As puzzled as anyone. I've said before: I expect ASCO to be neutral to negative. Inventory games will make this Q's Jakafi sales look good. There are some big milestones in the air. Futility / slaughter read on Janus 1 is due--slaughter would easily be worth $40, but even no news could be worth this much. Another thing about the right size would be expansion of one of the pipeline combination p2s.
For that matter, again as I've said before, as a company that is just turning profitable but with huge prospects at the far end of an investor's time horizon, Incyte is about as interest-sensitive as it gets, and rate hikes look like being a little late this year.
A bit more on interest rates: scuttlebutt is that the Fed's first move of an increase will be paying more for bank reserves in its hands. Of all moves they could make to raise short-term rates, that has the least effect on rates investors look at.
Reuters has a story today about insurance companies refusing to pay for multi-gene panel cancer risk testing. My first reaction, of course, is that I know a good oncologist who could manage their investment portfolios.
But step back and maybe they aren't totally execrable (that's as nice a thing as I'll ever say about a health insurance company). There's a big jump between Angelina Jolie, with high risk mutations to both BRCA 1 and BRCA 2, and family members dead of associated cancers, and someone who turns up one risky mutation on a less-threatening gene, and who has no known family members with cancers that suggest involvement of that gene.
A human being does not draw the conclusion that the tests should not be given, but does start thinking about ways to get the best use from them. Clearly, dropping a report "You have a risky mutation" in the mail to some ignorant slob (say an insurance executive) is the route to either panic or dismissal. But equally clearly, telling someone "You have N times the population baseline risk for [mumble] cancer, and the fading-away of annual physicals shouldn't apply to you" is a benefit.
I think of the testing for tuberculosis that was done in elementary schools years ago. In practice, as the risk level dropped, the test sensitivity was increased to give a rate of detection that scarce resources (more public health professionals than medical ones) could deal with. The non-medical resources for dealing with cancer-risk-enhancing mutations are now exceedingly thin.
Today, the best training on appropriate responses to findings from multi-gene panels is probably being given to detailers from the companies offering those panels. Obviously, having salespeople practice medicine is comparable to having insurance executives do it, but opening up in-house training programs to public health people in return for a move toward insurance sanity looks like a way forward.
A double dose of Imetelstat, given once, is a life-threatening event. That is a level of toxicity that greatly favors alternatives. Tefferi, for all his flaws, is one of the best physicians in the world at treating hematologic cancers (a fact that paradoxically lowers the impact of the good results he achieved with IM: he gets good results with hydroxyurea, which nobody considers a desirable drug). There is compelling evidence that Jakafi prolongs survival of MF patients. There isn't real evidence of anything for Imetelstat.
There are apparently research results suggesting that the entire signaling pathway that is defective in the "mainstream" MPNs can be repaired by targeted gene modification. So this whole dispute may end rather suddenly in 5 years or so.
The drug is simply too toxic for a market with multiple competitors. When you strip the available results down to improvement / no change / worsening and ignore overheated prose, it has shown middle-of-the-road results. And most of the available results are from Tefferi's clinical use program, which didn't have either a protocol or a control group. News stories have FDA considering ways to vet drugs targeted at disease features, but they haven't announced yet. "Other MPNs," each of which is too rare for ordinary orphan drug development, but which together make up a worthwhile target with enough common features to qualify, look like a natural target.
'The art is long, life is short, opportunity fleeting, experiment dangerous, judgment difficult.' Hippocrates
Jakafi may be temporary, but for MF, Imetelstat is never. It has a decent chance to become drug of choice to treat "other" MPNs.
This one is too precious to waste. On the topic of otherwise bright men taking their balls and going home when the world doesn't live up to their predictions, I give you an extract from "Cashin's Comments" of April 7.
"Caution Is In The Air –
In today's Bloomberg Brief, there's an interview of Stephen Roach who states that the U.S. is in a bubble (Fed induced).
In a separate interview, republished in MarketWatch, my friend Mohamed El-Erian states that he has virtually all of his assets in cash.
He was then asked if we are in or near a bubble. Here's a bit of what he said:
Go back to central banks. Central banks look at growth, at employment, at wages. They are too low. They don’t have the instruments they need, but they feel obliged to do something. So they artificially lift asset prices by maintaining zero interest rates and by using their balance sheet to buy assets.
“Why? Because they hope that they will trigger what’s called the wealth effect. That you will open your 401(k), see it has gone up in price, and you’ll spend. And that companies will see their shares are going up and they will be more willing to invest. But there is a massive gap right now between asset prices and fundamentals
Two very smart men talking about consequences of Fed induced bubbles. Kind of makes you wary."
That "growth investment bubble" is a popular bogeyman (Yeah, I'm almost for sure the Left fringe of politics here). It isn't bubbly when present pricing reflects present [interest rate] conditions. The world says "Try to find increasing earnings streams, and good bonds are as hopeless as buried cash;" El-Erian buries his cash.
If we're looking at the same note, the imminent pickings are sorta thin. The first 3 Bari p3s in RA MUST show positive for the drug to have a future, but that's a pretty low hurdle. Licensing and market size depend on structural preservation, which is only addressed in the final p3, due end of Fall. The nephropathy p2 may be interesting, but that's an indication that gets everything thrown at it and little has stuck so far. It'd take a lot to wake people up (like a clinically meaningful difference significant at the 5% level from this under-powered trial). All the exploratory p2s out there are interesting to the fan base, but are unlikely to move pricing much. (What has Recap already done? You could argue that post hoc ergo propter hoc the stock has moved up, but the commentaries focus more on the PV opportunity and the IDO inhibitor. Stock price would probably be higher if Recap's 'magic subset' had been defined by either incoming QoL measures or some novel test.) They don't mention the mid-trial judgment on Janus 1, which we've just entered a roughly 2-month window for. Such things aren't always announced.
That's about the least surprising press release I've seen all year, but I'd be happy with your price target (although mine is a few points higher).
BoA/ML just mentioned Myriad in a research note (no b/s/h attached to the note, but the price projection is for little change). Aside from the usual stuff, which figures to be answered by Summer, their concern is whether pricing will hold. That would mostly affect myRisk on an investor's time scale. I hope it doesn't come to a battle, but if base reimbursement is too low it isn't an impossible selling exercise to get patients/providers to go for a couple hundred extra dollars of copay to get "the most reliable." Backing a claim of superiority is an exercise for the clinical department. I view Vectra pricing as having smoothing feedback--if it's less expensive it will be ordered more often. And I just don't see what could go wrong with Prolaris from here (what asteroid?)
I kinda sorta agree on interest rates--not two years near zero, but probably one. 'Suddenly' is a key word because I expect some revival in residential construction, and that is subject to 'suddenlies.' The problem is that so many people with fingers in major money hoards are committed to rate increases SOON, and they head for cash when the world doesn't behave the way they think it should--even when the way the world is behaving indicates that growth companies are the place for money.
I'm not concerned about ol' 387 REALLT taking market from Ruxo, but this is the first time it's reasonably likely to get talked about in a while. And Gilead DOES have fans.
I think that the predominant negative in the market lately has been jobs weakness. This is fundamentally positive for Incyte because valuation is interest-rate-sensitive and jobs weakness postpones rate hikes. However, a lot of investing bigshots have been public about wanting and needing interest rate increases soon. They hate being shown up and tend to reduce holdings when it's obvious that they don't understand what's going on. (The interest rate story is complicated and reinforced by Euro weakness--a 70 cent Euro doesn't look entirely impossible, and that would make Europe look like China did ten years ago) Incyte may be suffering some specific shadowing as Gilead fans talk about the wonders they expect from CYT387 (Momolitinib) (of which we may hear a bit as ASH).
Still 3 weeks before even the abstract titles from ASCO. Janus 1 futility / slaughter evaluation in April-June window (no news is good-ish news). CC early May (first Thurs the last 2 years). Mostly, we're driving without a road until something grabs interest.
Interesting point: she had the mastectomy in accordance with best medical advice. (There doesn't seem to be a way to say for sure whether it was needed, but given her obvious concern, the fact that operating early gave a good cosmetic and functional outcome is a big plus) She had the present surgery going beyond best medical advice, and the pathology report confirmed that it was premature, if not entirely unneeded.
Absolutely. I'm looking for 4x in 3 years if Incyte stays independent. Handy calculator shows that as 32% CAGR. Let's just say those aren't behind every bush.
So far it looks more like relaxation of panic about rising interest rates (valuation of projects more than 2 years from commercialization depends A LOT on interest rates, and Incyte has several of those). My best guess all week has been that the market was reacting to fear of tightening, so right now I don't see a need for further explanation.
And Bonk, REALLY: you need an accountant; maybe a tax lawyer too. For $3K or so in professional fees they can probably save you better than $100K in taxes.
I can't ALWAYS not reply. A short position put on under 30 can be managed as well as you like in a stock that hasn't subsequently gone below 32 to speak of; it's trouble and an invitation to worse trouble anyway. You DO seem to agree that Goldman is lying in their downgrade.
Good sell call? I look at a 32-40 trading channel and call anything inside it "unchanged."
A piscine odor prevails.
Mr Ro is a middle-of-the-pack analyst predicting (with the usual unstated time frame) a price target $5 below anybody else's. Basically, he doesn't have the record to justify following him away from the crowd. On the other hand, Goldman has a very strong record indeed of misleading the public in the interest of their traders. I'm taking the downgrade as slightly bullish. Goldman is probably buying.
It isn't trivial, but see the Bloomberg article "how-to-join-9-000-u-s-taxpayers-with-romney-sized-iras." I have a biggish IRA but I use it to hold closed-end funds that generate substantial cash distributions (and, well, the occasional special situation--again, cash generating).
Ok, yeah. People who PAY taxes do it later than people who COLLECT refunds, but the latter are generally thought of as having more influence on stock movements. So what we may lose in the next 3 weeks from tax payers is kind of money owed for a while.
I don't see a reason to expect ASCO to be a big positive for Incyte this year. CYT387 has a decent chance of shining, which pushes the wrong way. There may be some late-breaking reports on combos that Incyte has a part in, but the chance of anything from such an early stage having a big impact on the market is small.
Near-term events are Jakafi sales in May CC (they won't break out PV, but the analysts will try to) and the futility/slaughter analysis of Janus 1 (anyone know a good date to expect that?) Management presentations have been mixed in hinting at the PV ramp. I don't expect it to be steeper than the MF ramp this year. On the other hand, just as the predictable work-off of Jakafi inventory was taken badly last Q, the equally predictable inventory rebuild will be taken encouragingly this time around. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Incyte has chosen to forego a scheduled price increase; I can't guess how that would be taken although the prejudice would be toward taking it negatively (whatever noise is made, price restraint would be fishing for more PV patients). Milestone announcements, at this point, are pretty random.
I don't know what you're doing wrong, but you NEED an accountant. What would you say about a corporation that reported a 65% effective tax rate? RIGHT: they need to upgrade their financial staff.
I live in a high tax state (New Jersey) and don't approach your stated tax rate (property taxes included). Throw in the future value from compounding of unrealized capital gains...
About whatever it is Obama has done: Under Reagan (Oct 1987 was an excessive thrill, though), the real Bush and Clinton, my stock market results were insanely good. Under second Bush I lost a ton in 2001-2002, clawed back a decent fraction of it and got dropped back to the bottom in 2008-2009. Under Obama, it's again a stock market that I can find money in (I'm back to ... call it 1998 levels). AND I'm a lot less scared that some Enron or AIG has secrets that are going to ruin everything. Maybe [probably] Obama didn't cause that good stuff, but it was possible on his watch.