InvestorCenter

3 Reasons to Sell Arena Pharma

Don't worry, Arena Pharmaceuticals (NAS: ARNA) bulls. This isn't an article designed to bash your beloved obesity-drug maker. There's a more upbeat corollary to this article, "3 Reasons to Buy Arena Pharma," with all the positives about the stock.

But I do think if you're going to hold a stock through a binary event, such as the one Arena has with its upcoming Food and Drug Administration decision on loracaserin, you'd better know what the potential downfalls are.

Delay?
At the FDA advisory panel, some members of the committee expressed concerns about potential for the drug to cause problems with heart valves. Most weren't arguing that the drug shouldn't be approved -- the vote was 18-4 recommending approval -- but they did think the issue needed to be taken care of post-approval, probably in the form of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, and/or a post marketing study. Additional paperwork required to establish those programs could push back the FDA decision.


If a delay does come, it's a little hard to know how the shares will trade. VIVUS (NAS: VVUS) is trading higher than where it was before the FDA delayed an approval decision on its obesity drug, Qnexa, to review the revamped REMS it submitted after its advisory panel. If the FDA had any other reason to reject the drug, it seems reasonable to assume it would have just issued a rejection rather than a delay. There's no need to look at a REMS that's used after approval if the approval isn't going to happen.

Arena is a little different because management has said that it doesn't see a need for a REMS. If the FDA comes back and says one is required, will investors worry that the company doesn't have a good sense of what the agency wants? If there's a misunderstanding about that -- it doesn't really matter whether it's the company's or the agency's fault -- what else isn't clear about the FDA's requirements?

Uncertain regulatory authority
While the advisory panel recommended approval, the FDA has the final say, and getting into the agency's head is difficult. An FDA chemist with inside knowledge even allegedly made initial bets in the wrong direction before approval decisions on drugs from Pozen and MannKind.

When the FDA initially turned down lorcaserin, Qnexa, and Orexigen Therapeutics' (NAS: OREX) Contrave, it was pretty clear the agency thought the drugs' risk-benefit analysis fell heavily on the risk side. Obesity isn't immediately life-threatening, and diet and exercise have few side effects beyond grumbling stomachs and sore muscles.

Lorcaserin's risks of side effects are clearer this time, and it seems as if the agency has lowered the bar, but there's no guarantee the drug will be approved. Ironically, if Qnexa had been approved on time, lorcaserin would have been second to market, but it would be easier to be confident that the agency has changed its hard-line stance. Being first in front of the firing squad has its drawbacks.

Valuation
Arena has quadrupled this year. The advisory panel was certainly a positive, and the company deserved a higher valuation, but the biotech has jumped another 27% since then. If you assume the post-approval valuation hasn't changed -- the market hasn't grown that much in the past month -- the increase since May has lowered the potential return if the FDA approves lorcaserin and increased the downside if the approval doesn't happen. If the FDA rejects Arena for something major, trading back under $2 per share is a real possibility.

Betting on the right side of an approval decision makes sense only if the returns justify the risks. And speaking of binary choices, the biggest one of all, the presidential election, is just around the corner. Find out how to profit depending on who's elected in the Fool's free report, "These Stocks Could Skyrocket After the 2012 Presidential Election." Get yours free.

At the time this article was published Fool contributor Brian Orelli holds no position in any company mentioned. Check out his holdings and a short bio. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. The Motley Fool's disclosure policy is as thin as a piece of paper.

Copyright © 1995 - 2012 The Motley Fool, LLC. All rights reserved. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Learn about investing from the comfort of your own home.

Portfolio Basics

Take the first steps to building your portfolio.

View Course »

Investment Strategies

Learn the strategies you need to build a winning portfolio

View Course »

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

1 Comment

Filter by:
Tran

While many people think the FDA is capricious, they aren't so capricious as to drop a REMS requirement on a company 1 week before its PDUFA date! This idea of a "REMS delay" is a fraud that someone started, and has been picked up on by way too many bloggers with way too high an opinion of themselves. A delay is possible, but the FDA operates under a set of rules and procedures and it won't drop a REMS requirement on a company out of the blue and on the last week. The CEO has said several times that there has been no request by FDA for REMS (compared to other companies which have consistently talked about REMS many months before their decision dates), and I believe you have mischaracterized the AdCom discussion.

There will always be concern about new drugs but this new drug really does have a clean profile, and nothing really stands out as something that we need to watch carefully which is what REMS is used for. You can't put a blanket REMS on a drug because the more things you look for the less certain you will be about whatever you find. You have to know what to look for and declare in advance that you are looking for it before you look for data, that is a rule of science and of statistics.

The FDA never "lowers the bar". Lorcaserin is the same drug with the same safety profile. The difference this time is that the FDA has a clearer understanding of the risks, and the benefits. The last AdCom the FDA reviewer compiled data inappropriately. The reasons they did this is because of some technicalities in the way the data was presented at that time. ARNA put together a 5 person team to review that data and the FDA now concludes that the data as presented last time was inappropriately compiled, and in light of the re-review there is no need to be alarmed. The AdCom BDs were really very positive.

There are never any assurances, and ARNA has had a good run. But the fact that the price is up is not a reason to sell it. Let your winners run, they say. You also forget that the stock price was perhaps pused to an unduly low price due to several factors. There are 45 million short sellers. There was bad information given out by the FDA. There are bad articles by bloggers exaggerating the risks or failing to do the proper DD to give balance to the information. This was a company trading at too low a price before, so it is possible that the current price is just equilibrium, or a reflection of the pressure being released. No new shorting. But have the shorts covered? Have new longs accumulated based on the value of the drug yet?

There are many reasons to believe this drug has a tremendous upside potential in the years to come. The market for Obesity drugs is tens of billions a year if the right drug or combination of drugs is hit upon. Lorcaserin may also become useful in the fight against Diabetes, as the BLOOM-DM trial shows. And little ARNA has one of the largest patent portfolios to grow with or sell. This story is not even starting to get out.

June 17 2012 at 2:55 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply