There re LOTS of possible events over the next year. Take your choice, and invent some, too (EMA release of commercially-sensitive information? Euro crisis?).
While they're formally equivalent, I prefer covered calls when the underlying price is likely to move somewhat smoothly and short puts when movements are more likely to be sudden.
The 10-K reports a solved problem regarding internal controls over tax reporting. I didn't see anything that looked like real substance, and for a loss-making company I can't see that in itself it's anything to worry about. But I don't recall any contemporaneous announcement of the problem, and I don't recall any qualified accountants' letters. Anyone else?
A bit of refinement from the 10-K: "we currently expect top-line results from ASCEND no later than early second quarter of 2014."
That pretty much amounts to a promise that top-line will be available for the ATS conference (a change from the prior stated intention to be able to discuss results at the conference). The new statement leaves open the possibility of top-line being available before April 1.
I know: tea leaf reading.
The official date is "In the second quarter," so early April is the hot time frame. Because Intermune execs are expected to be skittish about possessing leakable information, any decisive result would probably come out early-ish. Concerning meeting presentation, Seeking Alpha says "The currently running Phase III ASCEND trial was initiated in July 2011, with enrollment of 555 patients completed in 2013. The results are due to be published in April 2014 and will be presented in full at the May 2014 International Conference of the American Thoracic Society in San Diego. "
The install rate is controlled more by the developers than by IMAX.
One hopeful development is that South America seems to be starting to move.
Just a guess, but the timing works for bad developments in Europe. Either something about Jakavi from N.I.C.E. or something about Xeljanz (which is being looked at as a stalking horse for Bari). As I've said before, the $60MM milestone is going to be late if it depends on Italy or Spain. Best chance of getting it in the first Half is if N.I.C.E. admits that there is a real value in getting a British Subject out of bed and onto his feet. But that is one straaange organization...
What management seems to be counting on is Jakafi with a lot MF and PV patients (maybe meaningful numbers from ET, too), a nice market against toxic cancers, Bari as the go-to treatment for severe RA, one of the non-JAK drugs making a place for itself and STILL a deep and exciting pipeline. There's some room to do better than that, and a lot of room to do worse. But right now, I don't see anything to say it won't happen. Make your own guess what that possible company would be worth.
Why do you cite that paper? The abstract suggests that no snapshot of tumor genetic complement is going to be definitive by itself (that is, that Prolaris has a fundamental limitation).
Once you have basic marketability of a test, it becomes a selling exercise. Myriad is good at selling novel tests, but with prediction of metastasis merely better than the other (very poor) tries, and not very good itself, selling is going to be a challenge. Longer follow-up may help.
You're somewhat ahead of yourself. General acceptance of Prolaris would be huge. This is a step toward that. And yeah, the timing is good. But look at how much work it took to get general acceptance of BRACAnalysis. The topline leaves open the possibility that Prolaris may not be quite good enough to be an easy sell. Another issue that may make adoption slower than adoption of BRACAnalysis is that because the mutations are somatic rather than germline, one positive doesn't sell tests to lots of relatives of the patient.
One toll gate on the highway.
DNA? Multi-gigabux? At least take a look at Myriad Genetics (MYGN). Every time someone needs a companion diagnostic, they are in the game. They ARE presently betting the company on a new product, so price movements should be muted until results come in (Betting the company, but not so they might fail the day the bet goes bad; more like the company is developing in a bad direction and this is the designated try to get onto a favorable course).
I'm not a Feuerstein fan, but he seems to have the important stuff right this time. And the obvious screamer is enlightening. Referring to the Incyte and BI drugs, he says "Neither of the drugs will work forever, so assume IPF patients will likely receive both at some point." This reveals that F. is looking at the drug action as similar to drugs for cancer or chronic infection, where there is a period of good control, then the disease escapes control and progresses. I've seen statements by other [to use the correct, though rude, word] touts that make sense if you follow this false analogy. These drugs slow passage through the intermediate phase of IPF. Nothing too dramatic, just an extra year or so of being able to get around. There is no opportunity to try another drug after the first one has blown its wad.
Feuerstein does us a service by quoting important parts of the "BioPharm Insight" article that maintained the drop, but we (or I, anyway) still haven't seen the original tweets (which presumably went to people who didn't publish them as well as those who did.) F points out that the AE part of the rumor is implausible as reported.
The oddness of the research program finally got through to me: a lot of those exploratory trials would traditionally have been done as investigator-sponsored p2s. The company has some specific ideas that it wants to investigate, and it makes sense that they wouldn't wait to find oncs who were enthusiastic enough about those ideas to take the lead. And to be sure, some of them are practically mini-p3s, with a chance of selling something fairly quickly if the trial succeeds. But still and all, combination regimens and same drug / different tumor extensions have come as often from the trenches as from the main office.
Am I missing the investigator stuff? Has care management by insurance providers dampened initiative? Are the ideas just too novel for practitioners to be pushing them forward yet? Or maybe I'm longing for the return of a past that never was (Bierce?) and investigator sponsored p2s were never as bold as I think.
I'll just scratch the surface of some of the trickier stuff. I may have to learn a lot more about cytokines and growth factors to be able to skim reports and gather the highlights, going forward.
There are three kinds of drug hunts going forward within Incyte. There are the single agent searches we all know and love, there are the "conventional chemo" combinations like capacitabine + ruxo and there are "deep biological" combinations involving multiple pathway-dependent drugs (like the dual immune sensitizer thing with Merck). Basically, there are a sh.tload of combinations being tried in nominally phase 2 studies (some of them are barely beyond phase 1s; some have a hope of leading to label presence or registration) Even one of the JANUS p3s has an early-stage evaluation of a cancer illness scoring questionnaire tacked on. A theme that recurs is that if the other part of the combination causes marrow suppression, the Incyte partner is not Ruxo. Otherwise, since Ruxo can be sold, it is the preferred partner. Some of these have potential to generate off-label Ruxo sales quickly, which is fortunate, because some, like the 2-Incyte-agent (Was it PI3K inhibitor + ruxo? taking it as an example, it doesn't matter) proposed attack on colon cancer, could take a long time and burn lots of money. Experience shows that drug companies do best when moderately cash-constrained, but if Incyte generates 2 drugs a year worthy of registration studies, it could become hard to support them all.
Xeljanz got off to a terrible start because Pfizer didn't focus on demonstrating preservation of joint structure. They haven't recovered from that #$%$. Attention to the same issue is part of why Lilly is taking so long. As for safety, the intention to make Bari safer than Ruxo seems to have worked, and Ruxo has shown no cause for safety concern. There has been a definite impression the last few Incyte presentations that they're figuring Bari will come along whenever it does, and no use creating expectations.
It has long been clear when reading Rachel McMinn's reports that she has been editing her sum-of-parts valuations with scissors to get numbers her bosses could accept. Her narratives are superb (have been, anyway).
I don't know what you're asking. Stock price? Where my money is, is I have a ton of stock, but with calls written against about a third of it. Perhaps Ruxo use will tick up after the magic subset is identified. Perhaps the same after PV results are revealed (and THAT is the worst-kept secret Incyte has ever had). But the next news item I can think of that will definitely promise higher earnings is FDA approval to put PV on the Jakafi label--end of the year. Crazy stuff can happen.