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.
Oppenheimer's new analyst has a more bearish view of Ariad then their previous analyst Brett Holley.
There are a few heavy hitters here with some early Ariad positions and substantial gains. For those fortunate folks, it will cost an additional 9% now. Hopefully we can sell at $50 someday and it won't make a difference.
Now thanks to the benefit of hindsight, that $25 sell I had tee'd up for one third of my position was looking pretty good. Oh well.
There is a 3.8% obamacare tax on capital gains as well. So it's 8.9% instead of 5%.
How many of those 400 are ex US? That 300 may go down some or become 1/2 year paying patients
I liked the name they trademarked for Rida, Jenzyl. Too bad MRK owns it.
First negative broker, Jeffries cuts Aria from $27 to $23.
Still rates a buy.
JQ
Good response. Not going to go tit for tat with you. In short, Like Don, I welcome all comers when it comes to different investment opinions. I believe we will look back and see this as what would have been a nice entry point. We will see how this develops going forward.
I Bought 1000 Jan 20 calls at the close Friday. I am looking for some positive broker opinions for tomorrow.
He is one of Peter's favorites as well.
I think by the time you get your engraved in stone data as to the cause of the SAE's, Ponatinib (Iclusig) will be well on it's way to gaining momentum as a leading CML drug. By that time, the PPS sale you are seeing now (and it may go lower) will have been a distant memory and another lost opportunity to invest in this company at a substantial discount to what it will be trading at in a few years.
FWIW, I am definitely not the smartest or most qualified man in this room, but I get the feeling that sometimes it's more important to some here to be right than to make money investing in biotech companies.
All possible respect to you JQ. I read your posts/tweets religiously. However, you have never been a big fan of Ariad and that includes when it was trading at $5.
Yeh I read them as well. Interested in the rest. Specifically Rachel and Brett Holley.
Anyone with access to any new broker opinions please post.
TIA
Andy, I respectfully disagree with you and Peter. I believe that the market reaction was simply a continuation of the sell the news that has become the norm in biotech. With first year projections from Ariad at $50 mil, I think the surprise will be to the upside (and in a significant way!).
One can definitely argue that the $4 bil MC was bloated to begin with. However, a 20% haircut on early approval even with the black box label was overdone, IMO.
One thing is for sure, I am getting real tired of holding through approvals and getting the rug pulled out from me.
Roy, am I sensing that you are actually turning a little bullish on Ariad??????
Just listened to the call and Berger and Co. did not seem too concerned about the label. I'm sure they are not thrilled and have to spin it as good as they can, but do you see this as a a potential issue for sales projections?
They are not all that high to begin with. I think they guided down to 50 mil first year.
I just bought 1000 Jan 20 calls @ 1.10-1.15.
Good luck to all.
Peter
Couple of things:
-allegedly the panel chair is a GSK consultant and was the only no on efficacy
- I believe some panel members asked for a 10k patient trial
- I also read on twitter that The CBER recommended a post approval study
I hate to be the conspiracy theorist, but I thought they got hosed. is it still possible to listen to the panel? If you have time, could you? You will prob need a few toothpicks to keep your eyes open.
Was it was brought up by an analyst and Harvey responded? Or the other way around?
Interesting paragraph from the same Wiki 10b5-1 definition Peter posted before:
In paragraph (c), however, the SEC created an affirmative defense to any charge of insider trading, "designed to cover situations in which a person can demonstrate that the material nonpublic information was not a factor in the trading decision."[3] The provision allows an affirmative defense to insider trading when the trade was made pursuant to a contract, instructions given to another, or a written plan that "[d]id not permit the person to exercise any subsequent influence over how, when, or whether to effect purchases or sales" (10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(B)(3)), and where the plan (or contract or instructions) was created before the person had inside information.
For example, a CEO of a company could call a broker on January 1 and enter into a plan to sell a particular quantity of shares of his company's stock on March 1, find out terrible news about his company on February 1 that will not become public until April 1, and then go forward with the March 1 sale anyway, saving himself from losing money when the bad news becomes public. Under the terms of Rule 10b5-1(b) this is insider trading because the CEO "was aware" of the inside information when he made the trade. But he can assert an affirmative defense under Rule 10b5-1(c), because he planned the trade before he learned the inside information.
As you stated, the burden of proof is on the government.
Thanks bud, I thought so.
Now to finish this off, If you plan a 10b5-1 while knowing that a catastrophic event is looming, is there any way to prove that as insider trading? (without obvious testimony from another person)
Let's use a biotech with a drug in a trial that is giving off obvious signs of being a dud as an example.
This discussion originated with Symphony Capital's 10b5-1 of 6 mil shares of DVAX a few weeks ago.
Allow me to hypothesize for a moment so that I may clarify something in my mind and might help some other posters who have similar questions.
According to the footnote in the 10b5-1, Symphony set this up as of 10/2. Now for the hypothetical:
Let's suppose that Kessler, who sits on the BOD, got wind that DVAX had had discussions with another company about potentially being acquired and decided to cancel the 10b5-1.
Is that:
A- illegal (insider trading)
B- immoral
C- both
D- neither
If DVAX was eventually acquired for a higher price, who would care? The shareholder's could give two s#@ts and the government would benefit from increased in taxes on the gains.
Just for my own personal knowledge, can these planned sales be cancelled? Is there a point of no return?
I am lock and loaded in Dvax and this is the second time I have been slammed by some non-fundamental event at the $5 level. Here's to hoping they do get bought out. Either way, I really like the story.
I like that you are on board. The last time I was on the same side with you was with AMRN. I am now loaded in AMRN again. Did you ever revisit?
Not sure what percentage of patients might be able to discontinue. Let's see how this plays out. Should a company I have invested help to cure cancer in some form and I am only able to see a 5,000% return instead of a 10,000%, I promise you I won't complain. For the record, if Ariad never went higher than $22 again, I think I should get down on my knees and praise God considering my first buys were at $1.26.
As far as the 20 bil MC, I am still waiting for your response to my message (http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=80866234) of Ariad's many other shots on goal. Specifically, in your questioning of Ariad's valuation, to my knowledge you have never really entertained to prospects for 113. Any opinion of what has been presented on 113 to date?
Firstly, as a human being I hope it does.
Secondly, it will be a while before/if this is proven. A lot can happen in that time. I don't know what percentage of patients would be able to discontinue without relapse. Has NVS indicated any estimates?
Peter has said that pretty much anything Tasigna and Sprycel can do, Ponatinib can do better. Would it not be logical to reason that the most potent and powerful TKI would cause this result as well, if not even more. If that is the case, perhaps an opportunity for Ponatinib to become THE main player in CML, with a percentage of patients being able to discontinue and the rest remaining mutation free.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-25/novartis-cannibalizes-gleevec-to-boost-new-cancer-drug
What's NVS going to say when the Epic trial is stopped early and Ponatinib comes a knocking?
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-25/novartis-cannibalizes-gleevec-to-boost-new-cancer-drug
Very interesting article in light of the recent discussions of Ponatinib revenue
So far today I have read in various internet channels (and not message board posters I might add) that the the following companies "would love to get their hands on Vascepa":
AZN, MRK, GSK, ABT, LLY and JAZZ
This is going to be one hell of a bidding war!
As my Dad would say: Son, don't believe everything you read in the newspapers.
Good discussion. Like to hear the opposite side of my bet. Keeps me on my toes.
I will let Peter and Don fight my battles from here. Most of my ammo is just a watered down, regurgitated version of their opinions anyway.
No offense guys, but I have had this same conversation with some of the board members when Ariad's MC was 750 mil. You, Dew and JQ all felt Ariad was overvalued at that point as well.
Agreed that at 4 bil MC, Ariad's PPS is lofty and assumes a lot of Ponatinib. Also agreed that a safety issue could arise (prob not likely in CML at this point) and that would crush Ariad's share price. However, on the other side of the bet, Ponatinib could very well become a mega blockbuster and that $100 price tag could be achieved in due time.
Ponatinib is a better drug than Gleevec (generic or not), Tasigna and Sprycel. You kow what the KOL's woud like to see in the front line and now you are starting to hear of a ground swell of rumblings of oncologist's discussing it as well. Stifel Nicolaus's price raise discussed this very thing the other day.
Point is that this caries a substantial amount of risk for a very substantial payoff.
Edit: 113 is a huge wild card and another discussion entirely.
Oppenheimer has a new analyst. The previous guy Brett Holley was a big Aria bull. I knew an Oppenheimer broker and he spoke often of how Holley was bullish on Aria. I don't think the new guy follows the ariad story or is quite as bullish on aria.
Actually I have it over 15% from the high of 25.40
Just about 15%. Longs have seen this quite a few times in Ariad's history. Not fun to watch, but not unusual.