Sorry, I don't know anything about any of those. The only health stock I'm recommending [cautiously] to other people these days is Myriad Genetics (MYGN). Since the split patent decision (They can't own the genes, but they can own the methods of testing for them), bears have piled in expecting ruinous competition. Meanwhile, earnings have kept rising and new tests are gradually expanding the opportunity. I'm not even recommending INCY because we're entering silly [tax-driven] season with nothing compelling on the company calendar.
You're always low on sales. We'll see some benefit from having detailers allowed to talk about survival, and a little benefit from RECAP. So 99MM sales. Another mil or 2 on royalty, too (survival benefit). But expenses could maybe be higher than you guess, too. I'm presuming that the checkpoint collaboration payments go onto the contract line, which makes that highly uncertain. Constraint on earnings is that this isn't a quarter in which management is highly motivated to show the first ongoing-operating profit (the first quarter of the PV push is pretty much guaranteed to generate a loss; why go black only to go red again?). They have not scrimped to make the numbers look better, so there should still be a loss.
SA reply thread being taken over by Geron/Imetelstat fanatics. They are very up on regulatory developments, and are passing rumors of what Tefferi might present at the next ASH. Hysterical and sometimes rude, but may be of interest.
Company was just in the news. Australian. Real goal is slowing degeneration in Alzheimer's disease by modifying trafficking of metal in brain (the Golconda of drug developers). Just jumped on the orphan indications scam by adopting Huntington's disease as a near-term target. Scamming research money by expanding trials to Parkinson's disease, and tentatively that may be the best target anyway.
These are Dread Diseases, the drug candidates are oral small molecules. Sounds familiar.
Chart suggests it might be a trading vehicle; otherwise for those of us with infinite time horizons, and cautiously.
"The first immunomodulator that acts as a programmed death (PD) inhibitor has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck & Co), previously known as MK-3475, has been approved for use in patients with advanced or unresectable melanoma who are no longer responding to other drugs." (dated Sept 4)
This is the drug being paired with INCB24360 (the IDO inhibitor) in exploratory trials. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02178722?term=INCB24360&rank=1
Incyte is conducting the trials I collaboration with Merck. While the combination trial is expected to last 3 years, the design permits numerous interim analyses which might generate news.
Running a study is easier when an approved drug is included.
The take-home is that the benefit of whole-population screening is predicted to be indistinguishable from zero (agreeing with experience), while the cost in both money and morbidity is considerable. The test is useful in the right situations, but not for screening where there is no reason for initial suspicion of prostate cancer.
In fact, one of the big uses of Prolaris may be to mitigate [somewhat] the harm done by excessive PSA testing.
But the point is that we should be interested and encouraged by positive findings on the benefits of a Myriad test, but keep in mind the good reasons why medical practice is slow in expanding test use.
Be very careful before saying that a test can do no harm. Everyone's pet bad example is PSA testing of healthy men. Costs a lot of money total, which is a harm right there (and PSA costs less than MyRisk). Leads to an enormous amount of unwarranted anxiety and many unnecessary surgical procedures. No demonstrable public health benefit (raw prostate cancer death rate is the same in comparable countries where the test is and is not common). But a physician who doesn't do PSA screening risks being sued, so in the US it's hard to stop doing the test routinely.
So anyway, this one study concluded that screening without prior suspicion is justified in a particular population. It's interesting, and even hints that more testing should be done in general, but let's not rush beyond what that American Cancer Society guy said.
News story in Today's NYT that among Ashkenazi Jewish women (a somewhat more homogeneous population than the European norm) the usual risk/benefit measures support BRCA 1/2 testing with no requirement for prior suspicion. This was partly driven by BRCA1 mutations with an unusually high risk in this population, so it remains to be seen if the conclusion would be transferrable to MyRisk. One element of the methodology was particularly interesting: to avoid bias by self-selection, male relatives of desired subjects were tested. I haven't read the full journal article, just the NYT story, so I don't know the full statistical treatment.
The main Incyte move on the PaCa front is a couple of p3s. We won't hear anything from them for a while yet--futility/slaughter rule judgement maybe around Feb?
And I don't think the effect of the ITMN news is past. If you read the SEC filings, the Intermune side definitely hoped that once the bottle was opened there would be a competing bid. There hasn't been one. On the one hand, that is discouraging for those who attach a high value to pipelines. On actually the same hand, if anyone IS contemplating a competing bid, they need to get commitments for the availability of money to complete the deal with, and that dries up funds that could go into other infant pharmas.
Offer: check. Offer to remain open for 20 business days: running. I expect nearly all shares to be tendered, so determining whether the offer has succeeded should be quick. There shouldn't be regulatory issues. Nominally, shares will be bought immediately upon determination that the offer has succeeded. Cash in hand 3 days later.
I DON'T get out much. But I've seen a lot of corporate combinations, and at this stage of a buy-out the market price of the acquired company is generally more than 1% below the offer (often several times that). I talked to a guy who does dividend arbitrage, and he hasn't adjusted his expectations due to low interest rates. So my guess that the workout arbitrageurs haven't fully responded to rates gets a little support there.
In practical terms: tender your shares rather than selling (unless they're held on margin). The riskless 2%+ APR return is a decent deal, and you remain open for a better offer should it come. I have some shares on margin, and I'll sell those shortly.
You wouldn't SEE institutional investors doing anything until it happened. I've seen deals that looked at least equally ironclad broken up when someone came along offering substantially more money.
It appears from news stories that during the talks that resulted in the Roche offer, some things were disclosed about SoP that make it look more promising. It is plausible that players other than Roche may have been unable to respond quickly. That's what could lead to a counter-offer. If it was likely to happen, the stock might be above the deal price. But what we have is the stock coming closer to the deal price than I've usually seen. That makes perfect sense in today's low interest rate environment (the value of a dollar promised in 3 months is closer than usual to $1 now), but it's a kind of sense I'm not used to seeing in the stock market. So I'm leaving open the possibility that someone is looking at the possibility of stepping in (raising money on a deadline is hard to keep entirely quiet)
Reading tea leaves: Continuing gains keep the idea alive, but today's drop in INCY, which has run up in sympathy with ITMN, suggests that either interest is waning or that money for a speculative bid is scarce. In the present low rate environment, the high market price of ITMN may be misleading.
Myriad's tests are more subtle than the usual "measure the number or concentration of one kind of thing" tests. I can recall a few spats when new tools for doing the usual thing, like PCR and FIA were commercialized, but the key discoveries weren't proprietary, so protection was weak and evadable. In the present instance, the kinds of subtleties that could be finessed most of the time in the past are the meat of the issue. So my money is [literally] on Myriad too.
You said that " I don't believe any company recklessly infringes patents unless they are very confident they would win any possible law suit" and then that the challengers didn't do DD. My contribution here is that the latter is probably true, and probably an element of their corporate culture.
In the terms of the patent class of "Law 101" this is an issue of product by process, which is usually the weakest kind of patent, but because the marketability of the product depends on trust in the process, we're getting a sharp fight in less-familiar territory.
Thinking at the time of the Kodak attack was that it would probably destroy Polaroid (which it probably did) and would be worth the penalties even if Polaroid prevailed in court (Oops).
You perhaps noticed that you contradict yourself? Most medical tests don't have good patent protection, so it just seems as if the culture is tilted toward recklessness.
I picked Kodak/Polaroid because it was such a grotesque and public example, and I was pretty close to it at the time (I had stock in both companies). Nobody sane considered Kodak's position better than 50:50, and that was good enough for them. I could give a couple of contemporary examples in electronics, but they are more obscure. Also in electronics, Intel, for instance, seems to be willing to develop whole new technologies rather than get into a patent morass.
So this IS your first rodeo. Deal is done, but that doesn't mean that it can't be tossed out. Been there, done that, more than once.
Stock action strongly suggests that a counter offer is being discussed in quarters where such ideas can turn into reality. Still a long shot, but if it was 1 in 20 Monday and 1 in 10 yesterday, I'd call it 1 in 7 today.