1) Please do your sniping elsewhere
2) I hinted at the case for only a friendly takeover. What do YOU think the "go along quietly" price might be now? Outsized retention bonuses are SO ummm actionable.
Usual request: please snipe at people in other items. G.d knows enough of them get started every day.
SOMEONE seems to have paid attention to the warnings against a repeat of Aug 2012; this was the antithesis of that. A couple of previously undiscussed candidates discussed. Revenue expectations gently nudged upward...
The color on the magic subgroup was interesting: it was one of 3 or 4 predefined based on mechanism. And YES, it will have to be disclosed before ASCO because it will be designed into future trials.
Color too on why they think the PV opportunity is so much larger than anyone else does: people like me paid attention to physician judgments of how successfully PV was treated; Incyte did an aggressive chart review and found that a lot of patients were acting as if minor residual illness was a big deal to them.
Incyte is a smallish company with [effectively] a short history and an appropriately smallish R&D budget...and a pipeline at least comparable to a pharma giant. Potential acquirers are salivating for sure, but not. I think, over the pipeline. They CRAVE the strategies that gave such a high yield of candidates (In outline it's obvious: pick juicy targets and understand them well before and during lead generation. In practice, that's only one baby step better than "buy low; sell high"). So I think the chance of a hostile bid is WAAAYY down. Only a living goose lays those nice eggs.
Let's see, what else? Was there a BoA question? I don't remember it, and they cover Incyte like the sky. Is dear Rachel still the coverage analyst? Also: note the lack of a kick in Jakafi sales; oncologists aren't flocking in...yet.
I'll give it a flat B. Sell-in still tracking comparable to Tracleer, so that's fine. Good news on discontinuation rate and patient compliance. It'd be VERY nice to get Spain on board, but Look at the political and economic situation and the difficulty is obvious. Netherlands is small enough to just look on with amusement. But I don't like the time table for Canada rollout. You want to pre-build the US rollout team Up North without being too obvious about it. Looks too obvious.
Mr Welch is back to his mournful tone, which hurts the stock price for sure, and may actually discourage financing possibilities. All the caution about geographies being filled and no more conversions from the NPP gives these issues MUCH more attention than they deserve. Analysts speculating about the outcome of ASCEND were given entirely too much encouragement; I would have preferred a statement of the design principles, an update on quantity of data collected (which incidentally was very encouraging) and all further questions answered with great blankness.
The point is, we're having erratic daily moves now. this isn't at all like the action before that CC.
Well. what with the questions about possible leaks and your direct suggestion, I did look back to Jul/Aug of 2012. Recall what went wrong: management was caught flatfooted trying to lowball Jakafi sales projections, and then again when asked direct, informed questions about very visibly unannounced drug candidates. They looked clownish. Someone with access to inside information of a kind not generally considered material could have KNOWN that they weren't really prepared for the call, and could have guessed that they were trying to lowball expectations.
In fact, the action leading up to the disaster was generally flat.
Spectacular indeed. The caution is that risk of off-target effects is sort of proportional to drug dosage, and 600 mg is fairly high. Management talks as if '110 has several siblings. Gonna be interesting to follow this story.
I suspect that inquiries are quarterly, if not more frequent. But pending results on Bari and better definition of the solid cancer opportunity, management figures to be giving discouraging responses. My guess remains that Dr Paul wants to bring a drug to market un-partnered before he retires. The IDO candidate seems to be pointed at that handling, but '110 would do. If none of those pans out, he might give up. But until then, management will hang tough on independence. And large shareholders will probably be supportive as long as the possible rewards from success of fairly-advanced projects are more than the value given the company in the market. The "let's shake and smile for the press" price is now probably over $130, which is too risky for an acquirer. Even the "win on tenders" price is probably around $90, still too high.
I've done it again. I have sold a total for 15 LEAP puts on ITMN. This is a mildly bullish action, equivalent to buying the stock and writing calls. I like it because it cuts the heart out of my available margin power (that is, it reduces the temptation to buy more stuff) without running up margin debt. The key date for Intermune is probably the read-out of ASCEND; I'll guess mid-Spring 2014, so July options, when they become available, will be comparable [and more liquid]. But the stock is down now, and I wanted to get this done.
Rachel McMinn still likes Incyte, but the price has been going up and she had to raise her target price [new number: $46] to let her keep a buy rating on the stock. So she attached a curiously high value to the possibility that the IDO inhibitor might be a great success. Meanwhile, she attaches a 70% chance of success to Bari, a market size (adjusted for amount partnered away) comparable to Ruxo. and gives it 1/4 the weight of Ruxo (which she still gives a 10% chance of a market-killing oops) in her company valuation. And she gives little value to the prospects of Incyte's JAK inhibitors in solid tumors other than PaCa. She gives that substantial weight to the prospects of the IDO inhibitor, which didn't look especially good in the tiny amount of test data available (but which fits Gina Kolata's latest hot theme in cancer treatments) and no weight to the cMet drug, which showed some degree of promise.
Don't get me wrong, McMinn is probably,,,no, definitely, the best sell-side analyst working Incyte. But analyst valuation estimates are simply justifications of their [often intuitive] price targets, and this time she didn't bother to hide that fact.
Looks fairly inexpensive to run. Japan really does do a lot of PCI, so it's worth chasing after. Unfortunately, the design means that FDA will regard the results as background color, at best. And I doubt that Japan is as litigious as the US, so the pressure to use RG in marginal cases will be less.
The stationary management advisory fee is about the most owner-friendly action I recall since Mr Rotunda left. And the language noting that the fee is high in the range of comparable fees gives us a little hope that there won't be a catch-up jump next year.
$900 cheaper per test, but they say outright that it depends on knocking out further Myriad patent claims. It generally looks like a way to keep Myriad bleeding legal expenses in preparation for the REAL fight later, for market share in broader tests. Wyle E. Coyote; Sooper Genius.
I don't know if this says good or bad things about management, but there seems to have been some mission drift in the registration study. They seem to be going for longer procedures with more units of contrast medium than originally anticipated. This makes the trial more expensive to run, but also decreases the sample size that is likely to be needed, offering months-shorter time to market. With the apparent original concept, they MAY have had enough financing in place.
Do I need to point out that the product line is supposed to be replaced on about the same time scale as they anticipate pricing pressure?
Yeah, that's why the drop; the evaluation seems to be at around 25% of a skeptic/believer range. (good market share retention but no effective response to pricing pressure)
Non-voting owners deserve more assurance than we have recently received that we stand to benefit from earnings growth. The surprise reverse merger multiplies our uncertainty. The investment community has voted with its feet on the truth of this statement.
I haven't been heavily into pharmacology for a long time, but way back when, the degree of selectivity between related targets that was considered important was surprisingly low. What I see as particularly attractive in the Incyte family of [drug and] candidates is generally low non-JAK activity.
Recently I was absolutely flabbergasted by crystal structures of HLA molecule-antigen-Tcell receptor complexes (I would have made fun of anyone who thought such a thing was possible before it was done). If that level of detail can be [is already being?] generated for kinase-inhibitor-target complexes, there may be a path to higher selectivity.
Like PV, the money available depends critically on the spectrum of degree of illness. What I find from The Psoriasis Foundation web site is that money paid for treatment is about a third of that paid for treating RA. That gives a big potential market. The estimate I've been given of fraction of patients with psoriasis severe enough to justify a drug in the $50-100K range requiring active supervision of the treatment is a great deal lower than the corresponding fraction for RA. That gives a smaller potential market.
The drug is our old friend Tofacitinib. It appears to have a substantially worse safety profile than even Ruxo. Bari is safer than Ruxo (but not as attractive vs psoriasis for pharmacodynamic reasons). A JAK1 selective drug would be expected to be safer yet. But most of this is pretty speculative...we aren't SURE sure about the safety of anything here; Ruxo comes the closest and there's still some breath-holding going on.