other than reiterating the same thing alot, why be mad at jk. put him on ignore and move on.
CYCC leadership is responsible for PPS. Not jk.
I heard a rumor that Post Phase 2 was the sweet spot for partnerships. And that Judy has it on her to do list to schedule a meeting with the FDA.
Now where is that phone #???
I'll relook at the curve this weekend. I did a pretty detail check and I didn't see a huge difference. It did favor sapa + dac, but i didn't feel like it was a slam dunk.
What still concerns me is the slide deck showing a stat that older population has longer mOS than younger within the same study for sap+dac and they really pump that slide. That to me is an anomaly and I'd prefer to focus on the entire patient population in the early data with smaller number of patients.
They rightly emphasize that the Daco study was younger and the inference is that younger patients will do better, but then provide a slide with a stat that shows just the opposite in their own study.
I did not hear the presenter do that comparison or drive that point. Perhaps I need to relisten to the presentations.
(ie. Comparing sapa + dac older versus younger and stating they were not surprised by older patients living longer.) They merely pulled the older population out of their data and highlighted it when comparing it to daco alone.
They did NOT highlight it compared to the total population.
Your argument is what justifies your high confidence. I am still a skeptic. And if you are driving your confidence by older live longer than younger then we'll likely disagree until results are published. Fair enough.
Depending on the account, CYCC has a really high margin maintenance. Some of my equities lose marginability below $5, but CYCC always has high margin maintenance even when above $5, probably due to its classification.
In one of my accounts, CYCC requires 100%. So not marginable at all.
So for retail investor, I don't see many buying CYCC on margin. (IMO)
l2l: I'm saying I personally can use little if any margin even if I wanted to for CYCC purchase. I don't think that has recently changed. It is a requirement of my broker because of CYCC's classification. It reverse split, low pps, and is a early stage biotech.
Maybe some accounts allow for such equities to be bought on margin. Even if I wanted to, I have not been able to so nothing has changed. I haven't gotten wiser. My broker just has not allowed for any in CYCC's classification. SNSS also requires 100% as an example.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the point being made here?
u mean AML?
mds just reported final final final phase 2 data at ASH. Judy and Spiro have hopefully already met with the FDA. That's the first question I have. At JMP meeting earlier this year, they had yet to be on the FDA's schedule per Judy and Spiro, but said they would call once results of MDS were finalized. Which should have been in October or November timeframe.
JMP said 2014 catalyst is DSMB futility results for AML. So not sure how much will be known in 2014 on AML other than futility. 2015 should be the year for AML.
psoriatic arthritis pdufa date is March 2014. Believe Psoriasis indication has a date in 2nd half 2014 in US. Believe EMA would be reviewing for approval in both indications 2nd half 2014.
Another catalyst for apremilast is a data read out in ankylosing spondylitis phase 3 in 1st half 2014. A pretty large market by itself.
I thought TGB bought put contracts to hedge (ie insurance)?
If copper goes up, they loose the premium (insurance) but are exposed to upside of copper prices.
are you against the practice of hedging?
If not, what would be your recommended approach versus buying out of the money puts?
As a producer, they don't want to have to exercise those put contracts. They want the price to stay above the put strike. The more, obviously the better.
What is a little troubling is the inability to rally during one of the best bull markets for biotech in a long time.
Why wouldn't hedge funds have allowed this to run? Wouldn't that have been the path of least resistance for biotech stocks?
I look at Spiro's buy @$3 two ways.
1 is the bullish way. He's owning it and putting up his own money.
The other is he was trying to save a little face after dumping a HUGE secondary on shareholders after a 60% pps drop. Furthermore if you recall, he announced it just days after a quarterly conference call when there would have been a few ticked off shareholders present to ask him about it.
As the PPS erodes again (CYCC pps is willing to fall with other biotechs), long term shareholders are left with hope that Spiro will come through.
Come on Spiro!! Get a deal done!!! Post Phase 2!! Sweet Spot!!! Final FInal FInal MDS data is out!!! U rah rah, CYCC!!!!
And you can buy at these prices too, Spiro!! Don't forget that!!!
This is what I believe Spiro is contemplating. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't his plan. When the PPS was at $5, I was thinking he wasn't negotiating a partnership. I was thinking he was negotiating a placement. With PPS at $5, thinking he could maybe get $4, but now, its back to a $3 offering if he does one.
For Spiro it would mean remaining in complete control. And making it harder for someone to buy CYCC as any premium would cost alot more $$ with the # of shares outstanding. A do it yourself poison pill.
Not as far fetched as it may seem.
conspiracy theory would be does someone know something we don't (ie secondary offering)... Seems pretty bold to be that short ahead of really no catalysts until the futility results from DSMB much later in 2014.
With SPiro's ongoing proclamation that Post phase 2 is partnering sweet spot.
Is someone betting that Spiro is again bluffing with partnering talks?
Off the top of my head, a negative futility outcome would be the nearest significant negative catalyst. OR a secondary.
Makes one wonder.
Spiro is in position to do something!!! Do something, man!
continuing this thought. If the futility results were expected soon. Maybe a reason to stay short.
But based on preliminary data, I would have to believe this study will go to conclusion. The general belief is sapa is active and the safety reviews have been ok, so I would be surprised to see the DSMB halt the study for futility. So even that isn't a really great catalyst if you are short.
So for 2014, the item front and center is MDS registration pathway.
Option 1 = partner
Option 2 = AA
Option 3 = secondary offering
So unless you had a strong belief that a secondary was coming, why in the world is anyone short CYCC now when Spiro has repeatedly telegraphed that post phase 2 is partnering sweet spot.
You have a long wait ahead and probably would get higher prices to short from (if the main thesis was failure of AML phase 3.)
How's apple working ort? Let me guess, you are shorting it today too!!
I've seen you talk alot of shorting CELG since about 70, but never any covering? When will you cover those $70 and $80 short positions?
look at that study and notice all the Arms. I think its more than just the two cohorts of MDS patients. Almost like they combined the two studies - original AML phase 2 and the 2 cohorts of MDS phase 2.
Why are the shorts leaving almost 2 million shares on the table?
jantham noted the short position remains at almost 2 million shares.
I'm trying to figure out why? If there was a big pps moving inflection point in the coming quarter or two I would understand.
The only one I can fathom they are considering is further dilution for MDS phase 3.
I agree with l2l on this point. I think sapa is active enough and safe enough to make it highly likely sapa/AML makes it past the milestone of futility. That's a 2nd half 2014 event. Are the shorts that confident at $3.81/share that it won't get past that? I think no.
If no dilution, the next big potential negative milestone is mid 2015 endpoint read out on AML. Why short now or stay short now at $3.81 when there will be a lot better opportunities during 2014. Again, if no dilution.
And the risk of staying short now, even if you HATE AML, is Spiro fulfilling his promise to partner post phase 2 with MDS. The sweet spot he's reiterated for the past 3+ years. Lots of interest, Spiro says.
To me, the shorts firmly believe Spiro will dilute. And believe its a 1st half 2014 event. That would align with CYCC getting together a Phase 3 and launching in Q3 2014.
Who knows Spiro better, the bulls? Or the short sellers? Time will tell...
I've been looking at the Kaplan curves between daco v sapa+daco from corporate presentation. I don't see much of a difference at 10 months. I don't believe I see 27.5% reduction in death. I see sapa leading by a little bit. Same all the way out to 24 months.
Does 8.5 months mOS v 7.7 months give you 27.5% reduction? Doesn't seem like it... Seems like sapa+daco will need to have mOS at least 6 weeks longer than daco alone. At least.
One can argue, the patient pop will be older. I agree with that... but then Daco will need to only have mOS ~ 7 months or less. Possible. But no slam dunk. I might nudge my 25% chance up to 30%, but no way is that data pointing towards 85% likelihood of sapa + dacogen getting approved for frontline AML. IMO.
sapa's key value driver is MDS imo. And the PPS key for short term is Spiro getting a partnership. If no partnership, MDS holds value long term. I'd say hold a few shares now for the long shot partnership and add on the big MDS secondary if no partnership.
Options and short thesis. There are only about 7000 call options open for all strikes all prices. There are only 700k shares controlled by those call options. I can't believe 100% of those calls are hedges for the 2 milion short shares.
However, with the PPS drop, it sure makes buying a hedge a lot cheaper. So, perhaps will have to see if call options get more active.
I think some of those $5 strike calls are bulls buying into the theory that ASH was going to produce a partner and the PPS would pop.
I still maintain the short position is due to the belief that Spiro will pay for MDS via a secondary.
I would not want to try to cover 2 million shares into a partnership announcement. Even a modest partnership would propel this back to $7-$8 pretty quickly. Would love to see it.
as usual, you nailed it.
Fondly remember ort getting bullish for about 1 day after CELG announced abraxane met endpoint in pancreatic cancer p3. The pps didn't make the major gains we thought it would the next day.
Of course, 1 day later, impatient ort reversed and went short. That was the true blastoff point for a 100 point 13 month rally.
Ever since, ort is the best short term bottom caller on celg. Everytime he says short, its off to the races.
I am not going to believe a thesis that says dac and sapa will do better in older patients than younger. I think have to use whole set of data w such a small dataset. So I'm at 8.5 w sap 7.7 was the full study for dac its hopeful to say you'll drop that to 6.3. as I recall that subset was a smaller number of patients and.dac failing a lot more on older patients becomes key to trial success. Don't like rooting for poorly performing control arm. They sometimes outperform a little. End of curve is why study needs big number of patients. really need to see 20 percent survive where dac has few of any over the 480 patients. That would help my view is not 85. Agreeing to disagree