Ultimately, I hope to see MACK look like SGEN...
SGEN Revenues in M
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
94.78 210.81 269.26 286.76 336.8
SGEN $31.76/share, market cap 4.47B, ~140M shares outstanding.
Cramer was telling people to buy biotech at the end of December as a "defensive" sector to be in. I somehow think he knew what was coming. He also pumped specifically pumped RDUS and he rarely pumps small biotechs with no sales. I like his rational on the overall movements of the markets, but beware when he pumps a stock (remember SUNE).
From Merrimack's MM-151 AACR 2011 poster. Just thought it was relevant since Sym004 is a Symphogen product. Symphogen is Baxalta's newest partner.
Figure 4b:MM-151 is superior to both cetuximab and the oligoclonal Sym004 in blocking both low-and high-affinity ligand driven cell proliferation in a 3D spheroid assay. H322M were grown in spheroid culture in RPMI+10% FBS in the presence of varying concentrations of MM-151, Sym004 or cetuximab, and AREG (200ng/ml) or EGF (50ng/ml) for 3 days prior to measurement of cell proliferation via CTG assay.
Here's one example I found where a phase II trial was used as the basis for label expansion. I'm wondering if the recent strength in the stock price was in part due to the Barclay's presentation where, for the first time, mgmt. alluded to the possibility that Onivyde + 5fu could beat gem+abraxane. If so, I'm wondering if MACK could file for first line for Oni + 5fu.
Velcade expansion based on phase II trial...
The FDA has expanded the bortezomib (Velcade) label to allow for retreatment in patients with multiple myeloma who previously responded to the proteasome inhibitor, according to an announcement made by Millennium/Takeda, the companies that manufacture the drug.The expanded approval was based on findings from the phase II RETRIEVE study that explored intravenous bortezomib retreatment in 130 patients with multiple myeloma.
Seems a lot of retail short sellers don't use stop losses. There's talk of an agreement between Russia and Saudi Arabia to cut oil production. If it happens Monday while we're on holiday, more pain coming when the market opens Tuesday.
Conservatively, I am projecting a maximum 40% peak market penetration to be reached at the end of year three 2019 and projecting revenues around $260M. Revenues would increase thereafter at a rate based on the demographics of the population.
Scistats: You're making an extremely pessimistic assumption that ALL patients started Nov 1. The ramp is likely an exponential curve, but if it were linear, the number of patients starting per week (over 8 weeks) might look approximately like this:
8, 18, 26, 34, 43, 49, 57, 65
This example is likely too pessimistic... but it shows that the average weeks-on-treatment for the 300 patients was 3.38. The revenue per week is then around 1.27M and the revenue per year for 10% of patients is about 66M. Multiply that by 10 and you get 660M annually for 2nd line PC. I believe they stated discounts to list price of 13% and guided 10% - 15% going forward.
If you took their original number of 800M and applied a 13% discount you would get 696M.
I don't expect much from Q4. I'm looking for 300K to 500K. JMP estimates 75M in sales in 2016. That can be achieved by a simple double of sales each Q in 2016:
5M, 10M, 20M, 40M for a 2016 total of 75M.
I was wondering if MACK can apply for a label expansion on the basis of results for the nal-IRI + 5#$%$/LV arm of NCT02551991.
MM is probably sitting on all those long Mar puts. Someone (Inns?) is shorting MACK using March puts. I've been wondering what the price action might be as we approached March 18.
If that 215 IBB support level is lost, the next major support level is all the way down to 168. At 168, IBB will almost erase all its gains against the S&P since it pulled away back in Nov 2011. I cannot see it going below 168.
Oil is still coupled to bio due to its links to the high yield market (distressed loans). Bio leans on the high yield market for cash to survive. On top of that, there's political rhetoric. IMHO the rewards in bio are not worth the risk at the moment. Good news is quickly sold after a pop.
Talking heads (Goldman, Citi, etc.) are expecting oil markets to rebalance in Q4. Until then, expect bankruptcies to increase as oil futures contracts start to expire this Q. That's likely the next catalyst down for the market.
Things may get better by EOY if the world economy can escape recession and the talking heads say that requires a stable, and higher, oil price.
Before IBB flattens, it's possible it could participate in a bear market rally and go back up. MACK could rally to somewhere between 7 and 7.62.
If sales are OK, MACK's year is 2017... with some major catalysts: MM302 data, MM302 partnership, MM302 accelerated approval filing, MM398 front line PC data.
Do you see any possibility that interim MM-121 results showing PFS could be released in 2017 around the estimated termination date of the original trial?
If so, I'm thinking that might bring "partner" back into the discussion for the breast cancer indication. Mgmt needs to do something to bring move it along before 2018.
Also, do you see a partner for MM-302 after results are announced in 2017, assuming results qualify it for accelerated approval? I'm thinking about how MACK can fill the coffers without resorting to more dilution or debt.
Perhaps MACK has entered another accumulation phase. From one of my trading books:
During the accumulation phase, stock prices have fallen, the economic outlook is usually poor, and investors are looking for a reason to sell. During this market phase all news is seemingly bad. Even good news is bad. As many are consumed with fear of losing more, or maybe all they have, the experienced investors buy at the bottom and their greed drives them to risk money when the fearful are giving up. As this happens, the volatility increases, the daily trading ranges become more erratic with wide price swings. But during this phase, it’s important to note who is fearful and who is greedy.
McAllen, Fred (2011-10-01). Trading the Trends (p. 49). Fred McAllen. Kindle Edition.
I agree w/Big that it depends on where biotech settles. I'm thinking IBB flattens at 225. That's about 33% less that it was when JPM set their $14 target. So if you adjust it down by 33%, you get $9.40. That seems reasonable to me.
One point though is that given the OS data, I would think the estimated average course of treatment of four months would need to be adjusted up.
So far most analysts have refrained from adjusting targets down in the wake of the selloff. Barclays did adjust its CELG target down to 120. I watched an interview on Bloomberg where the moderator ask an analyst when they were going to do this. The analyst side-stepped the question. Perhaps they see no reason to do so until the selloff settles out.
and the "we are not for sale" statements. I listened to a one hour webcast yesterday with the fund manager of Fidelity's select biotech fund. He must have spent a full ten minutes elaborating on the payoff the fund achieves when one of its holdings is acquired.
The latest Celgene ads for Abraxane state 38% of patients receiving GEM + Abraxane move on to a 2nd line therapy. They are touting the better OS if Abraxane was use in 1st line vs Gem alone.