We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon
Investor in the best interests of our community. For example, here is how to disable FireFox ad content blocking while on Silicon Investor.
Interesting, thanks! This link provides a pretty good summary of current treatments and response rates, PFS, etc. sciencedirect.com although there certainly may be better ones, this was the best I could find after a quick search.
A while back I suggested that when Michael Pehl commented in a CC a few months ago that they were evaluating data from over 70 patients with erMBC, that maybe they pulled all those patients from all the breast cancer patients, including the TNBC patients, to get this data. It was point out to me that TNBC patients are negative HR and in fact are negative 3 primary targets. So the data we will get in the oral presentation appears to be to be from over 70 patients in the basket trial but they were recruited to investigate 132’s efficacy in HR+MBC. This makes this higher quality data than I was anticipating. The clock is ticking towards some milestones. The abstracts on May 16th, AA filing shortly after and presentation of HR+ MBC Sunday June 3rd and investor meeting that night as well.
I think it's important that we understand how important this ASCO presentation is. This year, around 266,000 women in the US will be diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. Only 15% of those will have TNBC, but two thirds of breast cancer is hormone receptor positive. Even if you assume that SG will be used only in cases failing standard therapy, use of SG in this patient population would dramatically increase the potential patient population. And that's just in the U.S; around the world, over 1.7 million women will be diagnosed with breast cancer every year, meaning over 1 million women with hormone receptor positive invasive breast cancer will be potential patients for SG.
Moreover, the fact that this was given an oral presentation spot rather than a simple poster presentation means the ASCO organizers feel that it is a significant piece of research, and needs a larger audience.
If the data is good, and presumably it is based on Immunomedics advertising it with an investor presentation at ASCO, then the company could see large scale off label use after it gets TNBC accelerated approval, and while confirmatory studies are being done.
Basically, "silly" valuation of the company may be closer than previously thought.
I think I may have asked this before but what the hell...We are all just waiting for the upcoming catalysts as patiently as possible. What are we to glean from short numbers.... So far, from the answers that have been posted is..nobody seems to know... If this is so....should we really care what that number is?? And erippetoe...I mean no disrespect...I am trying to understand.
There is little doubt in my mind that the 10 million shares of warrants that expire in Nov (If memory serves me) at $3.75 were shorted and are going to be there until expiration. But that leaves a lot of shorted shares unaccounted for. Some could be associated with the $100 million financing (convertible bonds) where 80% have been redeemed, so $20 million worth still out there for a couple more years. Then there are the shorts who are simply short and that’s the unknown. Personally, the more of the number that are those, the better. There will be a day of reckoning for those in the not to distant future and that will be a fun day for us. Could be a couple of months or could be on AA.
I don’t concern myself with the shorts anymore because I firmly believe we have a management team in place that is going to tranfer the pain of owning this stock from us, to them.
I think the other interesting thing about the short numbers is the increase lately. The month of March saw, what, a 2M+ increase in short positions? I find it unlikely that those are covered. Unlike quite a number of the number of short shares we've had for a long time, these are much more risky.
I agree with Mr. Ranch though: Unlike in the past, I don't think they're as much of a concern for a number of reasons:
1> there's a higher percentage of shares held by institutions which I think are less inclined to panic. Witness the drop in March, no real "run for the exits" reactions.
2> 50% swings are harder to "encourage" by shorting at this point. IMMU's corporate strength is vastly improved; inducing panic is harder. We're not in danger of getting "going concern" letters.
3> Unlike in the past, someone shorting IMMU has to be concerned about a perfect storm of good news.
Likely/expected: > BLA submission > ASCO presentation > BLA approval
Possible > BTD for UC > BTD (or good news) for hormone receptor positive breast cancer (WOW!) > Partnerships for other compounds > news about 132 for other indications
All the while without any fear that we'd run out of money before year's end (pick your year in the past). Spending will (and already has) increased, but there's a lot of money in the bank.
Not to mention the quality of the new people on boarded recently. It's hard to imagine they're either desperate or being fooled by smoke and mirrors; I'm pretty confident theres some "there" there.
And I do have to say I still have whiplash from how expectations are changing. In the past, any quick jumps were untrustworthy; I kept wondering when the bad news would come along and depress the price again.
Now we get good news and, well, I rather expect more good news. At least that's the hope.
And anyone notice that when we get good news it's much more likely that the price increases? What's with that? More whiplash...