Accomplia: the next prozac or viagra?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

whopper

Former jolly good fellow
20+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2004
Messages
8,026
Reaction score
4,154
Prozac & Viagra caused the stocks of the companies that produced them to skyrocket.

So I'm thinking, what's the biggest problem now that everyone wants to combat, even if they're considered healthy for the most part? Obesity.

Even people who aren't obese want something to curb their appetite.

Lo & Behold---we got Accomplia, produced by Sanofil (SNY).

It boasts a completely new mechanism which has not yet been attempted, its been approved in the UK, in fact several Americans are flying over to the UK just to get this med.

So I'm thinking SNY maybe the next company with a big wonder drug.

Problems: SNY was held back by the FDA because the FDA wanted more info, & neither SNY nor the FDA disclosed what that info was. SNY is also currently in legal battle over their plavix patent--which has driven their stock down the past few weeks. Finally, drug stocks are not going to be favored for at least this week because the Dems are predicted to take over in at least 1 of the houses.

Opinions?

Members don't see this ad.
 
How to evaluate:

1) Look up history of company

2) What were their their earnings, earning/share, debt holdings, percent ownership by executive, etc.

3) How long have they been developing the new drug?

4) What is the burn ration on this drug (costs for R&D, contracts to buy and net income)

5) What if any Phase of FDA trials has it gone through? Has their been a filed FDA application yet?

6) What are potential competitors?

7) What other drugs do they sell in US? How far away from patent expiration/generic options are they.

There is a great deal of work in evaluating a company putting out some new wonder drug.
The above were just a few of the items to consider before investing in the company.
Hope that helps









Prozac & Viagra caused the stocks of the companies that produced them to skyrocket.

So I'm thinking, what's the biggest problem now that everyone wants to combat, even if they're considered healthy for the most part? Obesity.

Even people who aren't obese want something to curb their appetite.

Lo & Behold---we got Accomplia, produced by Sanofil (SNY).

It boasts a completely new mechanism which has not yet been attempted, its been approved in the UK, in fact several Americans are flying over to the UK just to get this med.

So I'm thinking SNY maybe the next company with a big wonder drug.

Problems: SNY was held back by the FDA because the FDA wanted more info, & neither SNY nor the FDA disclosed what that info was. SNY is also currently in legal battle over their plavix patent--which has driven their stock down the past few weeks. Finally, drug stocks are not going to be favored for at least this week because the Dems are predicted to take over in at least 1 of the houses.

Opinions?
 
well, if you want something that might explode, the nymex is going public by the end of next month - could be worth looking into...
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Crap I wrote out a response and I lost it with the click of the button. I hate quick post sometimes.

Long story short, I bought SNY last year jumping on the accomplia bandwagon. I am holding as a long term investment as I see great potential for this company. Accomplia was a bust but there is still a chance that they can get all the approvals they are looking for. Too bad their sales for the year are down (I think Accomplia is really hurting them) as well as Plavix and Ambien issues. Although the company hasn't pushed back the release, forcasters are saying at least 2Q '07 release.

Oh and my rant is how stocks are so finicky to the slight change ... Its sad that they fluxuate so much. But hey, that is the short-term game for some.


Oh and here's a site for you to follow the latest ...
 
My personal take is that FA (fundamental analysis) is more of a long-term strategy and TA (tech) is short term. TA reflects emotions, and FA in theory reflects rational thought. Unfortunately, I have found that no matter how much FA you have done, there is someone who gets paid millions of dollars to do it, has insiders everywhere, and has much more knowledge than you can ever has as a non-full time professional with all the resources of a multimillion dollar company at hand.

What does this mean? Well, by the time you have decided to buy a stock, "smart money" has already bought in. And by the time you actually hit the "buy" button, smart money has their short shares lined up for you to fill.

Take NBIX. Take MRK, PFE, practically all the biotechs. IMO the time to buy a stock is when it has been artificially beaten down from lofty heights... not when it is at a 52-week high. NBIX for example, now, will probably double in the next year. (from 11.5). ELN quintupled from 3... etc etc...

Of course, to each their own. DO not invest/trade money you cannot afford to lose.

ttac
 
My personal take is that FA (fundamental analysis) is more of a long-term strategy and TA (tech) is short term. TA reflects emotions, and FA in theory reflects rational thought. Unfortunately, I have found that no matter how much FA you have done, there is someone who gets paid millions of dollars to do it, has insiders everywhere, and has much more knowledge than you can ever has as a non-full time professional with all the resources of a multimillion dollar company at hand.

It seems like small investors can never win on that aspect.
 
My personal take is that FA (fundamental analysis) is more of a long-term strategy and TA (tech) is short term. TA reflects emotions, and FA in theory reflects rational thought. Unfortunately, I have found that no matter how much FA you have done, there is someone who gets paid millions of dollars to do it, has insiders everywhere, and has much more knowledge than you can ever has as a non-full time professional with all the resources of a multimillion dollar company at hand.

What does this mean? Well, by the time you have decided to buy a stock, "smart money" has already bought in. And by the time you actually hit the "buy" button, smart money has their short shares lined up for you to fill.

Take NBIX. Take MRK, PFE, practically all the biotechs. IMO the time to buy a stock is when it has been artificially beaten down from lofty heights... not when it is at a 52-week high. NBIX for example, now, will probably double in the next year. (from 11.5). ELN quintupled from 3... etc etc...

Of course, to each their own. DO not invest/trade money you cannot afford to lose.

ttac

lol, first, as much as merck/pfizer would like, i don't think they're considered biotechs, or at least not true biotechs like genentech or amgen. anyway, i'm not sure i agree with what you're saying, particularly when you say that decisions should be made using fundamentals. if the fundamentals are good, why would anyone care that a stock is at a 52 week high. my brother tried to convince me not to buy apple because it was at a 52-week high - i nonetheless pulled the trigger at that 52 week high, right before the split, and it has almost doubled since then. essentially, you shouldn't care where a stock has been in the last 52 weeks, but should rather worry about where it will be in 3, 5, or even 10 years.
 
lol, first, as much as merck/pfizer would like, i don't think they're considered biotechs, or at least not true biotechs like genentech or amgen. anyway, i'm not sure i agree with what you're saying, particularly when you say that decisions should be made using fundamentals. if the fundamentals are good, why would anyone care that a stock is at a 52 week high. my brother tried to convince me not to buy apple because it was at a 52-week high - i nonetheless pulled the trigger at that 52 week high, right before the split, and it has almost doubled since then. essentially, you shouldn't care where a stock has been in the last 52 weeks, but should rather worry about where it will be in 3, 5, or even 10 years.


Huh? I don't think that short term decisions should be made on fundamentals... I believe in TA, not FA. My point is that the amount of publicly available information severely limits the value of retail FA. I will go so far to argue that the more FA you do, the more likely you are to fall for analysts who are merely there to ensure you buy the stock they are selling/shorting. (Not all analysts, of course)

So, I try to have a fairly decent grasp of the FA, but focus more on the TA for trading decisions. I even find that knowing too much FA actually allows me to fall in love with a stock, and ride it into the ground if something goes wrong.

ttac
 
Yeah, baby... found a sure thing today...

loaded up with Jan 2049 10$ puts on DRI (parent of Red Lobster) thanks to this article... :laugh: :laugh:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/02/seafood.crisis.ap/index.html

Report: Seafood faces collapse by 2048
POSTED: 3:05 p.m. EST, November 2, 2006

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Clambakes, crabcakes, swordfish steaks and even humble fish sticks could be little more than a fond memory in a few decades.

If current trends of overfishing and pollution continue, the populations of just about all seafood face collapse by 2048, a team of ecologists and economists warns in a report in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

"Whether we looked at tide pools or studies over the entire world's ocean, we saw the same picture emerging. In losing species we lose the productivity and stability of entire ecosystems," said the lead author Boris Worm of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

"I was shocked and disturbed by how consistent these trends are -- beyond anything we suspected," Worm said.

While the study focused on the oceans, concerns have been expressed by ecologists about threats to fish in the Great Lakes and other lakes, rivers and freshwaters, too.

Worm and an international team spent four years analyzing 32 controlled experiments, other studies from 48 marine protected areas and global catch data from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization's database of all fish and invertebrates worldwide from 1950 to 2003.

The scientists also looked at a 1,000-year time series for 12 coastal regions, drawing on data from archives, fishery records, sediment cores and archaeological data.

"At this point 29 percent of fish and seafood species have collapsed -- that is, their catch has declined by 90 percent. It is a very clear trend, and it is accelerating," Worm said. "If the long-term trend continues, all fish and seafood species are projected to collapse within my lifetime -- by 2048."

"It looks grim and the projection of the trend into the future looks even grimmer," he said. "But it's not too late to turn this around. It can be done, but it must be done soon. We need a shift from single species management to ecosystem management. It just requires a big chunk of political will to do it."

The researchers called for new marine reserves, better management to prevent overfishing and tighter controls on pollution.

In the 48 areas worldwide that have been protected to improve marine biodiversity, they found, "diversity of species recovered dramatically, and with it the ecosystem's productivity and stability."

While seafood forms a crucial concern in their study, the researchers were analyzing overall biodiversity of the oceans. The more species in the oceans, the better each can handle exploitation.

"Even bugs and weeds make clear, measurable contributions to ecosystems," said co-author J. Emmett Duffy of the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences.

The National Fisheries Institute, a trade association for the seafood industry, does not share the researchers alarm.

"Fish stocks naturally fluctuate in population," the institute said in a statement. "By developing new technologies that capture target species more efficiently and result in less impact on other species or the environment, we are helping to ensure our industry does not adversely affect surrounding ecosystems or damage native species.

Seafood has become a growing part of Americans' diet in recent years. Consumption totaled 16.6 pounds per person in 2004, the most recent data available, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That compares with 15.2 pounds in 2000.

Joshua Reichert, head of the private Pew Charitable Trusts' environment program, pointed out that worldwide fishing provides $80 billion in revenue and 200 million people depend on it for their livelihoods. For more than 1 billion people, many of whom are poor, fish is their main source of protein, he said.

The research was funded by the National Science Foundation's National Center for Ecological Synthesis and Analysis.
 
Accomplia is speculated to be approved sometime within the next 6 months. SNY supposedly is riding on this med.

Warren Buffet had put money into SNY back in spring 06. I don't know why, but I speculate it may have been based on Accomplia which was set to be released a long time ago, but has had several delays.

Cramer from Mad Money thinks Lorcaserin hydrochloride, (I don't know if I spelled it right) will be the anti-obesity med that will take off. This med works on 5HT receptors to cause weight loss. That med's company's symbol is ARNA.

ARNA has skyrocketed since Cramer advocated it on Mad Money. He compared it to when he pumped money into companies producing statins which were not yet approved.

I tried to discuss ARNA on the ARNA yahoo board but the people there are a bit too fanatical. I mentioned to them that Accomplia will probably be released first, and it may actually cause a limit effect on Lorcaserin hydrochloride, kinda like how Prozac destroyed the market for Welbutrin. Since Prozac came out first, and was better marketed--hardly anyone gave Welbutrin a try. My advice was simply for those people to at least consider SNY.

Well-you tell some guy his bet may have some risk--and if they got a weak ego--they blow up. Not to mention the yahoo boards are full of trolls and anonymous types willing to be rude, knowing they won't get kicked off.

Accomplia is in phase III testing and has already been approved in Europe. In fact it was planned to be released already, but has been delayed in the US for reasons never specified. Its big side effect is psychiatric symptoms-usually depression and anxiety.

ARNA is in phase III testing but is in a earler stage of phase III than Accomplia, which for all intents & purposes may have already passed all the tests it needs.

I'm wondering if I should put in money into either. As Cramer pointed out, ARNA is pure speculation, and it will have big potential to skyrocket, but to also bite the dust. He reccomends to put money into ARNA, but do so knowing its a bet you can lose.
 
I also couldn't advise (or even put my money into something) just for the next big drug. Just my philosophy though. When I was approached about purchasing SNY it was for accomplia but this was a person who had no idea about stocks. After I investigated the company as a whole, I found it to be a solid company (barring any financial disasters) with its hands in more than one good market. I bought for the long-term and would have bought in other companies if I had more money. Although I wonder if I should have bought on the European market as this US market is so finicky.
 
loaded up with Jan 2049 10$ puts on DRI (parent of Red Lobster) thanks to this article... :laugh: :laugh:
[

WHOA...at first i didn't realize you were kidding and actually looked for these puts, so that i could ask my parents to mortgage the house and sell as many of these puts as i could. could you imagine what would happen if there were 43 year options? it's not that i would buy wfc 40 calls for 2050, but rather would sell as many goog 100 calls and like 900 puts. i would collect millions in premiums now, and would be able to invest it risk free for the next 40 or so years. by the time the options came due, i would be so rich i would just settle them in cash.
 
I also couldn't advise (or even put my money into something) just for the next big drug. Just my philosophy though. When I was approached about purchasing SNY it was for accomplia but this was a person who had no idea about stocks. After I investigated the company as a whole, I found it to be a solid company (barring any financial disasters) with its hands in more than one good market. I bought for the long-term and would have bought in other companies if I had more money. Although I wonder if I should have bought on the European market as this US market is so finicky.


Be careful on this one. SNY's 3 major meds are plavix, lovenox & ambien--ALL OF WHICH ARE IN PATENT DISPUTE OR ABOUT TO LOSE THEIR PATENTS. SNY for the most part is now considered on the rocks because those 3 meds are their meat & potatoes.

Analysts were thinking that SNY could then ride on Accomplia, and supposedly the company was riding on this med to keep them stable. All well and good, but the company was expecting this to be approved months ago.

SNY's had a rocky past few weeks because of the various legal battles over plavix. Their partner--BMY (Bristol Meyers Squibb) had a big drop in stock after BMY's profits were found to fall directly tied to the Plavix debacle.

My own opinion is SNY's fallen as much as it can unless it loses the Plavix court cases which are up in the next few weeks. The plavix cases in other countries were already decided in SNY's favor, which makes me believe SNY will win those cases--which will make their stock jump. However this is speculation. Its not like I really know the verdict ahead of time.

If I already owned the stock, I'd hold. I don't own any now, and as of right now I'm still cautiously waiting to see. Its gone up the past few days, but I believe it is because the market has gone up in general after a bad last week.
 
Top