24.76 0.00 (0.00%)
After hours: 4:48PM EDT
|Bid||23.09 x 800|
|Ask||24.72 x 3000|
|Day's Range||23.82 - 24.78|
|52 Week Range||23.08 - 50.44|
|Beta (3Y Monthly)||1.33|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||88.11|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||N/A (N/A)|
|1y Target Est||N/A|
Myriad Genetics Inc NASDAQ/NGS:MYGNView full report here! Summary * ETFs holding this stock are seeing positive inflows but are weakening * Bearish sentiment is moderate * Economic output for the sector is expanding but at a slower rate Bearish sentimentShort interest | NeutralShort interest is moderately high for MYGN with between 10 and 15% of shares outstanding currently on loan. The last change in the short interest score occurred more than 1 month ago and implies that there has been little change in sentiment among investors who seek to profit from falling equity prices. Money flowETF/Index ownership | NegativeETF activity is negative and may be weakening. The net inflows of $984 million over the last one-month into ETFs that hold MYGN are among the lowest of the last year and appear to be slowing. Economic sentimentPMI by IHS Markit | NegativeAccording to the latest IHS Markit Purchasing Managers' Index (PMI) data, output in the Healthcare sector is rising. The rate of growth is weak relative to the trend shown over the past year, however, and is easing. Credit worthinessCredit default swapCDS data is not available for this security.Please send all inquiries related to the report to email@example.com.Charts and report PDFs will only be available for 30 days after publishing.This document has been produced for information purposes only and is not to be relied upon or as construed as investment advice. To the fullest extent permitted by law, IHS Markit disclaims any responsibility or liability, whether in contract, tort (including, without limitation, negligence), equity or otherwise, for any loss or damage arising from any reliance on or the use of this material in any way. Please view the full legal disclaimer and methodology information on pages 2-3 of the full report.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The practice of patenting genes, once banned by the Supreme Court, may come back soon despite a measure of horror the very idea once inspired. Author Michael Crichton warned of the evils of gene patents in his 2006 novel “Next” and, more directly, in a 2007 New York Times commentary piece.Crichton’s concern about giving exclusive legal rights to the use of information about human bodies was a matter of principle: “You can’t patent snow, eagles or gravity, and you shouldn’t be able to patent genes, either. Yet by now one-fifth of the genes in your body are privately owned.”Prominent scientists are now raising objections that the practice will restrict potentially valuable medical research. If one company develops a genetic test for a disease, for example, a patent on the gene involved might prevent scientists at a different institution from seeking possible gene therapies for the disease.The latest battle is taking place in Congress, where a new bill might override a Supreme Court ban from 2013. One prominent critic this time around is Harold Varmus, Nobel laureate and former head of the National Cancer Institute, who argues that the proposed law “would result in a quagmire of patent claims and legal impediments to the normal scientific exchange.”As recently as the late 20th century, the patenting of genes was fairly uncontroversial. At that time, explains Robert Cook-Deegan, a professor in the School for the Future of Innovation in Society at Arizona State University, it was understood that granting a patent on use of a particular gene was equivalent to a patent on a gene-related invention – like a technique for making insulin or human growth hormone from genetically modified organisms.But around the end of the century, genetic testing exploded, and, at least in principle, patent holders who should have rights to a single genetic test were getting broad rights over future research or therapies based on the same gene. Crichton took issue with a genetic test for a deadly inherited condition called Canavan disease. But what finally got the Supreme Court involved was a test for mutations in genes known as BRCA1 and BRCA2, associated with a strong predisposition to breast and ovarian cancer.The company owning those patents, Myriad Genetics, won a race to find the DNA sequence making up the breast cancer gene BRCA1, thus making it possible to test for mutations that conferred breast cancer risk. But like most scientific advances, Myriad’s achievement was intertwined with work of others. Mary-Claire King of the University of Washington, for instance, had done the detective work to recognize that such a gene must exist. In a 1990 paper in Science, she demonstrated that a gene (which she named BRCA1) on Chromosome 17 was being passed through families that were repeatedly stricken with breast or ovarian cancer.The patent gave Myriad so much power that the company was able to charge outside researchers to do clinical trials designed to figure out how well the gene tests worked, and to find a best practice for properly informing women about the meaning of their results. This education is a serious priority for public health because a positive test has motivated some women to have healthy breasts and ovaries removed – which some experts consider too risky for the amount of protection it confers.By the early part of this decade, the ACLU started to protest Myriad’s gene patent, and by 2013, the Supreme Court agreed and the patents were revoked. The result: Myriad stayed in business, other labs started to develop their own tests for breast cancer risk, and the technology advanced. Now breast cancer risk testing can include as many as 28 different genes. The main downside for genetic research generally has been a lack of clarity about which genetic discoveries are patentable. The proposed legislation under debate in Congress is meant to fix that problem. But by reverting to the pre-2013 situation when there were virtually no restrictions, it goes too far. The bill, if passed, would allow gene patents to curtail research. Gene patenting isn’t the horror that Michael Crichton imagined, but neither is the race for patents the key motivator for genetic breakthroughs.If lawmakers want to help, they should give clarity, not restrictions, on research rights.To contact the author of this story: Faye Flam at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Philip Gray at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Faye Flam is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. She has written for the Economist, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Psychology Today, Science and other publications. She has a degree in geophysics from the California Institute of Technology.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
The results of the studies will provide a major breakthrough for Myriad Genetics (MYGN) in the field of breast cancer diagnosis and treatment.
Wall Street soured on the high-growth industry after first-quarter earnings were reported, but it may have been an overreaction for two stocks.
Mark Capone has been the CEO of Myriad Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ:MYGN) since 2015. First, this article will compare CEO...
Myriad Genetics (MYGN) observes strong year-over-year revenue growth in EndoPredict, Hereditary Cancer and Prolaris testing as well as pharmaceutical and clinical service segments.
Myriad (MYGN) delivered earnings and revenue surprises of 4.55% and -0.81%, respectively, for the quarter ended March 2019. Do the numbers hold clues to what lies ahead for the stock?
On a per-share basis, the Salt Lake City-based company said it had profit of 9 cents. Earnings, adjusted for one-time gains and costs, came to 46 cents per share. The results topped Wall Street expectations. ...
Myriad (MYGN) doesn't possess the right combination of the two key ingredients for a likely earnings beat in its upcoming report. Get prepared with the key expectations.
It seems that the masses and most of the financial media hate hedge funds and what they do, but why is this hatred of hedge funds so prominent? At the end of the day, these asset management firms do not gamble the hard-earned money of the people who are on the edge of poverty. Truth […]
The global medical device space takes significant strides in terms of research and development (R&D) and regulatory progress in the first quarter.