Regarding these two slides from the MACK web site:
1. MM-121 NSCLC trial design: http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AMDA-IWDM2/2484766908x0x894605/51CE44D3-F048-4BA3-A489-8FBDF9739B57/MM-121-01-02-09_ASCO_Trials_in_Progress_Final.pdf
2. MM-121 phase 1 trial results: http://www.merrimack.com/files/MM-121/Clinical%20Posters/ESMO%202014/2014%20ESMO%20biomarkers.pdf
1. Notice the mouse model graph on slide (1) at the bottom of the left side. Does anyone know why time to clinically defined progressive disease (tumor = 500mm) stops when the control groups reach that point? Why does it not also show time to PD for the treatment groups? An unscientific estimate would be about 80 days (twice as long). Does anyone know what if the company has ever mentioned it?
2. Doesn't it appear mgmt. is betting MM-121 w/chemo performs significantly better than MM-121 w/elinotib... for this reason. If you look at slide (1) in the box labeled "Methods" you'll see an interim analysis will be published when half of the subjects have died., Also note the trial is randomized 2:1, treatment:control. So about 300 patients where 200 get MM-121 + chemo. If you look at slide (2), notice on the right side the progression free survival graph for MM-121 + erlinotib. MM-121 appears to work well for about 35% of patients. With those observations in mind, if erlinotib were being used instead of chemo in the phase II trial, wouldn't an interim analysis after half of the subjects died, be too soon? Assuming OS mirrors PFS, only a modest improvement in OS would be observed. Wouldn't a safer interim analysis point be after 90% of subjects in the CONTROL group had died? That way you would capture the benefit of MM-121 that is seen in slide (2) after about 2 months.
If MM-121 + chemo in the phase II trial doesn't work significantly better than MM-121 + erlinotib did in the phase I trial, it looks like the interim analysis of OS will not show significant improvement... right?
If using desktop PC, log into YAHOO, then use this URL to reach old message board: https://finance.yahoo.com/mb/mack/?bypass=true&_classic=1&status=verifyfail
Looks like all posts haven't moved over to new formatted board. Some #$%$ are changed. gloriousknight_us is Nola Housing in new format.
FierceBiotech reports he will become CEO of Ipsen.
"After Baxalta-Shire merger, David Meek lands CEO job at leaderless Ipsen"
Niraparib, the drug that sent Tesaro parabolic recently, is a PARP inhibitor. MDVN has one as well, Talazoparib, that the CEO is using as leverage to increase Sanofi's buyout offer.
Might Hannaford be interested in expanding downstate in NY and perhaps into NJ and PA?
Hannaford bought and operated Welby Drugs in New England, then later sold those stores to Rite Aid.
If you want a cheap hedge, consider buying the 2018 $10 leaps after maybe another month when RAD's price bottoms.
One way to estimate is to look at the cost of a Jan 2017 8/7 strangle. The MM wants $1.60 for that strangle. That implies the downside is no less than $5.40 as of July 7.
There are no Dec options. I believe you're referring to Jan 2017 options (leaps). How much of that open interest was there before the offer was made?
The only reason to buy $9 calls would be a bet that the deal falls through soon and RAD's share price doesn't collapse. The Jan options are only .03 due to WBA's offer. If the deal falls through within the next month, and RAD's price holds up, there's a chance to make a decent return on those $9 calls. The option price could rise from .03 to .04, translating into a 33% gain.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but WBA's CEO stated they are now trying to find buyers for stores. That implies the FTC has communicated what stores they need to sell... right?
It would seem the deal has come down to whether WBA can now find buyers acceptable to the FTC. This seems to be the recurrent theme running through nearly all the analyst's articles since the deal was announced last year.
I'm also highly suspicious CEO attempted to time the market with that 350K stock grant being the day after BREXIT. It is beneficial to have the share price as low as possible, again for tax reasons. Income tax rate at the time of the grant, cap gains tax rate on future price improvement.
Exactly. Per options, this is a tax efficiency scheme. You pay INCOME tax rates on your gains at the time options are exercised. If you're now holding the shares, you cost basis is the share price at the time of exercise. The tax rate on future profit is the CAPITAL GAINS tax rate... likely much lower than your INCOME tax rate. So if you expect future price improvement, you exercise, pay the income tax... then hold an pay cap gains tax on future price improvement.
Tax obligations are incurred on exercise on the difference between the share price and the grant price. Look at the percent sold. It is obvious they are selling to cover tax obligations.
I doubt you'll see them posted again.
I noticed someday321, who had posted the IMS data previously, deleted his id and recreated it, deleting his complete history of posts. Typically there's a clause in for-profit data services subscription agreements that prohibits republication of any data.
Update: Bloomberg published article at 3:49PM 6/29 stating FTC has stated the Anthem/Cigna deal appears to be a no go, i.e. FTC cannot come up with concessions that could be enable the deal to close.
Why the thumbs down when asking a simple question?
My take is that insiders are selling just enough to cover their tax liabilities. They are holding onto the rest of the recently awarded shares, likely waiting for $9.
The question is why aren't the Rite Aid insiders dumping all their recently awarded shares? I'm assuming they incur a 2016 tax liability when awarded stock as compensation. I'm also assuming that's what all those non-market acquisitions are at $0. It appears they are then disposing of enough shares to cover their tax obligations and holding the rest ... waiting for $9.
Am I missing something?
Took 10 months for the FTC to rule on Staples/Office Depot deal.
FTC still hasn't ruled on the Anthem/Cigna deal announced July 24. Anthem also wants to close the deal H2 2016.