Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
As far as I can find Toutain had no options granted. He was not mentioned in the 10K. It doesn't appear that he was considered a high level employee.
His new gig offers options and a salary that is most likely a real step up. Seems like a straight forward move to me.
There is no evidence that he would gain a lot of benefit from sticking around even if AD is approved.
Short position down 718,862 shares. About 3%.
Thanks for that information. My next question is, can the same subjects be used in the part B of the study?
Rule 10b5-1 is sufficient to "close the window".
Are the same subjects being used in both part A and part B or are they two different sets of subjects?
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
I am corrected. I didn't look it up for that post. I used the last 10K number.
I haven't read the PR or listened to the call yet.
Having the AC worked on and shoveled 1 cubic yard of soil before the rain this afternoon so I didn't take the time to check the most current number.
Thanks. I hope that is the case. If so, that trial is moving along smartly.
Now that is an outright lie.
82 million shares X $3.83 current share price = $314 million valuation.
$150 million in cash.
Who's the liar?
I wonder what a cohort is in terms of the overall enrollment.
In psychology that is called projection.
Wow. You are working hard today. Give yourself a cookie.
Why try to discredit the actual article on its facts when you can try to discredit its source.
No positive anything left unchallenged. But trying to discredit negative anything, that is unfair. LOL
Good points, all of them.
Your argument assumes that the shorts will buy all of the shares you mention. That is an interesting point of view.
I'm inclined not to think that will be the case. No matter what I think, the short interest report will come out on July 10th and that will include data up to and including June 28th.
So we will have some hard evidence to discuss then.
Let's see a pic of that vanity plate. If it looks good I may want one myself.
No. "Ordering" LOL.
Not quite sure about overnight, but in a very short term.
There are those here on the board that have an agenda. The majority that read the board are shareholders and are interested in keeping up with their investment.
The shareholders have a vested interest. The shorts also have a vested interest 22,000,000 shares are short with a value of close to $100,000,000.
I suggest that the shareholders are a much larger group with much less concentrated ownership whereas the shorts I suggest have much more concentrated ownership (shortership?) and are therefore in a much better position to try to exert influence on the share price. That is, they have more resources to work with and a clearer objective.
Just watch how many posts will immediately tell me that it is all my imagination. Nothing to see here, move along.
I doubt the FDA gives two hoots in a high wind about whether the EMA approves 2-73 first. Until Anavex files an NDA the FDA doesn't have any option about approval.
Since you seem to know so much about Stephan Toutain can you tell us how many options he had and how many shares he owned?
We have seen the pay package he is getting at his new job and it appears to be much better than what he had at Anavex.
I think the canary is being overcome from the fumes of the BS you are laying down.
A case was made for $1248 SP with the numbers to support it. Is that likely? Probably not. Is that outside the realm of possibility? No. That is probably the best case outcome.
Is there something wrong with discussing the best case, the middle case, and the worst case scenario? All of which are discussed frequently.
If you have an outcome that you think is more likely, post it with the supporting assumptions and let the readers decide on its validity.
Your holier than thou postings are pretty telling.
Interestingly enough, Toutain is not mentioned in the proxy by name or by job title. He certainly wasn't listed as receiving any share options that were reported.
He has a much better pay package at his new gig. He has a big pay raise, stock options etc. Congratulations to him on his step up.
What? You have never engaged in best case possibilities thinking?
He said it was if. Just like saying if Rett was approved we would have a $30 share price. If didn't happen. But if it had, $30 sp was a real possibility.
Same is the case for AD in the EU. If it is approved the share price could be $35 or more.
There sure are enough post about the worst case possibilities, I don't see a lot of push back on those.
In either case, these are discussions of the possible rage of outcomes. If enough things break positive for Anavex, that $1248 sp is possible. If enough things break badly for Anavex the pennies are possible. The real outcome remains to be seen.
What is posted on this board has little to do with the ultimate outcome, pumping or bashing.
Trial results are all that matters, the rest is entertainment.
Wow. George Orwell would be proud of your post.
Calling George "the perfect FUDster" and then referring to yourself as "us truth tellers".
What part of the word "if" did you not understand in his post.
Falconer set the the conditions and then followed the consequences if the conditions are met. That is what "if" means.
Does that mean you will be or are shorting Anavex? After all, according to you Anavex has no drug to create revenues.
Thank you Hosai.
A little cut and paste for you. Bolding is mine.
Most of the references mention determination of the eligibility for Centralized Marketing as being done by the EMA. Most references don't say who within the EMA does the actual review. There are a few references that hint that the CHMP does the eligibility review others mention EMA staff.
I can't find anything that discusses the EMA having any staff capable of evaluating a Centralized Marketing application other than the CHMP.
I feel your pain.
Why is that a Messianic complex?
The company clearly needs a partner for the large INDs and Missling acknowledged that early on. Keeping the rare diseases makes good sense. Those are much easier markets to address and have very high margins.
Somehow that facts don't seem to be involved with the narrative.
You almost got your fantasy today. Maybe next week.
You may want to read Ma's resume. She has serious skills and doesn't seem to be someone that is afraid to exercise authority.
The linkedin page for the individual in question shows that he is leaving Anvex and joining another firm at what seems to be a serious pay raise. I posted the PR form his new company.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174346871
You might want to correct your headline. ANAVEX has not been sued for security violations.
A troll law firm is soliciting clients for a law suit. Not even the same thing.
Of course if you read the copy and paste that you bolded you would know that. So I assume that you didn't read it and just copied and pasted..
Great theory, but wrong.
The end result is based of trial results and little else. The interim results may well be built on the marketing savvy of the management.
The rest of your screed about Missling is a tantrum.
I guess you have never seen bio techs go from $5 to $100 overnight. You may want to explore that history just a bit.