Of course the start of the trial is accounted for in the share price. It's not like there was ever much doubt that it was going to happen. JnJ are the varsity at this stuff.
Data from the trial are what will eventually move the stock price. It's highly likely those data will be favorable. People just need to be patient.
Yes, we might not have the innovation of the invention of absurd, symptom-inspecific diseases like "restless legs syndrome" that can then be treated at great cost with the snake oil of the month, since there seems to be no bottom to the gullibility of a certain number of consumers.
As for real treatments of real diseases, the rest of the industrialized world seems to do fine with government-negotiated price controls. Actually, in terms of outcomes, they routinely do better than we do.
Your first effort was better. I have to admit, I preferred 'Snakefish'. I may make that my superhero name.
Now, stop hyperventilating and tell me why you think there is absolutely no possibility whatsoever that this trial may not replicate the previous findings, which were quite small-scale in nature? And if not, why do you suppose that such trials are considered necessary by the FDA? And if GERN is can't-miss guaranteed to rocket to a gajillion dollars and change, why we sit at sub-five dollars a share?
Am I baiting the trolls at this point? Yes, yes I am. Shame on me, I know.
Whatever it is you are taking, either increase or decrease the dosage as needed. I'm a boring buy-and-hold long.
This seems like the likely explanation. LINE/LNCO are not especially sensitive to how low prices go (thanks to robust hedges) but are very sensitive to how long they stay low.
The distribution is fine this year (unless they cut it as a preventative to pay down debt) and fairly good next year, but if prices remain low in 2017, things start to get really dicey. By 2019, when the first big batch of LINE's bonds are due for redemption, low prices are a potentially lethal problem.
Of course, Iran's infrastructure is in poor shape and there will not be much money to repair it with low prices, so at the moment, the market may be overestimating how much they are really going to add to supply. When thinking over periods of several years, markets also tend to discount demand growth due to low prices, so things may not be quite as terrible as they presently appear.
What could go wrong is obvious: the results from the small-scale previous trials will not replicate in the current, more robust one, or else some significant side-effect will arise that precludes the drug's clinical use.
Neither of those outcomes seem at all likely. I'm quite literally betting that they will not come to pass. But those are what the risks are, and everyone should be clear-eyed about that fact.
Pretty much. Of course, there may be leaks that impact the price if the data are very good before the official release (i.e., if remissions or major clinical improvements are achieved in more than a small fraction of patients), but even that will be many weeks away yet.
The problem is that Iran and Saudi Arabia are at each others' throats. Besides, the Saudis are waging economic warfare on the U.S. oil industry, and don't look ready to throw in the towel for some time yet. As the Saudis go, so goes OPEC- obviously countries like Nigeria and Venezuela carry no weight there at all (since they are both getting absolutely murdered by low prices).
Unfortunately, that means the U.S. oil business needs to adapt to low prices probably lasting several years. With LINE's debt load, that's going to be hard sledding here, but the company is doing everything they can to get out in front of this (the deals with private equity being a prime example).
Rolling over the debt that starts coming due at the end of the decade is going to be the key for them. If they can push that out until a time when oil is high again (and that time will come- it always does), they'll do OK.
Primary endpoints are at 24 weeks. There are 200 patients targeted, all of whom are unresponsive to available therapies. Assume a few weeks extra before the data are presented at conferences. So that makes it sometime next spring. That's a few months.
If Imet works as the small pilot studies have suggested, it's a gold mine for the company. If not, they are pretty much toast. And by next spring, we'll have a lot more knowledge, on way or another.
Now's the time to separate fact from #$%$. In a few months, we'll either be much, much higher or much lower, but at least we'll be freed from the endless speculating.
My guess and hope based on the available evidence is that this trial will show the same successful outcomes that the pilots did. If that was certain, though, there would be no need to do trials at all.
Larry, come on... you're embarrassing yourself now. Geron is sitting on a big cash pile, and is splitting development costs from here on in anyway. The trial will start when it starts. The date does not concern me in the slightest- only the outcome.
I think most everyone is aware of the risks here. However, your first and primary point actually argues very strongly in favor of a long position. Achieving durable remissions in 4 out of 33 patients in a late-term cancer study is absolutely astounding. If Imet can reverse the progression of certain blood cancers in 1 out of 8 cases, that's more than sufficient to be a blockbuster drug. It doesn't need to be 100% or anywhere near it (I'd challenge you to produce any cancer treatment anywhere that is) since the prognosis for these cancers with existing treatments is uniformly poor.
It's extraordinarily unlikely that those results could have occurred by chance. While a blind, placebo-controlled study would be preferable, the fact is, placebos don't do squat against cancer, so their absence isn't such a concern. If wishful thinking helped in these cases, all of the Steve Jobses of the world would still be alive after swallowing some beet juice and getting sprinkled with holy water by the the shaman of their choice. That doesn't happen. So multiple remissions in a case like this suggests there is a viable mechanism of action for the drug.
J&J foresees Imet producing a colossal revenue stream for them. While that is not guaranteed, they know what they are doing, and they have obviously seen plenty here that they like.
As far as "selling" 80% of the revenue of Imet goes, they get substantial milestone payments in exchange for that transaction (almost a billion dollars if all goes well) and, more importantly, they get the clinical and logistical expertise of J&J to get the product to market, something they almost certainly could not succeed in doing alone. The best drug candidate in the world is still worthless if you aren't able to market and sell it. The deal with J&J was the smartest move they ever made.
So you are trying to get rich so that you no longer need to worry about money and working for others? You're not trying to defeat capitalism, you're trying to win at it.
Just because I sometimes agree with Larry doesn't mean I actually *am* Larry. I'm sitting on my long position, as I have been through a few weeks of ups and downs. Boring, I admit, but I am very cautious about trying to out-guess short-term market moves.
About the only action I have planned is a small additional purchase if we get a major retracement of this move (which I expect) or a partial sale if we spike substantially higher on a short squeeze (which sure would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath barring any real news).
Turns out that slump didn't happen this time, regardless of what's going on in Greece. This, for the record, is why I don't try to day trade.
Actually, it seems pretty reasonable. We're up while most of the market is down. There is no company news, other than a SA piece talking about the large short interest, a fact which is already well known.
The news out of Greece is bad and almost certain to get worse. It's likely the markets will be spooked until the referendum there next weekend (although given the time to prepare for it, I think Greece's exit from the euro is causing more panic than is justified).
So, barring any unexpected positive developments here, slipping back to four or a bit under is a plausible scenario. Hell, we were at 3 and change earlier today.
Sooner or later, though, there's likely to be concrete good news here, and it's unlikely we'll known in advance when it's coming. I would not want to be caught short when it does.
Much as I hate to agree with 'ole Larry here, he's pretty much right on this particular point. Some days, more people want to sell than buy. Some days, more people want to buy than sell. I don't see any reason to think the stock is being manipulated. It's just a highly variable small-cap stock drifting through a period of little news.
If Imet's initial results hold up to more rigorous scrutiny with greater sample sizes, longs have absolutely nothing to worry about. When the news eventually comes, the price will rise. Until then, there's no need to sweat short-term fluctuations. The only thing we need to concern ourselves with is how well Imet really works.
You are kidding yourself, but apparently you are far from the only one.
The FDA will reject Imet in a second if controlled studies with sufficient cohort sizes for statistical significance either show no improvement or unacceptably serious side effects. Orphan designation is encouraging, but it does not change that fact. Is it rejection likely? Certainly not even remotely. Is it possible? Absolutely it is, and you are deceiving yourself if you believe otherwise at this stage.
If JnJ really had the FDA in their pocket, their repeated efforts to get Xarelto's indication expanded would not continuously fail. They also would have gotten Ceftobiprole successfully to market in the U.S. I could go on, but I doubt I am going to change many minds.
The FDA does not have any kind of alliance with JnJ or GERN. They are a neutral arbiter of drug efficacy and safety, and they have not yet ruled definitively on Imet, nor will they for many months. What you are suggesting would be an enormous conflict of interest.
Whatever gains we are seeing are based on JnJ's actions and on Imet's own merits. The FDA is not involved.
You seem to be enjoying a protracted conversation with yourself here.
It isn't news that regardless of orphan or fast-track designation, the FDA still has to ultimately approve Imet. So far, clinical results have suggested that outcome is highly likely. If that's the case, GERN sees a pretty substantial payday and/or an outright buyout by JnJ, both of which reward shareholders handsomely (and no, I'm not talking about $100/share).
If it turns out early data were misleading and approval is ultimately not granted, then GERN shares get seriously punished. That's the risk here, and I think most everyone is aware of it. The thesis for investing here is that the likelihood of that outcome appears fairly small.