Ok, I'm going to try to keep this as simple as possible. This is how the Baird analyst calculated the numbers in the Figure 2 chart that today's SA article presented. He was using a TIME ADJUSTED number, ie, he ANNUALIZED the ratio, which will give you the numbers in his chart. So, 60 divided by 260,000 equals 0.000238 which in turn is divided by 8.5, since this is over a period of 8.5 years, to get the annualized figure of 0.00002715. However, doing the Omontys number, it seems the Baird analyst took the time ration of 10/12 instead of the number 1, which would be a whole year as listed on his chart (March '12 to Feb '13), which means he used the time frame of 10 months, not the whole year, which I do not know why, since March to Feb is one year? Anyways, if you do the ration, it comes out pretty close, but if you use 3 deaths instead of 5, it becomes only about 5 times not 9 times Epo's death rate.
However, doing this type of ANNUALIZED calculation is very VERY misleading since you are assuming that one drug will have the same results just based on 10 months versus another being based on 8.5 years. Statistics can be skewed to favor any which way the statistician wants to skew the numbers. In other words, this is like saying a mutual fund had a 3 great months, so if the fund manager annualized those 3 greats months, which is what the Baird anaylyst is doing, the ANNUALIZED return would be incredible. But as we all know, this is BS, much like the whole SA article today is BS.
Thank you, and if you have any questions, see me after class.
Thanks Dennis for explaining how the Baird analyst got the ratios. You're exactly right about how numbers can be twisted and that is what the Baird analyst did.
It is also conclusive the ratio is not 9x but at worst around 5x. Alpha Exposure knows this but chose to use outdated information. Shows you what kind of #$%$ Alpha Exposure is.
And if you go another step further, the three deaths should actually be two deaths, because back then the story was that one of the three's death was imminent regardless of Omontys or not.
Ten days previous to management pulling Omontys , Fresenius had announced the deaths, and said there was no real concern and it was business as usual, then on the Saturday ten days after the Fresenius announcement...Takeda and Affymax did a Pearl Harbor and pulled Omontys on their own, according to them no FDA nudging was there, they just felt that was the thing to do. Fresenius said not a biggie, ten days later....bombs away. Friday close about $16.50 area, Monday Pre Market $1.50.....on 25.000 shares, then in regular hours $2 area.
I wonder if Amgen's Epogen had a similar situation......would they have done the honorable thing and pull Epogen ?
Truth be told, I don't know why the Baird analyst even bothered to annualize the rates, except to make Omontys look a lot worse than reality. If he just took the direct ratios of 60/260,000 and 2 as you mentioned instead of 3, so 2/25,000, the result would be Epogen kills 2.5 times more than Omontys. Go figure?