Indeed -- welcome back!

It's hard to tell from your earlier chart, but did we punch through that log-week support level with today's drop?

I'm really hoping for a stunner this weekend, but the stock is trading like it should be lit on fire and left on a doorstep.

Courtesy of Don, via twistergram:

Exactly -- with Criz nixed by NICE in the UK, Ariad has a real market for '113 in ALK alone, especially if LDK is revealed to be weak on CNS mets.

I'm starting to think that the real value of tomorrow's '113 data will be in the extent to which it indicates how quickly the pivotal trial will enroll and whether its interim results will allow for NDA filing.

Once ARIA announces the trial design (please! announce the trial design!) that, combined with these results should give us a rather accurate idea of just when '113 cash will start to flow -- and when the UK can start to be treated.

I understand your point, although I would disagree both in general and as to Rida -- but not to much to be gained by wading into that today.

If ARIA announces another drug, this thing goes up barring some black-swan info on '113, that's true.

I think my real (if inartfully made or insufficiently clear) point was that, IMO, we don't all have to type "IMO" for posts to be understood as "IMO." It's a message board, not an affidavit, right?

This is a message board. Feel free to PM if you're not interested in anyone else's thoughts. I promise not to feel hurt and excluded.


No.


Also, no.


No. What I have is an opinion that's based on some elements of how the markets work, and I thought that I'd offer them.

If my comment came across as brusque, that's likely because I thought the answer to your query was a bit obvious: Companies offer guidance; when they fail to meet that guidance, analysts and investors (1) revalue the cash flow stream, and (2) worry about what else management has said that isn't going to hold up.

You mean 6M shares over these last three sessions, right? Today's vol is just over 1M, no?

Do you mean besides the part where ARIA said they'd start a trial in Q3 and a delay means later data, later approval, later commercialization, and later revenue?

I think we all saw what happened when HB mentioned that EPIC could read out 6 months earlier than expected.

It also goes to confidence in what management says. When they can't get their trials off the ground on time, who's to say that analysts should believe the EPIC comment?

The revenue timing thing may be small, but the credibility issue can loom large. If analysts start taking everything you say with a grain of salt, it can be very hard to turn that around.

I reeeeaaaallllyyy want you to be correct.

It would be nice to get a bump based on ALK results alone.

Could always go down....

But seriously, folks, we're languishing because good ALK results and weak/no EGFR results are baked in.

It's not like we're priced to perfection like in 12.2012.

Clovis has shown some cracks, since they've got no takers to cash them out of their jazz-hands petrie-dish poster.

If we get some results, then there could be a move up.

It's true -- nerves everywhere are raw.

I'm setting an alarm for 5:10 AM on Saturday....

LOL -- this wasn't even about manipulaion! The discussion was about whether there is an advantage inherent in have a single drug, which there isn't.

As for your basic assertion that "If ... then ..." deductive reasoning is of no value, well, I'm sorry, but you're incorrect. And that is, in fact, a weak rationale for dismissing my argument.

The deductive process looks like this (note the lack of "if"s):

1. Companies seek competitive advantages.
2. Having a single drug for your sales force to focus on confers a competitive advantage.
3. Therefore we should see companies in the industry seek to be single-drug entities.

Since (3) isn't true, I'll let you decide whether you want to disagree with (1) or (2).

Ultimately, Ariad's strength lies in drug discovery -- that's what it's great at. But that's expensive and needs a cash flow to fund it. It makes perfect sense to hold on to 100% of Inclusig's oncology revenues to do just that. And '113's too. I actually have faith that Ariad's sales team can handle two drugs without getting all flustered!

Mine as well.

The real issue with the entire margin account lending authorization, short selling, and naked shorting structure is that when shorts fail to deliver the shares and default, the phantom share positions may not be acknowledged and unwound.

There is some evidence that brokerages use "share entitlements," a type of IOU for shares, fungibly with actual shares, which means that if there is a naked short and default issue in a stock, the actual outstanding share base may have been artificially inflated.

Everything else comes out in the wash -- but FTDs that are never filled and become resold like stock are a bigger issue because that changes the market's perception (but not the reality) of the equity prevalence.

If they just enforced the trades as made by the algos, the entire HFT industry would be living in refrigerator boxes under a bridge in about 2 weeks.

That is weak reasoning. Bounce it off some of your friends off-line.

'Nuf said.

We can agree to disagree on this -- I don't think that Ariad really has an marketing advantage because it has one drug. It might have an advantage because it has a higher rep-to-drug ratio, but NVS could just counter that by hiring more reps and having each handle a single drug.

Mostly, I think it's a weak basis to promote the company when there are numerous stronger ones.

One other point:


Let's not argue this out, but keep in mind that I don't think it's rhetorically sound to reduce my conclusion to an elipsis and ignore it. If a one-drug company had an advantage, you'd see a preference for that business model. But you don't see that; you see the opposite.

Actually, my point is that this isn't true now. It wasn't true when HB said it on Cramer's show and it's a dumb meme to start for a company that has a second drug in the offing.

It's like saying that our advantage is that the sales staff doesn't have any gum, so it's no big deal that they can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

If there were any truth to this, then Ariad could unlock an enormous amount of shareholder value by spinning the Iclusig franchise out into an independent company whose sales force would only ever have to worry about Iclsuig. (EDIT: Note that I'm not suggesting this, other than for AD/PD, as I've noted previously.)

How does Ariad compete with Big Pharma? With rationally designed drugs that address all mutations with better AE risk/reward profiles -- and we have the trial data now and in progress to show it. That's the type of response we need. Not "Um, you know, I think that's the challenge...."

Oh, no -- my reply was tongue-in-cheek, but perhaps too dry to come across on the board.

I recall the video from when it first came out, and the Daily Show's coverage of it.

Part of me wonders whether HB's outspoken commitment to never partner with big pharma opened ARIA up to more significant attacks -- after all, if a cash-up-front partnership for a molecule or a buy-out are possibilities, the shorts have to tread lightly or get squeezed until they gush blood.

HB's "open and notorious" insistance that Ariad will not be bought and will not partner its drugs may have had an element of Bill Ackman's "I'm short HLF to the gills!" presentation -- once you take the threat off the table by tipping your hand, there's far less risk to taking the other side of the trade.

That, and HB's still going to have to explain how we won't lose what competitive advantage we have when '113 gets approved in 2014, since right now it's all because our sales staff can focus on a single drug!

Yeah -- the only thing we need to fear is fear itself!


Oh, and spiders. The only things we need to fear are fear itself and spiders.



Oh, and naked short sellers too. Spiders, naked shorts, and fear itself -- that's the list.





Oh, and messsage board criticism of HB -- that' pretty bad too. So we've got naked short sellers, spiders, HB critiques and fear itself, perhaps not in that order.






Should probably figure in the ubiquitous hand of the O/T Comment Delete Gods, too....

Fascinating.

I've often toyed with the idea of requesting a physical certificate for my shares as a thumb in the eye to the shorts -- just to make sure that the brokerage doesn't conveniently mistake a non-margin account for one that they can lend out of without notice.

As for HFT, there's no doubt it can move prices, and the evidence shows that whatever liquidity it provides is weak or just false.

It will be nice when, someday, the i-banker get on our side of the ball and Araid's shares don't trade with such a headwind.

Considering all the offernigs HB has done, you'd think the book runners would be more amiable....

I agree -- when you move from a steady (if choppy) growth trend to a sideways channel, it helps to keep an eye on the stats to maintain perspective.

Truth be told, I think they do need a tax -- but they also just need to enforce the trades as made.

If whenever GS called and said, "We hired Will Hunting, but his algo went ape-schnikey and flash-crashed a stock, and now we're short 2.4 million shares with only 2.8 million outstanding, and owe $22M bucks after a 2.8 second run," the exchange just said "We accept wire transfers. Thank you, Mortimer." rather than "Awww! Let me make it all better!", HFT would be short-lived.

Well, there have been 183 trading days, so 182 chances to be +/-.

The numbers:

Up days: 83 (45.6%)
Unch: 2 (1.1%)
Down: 97 (53.3%)

I believe you mean Bosucrap, sir. -- Pfizer IP legal.

Regarding volume, that would be another option. (Was that a pun?)

I hope you're right -- although it could just be day-traders closing their positions with market-on-close orders.

If they got in at the open, they made 5%. It's messed up, but you know what they say: don't h8 da playa....

Note the QT prolongation warning for Sprycel, and the related QT prolongation exclusion for LDK -- I don't recall seeing any of that with Iclusig.

It's been two weeks since we looked at the Finanz und Wirtschaft article that noted:

or in Google translate:

So far, no responses to o's question posted in the article's comment area.

If we get a no-go vote on T790m from Ariad, perhaps that might be a time to look for some details being offered on the next molecule.

Another black eye for the FDA on its "Breakthrough" designation. I'm starting to think that this program is mostly about lobbying and less about science. And I'm starting to think that it's a bit of a badge of honor that ARIA isn't part of it:

Congratulations on your sugar-pill:

GSK and Prosensa Announce Primary Endpoint Not Met in Phase III Study of Drisapersen in Patients With Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy

Hysterical -- this will look like poor Bill Ackman and his Herbalife short soon enough.

What I don't understand about this short thesis is that by raising the exclusion bar, Ariad makes the patient pool less prone to CV AEs -- which will make the results of the study even more certain as to whether Iclusig causes the AEs, no?

That would make this move a disasterous strategic blunder if the CV side effect issue were real.

If you have a drug that stinks and causes lots of CV AEs, you WANT the population to have the predisposition -- that would help ensure that the control arm will have CV AEs as well, hopefully enough to make the result statistically insignificant. (Which, without accusing anyone of anything, is how Sobek described the Bosulif trial.)

My issue with this "bear thesis" isn't that it's incorrect on the facts or the outcome (which I think it is), but rather that unless I misunderstand something very basic, it's internally inconsistent and incorrect on their own supposed set of facts.

We should also add glioblastoma if we're listing potential indications.

The assay is done on LYN/LYNB kinase showing nM-level activity; it's oncology, which Ariad's staff would be comfortable offering guidance on; and the trial would be much more straight-forward than other conditions.

It's the type of trial that I think would make for another good IST.

New 5+ magnitude quake south of Fukushima.

http://www.volcanodiscovery.com/earthquakes/quake-info/441655/M5.3-Thu-19-Sep-19km-ESE-of-Ishikawa-Japan.html

Let's hope the fuel rod cooling pools stay up and that the event doesn't cause any loss of life.

Radiation exposure is a known cause of CML.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000570.htm

For the chart folks, this year has been jagged and ugly.

Any thought that the current patter might qualify as either (1) a cup and handle running from March? or (2) a Quasimodo-like IHS from December?

Congrats! You are officially tougher than cancer!

Stay positive, stay vigilent, and enjoy Costa Rica and every day coming up.

Cheers!

I think that only NJ and Oregon have a full-serve only rule.

I wonder if someone could do a study on CML or other benzene-linked cancers in those states to see whether exposure is signficant, since a full-serve rule concentrates the exposure to the station workers.

If benzene exposure does turn out to have a link to CML and other Iclsusig-inhibited cancers, then the recent growth in fracking may also play a part:

Fracking accident leaks benzene into Colorado stream

A few points:

1. A meta-point: For anyone doing this type of piece, when you're using the incorrect statement as a heading, use some type of "MYTH:" or "Bear Claim:" lead-in. If someone skims the article reading the bold headings, they'd think Sobek hates this stock.

2. These contrasting points illuminate my thesis that makers of good drugs want clear results and makers of weak drugs that have big sales teams are happy with inconclusive results:

I think Pfizer would be pleased as punch to have an FDA-approved study that, in the end, couldn't conclusively prove/disprove its set of (S)AEs.

3. About this:

Is that really the case? Sobek makes it sound like the expansion cohort was planned from the start, but I thought that it was exactly that -- an expansion of the original IST.

I actually think that it's more compelling to note that the 45mg trial filled up promptly and there was sufficient interest for MDA to open and enroll an entirely new trial arm. That's called "unexpected enthusaism among oncologists" and I think it speaks volumes. (Someone correct me on this point if I'm off -- TIA.)

Ariad Pharmaceuticals Price Target Raised to $21.00 at Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

LINK

Posted by Zach Kirkland on Sep 18th, 2013

Stock analysts at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. upped their price target on shares of Ariad Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:ARIA) from $20.00 to $21.00 in a report issued on Wednesday, StockRatingsNetwork.com reports. Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s price objective points to a potential upside of 0.67% from the stock’s previous close.

Shares of Ariad Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:ARIA) traded down 1.04% on Wednesday, hitting $20.86. The stock had a trading volume of 1,927,095 shares. Ariad Pharmaceuticals has a 1-year low of $15.35 and a 1-year high of $25.40. The stock’s 50-day moving average is $19.24 and its 200-day moving average is $18.78. The company’s market cap is $3.861 billion.

Ariad Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:ARIA) last released its earnings data on Wednesday, August 7th. The company reported ($0.37) earnings per share for the quarter, beating the analysts’ consensus estimate of ($0.40) by $0.03. The company had revenue of $13.90 million for the quarter, compared to the consensus estimate of $11.11 million. During the same quarter last year, the company posted ($0.31) earnings per share. Ariad Pharmaceuticals’s revenue was up 4302.5% compared to the same quarter last year. On average, analysts predict that Ariad Pharmaceuticals will post $-1.63 earnings per share for the current fiscal year.

Other equities research analysts have also recently issued reports about the stock. Analysts at RBC Capital reiterated an “outperform” rating on shares of Ariad Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:ARIA) in a research note to investors on Friday, September 6th. They now have a $28.00 price target on the stock. Separately, analysts at Chardan Capital initiated coverage on shares of Ariad Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:ARIA) in a research note to investors on Wednesday, September 4th. They set a “buy” rating and a $28.00 price target on the stock. Finally, analysts at Jefferies Group reiterated a “buy” rating on shares of Ariad Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:ARIA) in a research note to investors on Monday, August 19th.

Three research analysts have rated the stock with a hold rating and fourteen have given a buy rating to the company. The stock currently has a consensus rating of “Buy” and an average price target of $27.04.

In other Ariad Pharmaceuticals news, Insider Timothy P. Clackson sold 8,449 shares of the stock on the open market in a transaction dated Friday, September 6th. The shares were sold at an average price of $22.00, for a total value of $185,878.00. The sale was disclosed in a legal filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission, which can be accessed through this link.

ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc (NASDAQ:ARIA) is a global oncology company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of medicines for the cancer patients.

Sounds like a lesson from BP's lawyers -- because Louisiana allows self-serve gasoline stations, you can prove that the 100-mile oil slick caused the spike in CML. It could just be a bunch of huffers in the sample, you know!

In other non-toxic, non-non-taper news, "Alexandria Executive Vice President Tom Andrews said he expects ARIAD to move into its new headquarters in the first quarter of 2015. The company is still looking to fill a 2,000-square-foot retail space at 75/125 Binney St., but Andrews said they recently hired a listing broker to fill the slot."

The growing (sadly) CLM market:

Aside from the relatively solid evidence that CML is associated with exposure to ionizing radiation like that from the contamination in Japan, there is some indication that there may be an association with exposure to benzene:

which is now becoming an issue in the Gulf of Mexico region post-Deepwater Horizon:

Agree, but the conversation circled back around to suing them.

'nuf said on all this.

CLVS has managed to jazz-hands their way to the top of the chart again -- I'll be extremely interested to see what really becomes of their T790m drug if they do find a buyer. Prediction: not much.

So, I'm going to assume that was autocorrected from something to "iPods."

If your point was that the case wouldn't get thrown out without discovery for failure to state a claim, or dismissed for failure to plead fraud with particularity or on 1st amend. grounds, then I disagree on each of those points.

That's just MHO, and I think that it would be nice if we could make all the jerks in the world pay for their jackassery, but we can't, and a biotech company from Boston is not going to change that.

Right now, Ariad should just try to get their sales staff ready to sell two different drugs at the same time. After all, HB has said that having only one drug is their competitive advantage.

Actually, the SEC just settled the charges:


So 22 funds pay $14.4M? $655k each? IMO, that's not enforcement -- that's a whitewash. Cramer's laughing all the way to the bank. That's not a rounding error to these guys.

Also, regarding the standard for fraud, regardless of what you have to prove, you have to plead fraud with particularity to avoid getting dismissed without discovery.


Just keepin' it real. Go Ariad!