"My general experience with these companies is that the dreamed-of “short squeeze” does not often materialize with these binary events. Far more often than not, when the shorts make a major move in advance of such a binary event, it’s because they have it right (data leak?)."
How could that be when I believe statistical data about shorting is that an average of 80% lose money when they short stocks?
As expected, higher spending levels in support of our expansion plans pressured our earnings throughout 2014, as we fast-tracked assembly of the talent, assets and infrastructure required to take our business to the next level," continued Reichental. "Having completed this investment phase, we expect to recover our operating leverage and expand our profitability throughout 2015."
For the past few days I think the shorts have started to bring the stock down only to see that later on others who have a better idea of what is coming down the line scooping up more shares.
Wait until it reaches $170. At that time evaluate the pipeline and the timelines for what is in the pipe. if it looks promising hold the shares. If there will be a long period before the next drug hits the market I will take profits on half of my holdings and keep the rest for a long term investment. BTW I am not a pro and may be talking off of my #$%$. Good investing to you.
As for me, if I sell any of my VRTX stocks and that is a big if, I do not plan to invest in any other as I have invested with margin money and thus will reduce my margin amount.
I also have a big long term position in NKTR from way back when the stock was in the teens. Within a month or so it is supposed to announce the results for NKTR-102 for cancer. If the results are good there is a good potential for the upside. If it is bad --well downside. I am betting on the upside because the phase 2 results were pretty good.
In addition NKTR has a nice pipeline with several compounds in phse 3.
As a #$%$ shoot I also have a position in DDD. The stock has been killed during the past year and I personally believe it is undervalued at these prices.
I am not aware of any partnership or agreement with VRTX. So how do they get hold of Ivacafter so they can modify it? Do they buy it from VRTX? Also even if they are successful in improving Ivacafter, they still need to negotiate an arrangement with VRTX since Ivacafter is patented. Unless they have an agreement it seems to me VRTX may only give them pittance for using its patented product -- that is assuming it is successful in being better.
You are correct verity, if I remember correctly, a few years ago CFF contracted with Genzym, now part of Sanofy, to try the many compounds it had in its portfolio (3 M?) to see if any of them would be effective for CF. Then when CF monitized its royalty rights for VRTX's CF franchise, it indicated the reason was to fund CF research efforts of other drug companies. So all of the listings in their "pipeline" is funding of other companies' effort for CF drugs.
The title of your message is correct, but it is something that has not happened. The FACTS are that the insurance companies ARE already paying for the drug. Apparently, you are not well informed. I suggest you read the available facts and then if you have any common sense cover your short albeit at a loss. But that is at least better than losing a lot lot more if you wait too long. Oh and BTW don't tell me you are not short or you are not trading options!
They "barely missed the P value by a little bit."
Side effects were much lower with 102 and the liver and brain patient did show a significant improvement over the control group. That is good enough for me.
I do not mind if it falls $6 or more tomorrow because I am going to buy A LOT. If it gets hit only a few bucks I will buy a moderate amount.
This is a lifetime opportunity to buy a stock with a big pipeline at reasonable prices!!
"Does the patent for Ivacafter protect against someone using deuterated Ivacafor?"
Yes it does. Apparently, you do not know much about patent laws. The only time a compound can be altered and sold as an improved version without the patent holder 's permission is when the patent has EXPIRED. An example is NKTR-102 is an improved version of Irinotecan whose patent expired a while ago and now is a generic drug.
Can someone tell me why 2.1 month longer survival was not considered statistically significant even though the experts said an additional 2 month of survival would be a greate achievement?
Was it because the bar was set too high? And if so who decided on that -- was it NKTR's CMO or was it set by the FDA as a minimum requirement?
"The original intent was prolong exposure and to lessen the side effects"
So I am curious as to why that was not the main focus for establishing statistical significance. Was that part of the miscalculations that have happened several times by NKTR CMOs when they designed they designed the drug trials?
"What happen to all those other ongoing trials that include Irinotecan ... gone? "
If the main purpose was to show 102 had less side effects and was at least as good or better than Irinotecan, why didn't the trial design for 102 had arms that included 102+TPC vs Irinotecan+ TPC? That would have been comparing apples with apples.
For 661 phase 2, did VRTX indicate what % FEV improvement it would consider a success? Did the study have an end point guideline? Did they mention the 6% as an expectation?
" I think the market is seeing the Phase 3 of 661 as only beneficial if it will be able to reach heterozygotes, "
Why 6% and not 4% improvement?
I thought the main reason for 661 was to increase the pool and if 661 showed a bit over 4% improvement doesn't that increase the pool nevertheless?