Long on AVXL since 2011. Loaded up on AVXL in early spring 2015.
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.
Accepting $3 billion right now would be insane IMO.
I stumbled across this historical SLB rates (the borrowing fees charged to accounts who sell short) in my Interactive Brokers tool. My family took away my permission to trade to keep me from doing something really stupid during some of my poor mental states, but I still have read-only permissions. I only found it in graph form, not numeric. Here it is with weekly candles.
I think that the fee rate skyrocketed immediately prior to July2016 presentation, and a negative article campaign was launched within seconds of the presentation beginning. If this spike happens again, it could be a tell-tale of an impending negative article campaign.
Here is a link. I could not figure out how to include the image. Sorry.
Hagrid, at IB, it is called "Stock Yield Enhancement"
https://ibkb.interactivebrokers.com/node/1838/
Excerpt: "How do I enroll in the IB Stock Yield Enhancement Program?
Clients who are eligible and who wish to enroll in the Stock Yield Enhancement Program may do so by selecting Manage Account followed by Trade Configuration and Permissions, and then checking the box at the top of the page (under Trading Programs) that says Stock Yield Enhancement."
It also says your account has to have a minimum of $50K equity to initiate it.
In my IB account there is a switch to turn lending on or off. It is account-wide, and not by individual holdings. My account is marginable, and if I ever knew anything about their non-margin accounts, I do not recall them.
They should not prevent an account from trading its own shares based on any actions they have taken without the account holder's permission. I agree with you, that seems immoral.
Yes, it is an annualized fee rate to borrow shares, determined by demand for shares to short vs the available supply. Interactive Brokers was created by brokers for brokers, although they welcome individuals and investment advisors and managers (min $10K in cash or investment assets to open an account, I think). IB probably has more connections and data access than any other organization. Most brokerages like Fidelity, Schwab, etc, use IB to some extent. Some investment firms like hedge funds and mutual funds use IB exclusively for trading. If you lend shares of a stock in an IB account, they split the fees with the account 50-50. So in your example, if the fee rate is 90.69%, they would pay you half that. Well, almost, there are some adjustments before the split is made that brings it down slightly.
Short interest rates from Interactive Brokers for AVXL
(IB does not provide a history. These are random samplings I have recorded. I do not know how to format it here.)
Date DoW Time IB Fee Rate
2/7/2017 Tuesday 9:56 AM 41.45
2/6/2017 Monday 11:53 AM 41.29
2/6/2017 Monday 10:46 AM 42.59
2/2/2017 Thursday 10:59 AM 44.57
2/2/2017 Thursday 9:13 AM 45.33
2/1/2017 Wednesday 3:10 PM 45.33
1/24/2017 Tuesday 9:39 AM 59.84
1/20/2017 Friday 9:47 AM 52.00
1/18/2017 Wednesday 2:23 PM 53.20
1/13/2017 Friday 4:47 PM 53.97
1/12/2017 Thursday 2:48 AM 54.31
1/7/2017 Saturday 2:15 AM 70.42
1/4/2017 Wednesday 2:27 PM 89.41
1/3/2017 Tuesday 1:28 PM 90.69
1/3/2017 Tuesday 9:16 AM 85.48
12/30/2016 Friday 12:01 AM 98.90
12/29/2016 Thursday 12:06 PM 87.66
12/28/2016 Wednesday 5:38 PM 86.79
12/28/2016 Wednesday 11:04 AM 86.32
12/27/2016 Tuesday 2:24 PM 81.56
12/23/2016 Friday 4:10 PM 75.46
12/23/2016 Friday 12:05 PM 76.21
12/20/2016 Tuesday 5:01 PM 58.50
12/20/2016 Tuesday 4:12 PM 58.28
12/20/2016 Tuesday 8:10 AM 62.96
12/19/2016 Monday 4:02 PM 57.48
12/19/2016 Monday 9:15 AM 64.65
12/16/2016 Friday 6:07 PM 64.65
12/14/2016 Wednesday 7:29 PM 56.33
12/14/2016 Wednesday 7:43 AM 59.15
12/13/2016 Tuesday 4:01 PM 59.15
12/13/2016 Tuesday 8:17 AM 49.50
12/12/2016 Monday 5:53 PM 49.50
12/12/2016 Monday 4:00 PM 49.50
12/12/2016 Monday 8:02 AM 50.31
12/9/2016 Friday 4:03 PM 50.31
12/8/2016 Thursday 4:03 PM 51.92
12/7/2016 Wednesday 4:04 PM 51.55
12/6/2016 Tuesday 4:01 PM 50.96
12/5/2016 Monday 4:14 PM 50.83
12/2/2016 Friday 1:14 PM 49.14
11/30/2016 Wednesday 5:51 PM 51.57
11/29/2016 Tuesday 4:19 PM 52.65
11/28/2016 Monday 8:09 PM 59.10
11/28/2016 Monday 9:26 AM 48.05
11/25/2016 Friday 1:46 PM 47.53
11/23/2016 Wednesday 6:43 PM 47.53
11/22/2016 Tuesday 6:18 PM 47.48
11/21/2016 Monday 4:42 PM 50.99
11/18/2016 Friday 7:30 PM 51.45
11/14/2016 Monday 7:51 AM 59.82
11/11/2016 Friday 9:12 PM 59.82
11/10/2016 Thursday 10:23 AM 60.17
11/8/2016 Tuesday 4:46 PM 58.02
11/5/2016 Saturday 12:41 PM 59.61
11/1/2016 Tuesday 9:09 PM 72.43
10/31/2016 Monday 10:17 AM 66.37
10/21/2016 Friday 5:21 PM 76.12
10/19/2016 Wednesday 4:22 PM 87.50
10/18/2016 Tuesday 4:07 PM 97.70
10/18/2016 Tuesday 10:08 AM 97.70
10/17/2016 Monday 12:50 PM 97.44
10/15/2016 Saturday 4:02 PM 97.44
10/13/2016 Thursday 12:15 PM 88.34
10/11/2016 Tuesday 9:27 PM 90.58
10/10/2016 Monday 9:00 PM 90.03
10/7/2016 Friday 11:00 AM 94.27
10/6/2016 Thursday 9:01 AM 97.32
10/5/2016 Wednesday 10:29 PM 118.34
10/4/2016 Tuesday 9:43 AM 83.11
10/2/2016 Sunday 11:21 PM 52.47
9/30/2016 Friday 10:24 AM 52.47
9/30/2016 Friday 9:26 AM 52.47
9/29/2016 Thursday 8:34 AM 52.47
9/28/2016 Wednesday 9:15 PM 72.13
9/28/2016 Wednesday 9:32 AM 72.13
9/27/2016 Tuesday 5:03 PM 72.13
9/27/2016 Tuesday 4:01 PM 38.83
9/27/2016 Tuesday 3:42 PM 38.83
9/27/2016 Tuesday 1:04 PM 38.83
9/23/2016 Friday 4:16 PM 37.04
9/23/2016 Friday 9:41 AM 37.04
9/22/2016 Thursday 4:09 PM 38.70
9/22/2016 Thursday 2:13 PM 38.70
9/16/2016 Friday 2:58 PM 37.97
9/12/2016 Monday 8:05 PM 39.88
9/5/2016 Monday 4:00 PM 38.79
9/2/2016 Friday 7:00 PM 41.81
8/30/2016 Tuesday 11:01 AM 41.29
July 27 was a major drop in price
Gap in my record
1/14/2016 Thursday 4:52 PM 39
1/12/2016 Tuesday 3:41 PM 44
1/5/2016 Tuesday 9:00 AM 59
1/4/2016 Monday 4:43 PM 59
1/4/2016 Monday 9:40 AM 40
12/31/2015 Thursday 4:06 PM 40
12/31/2015 Thursday 9:39 AM 55
12/29/2015 Tuesday 4:04 PM 65
12/29/2015 Tuesday 12:58 PM 64
12/29/2015 Tuesday 11:39 AM 64
12/29/2015 Tuesday 9:41 AM 66
12/29/2015 Tuesday 9:35 AM 66
12/28/2015 Monday 4:08 PM 66
12/28/2015 Monday 10:35 AM 67
12/24/2015 Thursday 11:52 AM 67
12/24/2015 Thursday 9:01 AM 70
12/24/2015 Thursday 8:02 AM 70
12/23/2015 Wednesday 3:52 PM 70
12/23/2015 Wednesday 12:00 PM 71
12/23/2015 Wednesday 8:23 AM 73
12/22/2015 Tuesday 4:08 PM 72
12/22/2015 Tuesday 9:40 AM 74
12/22/2015 Tuesday 8:45 AM 74
12/21/2015 Monday 4:01 PM 75
12/21/2015 Monday 8:40 AM 80
12/18/2015 Friday 4:01 PM 81
12/18/2015 Friday 7:50 AM 78
12/17/2015 Thursday 3:03 PM 78
12/16/2015 Wednesday 5:24 PM 87
12/15/2015 Tuesday 5:33 PM 90
12/15/2015 Tuesday 8:34 AM 90
12/14/2015 Monday 4:01 PM 91
12/14/2015 Monday 2:00 PM 91
12/14/2015 Monday 11:54 AM 91
12/14/2015 Monday 9:16 AM 92
12/11/2015 Friday 9:26 AM 90
12/10/2015 Thursday 4:02 PM 90
12/10/2015 Thursday 8:25 AM 88
12/9/2015 Wednesday 4:01 PM 88
12/9/2015 Wednesday 2:48 PM 89
12/9/2015 Wednesday 11:25 AM 88
12/9/2015 Wednesday 9:40 AM 75
12/8/2015 Tuesday 8:40 AM 70
12/7/2015 Monday 4:01 PM 70
12/7/2015 Monday 1:55 PM 70
12/7/2015 Monday 11:03 AM 70
12/7/2015 Monday 10:25 AM 70
12/4/2015 Friday 4:00 PM 70
12/4/2015 Friday 3:30 PM 70
12/4/2015 Friday 11:41 AM 70
12/4/2015 Friday 7:47 AM 70
12/3/2015 Thursday 6:09 PM 70
12/1/2015 Tuesday 5:30 PM 71
11/27/2015 Friday 8:16 AM 75
11/25/2015 Wednesday 2:35 PM 75
11/24/2015 Tuesday 3:44 PM 75
11/20/2015 Friday 4:15 PM 83
11/20/2015 Friday 7:54 AM 86
11/19/2015 Thursday 9:33 AM 90
11/19/2015 Thursday 8:00 AM 90
11/18/2015 Wednesday 11:25 AM 87
11/17/2015 Tuesday 10:25 PM 98
11/13/2015 Friday 5:00 PM 116
11/13/2015 Friday 9:00 AM 150
11/11/2015 Wednesday 175
Trillion in revenue only a matter of time if A273 hits a grand slam. Cumulative, not per year.
Billions per year in earnings, with a market cap of 20-30 times earnings.
"We can confirm that ANAVEX... is planning a large scale placebo controlled phase 3 trial to start (at latest) by mid-2017." This statement is from the middle of the following email to me. I will not qualify unless the terms change because I have MCI, not AD, and because I had encephalitis a few years ago.
AD Clinical Trials <a.adclinicaltrials@alfred.org.au>
Thank you for interest in the Alzheimer’s clinical trials at Caulfield Hospital.
We are thrilled by the media coverage highlighting the fight against Alzheimer’s disease.
To be considered as a participant in an Alzheimer’s disease clinical trial here at Caulfield Hospital the following key criteria needs be assessed:
· A confirmed diagnoses with Alzheimer’s disease (and has no other subtype of dementia, such as frontotemporal/vascular dementia)
· Our trials are for people with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease as defined by a minimum score of 12 or above out 30 on the Mini Mental State Examination cognitive test
· No history of cancer within last 5 years
· No other significant illness such as uncontrolled type 1 diabetes, uncontrolled hypertension, uncontrolled cholesterol
· No other neurological diagnoses such as Parkinson’s disease, uncontrolled depression, major depressive disorder, bi-polar disorders
Please note: There is no current trial recruiting for the drug Anavex 2-73 or solenazumab.
We can confirm that ANAVEX (the biotech company that owns the molecule) is planning a large scale placebo controlled phase 3 trial to start (at latest) by mid-2017. For further updates regarding this trial please visit alfredhealth.org.au or http://www.anavex.com/pipeline/anavex-2-73/
If you meet the above key criteria’s and you would like to know more about the current clinical trials in your home state contact the following clinical trial centres:
Victorian residents:
If you are interested in trials (other than the ANAVEX2-73 study) please send us a recent copy of:
· Health summary from the GP, which generally includes current medication including past and current medication conditions,
· The results of an MRI brain or CT brain that was undertaken for diagnosis
· The current Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) score. The MMSE is a score out 30 questions. (if available).
Please e-mail this information to adclinicaltrials@cgmc.org.au and we will do our very best to get back to you but it may take approximately 1-2 months for this to occur.
We greatly appreciate your patience while we sift through everyone’s enquiry.
Please note: For each state please email the following information with your enquiry
· Health summary from the GP, which generally includes current medication including past and current medication conditions,
· The results of an MRI brain or CT brain that was undertaken for diagnosis
· The current Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) score. The MMSE is a score out 30 questions. (if available).
Western Australia:
· Perth:
· Professor Peter K Panegyres- Neurodegenerative Disorders Research- West Perth
· Please email projects@ndr.org.au
New South Wales:
· Sydney
· Prof Bruce Brew St Vincent’s Hospital
· Please email research coordinator: Fiona.kilkenny@svha.org.au
· Central Coast New South Wales –
· Dr Jonathan Sturm- Central Coast Neurosciences Research - Kanwal
· Please email research coordinator michelle@neurosciences.com.au
Queensland
· The University of Queensland- school of medicine – Brisbane
· Please email Elizabeth.arnold@equ.edu.au
· Dr Phillip Morris – Gold Coast - pmorris@iprimus.com.au
South Australia
· Dr Cathy Short- Queen Elisabeth Hospital
· Please email kerry.mckinna@sa.gov.au
Yours Sincerely,
Aged Psychiatry Clinical Trials Team.
The spring presentation for 2016 is now on the Anavex web site.
http://www.anavex.com/files/Anavex_Presentation_Spring_2016.pdf
"Regular sales" to LPC require a minimum share price of $7, but "Accelerated purchases" takes the minimum down to $3/share. At least that's the way I read the agreement. From the 26Oct2015 8K, exhibit 1.
A2-73's next trial will be pivotal, I expect, a combined phase 2 and 3. How much it will cost will depend primarily on its design and the minimum number of subjects, which will remain unknown to us until the IND is submitted to clinicaltrials.gov. The design is crucial, and that is where some of our current board of science advisers will earn their their stock.
Dr. Missling has made it clear he intends to partner with someone on A2-73 for Alzheimer's, but I have not heard from him whether that is during the pivotal trial or before and after. I suspect Missling is considering both options.
I do not have the negative opinion of Lincoln Park Capital that many people seem to have. Their very high-risk investment of $10M in Anavex is what allowed us to start the phase 2a trial and make other progress on the pipeline (especially epilepsy), and getting us to where we are today. Prior to the first deal with LPC, Anavex languished over a year after completing the phase 1 trial. As both an investor at that time and as an MCI patient hoping to avoid Alzheimer's, that was a very frustrating wait.
I suspect most animosity directed against LPC is because LPC invests in many companies, and some of them go under despite the capital infusion from Lincoln. The angry and disappointed stockholders of those companies want someone to blame, and some of them make LPC their scapegoat. Third parties trying to tarnish Anavex with guilt by association have condemned Lincoln for investing in companies that later failed, but that happens to all providers of corporate capital, from angel investors and VC's all the way up to JPMorgan. If there is any evidence of LPC doing anything to damage a company they invested in, I am unaware of it. The $10M deal between Lincoln and Anavex has certainly caused Anavex no harm, and it has provided enormous benefits.
The terms of the $50M deal with Lincoln are basically the same as the terms of the $10M deal, except with 5 times the cash for Anavex and 5 times the monetary risk to Lincoln. This time, however, Lincoln's functional risk has been dramatically reduced by the spectacular phase 2a trial results to date.
The leverage Missling has acquired from the $150M line of credit is that it puts him in a position of strength as opposed to desperation.
One thing I do not know is why Anavex chose two tranches, $50M with Lincoln and $100M direct, as opposed to $150M in one or the other. My guess is that Missling and Skarpelos chose to honor Lincoln for making that first, much more risky loan, by giving them an opportunity to participate in this round of funding, and Lincoln chose $50M, and the remainder became direct. I believe Skarpelos appreciates successful performance, and I see very successful performance from both Missling and Lincoln Park.
"...raising cash is something that worries me as well. How can the shelf offering not worry shareholders?"
The alternative is running out of cash, as Anavex did under Dr. Kergrohen. Anavex has no revenue, so until we reach FDA approval and marketing, all operations must be funded by raising capital. Raising additional capital is necessarily dilutive, but with this $150M structure (8K & S3), Missling can minimize dilution by raising only what is needed, when it is needed, and the higher the share price goes in the meantime, the less dilution there will be to raise the same amount of capital. Unless someone wants to give Anavex a $150M grant, or we give up future revenue in a partnership, this is the ideal method of raising the money necessary to get us through the next trial and to FDA approval. As others have pointed out, having this line of credit gives Missling a stronger negotiating position in partnership talks.
SeekingAlpha: Backgrounder On Epilepsy And Anavex Life Sciences, by Amor Mehta, M.D., an expert on epilepsy and a fellow owner of AVXL.
http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/40909465-jdlambert/4565296-backgrounder-on-epilepsy-and-anavex-life-sciences
Open short positions declined some yesterday for AVXL, based on the IB report of shares available to be borrowed for short sales. I suspect some overleveraged shorts got caught in a squeeze yesterday.
This morning we have another positive PR, this one about our epilepsy preclinicals. We already know that A2-73 for epilepsy will not have to go through a phase 1 trial. Now tie that with the last sentence from yesterday's PR, “The advantage of having Population PK/PD data is of value for the development of ANAVEX 2-73 in Alzheimer’s disease and also for other potential CNS indications.” It looks like A2-73 for epilepsy will be able to skip a phase 2a trial, and jump right to a pivotal phase 2/3 trial.
The need for an effective drug for epilepsy is great, and the market size is huge. I will not be surprised if the price of AVXL rises again today, and squeezes more shorts into forced buys.
nyc212investor, I am very sorry to read of your loss. You can send me a private message via wildcard235@yahoo.com.
Point-by-point rebuttal to Fonteneau's attack article yesterday. Sorry it took so long.
https://medium.com/@jdlambert/the-anavex-story-for-honest-investors-67e1238d4238
A short squeeze, yes, but due to dwindling profits rather than increasing losses, since they should be well into the black after Thursday and Friday. Most should be able to get out with some profits intact, if they don't wait to long to buy. Whether or not it is massive depends on how many total shares are still shorted.
Shorts' Dilemma
Anyone who shorted through last Thursday or Friday should have profited. Any idiots still short on AVXL over this weekend now face their worst-case scenario on Monday. The spectacular news (1drvDOTms/1Pw00Sr) on Saturday, together with the PR at 9 AM tomorrow, is going to send the stock price up.
Now shorts have to figure out if they will try to buy-to-close in pre-market or wait until the market opens regular trading hours. The first shorts to buy-to-close will capture the largest profits, but their buys will move the price up for the remaining short positions. The last shorts to cover will be the biggest losers.
As remaining shorts fight each other and everyone else trying to buy, trying to capture as much of their remaining paper profits as possible, they will drive the price higher as they do so.
NASDAQ pre-market opens at 4 AM EST. Let the games begin!
Thanks! Corrected version here: http://1drv.ms/1Pw00Sr (eom)
The corrupt Martin Shkreli...
I usually post on Yahoo, but that message board is refusing to take my posts or even my votes on comments again, and I want to get this off my chest. (I posted earlier here about the trial results because it was too long for the YMB and I thought some folks here might like to read it.)
Disclaimer: The following comments represent my opinion about Martin Shkreli and a recent comment of his about Anavex.
I am writing about the corrupt character Martin Shkreli, the infamous person who recently bought a drug and raised the price over 5,000%), because he tweeted this about Anavex: “I shorted $AVXL - i do not believe the drug *can* work given its PK and receptor pharmacology profile.”
So he admits he has a vested interest in driving the price down and then attacks us. However, the best attack he could come up with is to try to cast doubts on our pharmacokinetic and receptor pharmacology profiles! That is idiotic, apparently meant to influence ignorant people who don’t understand what he’s talking about.
A pharmacokinetic profile basically measures whether or not a drug is being absorbed and getting to the part of the body where it is needed. A2-73 has been proven to accomplish those goals. A receptor pharmacology profile is proven or disproven by preclinical and clinical trials, not by the expressed opinion of a scurrilous twit with ulterior motives. A2-73 is a sigma-1 receptor agonist, and there are over 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers showing or indicating effectiveness in neuronal processes related to Alzheimer’s and related diseases. I’ll rely on that science over Shkreli’s dishonest claims. Our own phase 2a trial results so far indicate that our receptor profile may be more effective than anything else on the market or in development.
If Scumeli truly does not believe A2-73 can work he is an idiot. If he does not believe it, he is a liar.
e024355, you are correct: 67.21 is the improved score (approximate), not 66.2.
Unfortunately, it is too late to correct my post. I apologize for the error.
Okay, Scott, I have rested and tried to study your question about comparing P300 between July and November. The bottom line is that I am not sure how they compare.
It appears that that the 38% from July and 80% from November are the same metric, of P300 amplitude from baseline, but it simply does not make sense to me. The 38% improvement (which is wonderful) appears to be for the first 12 patients at the end of Part A. The 80% improvement appears to be for all 32 patients at the end of Part A.
The 32 patients includes the first 12 patients. I cannot fathom how a result of 38% with 12 people jumped to 80% when adding 20 people. I am missing something important, I think.
Hi Scott, good question, I think.
I am mentally exhausted and I cannot evaluate that well right now. I will leave your question open in my browser while I rest to help me remember to reply later.
Analysis of slides to date
This is my analysis of the slides tweeted by Edny Inui (@BMTEdny) from Anavex’s November 7th presentation of the A2-73 Phase 2a Part A top-level results and Part B interim results.
Conclusion: Today’s positive report confirms the results in the interim report of July 22, and A2-73 is still the most promising AD drug candidate. If the results hold up in the next trial, FDA approval is extremely likely.
Summary: Decades of brain degradation will not be completely reversed in a few weeks, but A2-73 appears to rapidly begin important improvements, much more than any alternative. A2-73 is still the best candidate to treat AD, and the outlook for eventual FDA approval is still very strong. This is what I hoped for and expected.
Possible Market Reaction: The news from today is even better than the news from July 22nd, but sometimes companies report good news and their price drops anyway, and there are evil people who appear to want A2-73 to fail, who are already trying to discredit these top-level trial results. Many people may still be scared due to the sharp drop this past week, and there are many people who do not perform due diligence and make investment decisions based on headlines. There are even morons who care what people like Martin Shkreli think.
Will intelligence win the day on Monday? I suspect so based on the parts of the presentation I have seen, but I think the PR on Monday morning may be a bigger factor than the presentation data for many investors. These new results show a very successful phase 2a Part A trial, and Part B interim results that are promising. This continues to make Anavex the top investment for Alzhiemer's in my assessment, and I still want every share I can get.
Notes:
Part A was 36 days, with 12 days of A2-73 administered, then 12 days off in a washout period, then 12 days on again. Results listed as Week 5 are at the end of Part A and covers all 32 patients, but only with 24 days of dosing, and only 12 days of steady, non-optimized dosing prior to end of Part A (5-week) assessments.
7 of 32 trial patients were not on donepezil or other AChEI; 25 of 32 trial patients were on donepezil or other AChEI; Therefore, 78% of the metrics are of patients already taking donepezil or equivalent, so improvement in these patients is an improvement over donepezil. Those numbers are not broken out in the tweeted slides, but this is only top-level data.
Some slides footnote "p = not significant. Trial was not designed to capture statistical significance of cognitive endpoints." This is NOT saying that stats were computed and found to be insignificant. This is only saying the statistical significance for subjective metrics is unknown at this time, due to this trial being open-label and impossible to determine for subjective measures, as is normal for phase 2 trials. Statistical significance (or lack thereof) of subjective metrics must be determined in a phase 3 double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. It appears Anavex is ready to begin phase 3 before the end of this year, according to one of Dr. Inui’s tweets, which fits with previous presentations that mentioned a 2nd IND before year end.
SECONDARY OUTCOME METRICS
Minor Metrics
1. Pharmacokinetic (PK) blood sampling, measuring absorption, distribution, etc.
2. HAM-D, only scored at baseline
3. RM/HIS10, only scored at baseline
Major Metrics at the end of Part A
(After only 12 days steady non-optimized dosing with A2-73)
1. EEG/ERP (at end of Part A)
This is an objective measurement of a brain wave.
“Anavex 2-73 Reverses Cognitive Deficits Measured by Standard ERP Methods at Week 5”
Again, this is after only 24 non-optimized doses, and only 12 sequential doses prior to the test.
• P300 Amplitude: Improved 80%
• Reaction Time (latency): Improved 66%
• Task Accuracy: Improved 85%
• False Alarms: Improved 104%
2. MMSE (Mini-Mental State Examination) (at end of Part A)
This is a 30 point questionnaire that is subjective when not in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
The MMSE inclusion criteria for patients in this trial was 16-28.
Result: Improved 1.5 pts (approximately 20.5 to 22)
3. ISLT (International Shopping List Task) (at end of Part A)
This is a verbal learning assessment.
• ISLT accuracy: Improved .09
• ISLT time: Declined .22
4. Cogstate Brief Battery (CBB) (at end of Part A)
The unit of measure appears to be Dunlap’s d. My categorization of the scores is based on that.
• Detection Task (psychomotor speed): Improved .33 (moderate improvement)
• Identification Task (visual attention): Improved .44 (moderate improvement)
• One Card Learning Task (visual memory/learning): Improved .10 (minor improvement)
• One Back Task (working memory): Improved 1.10 (very large improvement)
Major Metric at Part B’s first milestone
ADCS-ADL (Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study - Activities of Daily Living)
These are interim Part B results at Week 12 (3 months), with 14 patients completing so far. This is a subjective assessment of how much help an Alzheimer's patient needs to eat, walk, bathe, get dressed, watch tv, etc. Like MMSE, it needs a phase 3 for statistical significance to be ascertained. It uses a 0-78 scale (although at least one source uses 0-30 scale). Results are compared to the baseline of Part B, not the baseline of Part A.
Result: 11 of 14 patients (78.6%) improved 3.21 pts, from approximately 64 to 66.2.
Final notes excerpted from slide 17
• This evidence provides sufficient confidence to start a larger randomized, double-blind Phase 2/3 study
• Additional data, including updates on Part B to be presented at future scientific meetings
You sound like someone who goes to Vegas, makes 100 bets, wins 1 of them for a $100 gain, loses 99 of them for a net loss of $9,900, goes home and brags to his friends how he won $100 in Vegas.
If you think it's going down more tomorrow, it would be foolish to cover your short bets today and buy more tomorrow, you should have just let your existing short run longer.
As for me, I don't know what the price will do tomorrow, but I know what it will do next week, and next year.
There is one IND for each clinical trial after phase 1. Phase 1 studies safety on healthy subjects, and is only needed once per drug formulation. Therefore, our next IND could be for phase 2 or 3 of A2-73 for AD, A2-73 phase 2 for epilepsy or Parkinson's, or for A3-71 phase 2.
I think the focus will remain on A2-73 for Alzheimer's, so I expect the next IND to be for a larger phase 2 or phase 3, depending on feedback from the FDA after the phase 2a data.
The IND doesn't specify time between A&B. eom
"The stock market is a device for transferring money from the impatient to the patient." --Warren Buffet
The impatient are selling, the patient are buying.
Folks who are still buying at these prices can thank the exercise of warrants and the one-time increase in the float they caused, but those bargain shares are slowly disappearing into the accounts of longs.
Found source of $67B/year estimate, it's legit.
I finally found the source of the $67B/year in retail sales potential for an effective Alzheimer's treatment, cited in the Anavex May 2015 presentation. For the whole presentation, go to http://www.anavex.com/investors/investor-material (or go to the Anavex site, hover over "Investors" click on "Investor Materials"), and click on Corporate Presentation. It is titled "Anavex_Presentation_May_2015.pdf"
Slide 9 of this presentation cites this source: The U.S. National Institute on Aging, Alzheimer’s Association, ICAD, UC Davis Alzheimer’s Disease 9 Center, IMS, Orange Book, UBS Global Research July 10 2014
This appears to be a professional, industry estimate of the market-size for an Alzheimer's treatment at $67B per year. It also shows a separate market potential for Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI), aka prodromal Alzheimer's, at an additional $21B/year. That's a total market estimate of $88B per year, just for AD/MCI.
What does that mean to AVXL? Nothing if A2-73 is not effective. If it is effective, then a very simple way to model the potential value to the company is to take the $88B per year, multiple by 4x sales as a common rule-of-thumb business valuation method, multiple by a fraction to compensate for competition, etc., then divide by the number of fully diluted shares. As an example: $88B/year * 4 * 50% / 165.5M shares = $1,063/share.
Adjust the numbers to more conservative estimates if you wish: Cut the $88B in half, reduce the adjustment fraction, increase the number of shares. Or adjust them to be more optimistic. They're just estimates. If A2-73 is not effective, this is useless, but if it is effective, this gives you some idea of what AVXL might be worth, not including treatments for epilepsy, Parkinson's, depression, etc.
Purchases of A2-73 are tightly restricted, and the cost per milligram for research will be far higher than the cost per milligram once mass production for a retail market begins.
Shrinking floats...
There is the float that can easily be calculated by publically available information (Investopedia: Floating stock is calculated by subtracting closely-held shares and restricted stock from a firm’s total outstanding shares.)
But there is also the real float (TheStreet.com: The float is the number of shares actually available for trading. Float is calculated by subtracting closely held shares -- owned by insiders, employees, the company's Employee Stock Ownership Plan or other major long-term shareholders -- from the total shares outstanding.)
There is no public database or SEC filings that tells you that I will not be selling any of my shares for at least a year, so you can't accurately count shares like mine. Nevertheless, my shares are not part of the real float.
When a swing trader buys shares of AVXL, they're likely to sell them the same day or within a few days. Those are still in the float. But when a position trader like me buys shares, they are removed from the float, and the real float therefore shrinks.
As long as the money-flow metrics (e.g. Chaikin Money Flow) show more money moving in than moving out, which has been the case with AVXL since late May when looking at a daily level, it is reasonable to expect that some percentage of those shares being traded are going to long-term investors. Therefore, day-by-day, the float shrinks, and the more it shrinks, the sharper future rises in share price can be.
I've been trying to study technical analysis recently, and these summary points from Wikipedia make sense to me:
Based on the premise that all relevant information is already reflected by prices, technical analysts believe it is important to understand what investors think of that information, known and perceived.
...Price action tends to repeat itself due to investors collectively tending toward patterned behavior – hence technical analysis focuses on identifiable trends and conditions.
Go to http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair, choose Search for Application Number, put "13/940352" in the search box and click the search button. Choose a tab for more info. I recommend starting with the "Image File Wrapper" tab.
All-time high pps had 32.8K daily volume.
Thanks, etradeedge. My records show the all time high price per share as $5.49 on 13 Mar 2008, and the total volume that day was less than 33,000 shares traded.
As of Friday, the 3-month average daily volume was 4,429,370.
Thank you for that clarification, 123tom. I agree that there are systemic weaknesses in the global markets that could produce much more trouble in the broad markets. My perspective is that the main cause of the weaknesses is central banks vainly trying to control economic dynamics that are too complex to be fully understood, let alone governed effectively or efficiently by central planners.
"Time could be running out."
Technical analysis cannot predict whether the full phase 2a part A report will have good news or bad news, and that is what will determine whether time is out or we're just getting started.
Beta-secretase (BACE) inhibitors only target amyloid-beta misfolding, ignoring tau and other issues, according to my notes. As the article points out, Eli Lilly dropped a BACE inhibitor due to possible liver damage during their trials. If I am correct that BACE inhibitors only target a-beta, they are still ignoring the fact that many Azheimer's patients have no appreciable a-b plaques and are ignoring a statement from the FDA which basically said, "Hey, big pharma, attacking amyloid-beta doesn't work. Try something else."