There is actually some experience supporting caution on BRACAnalysis promotion: their first DTC campaign was a great success, but the second just did nothing. We have seen that a celebrity endorser does wonders, but if AJ hadn't come to us, MYGN couldn't have afforded her. Maybe the international expansion was dawdled over.
M&A? Perhaps, but there's no reason to think that guys who run a specialized diagnostics business can run something else particularly well. The adventures in drug development sure weren't a triumph.
So anyway, yeah, a lot of shorts jumped in expecting Quest etc to eat MYGN's lunch. And on top of that, Halloween is a great day to think about discontinuing your lead product in favor of something seriously novel (Ever heard of Osborne Computer?). It's time and past for them to go away, but anybody still in has enough financial mass to be hard to stampede.
I am concerned about how the Feb results will be received. That $33MM profit included $85MM of milestones, 60 of which still aren't really explained. The coming Q will see the first payments of back-royalties and if not a selldown of inventory, at least less initial stocking than one might hope for.
There WAS an answer in the CC that overlap between those treating MF and PV is extremely high, so the new sales staff aren't sitting on their hands, but still, there will HAVE to be an element of selling lag for PV. On the helpful side, though, an answer said that a substantial number of insurers will preapprove the PV indication to the extent of strict compliance with the label. That gives a promise of fairly fast partial sell-in. It may be a slog to expand PV usage beyond the initial label.
As I said a couple days ago, I think the actual growth of Jakavi sales is still disguised, and may provide a bit or a goose next Q. But only a bit.
As always, JUST the CC please. Plenty of room for price guesses and personal matters elsewhere on the board.
First interesting matter: management apparently wanted the numbers to come in a few million dollars less, but pharmacies back-loaded ahead of the anticipated price increase. You could hear the frustration if you've listened to enough CCs.
The language changed regarding already-expensed API inventory, so I guess that COGS will rise going forward. Not a big item, but something to put back-of-mind.
N Q or A on what triggered the $60MM milestone, but a phrase dropped by HH hinted that it was for total sales--who knew?
The degree of detail given around the IDO collaborations suggests that partner enthusiasm remains high. But contract revenue was pretty much only the NVS milestones, so actual amount of work in the IDO trials is probably slight to date.
I have to believe the flat statement that Lilly will announce topline from the first Bari p3 (I wouldn't, if I was Mr Lilly). That could goose the stock in Dec/Jan when it'll have an upward bias anyway. Or not, of course.
Nothing on the inflame-directed JAK 1 candidate, especially not about picking a different lead compound.
VERY French answer about third party p2s (HH doesn't have the moustache, but I could visualize him with hands up at chest level saying "Well what can one do? They are independent of us."
The only reason I can see for the byplay about there possibly being more MF patients than Incyte had anticipated (which, if you recall, was considered a vary high guess at the time) may have been a sop to the [pick your disparaging term] analysts who were sticking with low estimates and expecting market saturation to show. The example given was odd: If you were going to not diagnose a patient with the effectively untreatable MF, you wouldn't go instead for the even-less-treatable MDS.
Actually, I sold $60 strike. If the stock runs away, I roll up and out the once, and after that I'm inclined to let the new shares go. I HAD been severely exposed to INCY, but after ITMN was taken over for cash, 1) I had a new range of tolerable exposure and 2) I admit it: I had transferred some of my loyalty to that other stock.
So anyway, this isn't hedging an existing overextended position, it's increasing exposure cautiously.
And I'd have been tempted to put the money into airlines or car companies or suchlike if I hadn't committed it here.
I think that the last Q for Novartis included a lot of channel stocking, so maintaining the same nominal sales is good.
I was thoroughly unimpressed with the BoA/ML report. The target price (I presume for about a year from now; they never say) is plausible, but the way it's arrived at looks like [Little Jack] Horner's method. In particular, the US Jakafi number strikes me as a few million dollars low (If they tried to back out off-label sales and then forgot about them, it might be highish-reasonable). I keep asking how multiple projects within the same company, with not-too-different arrival dates, can have substantially different WACCs.
The Jakavi sales number looks remarkably high (someone tell me what share of the market UK, ES and IT total--I'm guessing around 40%), and might imaginably be the motor driving the present move in INCY. And consider that the interferon challenge to Ruxo is more European than US.
I'm wondering if someone's leaking. Incyte just doesn't, and Lilly doesn't much either (in addition to it being especially important not to leak about a drug FDA figures to approach with a chip on its shoulder). That pretty much leaves Novartis and Merck. With the back-royalty having been invoked, there's a chance that Jakavi sales may be unexpectedly strong. And I think Novartis is doing the cMET trials, although it's hard to see this big a move from anything that might be generated there. Anything that could leak from Merck at this stage would have to be based on a handful of patients, which would call for it to be dramatic on the plus side and of questionable reproducibility on the minus side. I guess there could be chatter if patients in JANUS 1 are gaining weight (that would effectively un-blind the trial, which might hurt down the road) PaCa patients NEVER gained back lost weight before RECAP. Perhaps it's about the full publication of PV results (which were, if you recall, spectacular in summary form). NEJM doesn't leak, but most other medical journals do, at least a little.
Let's not forget that Incyte DOES look bad in standard accounting. The Ruxolitinib patent estate is lost on the balance sheet, carried at legal fees (maybe $100K)(likewise, other developed drugs). Little drug companies with big potential are vulnerable to changes in the mood of those financing them.
I thought the question was about the DATE, which is announced, I think. Don't recall. I'm super-reluctant to guess about AMOUNT, for a mix of reasons. Before the milestone was announced, I was happy with a couple cents loss. So now they could go + by as much as the mooted $0.40, but there is really no chance of the Dec Q being profitable (PV marketing), and I doubt that management wants a swing like that. So we may see everything negative dumped into this Q that can possibly fit. In addition, I'm not aware of any guideline to what the rest of the contract revenue line might be like (collaborative development projects)
Ok, your language is a bit unconventional, but yeah, one has to be aware of a possible stair-step in INCY pricing some day. I contend that right now, with a plausible valuation range from $28 to $220, Incyte is unlikely to attract a bid. Moderately fast price moves "the wrong way" for an option position can generally be handled tactically. It's only the really sharp moves that drive you to drink.
I don't see it. For that matter, I don't see Android as a reinvention of Google. But to present cases: Yahoo is positioned close to the consumer, putatively closer than Google. Tessera is positioned very deep in infrastructure, and has messed its pants every time it has tried to move closer. AOL / Time Warner, anyone?
Starboard already controls Tessera (They named more than half the BoD). They are unlikely to go for full ownership unless Tessera generates something comparable to the expired flexible connection patents. More likely, they'll try to get the company healthy and sell out.
Q: Please explain "the consolidation factor"
I like the May and June expirations for calls on smaller or more speculative issues because it avoids the pretty reliable January effect and benefits from a moderate tendency for this sort of stock to have a Spring slump. And this year there's a special reason to expect lack of relative strength: the much-anticipated return of actual interest rates.
Note that INCY has violated the top of my proposed $42-52 trading range, so I expect that it will take a genuine reason for the stock to go higher.
Those with heavy exposure might consider selling some Jun 2015 calls.(My medium term guess is that interest rates may come off the floor around that time, putting a headwind against stock prices)
It's fatal more than half the time. But the single case of pml in a patient receiving Jakavi looks more like coincidence than causation.
I think it's at least a couple of Qs to early to say whether recent steps lead forward or backward. And since I always thought Mr Cohen had his hands dirty in the past, his increased involvement is a non-factor.
I'm a little concerned that he was formerly associated with Myrexis, a company which had destructive conflicts between financial and operating sides (although he may have come in after the devastation)
If you figure the shorts sold around $25-28, they didn't exactly play it well. It isn't management's business to pump every day, and they haven't. Myriad's history of product marketing has been very uneven, with both brilliance and futility represented; there are 2 key products early in their rollouts (MyRisk and Prolaris), and Im inclined to be guardedly optimistic.