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.
Thanks, Ken.
Just wanted to say thank you for your occasional visits to the PPHM IHub Board to sprinkle a bit of optimism. God knows we need it!
Sean
Management's R/S proposal forces all of us to "gut check" our attitude toward management: i.e. whether or not one fundamentally trusts them. They have done nothing to earn my trust and, therefore, my measly high 5 figure shares will vote no. A R/S giving them control of over 300 million shares to do with what they want removes whatever shred of influence the shareholder has remaining. It will serve us about as much as a screen door on a submarine.
There are worse things than being exiled to the Bulletin Board world. BB stocks are more easily manipulated. PPHM would prove to be the exception. It's difficult to imagine being manipulated any more than what we already have been.
Sean
If one read the story about Pfizer's acquisition of ENCY for its drug Thelin, it's quite disturbing (read the short commentary linked). If our stock is being manipulated by Turner for the benefit of big pharma, forget about the SEC, they just don't care.
Question: would the poison pill still prevent PPHM to be taken out for pennies, or could the Board simply revoke it with a simple vote at any time?
http://www.fool.com/investing/value/2008/03/28/pfizer-clears-its-steal.aspx
Jazz, I'd be interested in your assessment of the critical review of Bavi as found in message #21807.
TIA
Smiles, I'm not certain what to think about too many assumptions vis-a-vis government involvement. The government is so big, the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Bavi is being touted as an auxiliary drug to existing ones. Why would BP have a problem with that? The bigger problem is the lust for BP for what PPHM has -- and they want it on the cheap. They could well be involved with keeping the PPS "under wraps" -- but our management would have ways of determining the whys and wherefores of such manipulation. Are they being vigilant?
We're getting to the end game: it's time for management to begin orchestrating a sharp increase in PPS -- if they truly have the goods.
As I've said in previous posts, the fact that Thorpe has his own financial resources tied to PPHM is encouraging -- and I doubt that he would keep looking for new applications for Bavi (re: arsenic imaging) if he didn't KNOW that Bavi was successful in other applications.
All this being said, there is absolutley NO reason for us to rest easy with management. They've demonstrated financial ineptness to an embarrasing degree.
ysfalconeer, I know that management can change the terms of the poison pill at their disgression, but until we they do, we're not being bought out for $3.
Listen, Folks, you cannot believe in the science (Bavi, Cotara) and have sympathy for another PIPE. If management cannot raise cash through licensing at this juncture, then I could only conclude that management is corrupt. I'm not sufficently savvy as to what they have to gain, but to conclude that something would be less than kosher is not rocket science.
MMs knew that there were day traders into this stock enjoying the ride up. We've seen several internet trading sites addressing PPHM's "breakout" over the course of the past month. If they wanted shares, the momentum traders were the ones to shake out. I don't think it's anything more complicated than that.
Traders who have gotten in for the ride from the .30s never hang on to their shares of a stock like PPHM with earnings staring them in the face. I think this is accounting for the downward price pressure.
tarvacin, I was thinking the same thing. Putting together the news of recent days, these are the most hopeful signs:
* Dr. Thorpe has a stake in his own financial future through Pergerine.
* I don't think he would be continuing to look for new applications for bavituximab unless he was pretty damn certain previous applications worked.
Thanks to Jazz's summary, I was able to deliver PPHM's Bavituximab story to my broker (he has procured all of my shares over the past ten years and had just done the same thing for another client to the tune of 15000 shares). My broker then forwarded Jazz's info to an oncologist client for his scrutiny. Several days later he was speaking with the oncologist who told him that he "had heard of Peregrine" from colleagues who had attended a medical conference (unfortunately, he didn't name it). The oncologist said that the report he had received viewed Peregrine in a very favorable light. He added, however, that Peregrine's work was not unique. I suggested to my broker that he was probably looking at the "mab" part of "Bavituximab" when he made the observation. The fact that he would not offer his opinion about Jazz's summary specifically confirms my view that there are oncologists and then there are oncologists. Still, I thought his comment about Peregrine being viewed favorably by colleagues was interesting and just thought I'd pass it along.
Sean
Jazz....can you post a link to your most pithy summary of Bavi's MOA and potential. My broker bought 15000 shares for another client because he likes the PPHM chart. He's bought every one of my shares for me for the past 10 years. This is the first time he's actually gotten interested in the company. If I can forward to him a layman's information summary of Bavi, he may well begin to purchase a hell'uva lot more. Right now, he's buying on just technicals. I'd like him to have a more fundamental understanding.
TIA
What the hell was that 10,000 .28 trade at 5PM?????
Sorry folks, per PPHM chart, having trouble pasting the correct chart. Hope this works:
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=pphm&p=D&b=5&g=0&id=0
PPHM chart
Though I realize that chart work on penny stocks is always dicey, I find the PPHM chart interesting.
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui
Notice the "coiled spring" developing. The longer the coiled spring expands, the greater will be the breakout when it occurs. Of course, it could break either up or down. But given the fact that we are expecting news from PPHM in the not-too-distant future, I thought that the chart's seeming confirmation of expectation was intriguing.
THORPE: that's the card that I've been thinking about. Bavi is his baby. Wouldn't it be logical that if he thought that PPHM was so incompetent as to put his progenie in jeopardy that we would have heard some squeeling from him by now? Isn't he looking for a company that will give him his investment reward? When I have my bad moments, this thought enters my mind. Maybe I'm just being delusional. This thought has to be too simple to offer much comfort.
sunstar....I'm holding my shares because I still believe the retail investor will get a miniscule fraction of Bavi investment. I no longer believe that PPHM will find a partner.
Here's my fear (one which I would like you or some other knowedgeable long to alleviate): BIG Pharma knows it doesn't need to partner: one of them will own it all. Your last post mentioned that Bavi trials will be very expensive. BIG Pharma knows of PPHM's desperate financial straits. We've heard in the past from those who claim to be in the know that management has received rediculous offers in the past which they rightfully turned down. With the company's financial back to the wall, the sharks will simply wait for finances to get worse. Then they'll make their offer and give attractive recompense and jobs to the management. We will get pennies that, after years of tied up investment $, will reflect little to the retail investor's bottom line. That's the GOOD scenario. The worst case is that the sharks simply wait for bankruptcy and buy Bavi at auction. I sincerely hope I'm wrong. I would ask you or anyone answer why this isn't the more plausible scenario given the histroy of the past ten years.
Some here have publicly asked why hasn't PPHM licensed some VTA tech for various diseases. I think this is a legitimate question which no one has answered.
TIA,
Sean
ndslakkr...you're simply wrong. Some of us have been invested in this stock for more than a dacade. YOU haven't. The idea of a message board is NOT to goose each other with good feelings -- but to truly offer discussion as to both the positives and negatives. Some offer it from the science side, others from the investment side. What you consider negative posts are simply investors -- some who are frustrated and even some who are scared. Argument is NOT for the sake of "winning" -- but people offering honest points of view -- whether in agreement or not. I for one am happy when someone can tell me why a negative opinion that I've proffered is wrong -- as long as it makes sense. This alleviates some of my worst fears about what might be happening. If the company was more forthcoming with investors, some of the negative hypothesis wouldn't have to take place.
Terry, you remarked, "Why the PPS dropped because of this deal not panning out I don't know." I don't believe the sell off is related directly to the DTRA. I think it can be accounted for with two reasons: (1) A "last straw" for management reaction. Their pumping of the DTRA contract (even expanding the original $ in the CC of a week ago) indicates they were relying on this avenue for getting the word out about Bavi -- something that they seemingly can't get accomplished through normal channels on the Street. Actually, my guess is that Wall Street knows about Bavi but also realizes that the management and BOD, due to incompetence (which can be documented) will need to turn over the drug for almost nothing. (2) There is probably shorting going on at these levels because they want to speed up the process. They see that the PPS of PPHM places the company in desperate straits. This news gives them the opportunity. I'm not even certain that good data on Bavi Phase II will help the PPS that much: once the Wall Street boys see incompetence, they will capitalize (literally) on it -- right to the end. How? By ignoring the news OR by continuing to short it at these levels (and THEY have the ability to do it). This will be the last straw for the long-suffering longs (who are retail shareholders) and they will begin to sell and drift away.
Time now is definitely on their side.
take_your_pic: I don't believe the shareholder can change this company in time, thus I will not waste time and more frustration on your laudable efforts to effect a shareholder rebellion. The Wall Street game is rigged against that -- unless you have an Icahn, Buffet or Pickens spearheading the effort. Gates is supposed to be interested in Bavi: that might be worthwhile pursuing -- hell why not use his pocket change to buy PPHM out?
Jazz, to my frustration of PPHM management not having licensed ONE technology: I should have added, "That has relieved the shareholders of an increasingly diluted investment." I thought both TNT and Cotara were going to be gigantic winners. They would have been except for......well, I'm still not certain as to what the hell happened. I haven't even mentioned AVID -- another disappointment in terms of adding substantially to the bottom line.
On top of this, add a constantly missed timeline that was advanced -- not by analysts -- but by management itself. I simply do not know how you can be so astute as to the worth of the science and obstinately blind as to our chances of seeing a return on years of investment due to the ineptness of this management. I've said enough. We obviously disagree.
Sean
Green, Sun, you're killing me. Where in the living HELL is the $ coming from after the data? Who in hell is going to save this company with 250 million OS and a market value of 25 cents (hopefully) a share? Remember: I'm saying the COMPANY -- not the science: other shareholders will benefit from that. All we're gonna get are the remains of the day. Sorry, that's how I see it.
Jazz, I've remained invested in PPHM largely due to your excellent (no, magnificent) scientific analysis. As I've said before, science is not enough (as I've discovered painfully from two other companies: METRICOM and FUSE). Both had new and cutting edge technology; neither had the management to bring shareholders value after long years of investment. PPHM will be no different. Will the science survive? No doubt. Will the PPHM shareholders benefit? Not a chance, friend.
Ironically, if the DTRA contract had not been in the making, the pending catastrophe next week would not have happened as quickly as we will soon witness. But being assured by management that not just the original funding plan -- but an even BIGGER deal was in the works from DTRA, well, this will be used by big pharma to wrestle this science from PPHM with very little recompense for you and me.
I don't fault management for the latest disappointment, but I do bitterly condemn them for years of ineptitude which has placed us in this spiral toward oblivion. Without $, Jazz, this science cannot be developed by this company -- period.
I don't see how those of us who have been long (8 years for me) can expect anything but the science to be given away for a pittance. Our investment $, tied up for years in this company, following management screw-up after screw-up (still not ONE licensed technology), are not going to reep anything but the whirlwind of inept leadership. With out $, we can't go forward. There will be no PIPE at these levels. You figure it out. As for doing anything to change this company, take_your_pic, it's too late. There's really nothing to save. The science needs $ --now, there's no way for them to get it. This is just what the big pharma sharks were waiting for. If anyone sees otherwise, I'm open for enlightenment.
Sean
Either they're shaking us out before the DTRA announcement or else there ain't gonna be a DTRA announcement and someone knows it.
Ken, thanks for the private message today. I appreciate you taking the time. It's funny that my original post (the one to which you responded) was deleted by the IHUB censors. I thought it made a legitimate point.
Thanks again -- especially for the encouragement.
Sean
P.S. I need to respond publicly to your message because I can't afford a premium IHUB subscription till PPHM makes it!
Brandon, many thanks for taking the time to write such a thorough report for the benefit of this board. I've read your postings twice. Your questions as to why management pursues HCV viral when they could push ahead in an area where virtually no hope exists -- such as pancreatic cancer (as you suggest) -- is a great discouragement. I receive the impression from your posts that you expect nothing that will move significantly PPS in the near future. In other words, another SHM which leaves more questions after than before for the shareholders.
Thanks again, Brandon, for your generosity.
Sean
Thanks Steve. EOM
Given the following caveat in Steve Butabi's message, I don't see where the legal problem is: "The last part is hearsay, sure, if not allegations by large shareholders but if that doesnt make one think twice I dont know what will...." He's not saying he knows anything as a fact.
JNJ alone has a market cap of $190 billion with a PE of under 19. I don't understand why, given slippery's stated assumptions (which one can agree or disagree with), why you would think that a $130 billion market cap would be beyond consideration. IF (a big IF, granted) Bavi has a mechanism that has broad viral and cancer applications, I don't see why that number seems so outrageous to you.
Interesting Steve -- and good 'ol entdoc has already replied on RB with basically the same information as you. Thank you.
With those of us invested because of the science (and not because we have faith in management) without benefit of great scientific backgrounds, any suggestion that there is less than meets the eye with the scientific PRs makes us jumpy.
Sean
Steve...what make ye of terry's latest post on RB?
mojo....I repeat my question to KT: "If they've tried and failed (to licence property) tell us -- and then tell us the reason. Is it because BP is trying to box us in -- or is it because the tech is not as good as we have been led to believe? If the former, what's the harm in telling us? If the latter, then we need to be asking a lot MORE questions -- not fewer."
I'll take PPHM at its word that it intends to partner properties. Therefore, I see no need for further dilution. It's time to make it happen. The only way I'd change my mind is if they told us details of what was offered and the reasons why it was left untouched by BP. THAT'S communication that I require as an investor. I realize that some would say that such information would leave PPHM more vulnerable. I disagree. Transparency such as this might very well rally the investors in the company (not to mention that it just might put political pressure on BP by bringing their greed to light: after all, this is not JUST about $ -- but also about saving lives).
Admittedly, most of my point of view is derived from my past experiences with cutting edge technology in a company that was run into the ground by poor management. Sorry, but it's my opinion that it's time to do all that can be done to signal management that patience is not an eternal commodity. It's the only way I know to prevent a type of complacency that some of us -- perhaps many of us -- fear.
Sean
KT, thank you for your response. Just a couple of points. You asked, "I don't see calls for more transparency and proactivism regarding the stock price being addressed by the posts that make unsubstantiated claims of ineptness or illegal activity, do you?" I don't know about other posters, but there are some of us who are simply saying: It's time to place a shot across management's bow by siding against them on all their recommendations regarding stockholder voting. I agree: we will not change anything for lack of shares, but we will serve notice that the natives are getting restless -- and they must be looking at what has happened with PDLI as at least something for them to think about.
You said, "Avid earnings are up, but not enough to cover much of PPHM operating costs." Why not? This is something as stockholders that we should know.
You asked, "Do you think that the timing of the CTL litigation resolution may be influencing what PPHM can do to best leverage value of technology licensing?" I don't know. But you make my point: I'm weary of speculating because there is no desire for management to keep us informed -- or even provide hints.
Will you answer me a question which haunts: Why doesn't management attempt to license any PPHM technology outside of Bavi? If they've tried and failed tell us -- and then tell us the reason. Is it because BP is trying to box us in -- or is it because the tech is not as good as we have been led to believe? If the former, what's the harm in telling us? If the latter, then we need to be asking a lot MORE questions -- not fewer.
TIA, Sean
Again, KT, when the CFO at that CC a year ago was so outrageously dismissive of the question concerning market manipulation, he told me he didn't care about "market forces." Why wasn't he?
I understand that there can be differences of opinion on the subject of management. I just hope that those of us who think it's time for more transparency and proactivism regarding the stock price are not painted as working against the interest of the company. This management has stumbled badly: that's our opinion. It's time to license something rather than dilute the stock more. As Terry says, there are many initiatives that could be pursued in regard licensing. So far: NOTHING! If Bavi is the big enchilada (and I think it is) -- why the reluctance?
TIA, Sean
KT...I understand your position. However, I've crossed the rubicon with this management. As I said, offering a PIPE at a near yearly low pps -- after saying this option wasn't being considered and telling my broker outright that they were definitely going the banking route has ruptured my confidence. The 10% of the proposed new shares going to management does "reward" them -- and I don't think they've earned it.
I understand the argument that management may need the shares for leverage. They've just gone to the well too many times -- and the stock price has stagnated far too long. It's incredible that they've licensed nothing to this date (not to mention the mystery surrounding AVID's failure to contribute more to the bottom line).
They need to evidence a greater respect for their shareholders. They have snickered at our suffering from the huge short position and generally indicate a great indifference and callousness to those who own more common stock than they do in this company. This company provides management with a very comfortable living. Unfortunately, that's not the reason why I invested in PPHM.
JAKE...the company also told my investment advisor that they would be doing no more PIPES -- and that their future financing would be through the banking route. Management always has the right to change its mind -- but on the PIPES question they've contradicted themselves once publicly and the other privately (to my IA). BOT may have been misled as well. I'll not make any judgements -- but certainly management's defenders on this board can see the reason for our concerns.
Voted against BOD on every issue after long consideration. The decisive factor for me was reviewing the CC where the CFO told us that the company had no plans for another PIPE -- and then decided to do one at a near - 52 week low. Poor management I do not reward.
That being said: I see where some are considering the possibility that someone is deliberately killing our stock price through shorting. As I've said before: I've gone the route of being invested in a cutting edge technology only to see the company go belly-up due to unrelenting short pressure deflating the price (while the company management made AWFUL execution decisions). This management team hold 45 minute CCs reluctantly and won't permit the broadcast of public questions during SHM. I don't like it. I don't like this type of "trust us" routine. There's absolutely no evidence that they've offered as to why we should.
FWIW: I'm NOT a basher. I'm heavily invested in this company since 1999. Would like to add here -- but I'm increasingly suspicious of mismanagement the likes of which I've seen before -- and paid a very high price for ignoring it.
take_your_pic,
Given that the management has thwarted some proposals that would have benefited PPHM stockholders, are you any less enthusiastic about this company -- especially given the huge stake your family has in it? Has your experience with them raised suspicions as to their integrity and/or motivations -- perhaps even their abilities to do what needs to be done for US?
Sean
Jake, despite the skepticism of some on this board, I am more than ever convinced that this stock has been targeted by BP for annihilation through shorting (probably by a hedge fund). It uses management's operational ineptness (not one product licensed) and strategic ineptness vis-a-vis its relations with Wall Street to short this stock into oblivion. Some good people here don't think it can happen. I know better -- I've seen it (and the company to which I refer had Paul Allen of MSFT fame as a major stockholder!).
Sean