I guess it all depends if Hasnain has visions of being the
CEO over a big biotech like BIIB (his former employer), or if he's more a serial entrepreneur, where he walks away with $100 million and goes on to his next venture. I hope its the latter! Good luck to you too.
vvvvvvvvvvvv you bring up a good point. when I "pump" a stock, what I'm really doing is putting out parts of my long thesis, hoping that two things will happen: 1) that other longs will add color to my thinking and/or position, so I can fine tune my strategy, and 2) that articulate shorts will come along and knock the #$%$ out of my thinking (i.e. punch holes in the logic) so that I might find a piece of information I either didn't know, didn't understand, or never seriously considered. For instance, when a couple of the more thoughtful shorts on the GILD, MRK, and ACHN boards talked about ACHN's very thin IP or how 3422 won't hold up on a patent challenge, assuming they get a patent, I spend a few hours researching the fight between MRK and GILD, and then the difference between Sovaldi and 3422. I still could be wrong, but parts of that argument challenged my thinking. And both Magnum and I took on the short ACHN arguments of Adam Sefert, a short seller on Seeking Alpha, countering each and every argument he made. I think together we covered just about everything, and in the process it reinforced my thinking on my long position. To me, certain shorts serve a very valid function, both in the market and on stock message boards. Successful shorts (which these days see fewer of them) often do far more DD on a stock than longs do - they have to to go against the grain. So to them, please continue to articulate your views - I'm all eyeballs. But to the ones who simply post TIIIMMMBERRR!!!!! and STICK A FORK IN THIS PIG!!!!, well, it's just like the longs who say this is going to the moon!
I know there is a lot of talk about a partnership, but I am hoping Receptos doesn't go that route and instead sells. Reason: the MS market is getting very competitive with more players coming on line. 1063 will probably be best in class once it is approved, but there are other drugs that could be major disruptors, such as BIIB033, or Anti-Lingo as it's known, which theoretically blocks Lingo-1 and promotes remyelination. If successful, BIIB will have the first drug that reverses the disease, even though that is out a few years. CEO Hasnain is no foreigner to buyouts - he was involved in one himself when he was CEO of Facet Biotech, a spinoff from PDL Biopharma, which was acquired by Abbott. So hopefully (my view) he will recognize that this is the time to sell the company - their phase 2 is clinically solid with 200 patients, and with positive early results in UC I think a very pretty pricetag ($6-10 billion) can be negotiated to sell the company now. If there is a partnership, I'm hoping they do a very lucrative deal for Ex-US only, perhaps with a Roche or a Sanofi. If Roche is willing to spend $8.2 billion on Intermune to acquire perfenidone for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, then somebody should want to pay $6-10 billion for RPC-1063. I've been holding since $40 and now represents 30% of my portfolio.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
ibl, sorry I missed your post on this, which is now a month old. you've probably research the heck out of this by now, and as you can see MGNX is now up 40%.
thank for your post mdph. I couldn't agree more. However, I believe it's not just Gilenya that RPC-1063 may displace or challenge; it also might be Tecfidera, since 1063 doesn't cause a dramatic drop in white blood cell count, and as you state it also doesn't cause a decrease in heart rate as Gilenya does. Receptos' underwriters underpriced their secondary by at least $5, as they severely underestimated demand. I continue to expect TEVA, BIIB, Novartis, ABBV, SHPG, or Sanofi to be very interested in acquiring this company.But the one with the highest pain point is TEVA with Copaxone, so they could be the most likely. I think we double from here, at least, for the buyout price.
so, ACHN is seeing the results as they come in. They know if 200 mg dose failed or not, and based on the assays in their posted scientific papers, my bet is that the dose which will be show a viral load reduction = 4.0 log10 is 500 mg or possibly 600 mg, which is why this is taking longer than planned. But that is just a guess and nothing more. There is a very good chance that a lower dose, in combo with 3102 and/or sovaprevir, will be just as powerful due to synergistic effects. And again I may be wrong here, but as far as I know there is nothing to prevent ACHN from discussing a buyout with anyone WHILE this trial concludes - because of the adaptive design they are not violating SEC rules by not disclosing anything until they have the results in their entirety. But I believe they do have quite a bit of data on 3422 in hand already.
that was from NIH...con't:
An adaptation is referred to a change made to the trial procedure and/or statistical procedure during the conduct of a clinical trial. Trial procedures may be the eligibility criteria, study dose, treatment duration, study endpoints, laboratory testing procedures, diagnostic procedures, criteria for evaluation and assessment of clinical responses. Statistical procedures include randomization, study design, study hypotheses, sample size, data monitoring and interim analysis, statistical analysis plan and/or methods for data analysis.
this is from the IH:
"An adaptive design is defined as a design that allows modifications to the trial and/or statistical procedures of the trial after its initiation without undermining its validity and integrity. The purpose is to make clinical trials more flexible, efficient and fast. Due to the level of flexibility involved, these trial designs are also termed as “flexible designs.”
Flexibility here does not mean that the trial can be modified any time at will. The modification and adaptations have to be pre-planned and should be based on data collected from the study itself. Accordingly, the new draft guidance of the FDA for industry on adaptive design clinical trials defines an adaptive design clinical trial as “a study that includes a prospectively planned opportunity for modification of one or more specified aspects of the study design and hypotheses based on analysis of data (usually interim data) from subjects in the study.” Analyses of the accumulating study data are performed at pre-planned timepoints within the study, with or without formal statistical hypothesis testing.
The term prospective here means that the adaptation was planned before data were examined in an unblinded manner. Changes in the study design occurring after an interim analysis of unblinded study data and those that were not prospectively planned are not within the scope of this guidance. Moreover, study design aspects that are revised based on information obtained entirely from sources outside of the specific study are not considered adaptive design, irrespective of the fact whether such adaptations were planned prospectively or occurred as a response to unanticipated external events. However, prospective study revisions based on information obtained from both a study-external and a study-internal source are considered adaptive designs.
ACHN has enough cash to take them to Q1 2017 at the current burn rate. They could probably get at least another year to 1 1/2 years, to early to mid 2016 if they started ramping up phase 2's. But I'm actually surprised they didn't put out a secondary at $12-$13 when they hit $15, as that would have established a valuation floor and the price would have risen from there. (We've seen that happen all year, as with KERX, RCPT, and many more). Maybe they didn't have enough additional institutional support at this point in time to do a 5-10 million share offering, who knows. Regarding GILD, I actually believe their press releases that the bond offering is to restructure part of their $9.4 billion debt. However, they easily have enough cash on hand to buy ACHN for cash. For that matter, so does ABBV.
About the data that ACHN knows or doesn't know: they clearly know the data after each dose tested; this is an adaptive trial. see next post.
golden, I have rarely found longs and sorts anywhere close to each other in their opinions. (Have you?) Both are looking for significant gains in the opposite direction, so by definition they are far apart. To me the short position here is simple: 1) nucs in general fail in either efficacy or toxicity, if not in phase 1, then in phase 2, like BMS', so odds are that 3422 will fail; 2) ACHN is too far behind to ever generate significant revenues from their drugs; 3) No one is going to pay billions for the company, because of #1 and #2. For longs like myself, 1) given all the preclinical analysis and reporting thus far, it is likely that 3422 will be strong in at least 2 or more genotypes; 2) the market is huge with millions of new cases each year, and will take decades to eradicate; 3) 3102, 2684, and sovaprevir are worth as much or more than current market cap, so the company has been largely de-risked; 4) ACHN's second generation drugs are the last viable, available pool for companies which want to play in this space and accelerate their own development timeline.
End of story.
apokerace, stop it. You know as well as anyone that the expectation is "late fall". Here is what the FBR analyst said: "...We view this data as incrementally positive, as it shows ACHN’s NS5A appears to have potent activity when used in combination with a nuc backbone. This is important ahead of phase I proof-of-concept data for Achillion’s main value driver, the nucleotide polymerase inhibitor (nuc) ACH-3422, due in late fall 2014."
Late fall is anytime before December 21st. Right now we are in mid-fall.
All I can say is that 2014 is going to go down as the worst year for shorts in a long time. Everyone shorted the biotech market after the run-up in 2013, only to find themselves holding 30+% losses this year as biotech kept chugging along. Massive losses in ITMN, RCPT, AGIO, REGN...list goes on and on...
If you've already got an ace, try blackjack. Poker isn't working out.
kicking myself. I waited to the ope3n, saw it fall back from $91 to $83, but didn't pull the trigger. Now it's $95. Instincts were right, behavior was wrong.
hey use, you're looking at a computer generated form from the Street. Zacks does the same thing. Poor profits? Are you kidding me? Go take a class in biotech investing.
I think you got it. But I'm not sure it's BIIB. I think it might be TEVA (They desperately need to replace Coxapone). I think this secondary was actually a prelude to a buyout. Someone said you raise another $300 mill so that we have $600 mill and we'll give you $5.5 billion for the company post offering. It's easier for Receptos to raise cash right now than it is for the acquiring company, so the offering could have been part of the buyout deal.