cells in test tubes and in mice. Yet >90% fail.
>>I am content to sit back, be patient, watch the scientists do their work and be amazed.<<
And lose money. (Sorry - couldn't resist!) Geron has always done great and exciting science. But after 20 years they are still not even close to becoming a business, let alone a profitable one. Good luck, though.
micro
Geron
>>Bad news for patients and some investors, possible good news for imetelstat (Geron) and some investors.<<
Good news for imetelstat??? Why should one drug failing be good news for another drug failing? Do you know how many years imetelstat (GRN163L) has been in clinical trials? (Almost 5.) How many clinical trials have been run or are running with that drug? How many types of cancer they have looked at?
All that and no sign of efficacy.
micro
Love/Coles/Onyx
>>then he was running his trials and running out of money, and low and behold he is saved by ONXX. Coles was not running ONXX at the time, so they must have become friendly after he joined.<< (drbio)
Coles was appointed CEO at Onyx February 2008, Love was appointed SVP February 2010.
Look guys ... Love's resume looks more impressive than I realized. I apologize for sounding bigoted. In my defense I have married two non-Caucasian women (though not at the same time) and voted for Obama.
(Of course in this crowd, voting for Obama will probably make me even less popular than a real bigot ...)
micro
>>I hate to say it but that's an obnoxious and bigoted thing to say.<<
He does have a very nice resume. Maybe my suspicion is wrong. What is your honest opinion, rkrw? Did skin color have anything to do with this hiring decision, or not?
micro
>>Why do you say that? Being a bad CEO at one company does not necessarily make someone unqualified to be a CMO at another company.<< (Dew)
Let's just say that if I were searching for the Executive Vice President and Head of Research and Development of my $2 billion dollar company, failed CEOs would have a hard time working their way to the top of my shortlist. And I expect it would be the same for you.
But I take back what I said. Let me try again. There may be many reasons why Coles hired Love - none of which I am aware of - but given that African Americans are rare at senior levels in Biotech/Pharma, statistics and suspicion suggest that one possible reason may be that Coles wanted another African American at the senior executive level.
(Full disclosure: I'm color blind, and wish everybody else was too.)
micro
>>Someone at ONYX must love Love<<
I hate to say this, but the only reason I can find for why Love was hired at Onyx is because both he and Onyx's CEO are African-American.
micro
>>OT: Liquid He and superconducting.
Just curious whether anyone knows if Liquid N, touted at one point as costing as much to produce as beer and much more plentiful, could eventually replace the liquid He needs for superconducting. It's already used quite a bit, but there seems to be a cooling limit for N vs. He. <<
If you have a material which is superconducting above 77K then you can use liquid nitrogen instead of liquid helium to keep it in the superconducting phase. See "Examples" in the link below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_superconductivity
Suitability of material properties for scalable manufacturing and specific applications determine whether these high-temperature superconductors are superior to those with transition temperatures below 77K.
micro
>>ISRG - I'm amazed in this climate of low credit that they were able to sell systems worth more than a million dollars. Any thoughts as to how they did it? Perhaps some hospitals like Georgetown have sufficient capital but there has to be uncertainty even amongst cash rich hospitals that they may not get enough patients to make it a worthwhile investment.<< (turtlepower)
The hospitals which are not offering robotic-assisted prostatectomies or hysterectomies are *losing* patients to those that are. The business case for the hospitals is as simple as that - although one could spend a lot of time discussing WHY that is so.
The larger hospitals still have cap ex budgets; they just have to be pickier than they used to be. Also a surprising fraction of da Vinci systems are purchased through donations that are usually funneled through hospital boards and foundations. Not as many of those are coming in as compared to 2-3 years ago, so again, tough decisions are being made - but more often than not they are being made in favor of buying da Vincis.
micro
>>For cancer drugs, oral delivery is generally more of a negative than a positive from a business standpoint. The reason for this is way Medicare Part B is set up.<< (Dew)
I think the situation is just the opposite in Europe.
A medical advantage of oral delivery is that in case of serious side effects, one is typically working with a half-life on the order of a day with a pill versus a week or more with an injection. And of course most patients would prefer the greater control over their life offered by a pill that they can take on their own, wherever they are.
micro
>>How about posting a summary of the ISRG CC?<<
I actually am not planning on listening to the entire thing for a while. And a transcript should be out in a few hours. But I'll post some more next time I crunch my numbers.
micro
>>I just bought you a 3-month premium subscription<<
Horray - I'm rich, I'm rich!
And Dew bought me a subscription, too ... ;o)
micro
P.S. I'm going to predict Intuitive procedure growth for 2010 ... 50% again. They are on the steepest part of the hysterectomy adoption curve. Company guidance is only 35%, but it will go up as the year moves forward - as happens every year.
ISRG
Per the conference call, 2009 procedures grew by 51% year over year, compared to my prediction of 50% near the beginning of 2009.
I guess I win the jackpot, eh Dew? Any chance I can convert that iHub subscription to cash? ;o)
All the key numbers for the year were all modestly higher than I expected, thanks to a very strong 4th quarter. The stock still looks undervalued to me, by about a factor of 2. That assumes many more years of very rapid earnings growth ahead.
micro
>>
>1. Nature Biotechnology (monthly)<
How much is a subscription?<<
Probably a lot. But if you have access to an academic library (preferably online), you can read it for free.
>>
>5. The New Yorker (weekly)<
Seriously?<<
Not really. I have been reading Time magazine, which is rather fluffy. A friend of mine suggested I switch to The New Yorker. I promised to give it a try when my Time subscription ran out.
micro
>>90 million upfront for a drug that doesn't even have phase II data yet. Color me shocked as I did not think they would get anything near this sum, especially given the limited data at hand.<<
The RA data was convincing enough for Incyte's first JAK inhibitor, INCB18424, and everybody knows the company split one drug into two for marketing purposes. Plus I assume Lilly saw some solid interim data from the P2 trial with the 2nd JAK inhibitor.
I posted previously how the MPD/oncology deal with Novartis allowed Incyte to keep significant rights.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=43917275
They have already begun to monetize them. A slick move.
>>Friedman's performance this year has been quite impressive.<<
Yeah. And INCY has been good to me this year ...
micro
READING LIST FOR THE NEXT DECADE – trolling for suggestions
I suspect that I’m not the only one here who likes to keep up with a broader spectrum of information than just biotech. My investments come from all of tech and biotech, and I am particularly attracted to companies with cutting edge, patent-protected technologies (d’oh!), which have a serious business rather vague dreams of one a decade from now. I’m always interested in new tech/investing ideas, but also in trying to keep up, albeit at a very low level, with basic science, the world economy, current events, etc.
None of us have sufficient time to read everything we would like. Arbitrarily, I’ve chosen 10 as the magic number of periodicals that I’m going to try to keep up with during the next decade. Here’s a preliminary stab at a list for my top 10, which is admittedly a mile wide and only a couple inches deep:
1. Nature Biotechnology (monthly)
2. MIT Technology Review (bimonthly)
3. Scientific American (monthly)
4. Wall Street Journal (daily – skip the editorial/opinion pages!)
5. The New Yorker (weekly)
6. The Economist (weekly)
7. Chemical and Engineering News (weekly)
8. Science Magazine (weekly)
9. EE Times (weekly??)
10. TED (http://www.ted.com/)
How would you change this list?? What substitutions would you make?? Why?
Please give me some ideas before I finalize this list!
Happy Holidays to All!
micro
Incyte
http://investor.incyte.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=69764&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1359169&highlight=
This looks like a truly excellent partnership deal for Incyte. I've never seen such a good deal for a product which isn't through Phase 3 (plus a preclinical candidate thrown in). Note that Incyte is keeping all U.S. rights, all non-oncology/hematology rights (e.g. RA) and may get a total of $1.31B in upfront payment and milestones. Plus Novartis pays much of the future development costs and gives Incyte a double digit royalty on ex-U.S. sales. Pretty amazing.
It seems clear that Novartis thinks the hem-onc JAK2 inhibitor market is likely to be a lot bigger than just myelofibrosis ...
micro
INCY/Pfizer
In 2005 Incyte and Pfizer did a CCR2 collaboration deal which could have been worth up to $803MM + royalties to Incyte (the 2nd biggest collaboration deal of that year as I recall) ... but something clearly went wrong. Incyte got hardly any milestones, none of the indications Incyte was pursuing survived under Pfizer, and only one Pfizer Phase 2 trial (in knee pain!) was carried out.
I assume something bad must have happened, but to the best of my knowledge, neither Pfizer or Incyte ever explained what it was.
Just out of curiosity, does anybody happen to know what went wrong?
micro
>>Whats the connection between PML and benlysta?<<
Quite possibly nothing. Just that Rituxan selectively depletes B-cells and so does benlysta. Rituxan has been associated with PML due to suppressed immune surveillance and so ...
Now I realize that benlysta is supposed to be the kinder, gentler Rituxan and the details of B-cell depletion are quite different. That said, the possibility of PML in the case of benlysta is something I've wondered about once or twice. I was wondering if anybody else here had considered it.
micro