- Joined
- 2 June 2011
- Posts
- 5,341
- Reactions
- 242
They haven't announced a CEO to replace Wong, just a new APAC head.
SRX - Sirtex Medical
- Thread starter GreatPig
- Start date
-
- Tags
- sirtex medical srx
They haven't announced a CEO to replace Wong, just a new APAC head.
- Joined
- 21 April 2014
- Posts
- 7,956
- Reactions
- 1,070
You reckon there'll be some sort of class action?
- Joined
- 21 December 2013
- Posts
- 232
- Reactions
- 83
My mistake!
- Joined
- 21 April 2014
- Posts
- 7,956
- Reactions
- 1,070
Class action. Sometime we do get real lucky.
- Joined
- 21 December 2013
- Posts
- 232
- Reactions
- 83
Hey luutzu,
Will you buy into the dip given the class action?
I don't think the issue will be so much whether SRX will have to pay (they will) but more the amount required to pay.
It seems like corporate governance is a trendy word, but not one followed by more than a few companies these days.
- Joined
- 21 April 2014
- Posts
- 7,956
- Reactions
- 1,070
I was hoping for a class action.
Didn't know it was coming when I first bought in a few weeks ago when it rebounded to the $14.20s but after Ballamy got one and GW got sacked, was kinda waiting for one.
Now that it's here, I'm sucking my thumb because I know SRX is great value at current $14s but am greedy and fear that a the market might pull another MRM, MND and STO on me again
I'll take a closer look at management's holdings and dig a whole lot more into SRX meds and wait to see. There's no hurry at the moment, I don't think.
But yea, at current price it's great if you're long term and don't mind the dips and bounce and bottom feeding.
- Joined
- 2 June 2011
- Posts
- 5,341
- Reactions
- 242
You got that bottle of port out again, craft. I'm not sure if that's a good or bad sign!
skc
Goldmember
- Joined
- 12 August 2008
- Posts
- 8,277
- Reactions
- 329
A long feels like a free shot on the Sarah outcome, with the downside risk protected by the existing business and the other trials next month....
I had a look with IG Markets as they offer "controlled risk" positions with OTC CFDs. Apparently you can get guaranteed stop on SRX provided that your stop has a minimum distance of... wait for it... 75% away. So there's no such thing as a free lunch unfortunately.
You got that bottle of port out again, craft. I'm not sure if that's a good or bad sign!
I think he drank it already...
Trading halt in so everything is now locked and loaded.
I don’t take my own advice as I continue to be exposed at my portfolio exposure limit but I suspect there might be a good risk mitigated opportunity around for a while following the Sarah results. I suspect once again the data is going to be more nuanced than the markets preferred black and white – so likely some over/under reaction to play against if you know what you are looking for.
So much of the gyrations that have felt huge at the time has just been noise from a long term perspective.
You got that bottle of port out again, craft. I'm not sure if that's a good or bad sign!
Factoring my will power into the equation – didn’t take much mental arithmetic for me to conclude that a good bottle of port is equally good to console as it is to celebrate.
But hey no problem - they're still Making it.
- Joined
- 1 May 2007
- Posts
- 2,904
- Reactions
- 52
Had a look at SRXKOD and others, but stock went into trading halt before I could call the MM's for a quote
skc
Goldmember
- Joined
- 12 August 2008
- Posts
- 8,277
- Reactions
- 329
They really should have halted this morning, or not halt at all. It's scheduled news so no one should be caught by surprise when the news get released. A randomly timed halt at 1:30pm the trading day before seems, well, random. I have avoided trading them for the past week as a randomly-timed halt also happened last time.
Although I have a long bias mentally I am not holding anything into the news. I think (hope) the market will probably over-react to negative news or under-react to the positive news.. either scenario will offer better R:R from a trading perspective.
There is this presentation out there somewhere about 100-baggers - by Chris Mayer at some small cap conference (can't find the link just now). He talked about some of the common traits of these stocks... one is about long holding time (median time for a stock to achieve 100x was something like ~16 years), the other is about volatility.
Netflix, which is a multi-100-bagger, lost >20% of its value in a single session 4 times during it's ascend. The ability to hold thru huge short term volatility is difficult to say the least.
Incidentally, SRX almost joined the 100x club back in 2015, but it did join the 90x club from the low.
Headline looks terrible with primary endpoint of Overall Survival not achieving its objective of 4 months but coming in nearly two months worse.
Market commentator's response in the AFR.
http://www.afr.com/brand/rear-windo...medical-chairman-richard-hill-20170423-gvqsmt
The more nuanced interpretation is that overall survival on a “protocol basis” (those that received treatment) is equal with lower side effects and higher quality of living from SIRT.
I suspect when you are at the stage where you have 10 months on average left to live, quality of life is everything.
A Key opinion leader Oncologist’s more considered response:
“In patients with liver-limited inoperable HCC, the question now is, why not start treatment with SIR-Spheres / this technology, and reserve sorafenib for progressive disease – until we know from SORAMIC if a direct combination is even more favourable?”
In my view the safety outcome here supports not only using SIRT before sorafenib for salvage but much earlier for the small chance of downsizing and resection. Why not use it at its most effective point? How effective can a liver specific directed intervention administered through the blood supply be after you have had Chemo applied directly to the liver (TACE) intended to impede the blood flow. Yet it still matched OS on a per protocol basis.
Initial Market reaction seems a little less knee jerk this time.
Market commentator's response in the AFR.
http://www.afr.com/brand/rear-windo...medical-chairman-richard-hill-20170423-gvqsmt
The more nuanced interpretation is that overall survival on a “protocol basis” (those that received treatment) is equal with lower side effects and higher quality of living from SIRT.
I suspect when you are at the stage where you have 10 months on average left to live, quality of life is everything.
A Key opinion leader Oncologist’s more considered response:
“In patients with liver-limited inoperable HCC, the question now is, why not start treatment with SIR-Spheres / this technology, and reserve sorafenib for progressive disease – until we know from SORAMIC if a direct combination is even more favourable?”
In my view the safety outcome here supports not only using SIRT before sorafenib for salvage but much earlier for the small chance of downsizing and resection. Why not use it at its most effective point? How effective can a liver specific directed intervention administered through the blood supply be after you have had Chemo applied directly to the liver (TACE) intended to impede the blood flow. Yet it still matched OS on a per protocol basis.
Initial Market reaction seems a little less knee jerk this time.
skc
Goldmember
- Joined
- 12 August 2008
- Posts
- 8,277
- Reactions
- 329
They definitely learned the lesson from the last time with much more effort put into educating the market about various possible outcomes... one was "No worse" which seems to be the case here. There's opinion leaders' quotes, more detailed discussions around secondary endpoints etc.
SRX is trading down ~11.5% but it's really just in line with the YTD trading band. There was a bit of run up prior to today, so adjusting for that the share price response is weaker but not sensationally so.
Not quite the "free shot at Sarah" scenario though.
- Joined
- 2 June 2011
- Posts
- 5,341
- Reactions
- 242
It's around half as effective, iirc. If it was me I'd want SirSpheres as soon as possible. The fact that a quarter of patients randomised to SIRT did not receive SIRT makes the headline figure not particularly useful.
I think this is a pretty strong result, but as usual the strength is hidden in the detail not the top line number. It's a lot better than when I read the presser on Saturday afternoon. It's not a hit it out of the ballpark stuff, but if the two treatment options have similar OS and one absolutely blitzes the other in terms of QoL, tolerance and ORR then it has to be considered a better product. That's before the cost stuff (not just the difference in the drug price but also the number of adverse events that require hospitalisation or at least a trip to a doctor), but presumably Bayer will lower the price of Nexavar if SIRT starts to eat into its market share.
Or as someone more qualified put it...
“In terms of what matters for patients, the findings from this first large head-to-head comparison of liver-directed Selective Internal Radiation Therapy (SIRT) and systemic chemotherapy with sorafenib also show clearly that liver-directed procedures with SIRSpheres result in a significantly better tolerance of treatment and quality of life. I believe this consideration should be a critical factor in selecting first-line treatment for this patient population in the future.”
Anyone know what the status is of the Tryphon (TACE v SIRT) study?
skc
Goldmember
- Joined
- 12 August 2008
- Posts
- 8,277
- Reactions
- 329
- Joined
- 2 June 2011
- Posts
- 5,341
- Reactions
- 242
My understanding is that you cannot sustain 12 months on sor, or even 9.9. The toxicity will kill you before the cancer does. So you'd need to factor in actual time on drug.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22563643
- Joined
- 27 December 2010
- Posts
- 1,729
- Reactions
- 48
Another update today.
SRX cutting the fat out of the employee cost base and zoning their focus on SIRT.
$90m impairment post trial failures.
Dose sale growth of 5.5%, lower end of guidance. Underyling EBITDA also within recent guidance (65-74m) at $72m.
Market likes it with price ripping 13.6% at time of posting.
SRX cutting the fat out of the employee cost base and zoning their focus on SIRT.
$90m impairment post trial failures.
Dose sale growth of 5.5%, lower end of guidance. Underyling EBITDA also within recent guidance (65-74m) at $72m.
Market likes it with price ripping 13.6% at time of posting.
