Ontvang nu dagelijks onze kooptips!
word abonnee
sluiten ✕
Terug naar discussie overzicht
Het jaar van de waarheid ligt achter ons. Die waarheid viel niet mee, het is wachten op nieuwe kansen voor GFT505 na de schipbreuk in Fase II in maart 2015. De verwachtingen lijken niet hoog gespannen.
seekingalpha.com/article/3782506-2016... Although Intercept has been considered one of the leaders, I remain very skeptical that OCA will ever get approved for the NASH indication. Furthermore, I have some issues with the phase 2 trial design of Genfit's (OTCPK:GNFTF) Elafibranor that could impact ultimate approval. However, even if either of these drugs is approved, the market is large and there are multiple targets. I note that ICPT's and GNFTF's market capitalizations are $3.7 billion and $835 million, respectively.
seekingalpha.com/article/3788956-inte... Once a darling of the biotech space, Intercept Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:ICPT) has seen investors flee from the shares in droves, pushing it down close to 50% from my last article on the company and leading to a significant underperformance to its primary NASH-driven comparable Genfit (GNFT.PA) (OTCPK:GNFTF), which has fallen almost 20% over the same time period. Investors have had a lot to mull over since the beginning of summer. Both Intercept and Genfit have produced mixed clinical trial results that have required further explanations from management, and both are subject to the questions and risks over pricing for drugs that could be given to millions of patients. More specific to Intercept, there are valid concerns now about safety, efficacy, competition, and market potential for its lead drug, and investors aren't happy about the uncertainty. I still believe that Intercept's lead drug OCA is active and safe in primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) and likely to demonstrate approval safety and efficacy in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). I also believe, though, that there are meaningful questions about true market potential and that Genfit could be a more significant competitor (albeit not necessarily on an apples-to-apples basis). A Japanese Study Muddies The Water The late October release of data from a Phase II study of OCA in Japanese NASH patients conducted by Intercept's partner Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma did not help the investment case for Intercept. This relatively small study (200 pts versus 283 pts in the U.S. FLINT study) was meant as a dose-ranging study and not powered to show improvement in fibrosis, but the results were nevertheless lacking. On the primary endpoint of a 2-point improvement in NAS score with no worsening of fibrosis, the study missed statistical significance. It was a close miss (p = 0.053), but only one of the three dose groups (40mg) made the cut, with an 18% improvement over placebo (38% versus 20%). Looking at the completers instead of intent-to-treat, there was an even bigger improvement at the 40mg dose (51% vs. 22%). There was no statistical evidence of fibrosis improvement (and this was true for the full data release as well), but the company noted improvements in "ballooning," which is often tied to fibrosis. It's also important to note that half of the 40mg patients experienced pruritus (persistent itchiness), with 10% of the intent-to-treat patients at this dose dropping out. The bearish view is pretty straightforward. Even with the more forgiving post-hoc analysis, only one of the three treatment groups achieved the endpoint, and the impact on fibrosis was not statistically significant. What's more, the drug only worked at a dose that is well above the highest dose in the U.S. Phase III study... and even then it caused significant pruritus. The bullish view is, at best, nuanced. First, it was a smaller study that was not powered to show a stat-sig benefit to fibrosis. Second, as more and more papers are published on NASH, it is becoming clearer that NASH is a heterogeneous disease. With that, it's worth noting that Japanese NASH patients aren't like their Western counterparts (lower BMIs, higher dyslipidemia, less diabetes) and those differences limit the transferability/applicability of these results to the future of OCA in the U.S. and European NASH markets. In the bull view, then, this is more likely just an uninspiring read on the future of OCA in treating NASH in Japanese patients. Meanwhile, Safety And Tolerability Are In Play One of the other concerns that has grown around OCA in both PBC and NASH is its impact on cholesterol. There were concerns in the past after data from the Phase II FLINT study showed elevation of bad cholesterol and some cardiovascular adverse outcomes. Intercept is running a Phase II study to evaluate the impact of OCA on lipid levels in NASH patients, but the results won't be available for a while. In the meantime, cholesterol/cardio may emerge as a marketable advantage for Genfit. The GOLDEN study showed a statistically significant benefit to lipids (lower LDL and higher HDL) and a lower-than-expected drop-out rate from Genfit's drug elafibranor (or GFT-505). While elafibranor hasn't shown the same level of efficacy in reducing fibrosis (possibly due to shorter trial periods), Genfit may well be able to focus the benefits of its drug around the better lipid/cardiovascular outcomes. To that end, I'd look at the Intercept study design for the Phase III REGENERATE study, which excludes patients with elevated LDL (despite treatment), certain types of cardiovascular disease, and less-controlled diabetes. I don't think Intercept's study design is unreasonable, but it may ultimately establish a differentiation between the two drugs that sees OCA directed more towards severe, later-stage patients and elafibranor directed more toward patients with less fibrosis and/or more concerns with cholesterol. The lipid/CV concern may well be relevant to the PBC indication as well. PBC is a strange disease in that patients typically have high overall cholesterol but also high good cholesterol (HDL). Unfortunately, OCA has been shown to lead to declines in HDL without any meaningful offsetting improvements to LDL. What that means, then, is that OCA is a drug that's known to cause itchiness (though this can be managed at least in part with dose titration and other practices) and may cause some cholesterol/CV problems. That could make it difficult to drive adoption beyond the 30,000 or so patients in the U.S. and EU with significant uncontrolled PBC (after or despite URSO treatment), and patient compliance could be an issue. The "good news" is that my modeling assumptions always included some patient drop-outs (25% to 40% of the addressable market).
Is Genfit Still In Play? The question of whether Intercept or Genfit has the better/best drug won't be answered until the Phase III results are in, and even then there is likely to be a lot of slicing, dicing, and recapitulating the data in an effort to show differences. Given the CV data on elafibranor and the company's Phase III design, I give at least a little more credit to Genfit now than I did before. Intercept designed its Phase III study around an interim analysis at 72 weeks of 1,400 patients on two co-primary endpoints. Although it is not required that every patient hit both endpoints, there needs to be a statistically significant improvement in the percentage of patients achieving a 1-stage improvement in fibrosis (with no worsening of NASH) and a stat-sig improvement in the percentage of patients achieving NASH resolution (with no worsening of fibrosis). That's a more rigorous standard than that used in the FLINT study, though REGENERATE will only be enrolling patients with stage 2 or stage 3 NASH, as well as high-risk stage 1. These design adjustments should address prior issues with healthier patients muddling the data and with the variability that goes with liver biopsies. Unlike Intercept, which is testing two doses of OCA, Genfit is testing one dose of elafibranor and the interim analysis will include 900 patients at 72 weeks. Unlike ICPT, which is looking to prove that OCA reduces fibrosis and resolves NASH, Genfit is using a single endpoint of NASH resolution with no worsening of fibrosis. That doesn't mean that this is an easy trial. Genfit previously counted "NASH resolution" as a zero score in one of three metrics (inflammation, steatosis, and ballooning) while Intercept's definition was a total NAS score of 3 or less (a more demanding standard). In this Genfit Phase III study, resolution will mean zero ballooning and a zero or one in inflammation, but can include higher levels of steatosis (zero to three). A post-hoc analysis from the Phase II GOLDEN study of the dose to be used in Genfit's Phase III RESOLVE study (120mg) did show efficacy versus the placebo (19% versus 12%) using this standard. That was in line with Intercept's post-hoc results, though Intercept's study showed a larger percentage of patients with a two-point or greater NAS improvement. All of that said, there is still no official FDA standard on NASH resolution (at least that I'm aware of), so there could eventually be some issues if/when it comes time for a panel meeting for approval and/or for marketing in the real world. The good news for Genfit is that this study design will reduce Intercept's prior lead, as both should have their interim results in the first half of 2018. The good news/bad news for Intercept is that hitting both the NASH resolution and fibrosis targets could be challenging. If ICPT can prove the fibrosis reduction, that will likely constitute a labeling advantage for OCA (at least in more serious cases), though Genfit's lipid/CV advantages could lead an edge among patients with cholesterol issues (not a small segment in NASH). What Will The Market Actually Look Like? I believe the NASH market could be one where it takes significant marketing and patient/doctor education efforts to build awareness and adoption. With that, first-to-market may not mean as much as it would with other drugs, as the initial competitors in the market will have to drive awareness, wrangle with payers over pricing, and so on. In other words, "have fun storming the castle." That may be more noteworthy with Genfit, as the company still needs to raise capital to fund its Phase III trial, let alone finance a commercialization effort (though clinical success would likely allow equity fundraising at a higher price down the line). With that, I'd note that there are numerous would-be rivals in the space. Gilead (NASDAQ:GILD), Galmed (NASDAQ:GLMD), Bristol-Myers (NYSE:BMY), Durect (NASDAQ:DRRX), Galectin (NASDAQ:GALT), and Conatus (NASDAQ:CNAT) are just some of the companies with their hats already thrown into the NASH ring. If NASH truly proves to be a multi-billion-dollar market, count on plenty of competition at some point. It may even prove to be the case that combo therapy becomes the norm here. Combo therapy is the standard of care in HIV and HCV and is heading quickly in that direction for many types of cancer. With various companies approaching NASH from metabolic, anti-inflammatory, and anti-fibrotic points of view, it may be the case that the best therapy is a combination of drugs, and that creates a whole new spectrum of possibilities for pricing, partnerships, and so on. Reassessing The Value I've cut my fair value on Intercept's shares by almost $100/share, as I think I was too aggressive with my pricing assumptions for OCA and the failed Japanese study leads me to lower my assumed odds of approval in NASH. I estimate a little more than $50/share in value for the PBC indication of OCA, with pricing a key unknown as Intercept is likely to launch the drug at a higher price than it will be able to maintain once the NASH indication is approved. Key risks to PBC, in addition to a recent three-month delay in the PDUFA date, remain the question of whether ATP elevation is a good efficacy metric, whether there are enough "uncontrolled" patients with severe enough disease to create a large market for OCA, and whether those patients can/will tolerate the pruritus and cholesterol side-effects. I've cut about $75/share out of my NASH fair value (to $275) as I have lowered my long-term pricing assumptions (given the recent kerfuffles over drug pricing) and lowered my odds of approval (to 60%) given the mixed signals from the Japanese study. I'm assuming that OCA, at peak, gets about one-third of the severe NASH market (with Genfit getting around half of Intercept's share), but I would note that the relatively short patent protection for the drug (2027 with the Hatch-Waxman extension and maybe 2033 with other extensions) is a concern as it will make it more challenging for Intercept to recapture the benefits of all of the early market building that I believe will be required. The remaining valuation comes from Intercept's pipeline, including additional indications for OCA in areas like portal hypertension and primary sclerosing cholangitis. The Bottom Line Neither Intercept nor Genfit are sure-fire successes. I believe that Intercept will get approval in PBC this year, but this indication alone cannot support today's valuation. With a long wait before the 2018 interim results, I expect the Street to focus keenly on any incremental updates from Phase II studies, as well as the clinical updates of competitors and would-be competitors in the NASH space. There are a host of risks at Intercept, including a track record of less than pristine efficacy data, possible issues with lipid safety and tolerability, pricing concerns, and competition. The potential rewards are significant, though, and I think ICPT is worth a look from investors who can take well above-average risks in the pursuit of potentially well above-average returns.
bfmbusiness.bfmtv.com/mediaplayer/vid... zeer positief interview over genfit op bfm (vanaf 3:40)
JOVRO schreef op 9 januari 2016 21:16 :
bfmbusiness.bfmtv.com/mediaplayer/vid... zeer positief interview over genfit op bfm (vanaf 3:40)
Is het mogelijk dat je voor me vertaalt wat er gezegd wordt in de video in jouw link? Ik kan geen Frans...
www.boursorama.com/actualites/la-bais... incl. koopaanbeveling. vandaag 10% eraf van de toch al zo geteisterde koers.
Koers wel volledig door het putje zeg. Vorig jaar nog 70 euro. Blij dat ik heb afgebouwd vorig jaar. Onder de 20 maar weer eens kijken voor een pluk.
38 eruit. Thank god. Ballon loopt helemaal leeg. Onder de 20 doe ik nog niet mee. Denk aan de internetbubble. Zo een bearmarket kan lang duren en diep gaan.
tweet syndicaat Sanofi:twitter.com/fo_sag/status/69094146104... Sanofi kan een spectaculaire overname gaan doen. Genfit of Adocia? Weet niet wat er van gaat komen, maar dit kan wel eens het einde van de belachelijk lage koers betekenen :-)
JOVRO schreef op 24 januari 2016 00:08 :
tweet syndicaat Sanofi:
twitter.com/fo_sag/status/69094146104... Sanofi kan een spectaculaire overname gaan doen. Genfit of Adocia?
Weet niet wat er van gaat komen, maar dit kan wel eens het einde van de belachelijk lage koers betekenen :-)
Adocia heeft wel al een (belanrijke) samenwerking met Lilly
Vandaag spuit de koers omhoog met meer dan 10%, volgens Boursorama op basis van geruchten dat er gesproken wordt met interessante grote partijen, zoals Sanofi.
Let op Genfit!!! Ruim + 14%. Begin 2015 stond dit aandeel op bijna € 60,00. Zou nog een mooi ritje kunnen worden op de geruchten dat Sanofi interesse heeft.
Ook vandaag vervolgt Genfit de stijging op geruchten van een een overname. Het volume is ook een stuk hoger dan gisteren. Nu maar hopen dat het straks geen gerucht blijkt te zijn, anders... BOURSE-Genfit poursuit sa hausse sur de nouvelles rumeurs de rachats Reuters le 26/01/2016 à 10:540 PARIS, 26 janvier (Reuters) - L'action Genfit GNFT.PA poursuit sa progression mardi matin à la Bourse de Paris, où la société biopharmaceutique signe la plus forte hausse de l'indice SBF 120 .SBF120 dans des volumes nourris sur fond de nouvelles rumeurs d'un possible rachat de l'entreprise par un groupe pharmaceutique. A 10h51, le titre gagne 9,99% à 28,58 euros dans des volumes représentant 1,2 fois ceux réalisés en moyenne sur une séance complète au cours des trois derniers mois sur Euronext. Au même instant, le SBF 120 recule de 1,26% dans des volumes équivalents à 23% de leur moyenne journalière habituelle. "Il y a de nouvelles spéculations sur le marché à propos d'un rachat de la société. L'américain Gilead GILD.O et Sanofi SASY.PA pourraient être intéressés", indique l'un des traders interrogés par Reuters. Lundi, Genfit a bondi de 11,98% avec d'autres groupes biotechnologiques et biopharmaceutiques alors que des analystes jugent attractif le secteur après avoir fortement souffert depuis le début de l'année en Bourse. Joints par Reuters, Sanofi et Genfit n'ont fait aucun commentaire. La valeur fait régulièrement l'objet de rumeurs de rachat en Bourse. L'an dernier, le président du directoire de la société avait fait savoir que la société avait été approchée par des entreprises du secteur pharmaceutique en vue d'un possible partenariat et s'était même dit prêt à ouvrir ses livres de comptes en vue d'une ouverture de son capital.
We zullen moeten afwachten wat voor plannen er allemaal worden bedacht als je het adocia forum op bours leest lijkt het wel een copie van genfit veel gedachtes aannames en verwachtingen maar weinig feiten Het enigste wat wel duidelijk is dat genfit met de pet rond moet om fase3 te kunnen betalen en het word nu wel eens tijd om daar een begin mee te maken
Verwacht dat er wel een grootmacht in zal stappen en een samenwerking aan zal kondigen.
De Genfitjes stuiteren vandaag weer op en neer. Ideaal om een beetje mee te traden.
Er is weer wat gaande? Op het France forum zijn ze weer wild aan het speculeren.
Gedurende de dag van -10% naar +10% op een BLOEDRODE biotech dag
Voorlopig sta ik nog bloedrood in de min, wel iets minder rood dan vanmorgen. Het zal me benieuwen de aankomende tijd, maar dat het beide kanten op hard kan gaan weet ik nu wel.
Aantal posts per pagina:
20
50
100
Direct naar Forum
-- Selecteer een forum --
Koffiekamer
Belastingzaken
Beleggingsfondsen
Beursspel
BioPharma
Daytraders
Garantieproducten
Opties
Technische Analyse
Technische Analyse Software
Vastgoed
Warrants
10 van Tak
4Energy Invest
Aalberts
AB InBev
Abionyx Pharma
Ablynx
ABN AMRO
ABO-Group
Acacia Pharma
Accell Group
Accentis
Accsys Technologies
ACCSYS TECHNOLOGIES PLC
Ackermans & van Haaren
ADMA Biologics
Adomos
AdUX
Adyen
Aedifica
Aegon
AFC Ajax
Affimed NV
ageas
Agfa-Gevaert
Ahold
Air France - KLM
Airspray
Akka Technologies
AkzoNobel
Alfen
Allfunds Group
Allfunds Group
Almunda Professionals (vh Novisource)
Alpha Pro Tech
Alphabet Inc.
Altice
Alumexx ((Voorheen Phelix (voorheen Inverko))
AM
Amarin Corporation
Amerikaanse aandelen
AMG
AMS
Amsterdam Commodities
AMT Holding
Anavex Life Sciences Corp
Antonov
Aperam
Apollo Alternative Assets
Apple
Arcadis
Arcelor Mittal
Archos
Arcona Property Fund
arGEN-X
Aroundtown SA
Arrowhead Research
Ascencio
ASIT biotech
ASMI
ASML
ASR Nederland
ATAI Life Sciences
Atenor Group
Athlon Group
Atrium European Real Estate
Auplata
Avantium
Axsome Therapeutics
Azelis Group
Azerion
B&S Group
Baan
Ballast Nedam
BALTA GROUP N.V.
BAM Groep
Banco de Sabadell
Banimmo A
Barco
Barrick Gold
BASF SE
Basic-Fit
Basilix
Batenburg Beheer
BE Semiconductor
Beaulieulaan
Befimmo
Bekaert
Belgische aandelen
Beluga
Beter Bed
Bever
Binck
Biocartis
Biophytis
Biosynex
Biotalys
Bitcoin en andere cryptocurrencies
bluebird bio
Blydenstijn-Willink
BMW
BNP Paribas S.A.
Boeing Company
Bols (Lucas Bols N.V.)
Bone Therapeutics
Borr Drilling
Boskalis
BP PLC
bpost
Brand Funding
Brederode
Brill
Bristol-Myers Squibb
Brunel
C/Tac
Campine
Canadese aandelen
Care Property Invest
Carmila
Carrefour
Cate, ten
CECONOMY
Celyad
CFD's
CFE
CGG
Chinese aandelen
Cibox Interactive
Citygroup
Claranova
CM.com
Co.Br.Ha.
Coca-Cola European Partners
Cofinimmo
Cognosec
Colruyt
Commerzbank
Compagnie des Alpes
Compagnie du Bois Sauvage
Connect Group
Continental AG
Corbion
Core Labs
Corporate Express
Corus
Crescent (voorheen Option)
Crown van Gelder
Crucell
CTP
Curetis
CV-meter
Cyber Security 1 AB
Cybergun
D'Ieteren
D.E Master Blenders 1753
Deceuninck
Delta Lloyd
DEME
Deutsche Cannabis
DEUTSCHE POST AG
Dexia
DGB Group
DIA
Diegem Kennedy
Distri-Land Certificate
DNC
Dockwise
DPA Flex Group
Draka Holding
DSC2
DSM
Duitse aandelen
Dutch Star Companies ONE
Duurzaam Beleggen
DVRG
Ease2pay
Ebusco
Eckert-Ziegler
Econocom Group
Econosto
Edelmetalen
Ekopak
Elastic N.V.
Elia
Endemol
Energie
Energiekontor
Engie
Envipco
Erasmus Beursspel
Eriks
Esperite (voorheen Cryo Save)
EUR/USD
Eurobio
Eurocastle
Eurocommercial Properties
Euronav
Euronext
Euronext
Euronext.liffe Optiecompetitie
Europcar Mobility Group
Europlasma
EVC
EVS Broadcast Equipment
Exact
Exmar
Exor
Facebook
Fagron
Fastned
Fingerprint Cards AB
First Solar Inc
FlatexDeGiro
Floridienne
Flow Traders
Fluxys Belgium D
FNG (voorheen DICO International)
Fondsmanager Gezocht
ForFarmers
Fountain
Frans Maas
Franse aandelen
FuelCell Energy
Fugro
Futures
FX, Forex, foreign exchange market, valutamarkt
Galapagos
Gamma
Gaussin
GBL
Gemalto
General Electric
Genfit
Genmab
GeoJunxion
Getronics
Gilead Sciences
Gimv
Global Graphics
Goud
GrandVision
Great Panther Mining
Greenyard
Grolsch
Grondstoffen
Grontmij
Guru
Hagemeyer
HAL
Hamon Groep
Hedge funds: Haaien of helden?
Heijmans
Heineken
Hello Fresh
HES Beheer
Hitt
Holland Colours
Homburg Invest
Home Invest Belgium
Hoop Effektenbank, v.d.
Hunter Douglas
Hydratec Industries (v/h Nyloplast)
HyGear (NPEX effectenbeurs)
HYLORIS
Hypotheken
IBA
ICT Automatisering
Iep Invest (voorheen Punch International)
Ierse aandelen
IEX Group
IEX.nl Sparen
IMCD
Immo Moury
Immobel
Imtech
ING Groep
Innoconcepts
InPost
Insmed Incorporated (INSM)
IntegraGen
Intel
Intertrust
Intervest Offices & Warehouses
Intrasense
InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp (NVIV)
Isotis
JDE PEET'S
Jensen-Group
Jetix Europe
Johnson & Johnson
Just Eat Takeaway
Kardan
Kas Bank
KBC Ancora
KBC Groep
Kendrion
Keyware Technologies
Kiadis Pharma
Kinepolis Group
KKO International
Klépierre
KPN
KPNQwest
KUKA AG
La Jolla Pharmaceutical
Lavide Holding (voorheen Qurius)
LBC
LBI International
Leasinvest
Logica
Lotus Bakeries
Macintosh Retail Group
Majorel
Marel
Mastrad
Materialise NV
McGregor
MDxHealth
Mediq
Melexis
Merus Labs International
Merus NV
Microsoft
Miko
Mithra Pharmaceuticals
Montea
Moolen, van der
Mopoli
Morefield Group
Mota-Engil Africa
MotorK
Moury Construct
MTY Holdings (voorheen Alanheri)
Nationale Bank van België
Nationale Nederlanden
NBZ
Nedap
Nedfield
Nedschroef
Nedsense Enterpr
Nel ASA
Neoen SA
Neopost
Neovacs
NEPI Rockcastle
Netflix
New Sources Energy
Neways Electronics
NewTree
NexTech AR Solutions
NIBC
Nieuwe Steen Investments
Nintendo
Nokia
Nokia OYJ
Nokia Oyj
Novacyt
NOVO-NORDISK AS
NPEX
NR21
Numico
Nutreco
Nvidia
NWE Nederlandse AM Hypotheek Bank
NX Filtration
NXP Semiconductors NV
Nyrstar
Nyxoah
Océ
OCI
Octoplus
Oil States International
Onconova Therapeutics
Ontex
Onward Medical
Onxeo SA
OpenTV
OpGen
Opinies - Tilburg Trading Club
Opportunty Investment Management
Orange Belgium
Oranjewoud
Ordina Beheer
Oud ForFarmers
Oxurion (vh ThromboGenics)
P&O Nedlloyd
PAVmed
Payton Planar Magnetics
Perpetuals, Steepeners
Pershing Square Holdings Ltd
Personalized Nursing Services
Pfizer
Pharco
Pharming
Pharnext
Philips
Picanol
Pieris Pharmaceuticals
Plug Power
Politiek
Porceleyne Fles
Portugese aandelen
PostNL
Priority Telecom
Prologis Euro Prop
ProQR Therapeutics
PROSIEBENSAT.1 MEDIA SE
Prosus
Proximus
Qrf
Qualcomm
Quest For Growth
Rabobank Certificaat
Randstad
Range Beleggen
Recticel
Reed Elsevier
Reesink
Refresco Gerber
Reibel
Relief therapeutics
Renewi
Rente en valuta
Resilux
Retail Estates
RoodMicrotec
Roularta Media
Royal Bank Of Scotland
Royal Dutch Shell
RTL Group
RTL Group
S&P 500
Samas Groep
Sapec
SBM Offshore
Scandinavische (Noorse, Zweedse, Deense, Finse) aandelen
Schuitema
Seagull
Sequana Medical
Shurgard
Siemens Gamesa
Sif Holding
Signify
Simac
Sioen Industries
Sipef
Sligro Food Group
SMA Solar technology
Smartphoto Group
Smit Internationale
Snowworld
SNS Fundcoach Beleggingsfondsen Competitie
SNS Reaal
SNS Small & Midcap Competitie
Sofina
Softimat
Solocal Group
Solvac
Solvay
Sopheon
Spadel
Sparen voor later
Spectra7 Microsystems
Spotify
Spyker N.V.
Stellantis
Stellantis
Stern
Stork
Sucraf A en B
Sunrun
Super de Boer
SVK (Scheerders van Kerchove)
Syensqo
Systeem Trading
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC)
Technicolor
Tele Atlas
Telegraaf Media
Telenet Groep Holding
Tencent Holdings Ltd
Tesla Motors Inc.
Tessenderlo Group
Tetragon Financial Group
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
Texaf
Theon International
TherapeuticsMD
Thunderbird Resorts
TIE
Tigenix
Tikkurila
TINC
TITAN CEMENT INTERNATIONAL
TKH Group
TMC
TNT Express
TomTom
Transocean
Trigano
Tubize
Turbo's
Twilio
UCB
Umicore
Unibail-Rodamco
Unifiedpost
Unilever
Unilever
uniQure
Unit 4 Agresso
Univar
Universal Music Group
USG People
Vallourec
Value8
Value8 Cum Pref
Van de Velde
Van Lanschot
Vastned
Vastned Retail Belgium
Vedior
VendexKBB
VEON
Vermogensbeheer
Versatel
VESTAS WIND SYSTEMS
VGP
Via Net.Works
Viohalco
Vivendi
Vivoryon Therapeutics
VNU
VolkerWessels
Volkswagen
Volta Finance
Vonovia
Vopak
Warehouses
Wave Life Sciences Ltd
Wavin
WDP
Wegener
Weibo Corp
Wereldhave
Wereldhave Belgium
Wessanen
What's Cooking
Wolters Kluwer
X-FAB
Xebec
Xeikon
Xior
Yatra Capital Limited
Zalando
Zenitel
Zénobe Gramme
Ziggo
Zilver - Silver World Spot (USD)
Premium
Word nu abonnee van IEX en krijg onbeperkt toegang tot onze (koop)tips en succesvolle modelportefeuilles. Nu 3 maanden voor slechts €19,95! Profiteer van 58% korting!
Word abonnee