Just as the explosion of the Hindenburg laid waste to the image of German engineering invincibility, Chinaman's mindless posts are casting doubt upon the notion that all Chinese are super smart. Maybe this is stating the obvious - but Chinaman, you sure aren't doing your Chinese brethren any favors
Just tune him out. Listen to the objective, scientifically rationale posts of boogins and the other reasonable minds on this board. These folks tend to be neither blindly bullish nor vitriolically bearish - that is, they are objective. Chinaman, Insbrooklad and a few others are just serial posting scabs that are not worth your attention or responses.
chinaman - it often takes great restraint not to disparage your posts. of course it is speculative to say that SNY is waiting for TNBC - and of course it is speculative to say that MACK won't do a secondary until after 398 reads out. EVERY PREDICTION ON THIS BOARD IS SPECULATIVE. If TNBC is positive, i think it colors SNY's evaluation - duh. Still hard to say what SNY will do but it is incrementally more likely they stay with 121 if TNBC is positive - duh. SNY faces other opportunities, as do all large pharma firms, chief among them in this case is whether to use their available cash to increase their position in Regeneron.
And here is my plan: i'm going to hold until you, Innsbrooklad, and/or Qwert browbeat me into selling
OK - sorry for the disparaging remark. But - yes, I am holding. Right now i have 70,000 shares which i bought at an average of 2.7 per share back in November. So i have a pretty decent gain right now. I plan to continue holding through 398 read out unless something transpires to #$%$ my confidence. I think the odds of at least one of the two 398 treatment arms reading out positively is pretty high - on the order of 70 percent - but it's not a slam dunk because there is always the risk that the 5#$%$/L control arm does much better than assumed. I also acknowledge risk related to SNY's involvement in the 121 development program. For that, i think the odds of SNY continuing are better than 50-50 but hard to say how much better.
ok - Chinaman, then explain why JPM suggested a potential 85-200 percent upside in the event that 398 reads out positively? If a stock crushing secondary that eliminates such a gain is all but in the bag, why would JPM make that call? Could it be that MACK just might not do a full 200 mil secondary after 398 reads out? Could it be that any secondary following 398 results do in fact knock the stock down but only about 15 percent following a 50 percent or greater gain in teh event the data in at least one 398 arm is positive? The point is that even with the prospect of a secondary, MACK may still be up solidly net net. As i said before, go back to GALE.
Yes - MACK's quarterly burn rate is not insubstantial. They have hired top notch Cambridge based scientists, probably pay them market rate for the area, and have a number of clinical candidates and programs. A secondary offering is inevitable and when it occurs it will likely the knock the stock down the typical 15 percent or so. I just think it won't occur until June - after ASCO and after 398 read out.
I do agree that there is risk that SNY could walk - for several reasons - and key among them the growing competition in the BC area. And yes, the shelf could be tied to this potential. But i don't think SNY will make a final decision until after the TNBC data read out in Q2.
They won't raise before the 398 results. If they do - then sell (i would and will if they do so). But they could raise after 398 with the hope of pushing forward commercialization of 398 and the rest of their substantial portfolio. Unfortunately, they could also use the money to push forward 121 if SNY bails after ASCO. I don't think SNY has made a decision right now - i think they are waiting to review all available data and the competitive landscape. I believe 121 will work in the BM targeted patients MACK has in mind, but the competitive landscape could be such that SNY doesn't see a big commercial opportunity even though BC itself is a quite large opportunity.
The study assumes median OS of 3 months in the 5#$%$/L control arm in the gemcitabine refractory setting. Does anyone know mOS variation with this treatment in the gem-ref setting? In other words, how OS has varied in studies with this treatment in this setting? My review suggests that this assumption is accurate. But if you assume, as i do, that the MM-398 arms stand a decent chance of meeting their OS targets, the key risk is control arm where you could get OS that exceeds expectations. This isn't very likely - but then again i'm not exactly sure what range has been seen in prior studies with 5#$%$/L in gem-ref patients.
The open interest in the 5, and 7.50 June calls is pretty amazing when compared to the open interest in April and September