On 5.15.15 a block of 400k failed
On 4.23.15 a block of 233k failed
on 3.25.15 a block of 261k failed
around 1.7 to 1.9.15 almost 900k shares failed over 3 days
June data shows relatively small volume in June.. 43,000 on 6.22 is largest. I'll look at archive data
20150615 ARWR 169
20150616 ARWR 348
20150617 ARWR 759
20150618 ARWR 180
20150619 ARWR 264
20150622 ARWR 42990
20150623 ARWR 20
20150624 ARWR 30160
20150625 ARWR 696
20150626 ARWR 80
20150630 ARWR 510
don't necessarily need stops, as margin debt in biotech is very high. Moves lower will generate margin calls to help the shorts. They know that.
yes this is true. shorts know they can get a retest of lows under right circumstances. they seem to be fearless. Longs need to be able to tolerate a break back to $5 at worst.
Agreed. Are we aware of any expressed concerns be regulatory bodies around the melittin angle? that seems to be the short thesis.
not that it matters, but I suspect that thesis just comes from Margarone.
yeah, I think the reality is it just comes down to efficacy. whichever treatment can provide stronger efficacy for longer with less side effects will be preferred.
If ARC 520 can be subbed for Interferon we have a huge winner no matter if its IV , SubQ, or any other method.
What scares me is people talking about ARWR subq as more effective. Does that mean this whole multi-year round of trials is a precursor to a second multi-year round of trials for the subq version?
the hedge fund thesis is basically Margarone's talking points to them... that Melittin is toxic and that ARC520 will require too large a dose to remain safe.
all of that is conjecture and competitor trash talk. But if enough HF's believe it they push the price around. Question is, are they correct? so far a small anti-histamine has settled minro injection site irritation.
The real challenge is the cautious approach of regulators in requiring so much data to allow multi-dosing studies that can use large enough doses to show efficacy. I guess everyone is paranoid about bee stings.
the data would have to be truly remarkable for the single dose data to do that... hard to imagine the data is that good at 3-4mg single dose (greater than 90%). based on stock price action, and risk of a market correction I think mgmt. would be prudent to sell into a move to 12-15. unless they do have a partnership, which would be preferable.
only hard data showing efficacy in humans will really move the shares.
Multi-dose studies starting at 3-4mg would be positive
ALT movement in humans at 1-2 mg would help
hopefully the chimps show deep KD with low AEs
if they get a pop to the 12-15 range I'd expect an immediate capital raise as well.
eventually ARWR and ALNY will end up in litigation. ALNY is licensing DPC for one of their internal candidates. I didn't hear the comments, but could be a contractual violation...
regardless of Margarone's tactics whoever solves the puzzle will be the sought after partner
TKM ebola looked very promising, cure rate in primates was I believe 100%. then it didn't work in humans.
I think that drove them to want to give investors an idea of what their change in focus will be, to target HepB as primary business objective.
I would speculate that the separating of assets between HBV and non HBV is likely intended so that they can spinoff oen or the other in a tax efficient manner should bids emerge for it as the pipeline develops. If you sell assets out of a company you get double taxed.. once at the corporate rate, then again as a shareholder at the cap gains rate. However if you sell a whole company as an equity holding investment you only get taxed at cap gains rate.
It reflects failure of their existing development candidates and a redesign of the company to make use of the Oncore assets and team.
I believe his comment at one of the calls or conferences was that they were at the midpoint of the ascending part of the dose / response curve. Therefore you might see better than 1:1 response for the incremental dosing.
NOw I'm certainly no scientist and that's a fuzzy memory.
I recall their initial hope was that humans would show a stronger response per unit than the primates, but that did not pan out. Instead it was very similar.
ideally we'd skip the whole single dose debate since its irrelevant to the final product and get to multi-dose results but the authorities are on a different timeline. guess we need the FDA to buy some shares of this thing
funny, I type in shorthand as I am busy. Is that your best criticism of my logic? thought a PE guy like you would be able to be above that sort of comment.
that's because they were getting hit hard with data timing requests from analysts and shareholders after the stock fall. so they wanted to answer the expectations question. it wasn't a major point.
I"ve watched or read all of them. What I note is that indeed the science is usually very interesting and points to interesting possibilities for further research, but often that doesn't help make the BUSINESS outlook any different in terms of cash flows, cash needs and so on. So the issue we have as shareholders is will the share price react positively or negatively based on certain expected data points?
My take is the hurdle is quite high, as for some reason this stock is guilty till proven innocent. Therefore it will require some remarkable efficacy data to change the outlook for the company.
More important to wall street and institutions are these items:
1. when does the multi-dosing protocols at 3-4mg get approved (asia / Europe) to get the bus going on that data
2. when can investors see actual efficacy data in humans that shows it has a benefit to humans at some dose? 2015? 2016? (Tekmira just taugh a bunch of people a real hard lesson about efficacy in primates vs humans on their ebola drug)
3. will the data shared drive research cost estimates and timeline HIGHER or LOWER?
4. Does the data show that ARC 520 may have a benefit that complements other drugs in research by Gilead? (rather than as an alternative to)
5. Does the data show ARC 520 as a potential alternative to IFN ?
Those questions will drive the price, NOT whether the research is 'seminal', 'promising', 'interesting', 'pointing to new theories', 'changing dogma'.
institutions will wait to see real efficacy before making a big bet, especially after TKMR blew up after great primate data on ebola