Yunsu, I give you credit for having the guts to stick around. Whenever I take a public drubbing like that, I go away and hide. When you say that you "sold half", rather than covered half, it suggests that you were shorting via put options, which would be a lot less costly. I think that almost all of the puts will be vaporized tomorrow. If, however, you are actually short, I would cover wherever the stock plateaus, because it will do so only to draw in shorts and will go higher from there, I believe. The lesson here, which I've had to relearn over and over, is: (1) When you have a quick profit on a speculation, take it. (2) Far from being helpful, TA can actually get you in trouble with stocks like these. The release of the PREVAIL abstract after hours was a major watershed. When the stock held its gains today - and when someone was clearly accumulating shares at 75.70 - that was a tell.
I know you have some legacy shares with a really low basis. I have traded in and out of this, having started out at a (split-adjusted) price of around 10. But I basically reloaded my positions last March, so for another couple of months, most of the gains will be short term. Here in California, the state treats all capital gains as ordinary income, so there's 10-12% off the top. And then the Feds come in and take about 35% of what's left of the short term gains. So, by selling here in my taxable accounts, I give up about 45% of my profits. Even if I only feel that the stock will hold above 70 in the short term, it would be dumb to sell.
PS Being aware of how the stock was driven down early in the month (and vigorously churned more recently) in order to accumulate shares, I would not be surprised to see it sell off a bit tomorrow at some point. And I wouldn't worry too much about it. Unfortunately, there are relatively few shares short. But a lot of call options are now in the money (!.3 million shares in February alone) and we'll see if the sellers want to replace their shares. I think it may close near the high of the day tomorrow.
I had a fairly large position in this and added 5,000 shares yesterday. I sold 4,500 of those today at about 75.60. I will take some more profits tomorrow in my IRA account, where there are no tax consequences and probably sell a small portion of the shares in my taxable accounts. However, I plan on keeping a large chunk of MDVN, since the results of trial would seem to validate the Jeffries projection of 2.20+ a share in 2014. In which case, 100 would seem to be well within the realm of possibility. What do you think?
Hopefully, he had some stops in and was taken out in that surge at the open. Of course, many of the folks who talk about shorting these stocks, really are only buying puts, which is a much less painful way to lose money.
Remember, this stock was forced dowm to 63.50 during the first week of this month - and for one day, 62.50 - and is up more than 10 points during a month where the S&P is down over 4%. Your surmise that the PREVAIL numbers may not be good is exactly the fear that they're tryin to sow among the retail investors. I doubled up during that 63.50-62.50 headfake and doubled up again today. A hefty dose of cynicism is necessary in this market.
yunsu, I sincerely expect your short to go underwater tomorrow. If the PREVAIL numbers are good, I think it will be deeply underwater by Wednesday. But good luck anyway.
PS Jeffries' estimate of 2.28 eps in 2014 is more than double the current consensus number of 1.10.
Raises estimate of 2014 US Xtandi sales from $668m to $866M. Raises 2014 eps estimate from .63 to an astounding 2.28. They are envisioning Xtandi taking a much larger share of the pre-chemo market.
Good for you. But you should be aware that this stock is down here for only one reason: To sell puts to the suckers. I would consider taking my profits right here @73.71, where you've made almost four points. This stock will be at 85 before it goes to your targel of 65.7.
We're all money managers. One reason why so many funds underperformed the markets this past year was because they were underinvested in biotechs. If you were looking to the talking heads on CNBC for investment advice at this timelast year, you would have found many of them touting gold, commodities, and AAPL.
Yes, note that on Thursday the NTSB and their Canadian equivalent joined in a statement that the DOT-111 cars were basically unsafe and would have to be upgraded. They also called for safer routing of flammable cargoes and lower speeds. All of these three factors will accelerate the need for new cars.
A: Absolutely nothing. Which is why yesterday was a good day to add shares.
PS Since this is apparently your first and only post on this or any other board, one would have expected something more insightful.
The fact is, anti-cancer vaccines, such as Provenge, have a dismal track record. It's becoming increasingly evident that cancers may be controlled without ever being "cured". This will happen through a constantly evolving combination of monoclonal antibodies, proteasome inhibitors, etc. For example, Gleevec, a tyrosine-kinase inhibitor, has not cured CML, but it has transformed it from a fatal disease into a chronic condition. When, over the resistance of the urologists, Xtandi is administered before surgery is resorted to, there will be many fewer prostate cancers in need of "curing".
While you're gazing intently at those charts, you should be aware that the ASCO GU abstracts, which will feature results of Xtandi's crucial PREVAIL trial, will be released at 5pm EST Tuesday. It would be extremely hazardous to be short this stock ahead of this event IMHO.
Again, the $278 million projection for 2014 is total revenues, not earnings. Credit-Suisse projects this to double in 2015, at which point they will be earning, by their estimates, about $150 million. But this kind of valuation is not as extreme as it sounds.
Celgene lost $3.34 per share in 2008, but the stock closed that year at 55. Over the ensuing 5 years, the stock has almost tripled. Gilead lost 17 cents per share in 2003, yet the stock closed at 55. However, if you adjust the price for the multiple splits since then, the shares were priced at 6.85. In other words, if you'd gone for that absurd valuation at the end of 2003, you would have multiplied your money 11.75 times. A $10,000 investment in that seemingly overpriced stock would have turned into $117,500. Of course, this will never happen with PCYC, simply because the company will be bought out long before that kind of stunning growth happens.