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.
Interesting from Reuters:
August 24, 2007 -- CHICAGO - A study in mice finds a new way of starving tumors of their blood supply may cause heart attacks and strokes.
Current drugs that block blood-vessel growth do so from the outside of the cell, and have shown promise in treating cancers with fewer side effects.
Researchers at UCLA wanted to see the effect of blocking vessel growth from inside the cell. More than half of the mice in their study suffered heart attacks and fatal strokes, while those that remained alive became very ill.
Down 13.5%. I think it's time for management to get concerned about the shorting, n'est ce pas? That snickering CFO (at a question about concern regarding the short position in the stock) several conference calls ago still irks the hell out of me.
This price action is very serious stuff. I'm now of the opinion that there are forces out there trying to kill this company -- and PPHM management had better sit up and take notice.
The most distrubing aspect of the CC was its brevity. There was only one investment house lined up to ask a question (the guy from Merrill Lynch). The rest of the questioners must have been private investors -- and King & Co. wanted no part of their questions. I would have loved to hear someone ask (like I would have if I had gotten through), "By the way, given the recent debacle delivered by the the shorts, do you have any regrets about all the snickering done by management two CC's ago when asked about the huge short position?"
Would someone clear something up: when King (I believe) said that management believed that the best use of AVID was for in-house utilization for PPHM products, was he saying that was what had been decided -- or that this was the view given that so few contracts had been landed?
Where is odd sod?
TIA,
Sean
Volgoat,
I'm rather dubious about your enthusiasm for a BP to acquire stealth shares -- and thus a controlling interest in PPHM. How would that benefit us? Give us, if you could, the hard numbers as you see them.
TIA
Sean
I agree, Terry. With you, the science intrigues me. But management is failing horribly in its fiduciary duties as a public company. There is a real weariness setting in among investors with their lack of communication. This is the frustration one hears among the longest of longs.
Another aspect of this investment: with the likely take-over of the Presidency (and holding on to both House of Congess), one can expect that the capital gains tax will be GREATLY increased. One forgets the pre-Reagan days -- which could EASILY return. Unless we get movement in this stock soon -- significant movement -- we can all figure on a much lower rate of return than we had originally assumed.
This isn't even mentioning that the odds are that some of us, not in the too-distant future, are going to need the science that we've been investing in for a decade.
The reason could be as simple as someone, working for BP, wants to make it difficult for PPHM to acquire investment interest. An investment banker has to ask himself, "If this drug (Bavi) is so good, why doesn't Wall Street see it? What does Wall Street know that I don't"? (Especially if the Russell rebalance brings the pps to about 80 cents.) PPHM, being desperate for $, then is forced to make a deal very favorable to BP. (I've got burned this way before, by the way.)
billy...suppose the added volume (the bulk of it) is sheer shorting (naked or otherwise) to keep the pps depressed?
FWIW: about eight months ago my investment guy (has his own firm) contacted management and asked specifically about financing. I cannot remember who he spoke with but whoever it was told him that PPHM was leaning toward an investment banker. A lot could have changed since then so whether it's still true is anyone's guess.
EZ, do you think the heavy pre-market volume is short covering?
With such a small number of patients, it mystifies me why PPHM could not have been more specific concerning results. It is the vagueness of the information that's beginning to worry me. Some will say that they're saving the data to release it at a scientific forum. Then why give us ANY PR? This PR leaves bashers room to hammer us -- and the stock price.
Sean
Two Tales Confirming Shorts Control
http://biz.yahoo.com/tm/070315/15595.html?.v=1
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=PPHM&t=1y&l=on&z=m&q=l&p=m200&a=&c=
Jazz - thank you for the response. I've always thought that Bavi for cancer would be the big winner, and I was surprised (and initially worried) that management placed such a high emphasis on HCV first (with viruses MANY more things can go wrong). Is it safe to assume that this was primarily for strategic reasons: i.e. licensing Bavi to a large pharma (mostly because it's a more complicated trick to master and that pharma can apply the big $ necessary to answer questions like optimal dosing)? Then, with the licensing $, PPHM can proceed to develop Bavi for cancer on its own?
TIA
Sean
KT: "PPHM is probably less than two years away from being able to develop 4 or 5 times that amount of shareholder value."
Do you really think this kind of value can be achieved in two years or less? This is a serious question: many PPHM investors -if the company delivers the goods we think it has -- will face a serious decision: when to sell. Some have held for years (myself since 1999) and need the investment for retirement purposes. Would you elaborate on your "less than two year assessment?"
TIA
Sean
Question from a layman: is there anything THAT compelling from these results that would make other Pharmas trip over themselves to use it in combo with their HepC treatment?
TIA
Sean
From gabesnj on Ragingbull: "I just received an e-mail from peregrine investor relations, I had asked last week when we were gonna receive data on hep c trial. They just e-mailed me back and stated that peregrine anticaptes reporting top line date on repeat trial sometime in Feb, within a month.. TICK TOCK TICK TOCK..."
Jazz
Thank you again for all your scientific research. I read everything you post -- but do not always understand all of it --though your underlining of the most pertinent aspects of the text is always helpful.
The BUNNY's comments, however, have disturbed me. Particularly distracting is the following statement: "It may be, however, that Bavi is not the best antibody to implement the basic science. Management has given some hints in that direction, with its refusal to provide the AASLD data to shareholders, its general reduction of Bavi’s scope...."
This articulates some of my fury at the past two quarterly conferences. In my good moments, I remind myself that with very specific trials going on, some of the past references to Bavi widespread potential may be irrelevant till the first data comes in. But, given that hope, can you (or anyone) offer any good reason why management didn't share the AASLD data with us?
TIA.
Sean
PPHM I-HUB is the only sane investor message haven left. It's a damn shame what's happened to Raging Bull. Thank you ALL for being the only link to sanity regarding info on PPHM. A blessed New Year to all.
Sean
KT...that slime ball ricardo over on RB has done some research on your past optimism (see message #217866). He's got an agenda (which actually gives me a contrarian sense of hope).
Now, God knows, I've been guilty of false optimism about this company in the past, so I'm not about to throw stones -- especially at someone who has gone on record and contributed to the board. But, just for the helluva it, would you be able to articulate what's different "this time" as you see it?
TIA.
Sean
Thank you, Terry...you articulated it far better than my poor abilities. THESE are the questions that Volgoat (and others) doesn't seem to be troubled by. I applaud (sincerely) his defense of King, but the contents of your last post has me most disturnbed. Maybe someone has the answer: if so, please, let me read them. I want my old enthusiasm back.
Bottom line: the problem is the disconnect between a seemingly revolutionary drug as explicated by Jazz and the "almost but never yet" details of the company's failure to do what other companies have done (i.e. partnering) WITH A LOT LESS!
Well, Billy, I guess we'll see. Any hopes of you addressing some of my questions? Fearfrost, childish name-calling is clownish...but I speak the obvious (unlike Steve King in the CC).
Billy...er....my point is that I DIDN'T learn a helluva lot. You read between the lines and seem content to do it. That's NOT the purpose of a CC -- is it? Isn't it to communicate with stockholders? Why all the cloak and dagger secret code crap?
Xzone...thank you
First, I understand your skepticism about posters. I really did not mean to bash -- but I am frustrated. From what I can read, Bavi SHOULD work -- unless there's something lurking out there that's not counted on. Your recent post to me with your assessment echoes many of my own concerns.
Cotara is evidently close to being licensed in China -- PPHM gets nothing from the deal. Why dosn't PPHM management leverage this drug and licence it to a major American or European pharma to finance Bavi?
There's a MAB shortage yet it seems to me that a questionable portion of the Avid facilities lie dormant. Why? Avid should be able to assist with their profits the development of Bavi as well (which I thought was part of the original plan).
And you're right: the investment bankers at this CC I think sounded skeptical and disgusted. That will not help the stock price.
When King says that they're talking to big pharma about partnerships -- we've been hearing that for a LONG time. Drugs that aren't a fraction as revolutionary as what I assumed we had in Bavi are being partnered. WHY?
I just don't know....I just don't get it. The lack of communication truly bothers me.
Sean
I apologize for not having the science background where I can ask more sophisticated questions -- I ask them as a layman attempting to interpret the science that jazz and others post. My assumption may be wrong -- but I'd like to know. I'm in the classic position as a kid in algebra class not understanding and even deficient in the ability to explain what I don't understand. For any misunderstanding this may cause, I apologize. My questions may sound hostile because they lack the proper nuance.
Sean
Billy, you may well be right. But I did get the sense that King WAS signaling -- by his constant references to combo efforts -- that the Bavi data MAY not be as good as some of the greater scientific minds (thank God for them) on this board have been suggesting. Regardless of the reasons why King was noncommunicative (this is TWO in a row where I think he badly botched it), we are owed more than what he's given. I WAS surprised at Xzone's seemingly more hesitant tone in the post that I cited -- and I truly wonder whether or not his hesitancy (if that was what he was expressing) is for the same reason that I just gave above: almost all talk about Bavi as a combo drug(not bad -- not just as good as some of us had hoped). Could it be that BAVI's data is not AS good as expected and that it will be used mainly as a way of switching on the immune system which will help other drugs? If so, I would like to know. It's not the same results as they were getting in the animal studies.
Sean
Xzone OT
Xzone...you said:
"I listened to the call....
It was pitiful, Steve King was clearly unprepared and its a good thing that nobody called to present him with the really hard questions....." (That's what I said -- is your agenda mine?)
Then you said:
"...the results of the trials seemed to be the topic of the day and from the tone and sound of it, was not real promising.
Since they indicated they were going to combo with another immune enhancer, IE; INF, Says to me that they have no expectations of bavi replacing INF through Bavi's efficacy.
I will make my decision to stay or go on the results of the Bavi-AC Indian combo trials....." (Isn't that questioning the science -- something I've not heard you do before.)
Your simply wrong about my identity: my original question is an honest one: you sound suddenly doubtful as to the science (something I wondered about after the conference call before this one). I ask, because if you are suddenly in doubt -- because of the credibility I give you, that would be significant -- at least to me.
Sean
xzoneclone and terry
Am I reading you both correctly? Xzone is doubting the efficacy of the science and Terry is defending it? I've always thought that PPHM has the scientific goods...my doubt was to their ability to engineer the entrepreneurial challenges.
Sean
For the life of me I cannot figure out why more PPHM longs here are not outraged at King & Co. Terry asks many pertinent questions (which at one time annoyed me -- but he's right) which indicate a disturbing pattern of having the goods in the past and yet PPHM has never delivered. King may not have been here, but isn't his probable pissing off of Investment Bank analysts today indicative of a continued disturbing pattern of noncommunication? When the one analyst pointed out that the PIPE people are offshore scum with no accountability -- dead silence. I was almost embarrassed for them.
PPHM has always had the science. That's why I invested in it (1999 - 2006). But their refusal to answer basic business questions should be a tip-off to many of you that something just ain't right.
Sorry for the negativity. But really - what other SANE tact is possible at this point?
I keep following closely -- with little hope of re-investing.
Bulldog, you're right. I returned (dumped my PPHM last quarter) to listen to this call. I'm SOOOO glad I decided that Steve King was a jackass after he blew off the 10 million short position at the last CC. So much potential here -- but this company tells investors nothing -- ever.
KT -- many thanks. You are truly one of the more level-headed investors here. I'm rethinking PPHM because of all the failures in the past. Even you admit that PPHM management heralded the "flu" side of things -- only to go silent about it since. It "feels" like pumping on their part. My question: "Why?" -- if they have the goods with Bavi. I've been burned before on "story" investments (technology ahead of its time)that were ruined because of poor management. I thought that PPHM might be different -- after Monday, I'm just not sure anymore.
My anger the past two days is directed toward what I consider the cavalier tone of the Monday CC. This technology -- if I've read Jazz' scientific postings correctly -- is absolutely cutting edge. Qustions like "If the shelf-life of Bavi is so short, why is Avid stockpiling so much -- at the price of not contracting out services to raise the bottom line?" loom large in my mind. Things just aren't adding up -- and some of the private emails telling me to sell and move on never address the substance of things. King was simply NOT communicative Monday: why not? I'm appalled at the lack of fundamental inquisitiveness by people that I respect here. We should not -- after all this time -- be left to the speculations that this board has been reduced to since the CC.
Sorry, but that's my honest opinion.
Sean
Again, Green, IF King had done less chuckling and made more of an effort to take the questions seriously -- we wouldn't need all this ^&%#$ conjecturing. WHY are not more people -- indeed the most knowledgeable posters regarding PPHM -- outraged at this chuckling over the short interest and the way it was treated by King????
Keep....you said, "The only negative of note is that the timeline has slipped.....again LOL."
With this company's past track record, can any of us really afford to "LOL"????? Isn't there the least fear that all the stumbles of the past are possibly being repeated? C'mon.
Keep, you said, "SK could answer no one has opted to do so and it tells investors nothing." This is my problem. SK has told investors nothing. The last CC Bavi was practically hyped -- even statements that human Bavi could very well outperform chimeric Bavi (a speculative statement management didn't need to make). This CC we're told the opposite. I've committed to Bavi because of the science. After yesterday, there's great reason to question it. I just don't know what to do. Your summary of the CC was excellent -- but the tone of this CC was much different than the last one. I'd like to know why -- well, part of me does.
Sorry Jazz, I respect you most of all -- but the investor community ain't buying the lack of information and non-explanations for non-delivered past promises. $1.19 as we speak. The market is talking -- and it's fed up with this pathetic nonsense of a management who won't even purchase it's own company's shares!
Hey -- Big Mouth -- is that all you've gotta say after you're countless pathetic ruminations?
I AM mad -- and I'm even madder at many investors who continue to take this lame POS management's word for everything. King has given timelines that he's continually broken -- and not even apologized for -- the slimy POS. SIX freakin years of this nonsense. For God sakes, Man, get a shot of testosterone! I've already contacted a lawyer about his cavalier answer regarding his promise of a "months" answer regarding bio-terror -- and his unprofessional response to that question today. This guy is f------ with us.
What the hell is wrong with you? Don't you think that investors are owed more information that what this piece of crap King gave us today? He makes no apologies for NOT giving us information he's promised (i.e. the bio-terror "thing" within "months" a YEAR ago). He tells us nothing about the immediate future. What the hell will move you to get angry about this piece of crap management?
TALKING above your head.
Jake -- MGMT is cavalier on everything. They own nothing and say nothing. This situation is akin to a Kafka novel. Sorry Snackpack -- I'm already taling above your head.
Horse Manure. When's the last post you made -- from what hole did you crawl out of? Have you held this POS for 6 years? If not -- shut your pie hole.
I take it from the silence of all that my reaction is indicative of most?