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.
Agree completely that covered call writing can be an extremely attractive strategy given good liquidity and a large open interest.
Next out month = feb?
Schwab must be reporting bad data. It shows zero volume and an open interest for the 16's of a grand total of 105 contracts.
4-8% p.m., except that you have to deal with wide spreads in many of the MNTA series. And low volume - 1 contract of the jan 15's traded today, for example.
Maybe because post Xmas is a slow week?
(Edit - 3 contracts total of the jan calls traded today)
the FDA did not require "sameness" or complete characterization in approving MNTA's generic:
That can only be interpreted as favorable to TEVA's early approval chances and may explain why MNTA trades like the sword of Damocles was hanging over its head. When the sword falls, the negative effect may be limited.
Given that there are millions of overweights looking for a painless in-a-bottle way to lose weight, there would be a firestorm against the FDA if it was not approved.
they assume some responsibility for subsequent statements by that analyst.
In addition to a Reg FD violation.
but this effect disappeared toward the end of the trial.
I did read a snippet some time ago that the early favorable effects of omega-3 supplementation wear off over time, which is puzzling to my untutored mind. But even if it was tutored, there may be other confounding variables like age, life style changes and others I can't think of.
why would that be msg board speculation?
Because for every fervid take over speculation on a biotech message board, how many pan out?
I've never made much money on a trade based on the expectation of a take over. That's an area where the pros have a big advantage in ferreting out the facts.
First time I've seen a discussion of ARIA without a mention of Rida as part of the total mix.
If tLovenox is actually Lupenox, Teva is sailing very close to the wind of materially misleading investors as to its approvability, I would think.
Sans doute. One transaction instead of two. Saves typing into Quicken.
At the risk of testing Dew's patience, I think it is worth pointing out that if you're bullish on MNTA but feel you own enough shares outright, a short-term buy-write strategy is pretty attractive right now.
So is a straight write put strategy. Terrible liquidity, but if you can get a price in between the bid/ask spread on the jun 15's you can pocket 3k on a write of 10 contracts. The question to ask oneself is whether MNTA will dip below 12 in the event of a T-enox approval.
I'm like Yogi Berra and forks in the road. If you see 90% IV's on the ground, take them.
Thank you.
I would simply take the drug.
What drug would you take?
I think you'll find the problem is volume, as in "virtually none."
I fully agree that it would be stupid of me to write calls against my core position, but that's not the point. The strategy is to set up a separate option portfolio in order to take advantage of IV's that are currently in the 90's(!). It's because I have a bullish view of MNTA's prospects that I'd consider the strategy - getting called would be a favorable outcome - 10% on investment for just over a month's work, plus the gain on the core holdings. Can't beat that with a stick.
I agree with your reasoning. There is enough uncertainty that MNTA should not be a conviction buy. But there appear to be a whole mob of bravehearts who think it's a conviction short. THAT's the population I don't get
I assume you are saying the smart money is keeping the price down artificially? Okay, then why isn't the smarter money buying and cleaning them out? And what is the shorts' end game, if they're shorting into deep value?
And the next question is whether browbeating the FDA in this way is likely to put its back up or cause it to retreat into bureaucratic inertia.
Inertia on Copaxone is all Teva needs.
And ethanol promotion remains official policy.
The spectre of inflation loomed over agricultural markets after the US slashed key crop forecasts and warned of shortfalls in grains.
The agriculture department on Tuesday cut estimates of US corn yields for a third successive month, forecast record soyabean exports to China and warned of the slimmest cotton stocks since 1925.
“The combined production shortfalls and dramatic potential stock drawdowns mean a much tighter supply picture than just a few months ago,” the agency said in a separate grains report.
Benchmark Chicago corn futures soared above $6 a bushel for the first time since August 2008, before ending lower. Soyabeans rose 4.3 per cent and New York cotton futures posted a record above $1.51 a pound. The price rises have revived fears of a repeat of the global food crisis of 2007-08.
In Europe, milling wheat surpassed a peak reached after Russia banned grain exports in August in response to a devastating drought.
Abdolreza Abbassian, senior grains economist at the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation in Rome, said the report was “alarming”.
<Snip>
I'm not sure quarter to quarter revenue comparisons are at all meaningful, but the stock is down a dime.
7:39AM Ariad Pharm misses by $0.06, misses on revs (ARIA) 3.71 : Reports Q3 (Sep) loss of $0.18 per share, $0.06 worse than the Thomson Reuters consensus of ($0.12); revenues fell 42.6% year/year to $1.2 mln vs the $1.4 mln consensus. The co expects to end 2010 with cash provided by operations of ~$5 million, reflecting the impact of payments received in connection with executing the restructured agreement with Merck in May 2010. With the net proceeds from the October offering of common stock, the co expects that its cash and cash equivalents at December 31, 2010 will be ~$102 million.
Biting the hand that feeds you (especially so close to meal time) is wreckless
More like guaranteed to ensure a wreck.
MNTA IVs are fairly expensive - over 70, per schwab.
Actually, it sounds like a Soviet tractor factory.
Actually the action yesterday is what grabbed my attention.(VRTX)
Does any know of the reason for the VRTX sell off?
We need James Carville to come in and remind the market - "It's the IP, stupid."
It seems to me that it would depend on the degree of manipulation required to pass the test.
NYT
However, the government suggested such a change would have limited impact on the biotechnology industry because man-made manipulations of DNA, like methods to create genetically modified crops or gene therapies, could still be patented
I see this has been addressed in another post. sorry.
I just got a popup adjacent to this board asking "what china health care company trades at a 5 P/E with 35% growth?"
Easy answer. Which China health care company doesn't, or claims to?
(I do own some, I'll admit)
all we have in the public domain is ItalFarmaco's status as the producer of Lupenox whose facilities have been inspected by the FDA in September of 2010. A small amount of circumstantial evidence, at best.
I still think it's hardly credible that TEVA would foist Lupenox on the FDA as a fully characterized Lovenox, but I'd say it was strong circumstantial evidence that Italfarmaco are producing whatever TEVA is showing the FDA. It may not be Lupenox, however, but something a whole lot closer to the FDA's criteria. That's my worry.
But IF we find that the tL is already being marketed in South America or elsewhere
That would be interesting. Do we know that it is or may be?
What is your take on the AEs? Were they to be expected in a drug such as Rida?
ARIA
CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:ARIA - News) today announced interim results of a randomized, open-label, active-control multicenter Phase 2 study of oral ridaforolimus, an investigational mTOR inhibitor, in patients with metastatic or recurrent endometrial cancer. Based on this interim analysis, the study demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in the primary endpoint of median progression-free survival (PFS) in patients receiving single-agent ridaforolimus compared to patients receiving standard-of-care treatment. The data were presented Saturday in the Plenary Session of the 13th Biennial Meeting of the International Gynecologic Cancer Society being held in Prague, Czech Republic. Ridaforolimus is currently being developed by Merck in multiple cancer indications under an exclusive license and collaboration agreement with ARIAD.
“We are very encouraged by the data with oral ridaforolimus, which for the first time demonstrated improvement in PFS in patients with advanced endometrial cancer receiving a targeted therapy in a well-controlled clinical trial,” stated Amit Oza, M.D., professor of medicine at the Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. "These resultssupport a previous non-randomized study of ridaforolimus in the same patient population.”
The interim analysis was based on 114 patients enrolled at 39 sites in North America and Europe. Patients in the trial were randomized to receive either oral ridaforolimus (n=57), or oral progestin (n=48) or chemotherapy (n=9), both standard treatments in patients with advanced endometrial cancer. PFS was determined using RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors) criteria based on radiologic studies conducted every two months. An independent review committee evaluated all of the radiologic studies for determination of PFS. The interim analysis demonstrated a significant improvement in the study’s primary endpoint, PFS, with a statistically significant 1.7 month difference in median PFS (ridaforolimus, 3.6 months; standard of care, 1.9 months, p=0.007) and a hazard ratio of 0.52.
The interim analysis also showed that the most common adverse events observed with ridaforolimus were mucositis (38.2%), stomatitis (21.8%) and hyperglycemia (27.3%), which have been observed in previous studies and are considered to be class effects of mTOR inhibitors. Overall, patients treated with ridaforolimus had significantly more serious adverse events (23.6%) than patients treated with the standard of care (3.8%).
"Based on these data indicating a statistically significant improvement in the trial’s primary endpoint of PFS, Merck has stopped further enrollment in the trial, while continuing to follow surviving patients,” said Eric Rubin, M.D., vice president, Oncology, Merck Research Laboratories.
About Ridaforolimus
Ridaforolimus is a targeted and potent small-molecule inhibitor of the protein mTOR. mTOR acts as a central regulator of protein synthesis, cell proliferation, cell cycle progression and cell survival, integrating signals from proteins such as PI3K, AKT and PTEN known to be important to malignancy.
About Endometrial Cancer
Endometrial cancer, which develops from the inner lining of the uterus, is the most common cancer found in the female reproductive system. Prognosis for patients is primarily based on the time of diagnosis relative to the stage of the cancer. Initial treatment consists of surgery alone, or in combination with radiation, chemotherapy and/or hormonal therapy. For those women with disease progression, chemotherapy is the only currently available treatment option, and limited benefit has been seen in such cases, emphasizing the need for new therapies.
Leaving aside that a penny on 1000 shares is all of 10$. No self respecting trader will pick up the phone to make 10$.
Occam's razor. The guy wants the stock and wants to be the best bid.
I use ARCA or NSDQ, direct entry, and do not verify.
I will admit to the greed part, tho.
I've seen that happen even with small orders. As soon as you put your bid in, a bid a penny above yours miraculously appears - instantaneously. Especially pre market.
Frankly, I thought he did a good job of explaining up front how his job required him to work both sides of the fence.
Smart guy.
General interest, don't believe this has been posted. If it has, apologies.
Law Blog
By Ashby Jones
This just in: A federal judge in Detroit Thursday afternoon rejected a request for a preliminary injunction to halt the health-care overhaul signed into law by President Obama back in March.
In his 20-page opinion, Judge George Caram Steeh upheld the constitutionality of the law, finding that Congress possesses the authority under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to require that every American purchase health insurance. Click here for the Bloomberg report; here for the opinion; here for other LB coverage of challenges to the health-care law.
Steeh’s analysis under the Commerce Clause was broken into two parts. First, he found that the economic decisions that the Act regulates as to how to pay for health care services affect the interstate health care market. He wrote:
decisions to forego insurance coverage in preference to attempting to pay for health care out of pocket drive up the cost of insurance. The costs of caring for the uninsured who prove unable to pay are shifted to health care providers, to the insured population in the form of higher premiums, to governments, and to taxpayers. . . . These decisions, viewed in the aggregate, have clear and direct impacts on health care providers, taxpayers, and the insured population who ultimately pay for the care provided to those who go without insurance.
Next Steeh found that the individual mandate, the provision that requires everyone to have health coverage, was essential to the act’s larger goal of regulating “the interstate business of health insurance.” He wrote:
Without the minimum coverage provision, there would be an incentive for some individuals to wait to purchase health insurance until they needed care, knowing that insurance would be available at all times. As a result, the most costly individuals would be in the insurance system and the least costly would be outside it. In turn, this would aggravate current problems with cost-shifting and lead to even higher premiums. The prospect of driving the insurance market into extinction led Congress to find that the minimum coverage provision was essential to the larger regulatory scheme of the Act.
Steeh, nominated to the bench by Bill Clinton in 1997, is the first to rule on the constitutionality of the so-called individual mandate. A federal judge in Virginia denied a motion to dismiss a similar lawsuit. A federal judge in Pensacola, Fla., has indicated he is inclined to do the same.
The Thomas More Law Center, an Ann Arbor-based Christian legal center which sued along with four plaintiffs, told the Detroit Free Press that it plans to appeal the decision.
“I think it’s important that this decision be reversed to prevent Congress from overreaching the way it did in passing the original mandate,” said law center attorney Robert Muise.
Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said the department was pleased with the decision and added that it “will continue to vigorously defend this law in ongoing litigation.”
Thanks, but no thanks - didn't buy it. Worst of all was MOS - danced around it all day yesterday but chickened out in the end.
I hate the phrase "buying opportunity", but a decent drop on TEVA approval would be one.