Listened to the replay. One thing we knew already is that research headlines figure to be sparse in the first half of this year. The big news for the next 3 CCs figures to be about Jakafi adoption for PV.
Stepping back, the breadth of the pipeline is daunting. All these candidates can be brought through p1 straightforwardly enough. Most of them look like they'll need multiple p2s, because they will be targeted against multiple indications with diverse pathologies. That could stretch through 2016. I won't say it's impossible, but I don't see how Incyte builds the financial and organizational bulk to complete development of even a third of the announced candidates. That leads to a pretty tight range of when management would most like to sell off the company: after introduction of the IDO inhibitor (say, year-end 2016), but before they get into a need to go it alone on more than one p3 at a time (maybe Q3 of 2016). If the Bari project is still going well by then, the deal price could be scary high. The generation of attractive drug candidates has been incredibly rapid; I don't see another company wanting to scatter the team and pick up the mess that might be left after an unfriendly deal. So we'll have to live with organic value growth for a while longer.
So your objections are that people who like to think of themselves as professionals aren't REALLY professionals. The MBAs are professionals who treat the wanna-bes well out of the goodness of their hearts, and will stop if the wanna-bes organize. I say cooperation and friendship work just fine in an organization where people genuinely know each other, but beyond a certain size, it's about power. CEO pay is about power, not extraordinary ability (effectively, in most companies, the CEO chooses the directors, who get a no-work job [well, if they happen to be conscientious, about 50 hours a year] paying about the price of a car per year. The directors set CEO compensation. The directors nominally answer to the stockholders, who are generally too fragmented to demand anything. Clever CEOs choose a diverse BoD who will only unite as a force in case of catastrophe) And for special situations you suggest what amounts to an informal union.
BTW, the CEO generally has SEVERAL houses bigger than any of the "little VPs" have.
Workers get power through unions. If too many of the workers are stupid, they may get a stupid union that breaks the company. It happens, just as stupid management breaks companies [many times as often].
I'm overextended and had to buy back my naked $38 puts. Nice profit overall, but it's kind of insulting. Well, when the bears are selling pencils, I won't be buying.
You're still pretty out of it. They didn't have the money when you were asking for a special dividend and they don't have it now. It will be collected in installments over 2 years. So a special dividend is unlikely. There might be an increase in the regular dividend, or not--income from a structured settlement is a bit sideways to the stated dividend policy.
On a few-months time scale, Swiss and US currencies are likely to move in parallel, basically devaluing the Euro and 3rd world currencies. So this move doesn't predictably make acquisition of US companies by Swiss ones more attractive.
I don't give a fig for Switzerland, but the strengthening dollar is dangerous to prospects of the US business recovery.
Unlikely, if only because PDL is the most MBA-friendly business that EZ is in. You CAN evaluate creditworthiness, correct for local business conditions and make risk/reward plans. Pawn is more personal.
Anyone who works for a company and gets OOM half a percent of the CEO's compensation (here, $17MM+) is justified in asking what 'professional' means in their personal context. And when the top guy is getting a 20% annual increase and you are getting maybe 5%, it's reasonable to think about banding together with your peers to generate more leverage.
Diodes, Inc; EZCorp; Eastman Chemical; IMAX; Myriad Genetics; Tessera, Inc.regularly. United/Continental, Delta and Alaska Airlines and Honda Motors occasionally of late. Only Myriad and maybe IMAX have a combination of promising stock and good conversation.
A practical matter: they've opened up a lot of pawn shops that look like retail stores in relatively up-market areas (my model is Arlington Heights, IL). I can see how SOME might fit into a network (buy electronics; sell jewelry; these people aren't really into small loans) but there seem to be too many. Is there a way to make them work, or is the best thing to just walk away?
But puts trade even thinner than calls. Of course, while I'm sometimes the volume for the day, you seem to like to be the volume for the week. But still, the basic principle of waking the market up before committing to a major move ought to narrow spreads to workable size.
Part of he reason a broken call position should be repaired quickly is that there's generally still some activity in the old call, and the new one should be near the money and hence fairly liquid.
Sometimes the only thing to do is take your profit and do something else. These are strategies for getting a little more out with manageable risk "but you knew that when you layed down" (Alice Cooper reference); you hedge because you don't know for sure what's going to happen. I feel a little silly when the underlying of a covered call takes off, but sometimes when the underlying of a naked put plummets there's no liquidity at all, and that feels worse than silly.
Right now, I prefer the equivalent buy-write. The way the issues lie, the June 80 expiration looks plausible. If the stock takes off for internal reasons, a roll to a Jan 2016 expiration will capture another $5 or so. When I'm overextended (as I am, and you sound) I prefer to see that sword dangling over me.
If there was a really clear stair-step possibility ahead I might buy into it, but the next one I see in that category is the final Lilly p3, a long way off. Now, I'd try to diversify (airlines are reporting about now).
There are about 4 key prices for a takeover. From lowest to highest: price that could get enough tenders to win, price that would stop others from making a counter-offer [shutout price], price that an auction would end at and price for an entirely friendly deal. I think the shutout price for Incy is now around $25 bln. The entirely friendly price is probably around twice that. And there remains the risk that with a run of bad clinical trial results Incyte might be worth only $8-10 bln.
The volume sounds professional. Those guys are subject to making moves because a box says tail risk or some such justifies them.
I agree that it's good to see a candidate get a name. I probably attach less significance than you do to the pipeline items identified: we have known for a long time that there's a lot hidden there.
The feed problems seem to have been in the broadcast, not our reception of it. They promise that the archived version will be better.
I make it a slight positive. Most of the stuff looks neutral on an investment time scale. The big positive for me was the de-emphasis of inflammation, which I read as drawing closer to Lilly. If you figure that this is about when the futility read on the last of the Bari p3 s would fire, it fits. The anti-TNF market got a lot bigger while I wasn't watching.