Replies to post #108669 on Biotech Values

[mcbio]

I did. INCB28050 data look good. LLY made good decision in licensing the drug even though they didn't have experience in RA. Better than AZN's choice of RIGL in my opinion even though RIGL's is more advanced.

Why do you think LLY made a good decision licensing INCY's JAK inhibitor over RIGL's SYK inhibitor? I think I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree. It's not just that INCY/LLY is behind RIGL/AZN but they are obviously way behind PFE's JAK inhibitor for RA. Will INCY/LLY have a differentiation angle over PFE's JAK inhibitor for RA? At least RIGL/AZN has a differentiation angle in that they may have the first SYK inhibitor for RA on the market.

In terms of the stocks, does INCY really warrant trading at almost 5X RIGL's market cap? I realize that INCY is more than the JAK drug for RA, but RIGL has a bit of a pipeline themselves. I don't own either stock, but would prefer RIGL over INCY at current valuations.

[microcapfun]

Incyte, INCB28050

Was catching up on the past couple months of posts and see that there was a long discussion about the INCB28050 RA results in November.

"INCB28050 data look good" seemed to be the consensus here.

But I don't see anyone contrasting the Incyte results with the compable Pfizer results.

When I made that comparison it seemed to me that the 28050 results were much worse. Here is what I wrote at the time:

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_I/threadview?m=te&bn=9458&tid=18788&mid=18872&tof=38&frt=2#18872

Am I missing something?

micro