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.
I hate playing these pipe-dream speculation games, but I assume(just about)every one would be...
In fact, make that $40 tomorrow and I guarantee I'll "cope" just fine.
I've always been a "cheap date"...
Ghee,
I don't really think they do in terms of 2013 total Rev projections. If you look at Doug's post:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=89484636
they're not even up to 2das projection(80ml+). Therefore, although in theory, they may have modeled for 6months of EU rev, it doesn't seem to be in the number totals yet.
However, I would agree that if we see any significant EU slippage, regardless of it's particular implications for total 2013 revenue,
it would be a problem.
However, if we do get a timely EU approval, and the numbers in Europe turn out to be as ahead of original projections as the US numbers, I think that would constitute a big plus.
Should take several months to know...
Thanks Jan-
Nice to hear from you-
I started to pay more attention to the technicals in conjunction with reading your posts several years ago.
I'm thinking, though I haven't done a thorough analysis like you and 2da, that Iclusig 2013 Revs could, when we add the EU, come in at 100ml+.
I like the upgrade implications of that...
Your thoughts?
Best,
bw
Technically Speaking...
I don't mind them(after all, I asked for your read)-
Thanks for your response.
Anyone who looks at the 6 month and/or 1yr chart and doesn't acknowledge that this stock has been in consistent decline has no business assessing charts.
With a consistent pattern of lower highs since Oct 2012, a "death cross" in April 2013...lol, and several overlapping technical patterns over the last 3 months that look bearish on first blush, this chart hasn't been pretty.
But, if you consider the rough descending wedge starting on 3-14-13, the pattern(which is generally bearish, and resolves with a negative breakout 64% of the time), it's probably a little too rough to be reliable, since the price didn't come close to hitting the descending trendline from 3-14 to about 5-28, which makes it unreliable(http://thepatternsite.com/dt.html).
If you choose to chart it from 5-28, any strong close in the mid 18s(which I believe is imminent, for fundamental reasons), will confirm a positive breakout, which would project a ride to about 22.
Then there's the rough H&Ss pattern between 4-3 and 6-24, which looks like it's already broken, since we're well above the neckline at about 16 (Even if it did break south from here, it wouldn't really be a H&S breakout, so those projections wouldn't apply).
So, technically, I think what we're left with that's most compelling, is the 3 month basing pattern, which indicates price strength(a strong foundation).
Therefore, I think all those bears who have been upping their short positions on the basis of what, superficially looks like an ominous chart, will soon find(via the EU approval and end of the end of quarter selling), one that's particularly ominous for them, but not for us lol!
Of course, it is possible that we get a breakdown from this base. But, just the fact that it hasn't happened despite all the gyrations of the last 3 months suggests to me that that's highly unlikely.
So, I think we're pretty much in agreement, at least on the way this thing should resolve...
Regards,
bw
How do you read that br?
Yeah, I was aware of that, but 3-7% is a rather large range-
just an acknowledgement of how little they really know(or knew)-
I believe this article nails it down more convincingly, and at the higher side of the range, which is a plus for 113.
Thanks,
bw
Actually, in the 6-13-2013 Investor briefing, they suggested approx 5% ALK+, 1-2%Ros+,
so only about 1% higher, but we'll take it.
I think the confusion comes in where, up till about 6+months ago, when the assay data apparently wasn't very good, they were talking in terms of about 3%(but something like 16-20% in asians).
Since they used a few different methods to make this determination, this probably nails it down in that range 5-6%(close to twice the original estimated opportunity), and they weren't considering ROS1 at all back then.
Assuming this is an American lung cancer population, this 5.9% number sounds higher than I remember-
Good for 113...
It's the end of the quarter, the stock is no longer as oversold, it's retesting the sma50 again(high 17s), and it's still in a downtrend,
therefore, traders are playing the ($16 to $18)range,
and some institutions are still selling short-term(and at a slightly better price) to avoid the negative association of a losing stock at the end of the quarter.
Until one understands these dynamics, people are inclined to postulate all kinds of hobgoblins to explain what is merely the effect of normal technical factors on the stock price.
And, until we break out of this downtrend decisively, such factors will continue to rule...
If nothing else, he knows it won't be any worse, because we've reached trough valuation lol...
plus any effect from EU, plus..(to your question)?...
at the least, a rationale recovery from this overextended basing pattern.
Could be a little of both(although the low volume may indicate that the EU part of it is only the result of speculation, rather than actual insider knowledge).
But we, and biotech in general, were so oversold, that we were due for some of this anyway.
Very Helpful Video
Thanks for the link-
Nice to see expert docs aware of the potential game changing importance of ALK+ superiority with brain mets.
Very interesting to see that there is a significant part of the expert community that still believes it may be advisable to use weaker drugs to buy time(even though the use of these results in mutational failures),
versus using your best drug first to avoid these in the first place.
Although comparative double-blind clinical studies would be necessary to absolutely determine which strategy yields the best OS, the logic of using your best drug first(probably 113)seems most compelling, and the group appeared to be right on the verge of acknowledging it.
God bless them for that lol.
Although we may never see those formal comparative studies, I think it will nevertheless become apparent over time, that, just as in the case of Pona in cml, using your best drug first enables you to avoid mutational failures that weaken pts, fosters the development of more virulent mutations than could develop otherwise, and, ultimately, shortens pts lives.
I believe the fallacy in saving your best drug till last is that practitioners believe mutations are going to develop in any case and you avoid the higher level(more difficult to treat) mutations from developing by using the weaker drugs first.
However, as in the case of Pona in cml, if 113 is truly a pan ALK inhibitor(at least with regard to ALK+ mutations) it's ability to totally shut down this route of tumor viability, should cause it to totally knock out this cancer before it gets the opportunity to access alternative mutational routes to survival.
When you consider how low the IC50 and IC90 values are for 113 in ALK+ compared to the achievable blood levels, this seems very likely the case.
So, thanks again for this video, because, with the help of a little bit more data(which should be available shortly), it shows that this group is almost there(i.e. almost ready to embrace the "best drug" paradigm), and with it the apparent superiority of 113 in ALK+ NSCLC!
Well, being "objective", it has certainly slowed the adoption rate significantly, in so much as that drugs like bosutilif wouldn't have had a chance to compete at all(without the box warning),
and quit a few more Drs(regardless of what Harvey et al. claim) would have started pts on it in second line before tasigna or sprycel than have to date.
Therefore, the growth trajectory has been set back, and it's impossible to recapture all or even most of that lost revenue and momentum back.
Then, there's the issue of generic Gleevec-as soon as that occurs(which is still somewhat in question-outstanding patent issues) the reimbursement profiles of all the competing TKIs will get set back to some degree. Therefore, a year lost now(revenue wise)probably will have cost a lot more than a year in the future.
A setback like this has a way of effecting the entire program because, although there is seemingly enough money to do what's on the plate immediately, if they were capturing significantly more revenue with a stock price in the mid to high 20s(where we would probably be without this fiasco), they might be initiating a new compound, or, at the least, developing pona alternative applications more aggressively.
So, I can see how one might choose to conclude that this hasn't detrimentally impacted the Iclusig program, but for the above reasons, I have to conclude that it has adversely effected not only that program, but Ariad in general.
However, since I see all this damage as already in the stock(and the trading pattern generally confirms this), the valuation, IMO, looks good from this point forward...
Trough Valuation
If anyone cares to notice, I think we just got a few votes in the form of big buys that confirm what several of us have posited.
Namely, that at 16ish, we're at trough valuation in this stock, and, obviously, some big players agree, which is why we've seen this run up in the last hour.
Despite all the gyrations in biotech in particular and the market in general, perceptive investors/traders have noticed that we've held this level for 3 months now, and, despite the generalized uncertainty, they don't want to miss the inevitable move(because,(please forgive the warnout analogies)we really do have a "coiled spring" here).
Oh, and btw, maybe this has something to do with binchey's conjecture about a Wed EU announcement...
Regards,
bw
So, are you suggesting(by way of your Kabuki Cloud Logic),
that you're in "broad" agreement with my(more conventional)technical/fundamental assessment?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=89255323
Despite a head in the clouds, it's my experience that matrimony has a way of planting one's feet more firmly on the ground(lol)...
Best "return to earth" regards,
bw
I think the critical point(apart and aside from one's level of conviction)in biotech investing is, can you afford to wait, or do you need the money now for basic everyday needs.
Regardless of one's level of conviction, if you can't afford to wait for a favorable resolution, you're doomed.
I have a friend who was asking me just today whether I thought he should sell his mutual fund b/c he needs most of it for his son's tuition, etc. He was fretting the loss from the top that had already occurred.
Since I don't really know whether this is the start of some protracted downturn, or just another blip, I couldn't tell him which, but, in his situation, this close to the top, the choice was obvious.
Having extra resources makes all the difference. I remember, back in 2009, when I was getting to a point where my losses were significant enough to threaten my future lifestyle. Fortunately, I choose to hold Ariad and a number of other investments. And now I'm in a situation where these losses, though somewhat unpleasant, are basically a non-issue.
So I guess what I'm saying is peace with such investments is a luxury you need to be able to afford. Otherwise, it could be tough going...
Because, regardless of what we all think we know, it could(particularly in biotech)turn out to be "RIP"!
Very Hard to Say
More like a quadruple one, if we're talking in those terms(basing patterns).
Nevertheless,from a strictly technical viewpoint, when you consider that we're still in a downtrend(1 year chart), that we're significantly lower, price-wise, than last quarter(which encourages the opposite of window dressing), and that we've formed what looks a lot like a 3 month head and shoulders pattern, with a neck line at about 16.20,
a sustained break through that level, particularly in view of overall market trends, could be interpreted as ominous.
However, when you also consider all the fundamental pluses(launch, promising new trials underway, overbought status, and 3 month basing pattern(which is the more optimistic perspective on the neckline mentioned)),
the chances of much more significant deterioration(versus momentary gap downs)appears minimal.
In other words, in view of all of the above, and as I've said before, I believe we're in the Ariad trough valuation area(around 16), and though we may see additional gap downs, b/c of a weakening general market and discouraging technicals, these, IMO should be bought.
Hope that helps.
2da,
Congratulations on the big event-
Looking forward to reading your in depth impressions.
One thing...
Now that you've met all these Ariad celebrities, are you sure you'll be able to maintain your "objectivity" about the company???
As if any of us(e.g.Doug, you, and myself, to name a few)had very much to begin with...
Again congrats(I wish I had gone myself,maybe next year),
Best,
bw
Impressive(and seemingly likely)prospect...
Nice find!
Thanks so much for the Field Report-
Yes, hopefully out of all sorts of shadows in the very near future!
Regards,
bw
Fortunately, it looks like Pona can inhibit wild type Kit as well as the mutational forms, which apparently makes it a strong candidate in such melanomas as well-
See the poster below:
http://www.ariad.com/pdf/Gozgit_2012_AACR_POSTER_Ponatinib_noQRcode.pdf
Ponatinib in FGFRs
Nice Comparison chart-
When you consider that ponatinib's trough level is 64nM at 45mgs/day, it should achieve IC90s in most, if not all, of these targets, which is pretty impressive.
I think the market will start to give more credence to this once the last vestiges of doubt concerning Pona's relative safety are eliminated by EPIC.
Of course we also have to run the appropriate trials, but, apart and aside from any concern with when we hear about a new compound, I'm fairly confident that one morning soon we'll wake up to the announcement of a PH2 trial in one of these targets(lung cancer?), and this will serve as one of those "inevitable catalysts" I've referred to.
I can't imagine that we'll be sitting on all this potential for very much longer...
Regards,
bw
Maybe we should all go to TradingRange.com-
Sad...
But, like they say, you have to trade the market you're given, not the market you want.
Checking out for the day to do something totally different for the rest of this day anyway.
Best,
bw
On the contrary Andy, I'm offended by the fact that, by and large, I haven't been trading that rather consistent range over the last few months, because, short of buying the bottoms of it(one way or the other),
there simply hasn't been a lot of action in the stock of late.
However, my alternative has been to look for other trading ops in the biotech market, since that's primarily what this markets about-
but my "heart" isn't really in it...lol
I prefer to buy relative bottoms and wait for intermediate to long-term rewards-i.e.I don't like being wedded to my screen full time, which is pretty much the inescapable fate of true traders.
Unfortunately, because the market(and nation) is so uncertain on so many levels, this strategy isn't working out as well(or as quickly) as it might have under more "normal" conditions-
Case in point as we slide back to breakeven on less than 600k shares today...
Well, these awards, that I've never really heard of, are certainly just what we needed to get this stock turned around and headed in the direction of
"happily ever after"-
The hell with EU approval, etc.!
Who knows, with a little luck we may actually get over 500,000 shares traded today...
Basing-
been doing so in this 18 area for the last 3 months(a long time in the life of a volatile biotech)-
a product of numerous positive catalysts counterbalanced by a lull/topping erosion in the entire sector(IBB) we're still(whether we like it or not) wed to.
Unfortunately, as perceived risk( $Vix.x)increases, risky assets get downgraded,
and we still just aren't strong enough to break free from this sector noose...
At the least, she's been warming up-at least in terms of Rida as a single agent-
Of course, the expense, from a development POV, may not be worth it in terms of potential profit, so whatever it might have been able to do may never get fully evaluated.
In this age of extremely targeted therapies, the Rida's of the world, imo, just aren't state of the art!
Rida Study:
GS Webcast
Just completed listening, and it struck me that Harvey's attitude was essentially " bring this game the F on!"
He really sounded sick and tired of all the disinformation surrounding the Iclusig launch, and made it very clear to anyone who was listening that they were taking precautions (e.g. by being very precise about egfr 113 pt selection) both to get the data they need by ESMO and not to get blind-sided ala dirty drug allegations in the process- Harvey was laying down a marker and mincing no words...
Let er rip!!!