jay - the cost of their compound is not the only negative sentiment - in fact, it is not the real negative sentiment. I would be negative on AXON, even if they had paid 100 musd for the compound. I've been following the small-biotech area for a while and two biggest problems I see with AXON are valuation and the lack of pipeline (maybe it is one issue - valuation based on lack of pipeline). I have seen many biotechs with valuations of just a few hundred million, who had multiple compounds entering, or in, clinical development. Bringing a drug to market is a very risky process, and the odds are against any given compound. For a company with one compound, even in a potentially very lucrative area like AD, to be valued where AXON is, seems crazy to me. Other factors (cost of the compound, GSK stopping development, the post-hoc analyses), to me, just add to the risks for this compound, specifically. I would be interested in AXON is they would use some of their IPO proceeds to pursue other potential clinical candidates and build a pipeline.
Jay, I am one of those shorts. I am long a number of small biotech stocks, and have never before shorted a stock (unless you count selling covered calls). But, I shorted AXON because the valuation is way too high for a company with just one compound, especially one that big pharma (GSK) has already tested and decided not to pursue.
While it is always nice to see statistically significant Phase 2 data for a compound, investors should be aware that the 'completers analysis' presented in today's PR was not the primary analysis planned in the protocol. The primary analysis was to be at Week 24, for the ITT population, and included only one of the two variables they presented today (as well as a second one that they did not present). This may seem like a minor distinction, but making decisions based on post hoc analyses is very risky, and is less likely to predict results in future studies, than decision based on primary analyses. Another major risk is based on their discussion with FDA, as to what the FDA will require for approval. The FDA will not simply accept choosing the primary Phase 3 variables, based on what was statistically significant in Phase 2. If I were long, I would want to know what the FDA guidance was/is.
I hope they address, or are asked, about regulatory interactions. They previously had stated that they intended to discuss with FDA, what would be required for approval. It would be very helpful to know what the FDA guidance is.
The studies were done by GSK, not AXON. AXON only bought the compound from GSK in December, 2014, with plans to discuss their own study with FDA in the first half of 2015. I have done my own research. AXON HAS NOT DONE A STUDY. GSK conducted 4 Phase 2 studies, including the add-on therapy study with 684 patients. GSK completed that study in 2011. Hows that for a deep dive?
Thanks for clarifying, dollar. Since you seem to be "in the know", I was wondering if you could fill in some gaps for me regarding this study that AXON has performed. When did the study start? When was the study completed? What data do you believe they will present today? From what I had read previously, I thought the answers were: it hasn't started, (therefore) it hasn't completed, there are no data.
I'm really looking forward to their discussion of their portfolio of products.
Sentiment: Strong Sell
So, the logic goes like this:
This compound is ineffective
The FDA is making it easier to approve Alzheimer's drugs
Lets continue development of this ineffective compound
Sentiment: Strong Sell
If you go to the gsk website, and drill down to INVESTORS and then DIVIDEND CALENDAR, it provides the dividend-related dates for the next 2 dividends (those to be paid Oct 1 and Jan 14, 2016). The ADR x-div date for the Oct dividend is August 12.
Rez - Unfortunately (I guess?!) I am one of the sellers of the Jul calls, at $10/shr. Despite that, I have no intention of bashing the stock. I have been long NVAX since April, 2014, when I bought in at $4.12 a share. I have been selling covered calls since then. I sold the July CC in April, when the stock was around $8.25. At this point, I fully expect to have these shares called from me, at a nice profit (especially including the previous collected premiums on the CCs). This CC is one-quarter of my total long position. So, even with losing these shares (and having missed out an about a $2 gain from $10 to $12 on them), I remain a happy camper and bullish on the future of NVAX.
I don't understand the popularity of soccer, but there is no doubt about its (global, at least) popularity. While I like the idea of buying into companies that I am a consumer of, identifying companies with a sustainable product, that I am not a consumer of, can still be very profitable!
I don't know the answers to your specific questions, but if you check the Coherus website and drill down to INVESTORS and then PRESENTATIONS, you will find a presentation from the Jefferies Conference last month. It includes expected timings of regulatory submissions, as well as current and expected market for originator products (as well as their rationale for choosing their target products). No mention of what share they expect to take, nor their expected pricing.
As others have noted, when GSK's dividend came through last week, there was a fee associated with it. I sent an e-mail to Investor Relations to get more information, and I just received the following, in response:
Thank you for your email, which has been passed on to me from our Investor Relations department.
GSK circulated a notice to registered ADR holders on 6 April 2015, notifying them that the Company’s Deposit Agreement has been amended, from 1 January 2015, to allow the Depositary to charge ADR holders a fee in connection with paying dividends. Subsequently GSK introduced a dividend fee for ADR holders for the first time in our Q1 2015 dividend payment.
As a result ADS holders who receive a cash dividend will be charged up to $0.05 per ADS and this fee will be deducted from the quarterly dividend prior to holders receiving the cash dividend. GSK intends to use the fees to offset, in part, the costs related to SEC registration including Sarbanes-Oxley related expenses, administering the ADS facility and maintaining its NYSE listing fees.
I do hope this has clarified your query, however please do not hesitate to contact myself or Maninder Dhiman should you have any further.
With kind regards
Company Secretarial Assistant
PLC & Shareholder Services
Here is a link from Simon Dingemans' presentation at the annual meeting in May. On the 8th and 11th slides, he refers to a special dividend of 20p (roughly equal to a regular quarterly dividend) to be paid concurrently with the 4Q2015 dividend.
What is not clear from the presentation is whether 4Q2015 refers to the dividend to be paid in the 4th quarter (probably not, though) or the dividend associated with the fiscal 4Q2015. If it is the later (my guess), it would not be paid until April, 2016.
If my math is right, the market cap of CHRS when it came public, at around $13 a share, was half a billion. Its market cap is now approx 1.3 billion. What would a fair buyout price be? What price would be high enough for management to sell?
The fee showed up on my account, too. I have never seen this before. It looks like it is half a cent (ie - $0.005) per share. No idea why.