same short story on every bio coming up on a major event. no one knows what the outcome of the test is. the longs bet here is it works and the shorts are taking the other side of the bet. the only problems for the shorts is that this is not an fda decision point. it is a report of the test. the june calls tell the story the bet is a 100 % upside on the calls and a 50% haircut on the down side on the puts in other words it can go either way.
I am betting on the long side because of the one tell that is out there. the company with fda approval went right to phase iii from phase I. I am betting with the longs.
thanks dr.vin, but why should there be a run? Since the abstracts were released last week, investors already had time to ponder upon them and I've seen some stocks adjusted quite nicely. SNTA is the only one still holding it off, which could be either good or bad, that's why the stock has been flat.
Looking around Biotechs I don't see many companies jumping as ASCO approaches, so maybe the traditional pre-ASCO run is going to end as all trends do. It may also be that for some reason the departure Dr. Ramachandra still has negative overt-tones for some reason even though it is pretty clear that his return to Hospira after only 6 weeks as R&D chief was for financial reasons. It will all recede to background noise soon enough when we get the Galaxy interim data update on June 3rd, and we can see more clearly what SNTA's prospects for he future really are.
kory, long story short, there's not enough data to say for certain that G will significantly improves the efficacy of the treatment when added to the existing standard of care. b/c it's never easy to attribute efficacy to any single component in a combo and the road to getting a new combo approved is littered with failures, you'll win more time than not when betting against these type of clinical trails being successful. It's very hard to pick a winner when all you have to work with is data from a combo trial unless the data is outstanding and there's solid scientific reasoning to justify the results. this is not a short theory, it's just how the odds fall and you don't needed to know anything about a drug to make money if you just play the odds.
Its actually quite easy to demonstrate superior efficacy of a combination over the standard of care, if the combination is actually better. That is why SNTA ran a randomized controlled Phase II study that is currently being rolled into a phase III. Logic would dictate that there is a strong signal in the phase II data or they wouldn't be rolling it into a phase III. I would also counter that the vast majority of cancer treatments are in fact combinations of radiation, chemo and a targeted therapy such as G. A large proportion of targeted cancer therapies are being developed in combination with standard of care.