I think this report is a very good example of the difference between how I analyze a stock and how a competent sell-side analyst team does.
This is a pretty detailed report, but it's what I would call an in-depth "backward-looking" evidence-based report. The way they attempt to project forward is by looking only at existing data and by surveying doctors, some of whom are clearly clueless (Bosulif as future preferred front-line therapy? - but they do concede this might be some sort of glitch).
Thus they make very cautious assumptions about EPIC MMR and give no shrift at all to use of pona outside CML. So on one level you can't say their modelling is "wrong", but on another it's an example of the same sort of analysis that completely ignored pona when Ariad's stock was under $2 because there weren't published results yet.
From my perspective I "know" pona will find wide use in GIST and MTC even though there aren't even anecdotal reports of success in those cancers yet. And I'm pretty confident that EPIC MMR will be markedly higher than the 50% that they think would be a big win ("If we had to draw a line in the sand to define a superior result, we would say an MMR rate above 50% would cross a psychological threshold for investors and doctors.")
Peter
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
