I just did some combos: bought stock, sold January puts and sold May calls. There may or may not be a sudden short squeeze, but a lot of shares are short on the expectation that MYGN is going bust-o, and that just isn't happening. So there's extra demand, even if it's never a rush.
The underlying reality is that small-format theaters as they've been in the multiplex era are doomed, as doomed as the movie palaces that they replaced. Streaming media are attacking from one side; IMAX-a-likes are attacking from the other, and the way out is narrow. This may have been a premature move, but there will be as many more as it takes.
Comparing against ITMN, which just closed: management there insisted on a deal structure that permitted, but did not encourage, a competing bid. There were 4 interested parties, but no second bid came (tea leaves suggest that the possibility was kicked around). If you made an $80 tender offer for Incyte, it's quite possible that there would be enough sellers for the company to go, but management would emphatically not agree to anything that shut off a possible second bid. Somebody would probably have enough faith in the pipeline to top you, and there you are, without the prize and with a possibly-super pipeline in a competitor's hands (or topping the second bid yourself, and paying $billions more than you had planned). Intermune only had one pipeline candidate. And I think the soonest that minefield is likely to be cleared is about a year from now, when Lilly has to tip their hand on Baricitinib. Even then, the solid tumors program could be a large unknown, and non-RA inflammatory indications for JAK 1 drugs could be looming. Remember that Incyte has some extremely clever finance people; this "dynamic defence" against a takeover might be planned.
Or if you believe that it really is a trading range, don't watch. That's the thing about trading ranges--enough pros are looking to cull a bit at the upper end or add a bit at the lower one to keep the range from turning into a trend unless "something happens."
In the present case, something small is happening: Intermune has disappeared from the transitional biomed basket (cash hitting accounts soon, probably this week), and funds will be reallocated among the survivors. But a decent number of institutions (and me, too) will be adding tastes of new companies to their mix, which dilutes the already modest effect (I don't have enough conviction to name any)
Yes, Christmas to Presidents Day is a good season for this subsector, but the next two months are silly season (tax and window dressing trading).
Analysts, like generals, tend to fight the last war. And analysts are rarely punished for missing the surprise around the corner. So yeah, Crescendo is a key part of the Myriad To Come, along with MyRisks. And it's still hard to predict how they'll do.
I'd like to point out this NY Times article on something that may be seen as a downside of broad oncogene screening: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/health/finding-risks-not-answers-in-gene-tests.html?_r=0
Any operation against abusive lending practices, no matter what the original target, HAS to get to the worst abusers, the banks, eventually. I want it to reach that point.
Someone in the small unsecured loan industry needs to come up with a successor to Dan Tolinson. It's been too long.
I can find a lot of postings on this board by specific searches that don't show up in the regular topics and messages displays. I'm presuming that they fail some filter that I set in the past, when the interface was different. I've looked a little, but don't see how to change filters. Help anyone?
That would be dollar denominated, but as I've often said, with a bear case suggesting a price below $30 and a bull case suggesting a price above $200, it will be hard to agree on a selling price for a while.
Remember the $18-28 one that seemed to last forever? We've been in a low $40s-low $50s range for a while, and it's starting to have the same feel. The key attribute of the old range was that the stock could move anywhere within the range for no reason at all, or for reasons that affected only sentiment. We left the range just over a year ago on evidence that Jakafi was a commercial success (and perhaps the beginning of interest in multi-drug "checkpoint inhibitor" cancer treatments).
I'm venturing a guess that it will again take a dollar-denominated reason to take INCY out of its range. So I look mostly to earnings for the first calendar quarter of 2015.
Sorry, I don't know anything about any of those. The only health stock I'm recommending [cautiously] to other people these days is Myriad Genetics (MYGN). Since the split patent decision (They can't own the genes, but they can own the methods of testing for them), bears have piled in expecting ruinous competition. Meanwhile, earnings have kept rising and new tests are gradually expanding the opportunity. I'm not even recommending INCY because we're entering silly [tax-driven] season with nothing compelling on the company calendar.
You're always low on sales. We'll see some benefit from having detailers allowed to talk about survival, and a little benefit from RECAP. So 99MM sales. Another mil or 2 on royalty, too (survival benefit). But expenses could maybe be higher than you guess, too. I'm presuming that the checkpoint collaboration payments go onto the contract line, which makes that highly uncertain. Constraint on earnings is that this isn't a quarter in which management is highly motivated to show the first ongoing-operating profit (the first quarter of the PV push is pretty much guaranteed to generate a loss; why go black only to go red again?). They have not scrimped to make the numbers look better, so there should still be a loss.
SA reply thread being taken over by Geron/Imetelstat fanatics. They are very up on regulatory developments, and are passing rumors of what Tefferi might present at the next ASH. Hysterical and sometimes rude, but may be of interest.
Company was just in the news. Australian. Real goal is slowing degeneration in Alzheimer's disease by modifying trafficking of metal in brain (the Golconda of drug developers). Just jumped on the orphan indications scam by adopting Huntington's disease as a near-term target. Scamming research money by expanding trials to Parkinson's disease, and tentatively that may be the best target anyway.
These are Dread Diseases, the drug candidates are oral small molecules. Sounds familiar.
Chart suggests it might be a trading vehicle; otherwise for those of us with infinite time horizons, and cautiously.
"The first immunomodulator that acts as a programmed death (PD) inhibitor has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck & Co), previously known as MK-3475, has been approved for use in patients with advanced or unresectable melanoma who are no longer responding to other drugs." (dated Sept 4)
This is the drug being paired with INCB24360 (the IDO inhibitor) in exploratory trials. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02178722?term=INCB24360&rank=1
Incyte is conducting the trials I collaboration with Merck. While the combination trial is expected to last 3 years, the design permits numerous interim analyses which might generate news.
Running a study is easier when an approved drug is included.
The take-home is that the benefit of whole-population screening is predicted to be indistinguishable from zero (agreeing with experience), while the cost in both money and morbidity is considerable. The test is useful in the right situations, but not for screening where there is no reason for initial suspicion of prostate cancer.
In fact, one of the big uses of Prolaris may be to mitigate [somewhat] the harm done by excessive PSA testing.
But the point is that we should be interested and encouraged by positive findings on the benefits of a Myriad test, but keep in mind the good reasons why medical practice is slow in expanding test use.
Be very careful before saying that a test can do no harm. Everyone's pet bad example is PSA testing of healthy men. Costs a lot of money total, which is a harm right there (and PSA costs less than MyRisk). Leads to an enormous amount of unwarranted anxiety and many unnecessary surgical procedures. No demonstrable public health benefit (raw prostate cancer death rate is the same in comparable countries where the test is and is not common). But a physician who doesn't do PSA screening risks being sued, so in the US it's hard to stop doing the test routinely.
So anyway, this one study concluded that screening without prior suspicion is justified in a particular population. It's interesting, and even hints that more testing should be done in general, but let's not rush beyond what that American Cancer Society guy said.