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.
rkrw: Thanks for the link
How does someone access these reports? From a broker? Direct from the analyst? From a consolidator? Are these research reports regulated? Are they released to everyone at the same time? If a random report can move the stock 20% and certain people have a access to it before others, I can see a lot of abuse potential there. However, that must be the raison d'être of these reports. I still could not figure out the mechanism of publishing and accessing these reports.
Also I wonder what ratio of people trading a stock after a report are investors investing because of the information in the report vs traders because of the sentiment in the report.
Early evidence that docetaxel may continue to be relevant in CRPC in the near future. This is very important for OGXI investors.
I think investors expected a little bit better HCC data. At least I did. That might be the reason of the latest weakness.
I would like to see a statistics about this. However, a decent size trial powered 90% to show a 25-35% improvement at final should be powered at least 20% at interim assuming the interim is at 1/2 # of events and uses standard OBF under the exact assumptions used during trial design. So I say the probability of early unblinding at interim should be higher than this at least if you think original trial design assumptions are correct (or if you think the trial will be a success at the end).
It seems like it is not ALK.
According to the presentation made today by George Farmer, the Vice President of Corporate Development at Deutsche Bank Health Care Conference, the decision to move to P3 was based on TWO prespecified subpopulations. That's interesting.
Also, he insinuated that the data in these subpopulations is way better than mere doubling of the PFS even though he admits that he has not seen the data.
I also had a bunch of low ball offers. Some got filled. POZN is now the only non-oncology (yet) stock I have in my portfolio. I believe the market is miscalculating the potential of the PA program in cardiovascular diseases and its (future?) implications in oncology.
Re: AEZS-108
Anyone with an opinion on AEZS-108 or AEZS? Is AEZS's ~$30M enterprise value justified somehow? Or (unnecessary?) punishment for perifosine's failure?
Thanks
This consequences of this theory reminds me Soros' musings on reflexivity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexivity_%28social_theory%29 ). I think the fun just begins.
I'm not sure how the market will react but this is better than my expectations. I did not expect to find M/LA>3 and median cycles of G > 3.
I found the answer. The threshold at interim was p<0.0108 as described in the latest CC.
Since the PR you referenced had the following quote mentioning 0.046, I assumed the interim's pre-defined statistical threshold for efficacy was around p<~0.005 and with 350 patients at interim, I was not expecting the study to show a large treatment difference at the final and thus did not consider risk/reward favorable for investment.
Why would they do that? Thanks. -summer
Does anyone know why the stocks go up before such offer? For example, OGXI was up 7.6% today.
The simple explanation that the companies take advantage of the higher pps does not apply in this case as the SEC docs filed by OGXI indicates that the offer was prepared yesterday (e.g., it has the following sentence: "On March 14, 2012, the last reported sale price of our common stock on The NASDAQ Capital Market was $16.20 per share.")
I observed this behavior in many other stocks as well.
Is it because there are clauses that prevent investors from being in short position if they want to participate? (So stocks go up because short position must be closed)? Or is there any other simple explanation?
Thanks
-summer
I am extremely surprised by this. One co-primary end point doesn't reach statistical significance and the trial still ends early? Did J&J apply a little bit of pressure on DMC to get abiraterone out asap to hamper the MDV3100 trial or prevent MDV3100 messing abi data? Now, we wont even know the real OS advantage was. I knew that the choice of DMC makes a difference but I didnt expect this.
On DMC.
If the futility boundary is binding, the co can recover some of the alpha spent on efficacy. If the boundaries are asymmetrical, that might explain the lack of alpha spent.
I am trying to see if the futility can be even stricter than OBF (p>~0.5 @3/4).
And you are right. DMC can stop the trial anytime.
If you think OBF with Lan DeMets is a necessity/possibility, can there be asymmetrical boundaries for futility and efficacy for this trial? Any hint that the futility boundary was binding? (I am trying to reconcile the missing alpha spent).
Can it be OBF with Lan DeMets spending?
[I did not follow ONTY closely to check if the above is a plausible question]
I had a large THLD position. I sold most on Friday.
The reason I invested was mostly based on the fact that this trial had too many arms, endpoints and sugroups (all valid). Then also this trial had randomized crossover to one of the drug arms which makes it also a small 2ndline PC trial. I assumed that when they announce the results, since this is a P2 trial, they will be clever enough to pick the one combination that looks the best (e.g., gem vs 340mgTH302 for OS in LA sugbroup and say it achieved statistical significance; amazing HR or median, etc.) and call the trial a success. The reason they can pick a winner combination is that even if TH302 were placebo, each comparison had a 2.5% success and with so many combinations, the probability that at least one or multiple combinations would be a success is substantial.
Another reason I invested was based on an event analysis that showed that overall the patients were doing better than the gemcitabine arm of the past PC trials which in this case was consistently ~4m median PFS. The issue in the event analysis is that we dont know the dropout ratio (e.g., % censored due to AE and other reasons). I assumed about 15% mostly due to the fact the co increased # of patients from 122 to 144 but also # of patients from 165 to 214 (A decrease from 3/4 to 2/3). This change, I assumed, was initiated by DMC due to larger % dropout than initially estimated. In some of the past firstline gem PC trials, the dropout ratios reached ~30%. So I thought DMC informed the co of the mistake in the design and the co corrected it.
The unexpected part was Merck deal which binds success to the official primary endpoint of the trial. So the co does not have the wiggle room I mentioned. Second, the co can do this event analysis better than we can and can estimate dropouts better than we can. For them to sign a deal at this moment means that the odds of success is as I calculated and we have a high dropout ratio.
If you are planning to invest for the PC trial, think what success (say PFS from 4m to 7m) means.
If you are planning to play for long term, see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22240283 (ignore the abstract. The overall survival KM is listed in an appendix in the paper as apparently it was probably reached after the peer review).
However, Anti-angiogenics + TH-302 is quite appealing and I believe that's the primary reason of the Merck deal.
Good luck no matter what you decide.