Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Incyte Corporation Message Board

jacosa 106 posts  |  Last Activity: 17 hours ago Member since: Jan 24, 2000
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Adam F., weighs in...

    by mrdtino May 9, 2016 11:16 AM
    jacosa jacosa May 9, 2016 12:04 PM Flag

    What he likes, I'm inclined t dislike. Stupid prejudice, I know. The Iclusig business is a political problem, although it probably won't itself get Incyte called before Congress (they'll go after the US marketer first, but if Incyte is there for another reason, Questions Will Be Asked).

  • The usual. Please play nice in this item. Frankly, I'm overwhelmed, and won't have anything much to say for a while.

  • Reply to

    Grateful for the panicky sell off.

    by into_something_good May 7, 2016 11:25 AM
    jacosa jacosa May 8, 2016 2:30 PM Flag

    The reason I don't expect socialist-leaning countries to become dominant customers of Myriad is that the ones I know something about retain a treatment-of-illness rather than maintenance-of-health orientation. Also, several countries of Europe (Germany, Italy and Portugal that I'm aware of) have a slant toward treatment of serious diseases at specialized institutes, which are reluctant to buy outside services.

  • Reply to

    I'm right; they're wrong

    by jacosa May 8, 2016 1:40 PM
    jacosa jacosa May 8, 2016 2:22 PM Flag

    If you want to reply, please reply to this rather than to the top item, so these will stay together in the topics display.

    Nobody is paying attention to Vectra, which is understandable because of its stagnant past, but surprising since it is quite material. Last Q management announced a revised attitude; that they'd put selling effort behind Vectra despite the slow progress of private reimbursement. The 18% volume growth seems like success. Vectra is a novel product which ought to have a "stretched-out 'S'" adoption curve, so if we're actually climbing the foot of that curve now, we can expect higher growth later (until market saturation at sales levels that don't bear talking about)(Prolaris is the same sort of thing, but we're still working through a pre-approval demand backlog).

    Hereditary cancer testing is, in a sense, a mature market. All the really high-risk mutations seem to have been found and while new benefits of testing are being identified in certain situations, there seems to be a rough balance in perceived cost::benefit. Since the value is in the variant classification, it doesn't lend itself to decentralization (the specialty clinic model popular in Europe is a poor match) So both domestically and internationally, expansion is likely, but not rapidly. International public variant databases might become useful 2019 or so.

    Test kits will be the big European product, and they seem to be about 18 months off.

    Net: I expect a small beat to guidance next quarter (they aren't forecasting new Prolaris reimbursement, because they just don't), with growth picking up gradually for a couple years. Too soon to talk seriously about companion diagnostics, but 10 years out they're likely to be the dog, not the tail.

    Gotta mention PAMA. Yeah, it'll put steady downward pressure on test prices. But we already have that, and it'll end nasty bolts from the blue like the attempted quartering of hereditary cancer testing reimbursement a couple years ago.

  • I really wanted to use that title. Referring here to negative analysts (BoA/ML and UBS in particular). There's always a presumption that paid analysts (even sell-side) know what they're talking about. But I don't think anyone still following Myriad correctly predicted no loss of hereditary breast cancer test volume after the patent invalidations. So no presumptions.

    The analysts see 3 main problems: the Q under Q drop in hereditaty cancer sales, the lowered top end of the forecast for fiscal Q4 and the $2MM catch-up payment that will never be there again. They're also skeptical of the value of R&D and they notice a competitive offering in hereditary cancer at 1/3 the price. The analyst comment that insurers will tolerate a few more VUS-s for those kinds of savings [I'm not going to attribute it, and it may have been from a report I only saw excerpts from] may be the dumbest thing I've ever seen in a financial report [ignoring both the magnitude and significance of the problem].

    It has been asserted without evidence that the paperwork hold-ups in MyRisk reimbursement will continue (by the way, this is an answer to That Poster who likes direct-to-consumer advertising: if it doesn't fit the insurers' guidelines, they won't pay. If you're willing to pay personally anyhow, it takes 3 times as long). Mytiad says they've been through this before and it's already solved. They've certainly been through it before, so I believe the other part.

    The lowered top end is from non-repetition of a good clinical lab services quarter and conservative guessing on private approvals of Prolaris. Both strike me as a return of Myriad's traditional conservatism in guidance. Private insurers HAVE been slow to authorize Prolaris, but they're authorizing it for intermediate as well as CMS's low risk, so the added chunks are bigger than anticipated.

    Yeah, the $2MM won't recur, and Prolaris is down to stratospheric growth from astronomical, but the net shortfall should be modest.

  • Reply to

    Will INCY have good day Monday May 9th ?

    by bonkenx May 8, 2016 11:30 AM
    jacosa jacosa May 8, 2016 12:54 PM Flag

    I'm guessing that the upcoming clinical trial expenses will look high, and it will be received badly. This is silly, of course. We've seen that registration-scale trials can fail, but there was always an element of wishfulness evident in the ruxo / systemic inflammation / survival idea. Much firmer basis to epac [and bari for atopic dermatitis, if they elect to pursue it]. Unfortunately, we return to higher risk [proportionate potential, of course] in diabetic nephropathy.

    Really serious turning to GVHD would mean accelerated development of one or more JAK-1 specific candidates; even more expensive

    The trading halts around SITC inhibit recapitalization ideas involving stock issuance, so any dilutive financing is likely to involve specific collateral.

    This WOULD be an appropriate time to announce that fatigue associated with cancer is a target for drug development, but I think EoY is more likely, if they choose to go for it (up until death is imminent, both physicians and patients are more concerned with fatigue than with any other effect of cancer). It is to be expected that even when immunotherapy is producing objective responses, it won't reduce fatigue.

    This is a year for cash, and plans are neutral or negative for stock prices.

  • jacosa jacosa May 5, 2016 2:10 PM Flag

    Note that depending on the mood of the day, this is either progress for a key candidate or a large ongoing cash drain.

  • Reply to

    Congressional interest

    by jacosa Apr 27, 2016 12:06 PM
    jacosa jacosa May 5, 2016 2:00 PM Flag

    Just heard something hair-raising in the Merck presentation at Deutsche Bank. Background is that there's a bolus of hepatitis C patients from the era between when pooled blood products became a big deal until when people started caring about HCV and learned to test for it (say 1962-1995 with a few years of slop on each end). Other than pooled blood products, transmission is inefficient, and even without treatments the illness was in decline. That decline is nice for public health, but no comfort for patients whose livers fail 20-40 years post-infection. The present treatments are complete cures; the patient is well and can't infect others at all.

    So here it is: the prices of HCV treatments are high enough to ration number of patients treated. HCV could be eradicated if all patients were treated, but there isn't the money. And the drugs aren't inherently difficult to make or dependent on scarce resources. This is an extreme case of drug companies having put in enormous resources up front, with low chance of success; large rewards are appropriate. But letting an epidemic run decades longer than it needs to? Primum non nocere, or the highway!

    I'd like to have the government commandeer the patents on a few of the HCV drugs ('buy' implies voluntary. No choice, but generous compensation to be given--some ideas are 10xcost of development, or twice the cost of giving the drugs to existing patients). Cure everyone who can be found and end the outbreak.

  • jacosa jacosa May 5, 2016 1:33 PM Flag

    Just listened to the Merck presentation at Deutsche Bank. Incyte was the only collaborator mentioned by name (albeit very briefly, along with mention of their own anti-IDO). They also mentioned GITR as a combo target with Keytruda.

    Minor interest: mentioned that while you want own/own combos when there is a possibility of giving the agents simultaneously, it's much less important when they're given by different routes or on different schedules. The examples were IV vs pills, every 3 weeks vs daily. Well, that's a double hit on the protocol for Keytruda / epac.

  • jacosa jacosa May 5, 2016 12:53 PM Flag

    Very thin gruel, but quoting from today's Merck release: "Registration-enabling trials of KEYTRUDA are currently enrolling patients with melanoma..."

    Since the drug is already registered as a single agent against melanoma, this has to refer to combination[s].

    But hey, I shoulda looked quicker: here's the Clinicaltrials number: NCT02752074 Described as an Incyte study with Merck collaborating, starting this month. 600 Patients for 2 years. There COULD have been an annex added to the original collaboration agreement to cover this, with consequences that might delay the CC. Since it's an existing agreement, it wouldn't have required immediate announcement.

  • Reply to

    INCB039110 Ibrutinib combination trial

    by downtoearth54321 May 5, 2016 11:04 AM
    jacosa jacosa May 5, 2016 11:44 AM Flag

    I don't know about specifically called out, but we've been prepped for trials of '110 in lymphoid malignancies. WAY back when, ruxo was tried against multiple myeloma (with good theoretical reasons) and failed (presumably because of dose-limiting toxicity). '110 Ought to be less toxic (I don't think we've seen a big study)

    If successful, this would start out as an extreme example of a costly / costly drug combination (before we learn the dirt against '110, it looks like a drug that could find a large market, lowering the price).

  • Reply to

    Earnings May 9 [?]

    by jacosa Apr 14, 2016 8:56 AM
    jacosa jacosa May 5, 2016 10:56 AM Flag

    One more, semi-serious: maybe the accounting staff has been over-burdened preparing materials against a possible need for Senate testimony. We might never know that one.

  • Reply to

    Earnings May 9 [?]

    by jacosa Apr 14, 2016 8:56 AM
    jacosa jacosa May 4, 2016 8:27 PM Flag

    There's been some commentary in other items. First: the maternity leave thing was a joke.

    Ok, suppose there was something wrong with epac (I have no information). What might delay the CC but not require a prompt announcement? Can't be adverse events; they have to be announced promptly. Can't be outright termination of an announced joint research deal--same thing. I don't think disappointing results from collaborations would delay the CC. Massive success in one might force Incyte to budget for half of a registration program before they were prepared to, and Incyte wouldn't need to comment (if the partner didn't want to announce anything before the clinicaltrials posting, Incye couldn't comment. I just heard on another company's call that "a top tier customer is evaluating our firmware as part of a flagship product") That stuff can happen. But I doubt it here. Plausibly, epac might be getting back-burnered somewhere without termination of the agreement involved. I don't see that the CC would be delayed. I speculated that the failure of the ruxo/inflammation/cancer thing might have made reorganization appropriate. I don't see that epac is as central to the immune-oncology program as all that.

    Most ownership actions (companies, parts of them, even product lines) create even hotter potatoes than the quarterly numbers You announce them when they're done, and you do NOTHING to hint at something going on.

    "The usual suspects" for delayed earnings are inventories, goodwill and unconsolidated subsidiaries. None of those here.

    I'm pretty suet that I once saw an announcement that earnings reporting would be delayed due to the untimely departure of a key treasurers' office employee. Thing is, they said what and why up front.

    We'll learn soon enough.

  • Reply to

    IMAX IS ON THE MOVE

    by cashworkswell1 May 2, 2016 8:41 PM
    jacosa jacosa May 3, 2016 7:48 PM Flag

    Paper airplanes?

    Sorry, Really, I'm long and I like the deal. But we've learned around here to value contracts for future builds "appropriately."

  • Reply to

    Anybodyb want to share on TSRA?

    by kg2931 Apr 20, 2016 4:18 PM
    jacosa jacosa May 3, 2016 7:36 PM Flag

    Tessera makes money by licensing intellectual property (and doing joint development). Sometimes it's unclear whether a party is using IP another party owns. So you get lawsuits. Tessera used to sue a lot, and won a lot because they had a dynamite patent on flexible connections, which has since expired. Some of the disputes got nasty. Starboard instituted a policy of Tessera being much 'softer' in enforcing its rights to IP, in return for seeking to do business with those it is having problems with.

    Especially in the old days, the decision in a lawsuit could result in a bolus of income. That's episodic revenue, and it's hard for investors to think what to make of it. Post Starboard, Tessera states episodic and recurring revenue separately. There was a to-do a few months back when a journalist pointed out that when legal settlements were of the form "$5 MM a year for 5 years" (a structured settlement) rather than "$25MM next Tuesday," Tessera was reporting them as recurring. And it's NOT clear that they are the same sort of thing as licensing fees and payment for services. But if a settlement with payments over 3 years is really a cover for negotiating an ongoing business relationship, it's hard to argue.

    This Q's episodic revenue was mostly the result of an audit, in which a customer concluded that "Oops, we made more use of your IP than we had paid you for."

  • Reply to

    Anybodyb want to share on TSRA?

    by kg2931 Apr 20, 2016 4:18 PM
    jacosa jacosa May 3, 2016 7:04 PM Flag

    I don't know a better available number. But my impression is that single stocks held in individual margin accounts are a smallish part of the float for most companies, So the trend is meaningful. Institutional % can get misleading when a lot of ownership is through "sector funds," which are managed pretty mechanically. Another distorting factor in some companies is large convertible securities issues--these can be hedged with short positions, occasionally making institutional ownership larger than the float. I think TSRA is represented in some sector funds, but not as a top holding.

  • jacosa jacosa May 3, 2016 6:52 PM Flag

    Vectra volume up 18% YoY. It's a start. Some private coverage, too, although that will mostly await further validation. Anyone out there with RA check me, but there was a throw-away in the discussion that baseline medical supervision is 4 visits a year. Medicare presently covers Vectra twice a year, and you might want an extra test or two when making any large alteration in meds, so there's room to expand the indication...again, pending validation. And heads up, here: a very different RA drug (generic name baricitinib; its similarity to the marketed tofacitinib {Xeljanz) is superficial) is hitting the market in early '17, so there may be more than usual adjustments in meds next year.

    Market will, of course, focus on delayed hereditary cancer reimbursements. And of course SOME people would like forecasts to include new reimbursement authorizations.

    Efforts continuing to get Prolaris recommended in a noticeably larger population. I guess the insurers have to push back, but these favorable intermediate risk patients were included in the validation studies, and this is the group where a well-validated test has the greatest impact on choices.

  • Reply to

    Congressional interest

    by jacosa Apr 27, 2016 12:06 PM
    jacosa jacosa May 3, 2016 12:27 PM Flag

    Bloomberg, May 3rd. The Blues Singer Who Created America's Hated Drug-Pricing Model

    Basically, capitalism meets socialism at infinity. Example: it might not be worth $100K to a HepC patient to get cured, but he wouldn't be able to afford a liver transplant; society might elect to pay to keep him alive if that was needed; so society gains by picking up part of the tab for the cure.

  • Reply to

    Anybodyb want to share on TSRA?

    by kg2931 Apr 20, 2016 4:18 PM
    jacosa jacosa May 3, 2016 12:03 PM Flag

    I am extremely happy with the conference call. Starboard seems to have won the work-out as they won the control dispute. The legal docket is as clear as I can recall, and while there haven't been smashing victories, the possibility of future business doesn't seem to have been shut off. Narrowing research focus (and buying what was available where it was an improvement) has generated great results. I used to say that when the industry needed 400 connection per square millimeter Tessera would be ready. Now that's up to a million connections per square millimeter. Obviously, assembly with the delicacy that sort of number requires isn't for everyone, so the ASE deal is extremely important.

    Management makes no bones about structured legal settlements being recurring revenue. If you expect a license to follow the end of the settlement, that's completely reasonable. Apparently serious talk about possibility of a contract with Qualcomm in the future definitely goes along with that.

    An analyst question gently suggested that Tessera is lowballing its forecast for the rest of the year. The answer, basically, was that they had included some optimism in the original forecast, so some of the recent happy developments were within the original forecast.

  • Reply to

    Anybodyb want to share on TSRA?

    by kg2931 Apr 20, 2016 4:18 PM
    jacosa jacosa May 3, 2016 11:02 AM Flag

    Stock "owned" by individuals in margin accounts is registered to the brokerage (which can lend it or use it as collateral). In return, the individual can borrow money against it from the brokerage. This can bite if the brokerage fails suddenly (great historical example: DuPont Glore Forgan--suddenly doesn't need to be fast if your records are scrambled enough). When a company is being subjected to heavy prolonged short selling, holders often choose to move stock to cash accounts (where it is registered in their own names, and is unavailable for lending) (this is obsolete, since anti-stock-watering rules are toothless overseas).

INCY
83.16+1.89(+2.33%)May 25 4:00 PMEDT