I'm guessing that today's drop reflects disappointment that the company expects to be independent long enough to HAVE an earnings release date.
Well, except that while RA is life-long, it is incorrect to say that it "mainly affects the elderly." Onset of rheumatoid arthritis tends to be around 25 years younger than osteoarthritis.
This is only huge. FDA rarely allows results of post-facto analysis onto drug labels. Detailers can now point to the diverging curves and suggest earlier use of Jakafi in minimally-sick MF patients.
Consider the difference: before, salespeople were only allowed to tell physicians that if they contacted the company they could get more references to clinical data. If FDA had allowed references onto the label, the salespeople could have carried reprints with them, but they'd have been on shaky ground discussing the findings. With the curves on the label, they can basically tell the whole story.
And certain annoying people who keep saying "It only relieves symptoms" can choke on their own bile.
#1 is hard, but just barely possible. #2 is unlikely--FDA doesn't schedule stuff for ANYONE's convenience. #3 is pretty much impossible, as Italy is on vacation and NICE, again, isn't scheduling actions for our convenience.
Other than that, I think #s 2&3 are pretty much non-events. Europe ex-UK and IT (&ex the already onboard DE and FR) is on the same order of size as either one of those, so the rollout can keep going without them; the $60MM is modest next to the numbers that are really interesting to people. And the money question for PV is whether adding the less-serious indication can increase the dollars of sales, not whether it can be added at all.
What (if any) sales use can be made of papers showing a MF survival benefit for Jakafi is potentially of great interest; any kind of recognition of post-facto analyses would have symbolic importance.
There's a curious tripwire hiding somewhere--some number of country approvals of Jakavi starts up a reverse royalty to Novartis, which I don't people have front-of-mind.
Small but meaningful adjustment: the control arm did 6-fold better than in RESPONSE. We don't have a "normal."
I saw 2 faults with Dr Paul as CEO. The larger one was that he was a poor public face for the company. Given that HH's biggest job was to be a good public face, it isn't fair to slam him for some happy talk that everyone else has long forgotten. (The other fault I saw was that he was in love with the IDO inhibitor to the exclusion of the rest of the pipeline)
I have a bone to pick (preferably their C2 or C3) with the consultants who have made stock such a large part of executive compensation, but basically, you're going to see only sales, never purchases, from insiders of companies following that course.
I'll assume that you are more concerned with the Class B [voting] shares. And Mr Cohen owns all of them, personally. Madison is another company which Mr Cohen controls, and it USED TO have a contract to provide business advice to EXCorp in return for an annual fee. The governing documents of the corporation dictate that both classes of stock must receive the same dividends and must share equally in proceeds from liquidation of the company.
Over time, the management advisory fee became quite large and there were rumblings that it was effectively an improper dividend. Meanwhile, several actions that should have been subjects of advice from Madison went badly, leading to questions about whether the degree of reliance placed on that advice met a "prudent man" standard. Remember that while the board is selected by Mr Cohen, they have a fiduciary responsibility to all owners of the company.
Looking backward, Mr, Rothamel can be taken as representing the "We are fundamentally retailers" approach to the pawn business, and not necessarily being comfortable with the other consumer finance businesses. Compare the tone under Mr Rotunda: embracing consumer finance and responding aggressively to attacks on the pricing structure. I'd expect the future to include fewer un-pawnshop-looking stores in nice neighborhoods.
You talk as if off label sales were a bad thing. They're sales for money, and in some ways they're even better than on-label because people either had to pay their own money or to negotiate with insurance companies.
That would make sense except for 2 things: the first is that drug sales are structurally backloaded (doughnut hole reduces Q1 sales, while health expense accounts boost Q4); the second is that Incyte is known to lowball forecasts whenever they think they can get away with it (that was half of what got them into trouble 2 years ago). How about some read on market conditions (construed as broadly as you like)?
I have a market condition that affects sales--every potential prescriber has now been detailed on dose titration, and it is straightforward to do as long as you're using other peoples' experience to guide you.
All I'm really saying is don't call me out. Fight with that other guy who makes price predictions (or go away). You've predicted all 40 of the stock's last 3 down moves, often with abundant market entrails showing.
I'll give Good TJ an opening: you've estimated below-consensus sales of Jakafi in the recent Q. Why?
Still p*ssed about having missed that obvious double bottom (one of the easiest to spot and most popular technical formations) while you were braying about a damn-near-invisible death cross (and having ignored the equally irrelevant golden cross that preceded it)? I don't haruspicate, but I poke fun at those who do.
The biggest issue here is that Incyte is above $10; it looks like it will stay above 10; the options tableau shows that nobody is willing to put money on it going below $20, much less 10, and there you are with your drawers up a flagpole.
You can always bray "See, I was right" when the stock goes down because you are always predicting that the stock will go down.
Wall Street's grown-ups have mostly been on vacation the last 2 weeks, making for a brittle market. Remarks by the FRB chair[wo]man focused the free-floating anxiety about an "everything bubble" on the med-related sector, and this is what happens. Next week, some adults return to their desks and markets should be less brittle.
There's some value in the posts of "good TJ."
I'm glad it makes sense; I learned this stuff by the seat of my pants. I'm not saying a year for a takeover, I'm just saying not to get too excited about it before Thanksgiving. But on the other hand, if there isn't a refi by then, expect the takeover eventually.
Funny, I don't recall you admitting any errors. And since you were predicting a fold all through the era of the $19-29 trading range, that's plenty of opportunity to admit errors.
I play a lot of high/low poker, so I'm used to 3/4. I don't believe in technical analysis (T&A are fine if you leave in that ampersand). I loathe "bad TJ," but "good TJ" is alright.
If I DID believe in TA without the '&,' I'd note that its more respectable practitioners claim that it reveals the intentions of large players before really crude signs show. Pretty much by definition, then, it neither reads nor predicts low-volume movements. There IS a market maxim that "Stocks don't drift up," but that isn't TA.
I'm always 'jacosa.' (It was my name code from SATs, and since it's easily pronounceable...)
Companies don't like to buy other companies that have convertibles outstanding; their use as "poison pills" has highlighted the pitfalls, and it's a drain of legal resources to multiple-check every word of the offering documents. But companies anticipating big developments also don't like convertibles either, so an exchange at a critical moment is compatible with staying independent. It's a bit of a red flag for potential lenders when a company's most senior debt is convertible, so proving that you can clear it out is a show of financial strength that can be part of negotiations for a bond issue. I'm not enough of a student of financing practices to say what's common. What I know is that every time I've seen converts cleared away to make way for more favorable financing, it has happened faster than this. So just from that, I conclude that refi isn't the only thing on the table.
I'll make an educated guess that it will cost $1/4bln to get SoP to market, and it would be a very good idea to have half that available by a year from now. That's a big enough need, early enough in the US rollout calendar, that I can't see a straight bond issue being an option. We're left with variations on the theme of selling equity to generate working capital. Despite all the moaning it would cause among current owners, a straight stock issue would probably be best for all of us in the long run. I mostly see it as a threat to get better terms for other possibilities, though. The tradeoff between selling the company vs a new issue of converts seems to come down to internal vs external estimates of the value of intangibles, mostly the SoP project. Listen to the CCs--I don't pick up unreasonable enthusiasm for SoP, so I'll guess that a deal can be done. However small the risk might be, I don't think anyone wants to complicate the NDA with a change of ownership during it.
More likely than not to be bought out. Probably soon after approval. If there's a refinancing, it'll be a sign that they aren't thinking exclusively along those lines. The company simply isn't funded for both a US rollout and a push to develop Son of Pirfenidone simultaneously, so it's refi, take-out or possibly even both.