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.
erthang: that's a great point for those board members with 10 year investment horizons on this stock. unfortunately i'm not one of them
i just want to see some frigging results on the diagnostics side for starters, which is "only" an 8 or 9 figures market, and then we can fantasize about imaging/therapy.
Kag/Erthang: Music to my ears!!! Thanks so much for your wonderful contributions to the board. Playing a little devil's advocate, I will point out that the severe selling pressure on the stock after the ABT announcement could have been a result of delta neutral short selling by the restricted shareholders (ie "selling against the box", but not in the tax sense). Since they couldn't sell, they could have worked with a MM, BD, canadian retail firm, or other entity that is allowed to short sell OTC stocks in order to lock in gains without selling shares. I know this is common practice in PIPE deals, convertibles, unvested options holders, and other investment vehicles where a long position is restricted from outright sale.
kag: you sure unregistered shares are the same as restricted stock???
Kag...can you post some info that points to the 18 mil shares. That would be a very large number, and I don't remember seeing that much restricted stock.
Kag: BOCX does identify restricted shares in the portion of the 10-k that discusses share issuances. There is no tally, but you can see that the number of restricted issuances is small.
What we don't know, is the type of stock owned by the "Moro cronies" that we spend so much time discussing back with Steve @ RB. They are suspected to be large shareholders and I have a feeling they own restricted stock.
Here is a sample of 2005, in which only 50,000 restricted shares were registered:
a) In August 2005, the Company issued 77,266 shares of common stock at $0.75 per share for proceeds of $57,950.
b) In July 2005, the Company issued 20,000 shares of common stock for legal services received. The value of the services totaled $23,000, which was determined based on the closing price of the stock on the date of approval by the Board of Directors.
c) In July 2005, the Company entered into a consulting and marketing service agreement for a period of ninety days. The Company issued 50,000 restricted shares of common stock at the fair market value of $1.00 per share. The fair market value was determined based on the closing price of the stock on the date of approval by the Board of Directors.
d) In June 2005, the Company issued 600,000 share of common stock at $0.10 per share pursuant to exercise of warrants for proceeds of $60,000.
e) In June 2005, the Company issued 4,545 shares of common stock for $5,000. Subscription receivable was recorded which was equal to the exercise price times the number of options exercised.
f) In June 2005, the Company issued 135,000 shares of common stock at $1.00 per share for proceeds of $135,000.
g) In May 2005, the Company issued 682,714 shares of common stock at $0.21 per share pursuant to exercise of warrants for proceeds of $143,367.
h) In May 2005, the Company issued 25,000 shares of common stock at $1.00 per share for proceeds of $25,000.
i) In May 2005, the Company issued 15,000 shares of common stock with the fair market value at $18,900 to an employee for a performance bonus.
j) In April 2005, an employee exercised 5,000 options to purchase the Company's common stock for $3,000. The Company received a note receivable for $3,000.
k) In March 2005, the Company issued 213,576 shares of common stock pursuant to the exercise of 272,903 warrants by a note holder. The method of payment was based on the cashless exercise provision of the stock purchase warrant.
l) In March 2005, two directors exercised 1,750,000 options to purchase the Company's common stock for $1,750. Subscription receivable was recorded which was equal to the exercise price times the number of options exercised.
m) In March 2005, a director exercised 450,000 warrants to purchase the Company's common stock for $450. Subscription receivable was recorded which was equal to the exercise price times the number of options exercised.
n) In March 2005, the Company issued 25,000 shares of common stock at $0.07 per share pursuant to the exercise of warrants for proceeds of $1,750.
o) In March 2005, the Company issued 50,000 shares of common stock at $0.21 per share pursuant to the exercise of warrants for proceeds of $10,500.
Another thought...To me the most interesting statement of all was Moro's comment that he was "close" to getting royalties from ABT that would cover the $4 mil fee to meet the AMEX tier 3 requirement.
The fact that Moro says he's "close" to getting a payment from ABT that would cover the AMEX requirement is *HUGE* news. He sort of let the cat out of the bag that they are near a milestone payment, and IMO the next milestone payment from ABT should be related to either a) RECAF's successful integration on ARCHITECT or b) commencement of the regulatory process.
In either case, this is big news for investors.
Kag: I'm trying to figure out that statement by Moro because it doesn't seem like reality. And believe me I wish it was....When you go through the 10-K's and Q's, the vast majority of share issuances have been unrestricted common stock. Go see for yourself. I only see a small amount of restricted stock.
What really stood out to me was Moro's explanation of the $2.50 offering. They filed that many months after the Abbott deal, when the stock was at much lower levels. It is very good news but I don't understand why they would still go ahead with the filing when they had no intention to proceed with the placement. Unless, of course, they have another announcement that will bring us back to those levels :)
erthang: hopefully dr. moro hasn't violated reg FD with his confidential statements to you. not that anyone is watching though
erthang: INVALUABLE INTERVIEW. thanks!
Kag...I believe Roche makes a popular automated diagnostics platform and so does Ortho (JNJ's dx unit) and a few others. We discussed the various platforms a while ago and, for what it's worth, came to the conclusion that the test menus are virtually the same. There are only a few cancer tests available on the systems so if RECAF ever makes it to the test menu it will be in rarified air.
Also, look into Quest diagnostics and the other third party lab testing chains. Research hospitals will often own their own platforms but most clinics and smaller hospitals outsource to a reference lab. Personally I don't think the equipment itself matters too much...just different variations of the same thing but I could be wrong.
PS Moro reads the board so I'm sure he will be well prepared :)
erthang:
1) pink sheets
2) abbott progress
yup a lot of volume and we closed down...ugh.
Kag: review all 10-k's, q's, press releases, and audio interviews. It's in there.
I want to say they discuss it in the 10-k but I'm not sure
HALF_FULL: As you can see I didn't just dream up the idea that RECAF should be used as an enchancer to the existing cancer tests. The company has been hinting at that for a while...we just have to hope Abbott buys in.
Headache: if ABT sees, in their internal testing, that RECAF is for some reason not fit as a general screening marker, they might pursue other indications.
Headache: Abbott will choose the regulatory strategy (PMA, 510k, BLA (down the line), Class, etc), and the FDA will officially choose the indication/label but Abbott's trial design will largely control the label. Biocurex will have nothing to do with any of it. They are just the licensor.
If ABT wanted to, they could initially pursue a trial design that (to use an extreme example) tests RECAF's ability to predict the recurrence of cancer over a 5-year period in patient's who've had chemotherapy. That is a legitimate indication, but would take a 5 year trial. That's an extreme example but you see what I mean.
What we're hoping for, and what BOCX has indicated (although they have no say whatsoever), is that ABT decides to pursue a 510k application for a prostate/lung/whatever cancer general screening test. In that case, they would simply have a lab test a few thousand known cancer and placebo samples and give them a yay or nay. That test would take months not years.
Kag...no general screening serum tests are expensive. They are all very cheap, and the volume is there to compensate for the low cost(ie everyone in the demographic is asked by their doctor "would you like to have the XXX test today?"). I don't see Abbott and the other diagnostics firms kissing the PSA/AFP/Mammostatin/etc tests goodbye for a while. Those tests are a cost effective way to determine the locale of the cancer -- much more cost effective than a body scan. RECAF will enhance their accuracy, but it is a quantum leap to say that RECAF will replace them. Theoretically it would be nice, but in practice...don't bank on it.
PS: I originally thought that RECAF would replace all other cancer tests, but then came to the conclusion that we will be piggybacking off of the existing tests -- at least for a while. This is good news, not bad...creating a new paradigm is much easier said than done.
Kag...like I said, that is a possibility but I'm not sure about the economics. Meaning...why would Abbott simply replace PSA revenue with RECAF revenue? Makes no sense to me. Now, if Abbott were to use a combined PSA & RECAF test, they would get double the revenue rather than simply replacing existing revenue.
Believe it or not, big pharma designs their trials and prepares their BLA/PMA/510k/etc apps so that they can bring the product to market in the most profitable manner. I don't see why they would design a PSA vs RECAF trial...too much at stake for them. They are pitting themselves against themselves (not that ABT holds an exclusive to PSA, but you get the point).
I would love to see us partner, rather than compete with, the existing cancer tests. It seems ABT would prefer that, too. But who knows...it's all conjecture and we've discussed this stuff ad nauseum. Looking forward to some guidance from the company...
Take care,
BOCXMAN
Grandma: ask your kids to find another Abbott partner with a market cap under $50 mil. That should keep them busy for a very long time. :)
I don't even think you can find one that trades under $100 mil, and maybe even $200 mil.
Kag: keep in mind that RECAF is not a replacement to PSA or any of the other existing cancer markers for the simple reason that it is not specific to any particular type of cancer. for this reason I foresee the trial design for general screening indication as dual arm, PSA vs PSA + RECAF, rather than PSA vs RECAF. IMO RECAF will be similar to the Gleeson test for prostate cancer, used in conjunction with PSA as an accuracy booster. This goes for the other cancers, too, and it seems like this route opens the door for partnering with rather than competing with the existing diagnostic co's. That is a huge plus.
It is conceivable that RECAF could be used as a standalone test in conjunction with the RECAF imaging technology they're working on (the latter to pinpoint locale of cancer), but I'm not sold on the economics of that quite yet. It just seems like that route could get expensive unless RECAF shows bulletproof accuracy in further testing.
In my opinion the biggest risk to this investment is not failure of RECAF, but instead, the clinical indication that Abbott chooses to pursue. If Abbott decides to pursue RECAF as a post-treatment, cancer recurrence marker or as an early stage predictor marker we are very screwed because a PMA and very lengthy trial will be required. I don't mind Abbott pursuing those indications down the road, but we absolutely NEED them to start with the general screening indication. The company has said time and again that only a 510k will be required as opposed to a PMA, and this implies that general screening is the preferred route. That would be a very fast and easy trial that could get us to market sometime in late '06 or early '07 in the best case scenario, with data coming in 6 months or so before product launch (and as I've stressed many times data release will be the big mover here)
Take care,
BOCXMAN
PS Sorry for my passiveness but believe me I will contribute to the board again when we actually get some news/filings/etc to talk about. Glad to see such a crowd here
Interesting action today....Nice price and volume. I won't get excited until we get some follow through, but it's only a matter of time before we get to the next step.
tommyb: Abbott licensed the serum-RECAF test, not histo-RECAF. So there will be no image recognition piece.
half_full: free markets make conspiracies like that awfully tough to rationalize...IMO.
LOL I knew something was crooked with that operation...What will DC_Steve do when his precious 25,000 post track record gets shut down???
RagingBull to be shut down? See below:
from yahoo ostk board re: RAGINGBULL..by: investigate_the_sec 01/21/06 07:37 pm
Msg: 60872 of 60912
By: percywhit
I didn't put the whole email in the post. Funny you said that. See below
"We have been working with several former Lycos employees that have signed affidavits to the effect that they were told, ordered (and they provided vettable emails) to "kick off" critical posters on several ket RagingBull chat boards while "protecting" others. This included altering the "rating system" that I assume no longer is present on RagingBull. In one very serious case, a manager came into a work area where line-level RB supervision by moderators was performed, told a subordinate to take an early lunch but NOT logoff (a serious Lycos security violation) and then used that terminal to erase several account records less than 1/2 hour after the Lycos lawyers had notified that individual that they had received SEC and FBI inquiries about the accounts. One concerned employee advised the "at risk" staffer about what had happened when she went to lunch, and she went back, printed out the audit trail for her terminal, and had her friends sign or initial the printout and date it as well. We have copies of that and much more.
We're working with one of the founders of RB, who has, like us, "corked off" over RB, IHUB and several other "scam sites" as he calls them. He said that the little bit we have is only the tip of the iceberg. The principal reason that the Spanish consortium sold RB to the Koreans was to divorce themselves of the civil liabilities they feel will erupt in the next several years as outsiders peer into the operations of the major "stock chat" sites.
The RB startup partner we are talking to says he believes that RB has less than 6-weeks of life left. They have shut down something like 60% of the boards that existed this time last year, and are shutting boards down daily now through attrition. He did not explain how attrition enters into the picture, but I'm sure it's fascinating. "
very funny half_full...those are the largest biotech's in the world ;)
Guys I'm here...just nothing to talk about until we get some news!!!!
i don't think that UBS list is updated. hate to burst anybody's bubble.
Foam: once they prepare the data for the U.S filing most companies use the exact same data for applying to the EU, Chinese, Japanese, etc drug regulation agencies. So it's one set of data for multiple agencies.
From the WSJ: (no mention of any specific markers)
Cancer Testing: Look for the opening shots in what could become a revolution in cancer diagnosis: Detection by means of "biomarkers" -- blood proteins that can disclose the existence of a mere handful of malignant cells in someone's body. They have the potential to reveal certain cancers much earlier than current screening tests such as colonoscopies and mammograms.
Clinical trials of biomarkers for ovarian, prostate, lung and colon cancer are under way. More biomarkers are likely to be found and validated in 2006.
Today's "early detection" often finds cancer too late, and as for therapies, even the most cutting-edge often improve survival only by a matter of months. But biomarkers, once the diagnosis they suggest is confirmed, could get patients into surgery or other treatment months or years sooner, improving survival odds. Meanwhile, if biomarkers signal a clean bill of health, patients would be able to reduce the frequency of invasive tests such as colonoscopies or even skip them.
Like the human genome project, biomarkers are riding important advances in technology. A technique called mass spectrometry currently can identify the 2,000 or so most abundant proteins in the blood. But blood has an estimated eight million different proteins, which vary greatly in size and concentration. Some, if detected, might show that a cancer exists somewhere in the body. As mass spectrometry advances and can identify more proteins, it "will allow us to look in depth at many new candidate biomarkers," says Gordon Mills, an oncologist at Houston's M.D. Anderson Cancer Center.
An early-detection method can stumble either if it yields too many false positives or if it detects many indolent cancers that wouldn't shorten a lifespan if left untreated. But biomarker medicine is an "enormously revealing and important technique," says Lee Hartwell, director of Seattle's Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and offers the best hope of meeting the National Cancer Institute's goal of eliminating suffering and death from cancer by 2015.
Fluffy: that is a very helpful example you gave regarding the time it took Diagnocure to integrate with a commercial diagnostics platform. Great stuff!!
Regarding whether or not Abbott would allow the announcement, something tells me NO, but we will probably learn about it regardless via a milestone payment in a BOCX 10-q.
Also...while the commercialization timeline you laid out is important (ie data compilation, 510k prep, and FDA decision period), I will say that there is no point in Abbott commercializing RECAF without published data and a p.r. effort. Otherwise, no docs will be aware of it. Thus, I think the most important timeline for BOCX investors is not when Abbott can get RECAF to market, but when Abbott decides to come "out of the closet" with the technology via publishing/p.r. THAT is the timeline to watch, IMO.
a little perspective on BOCX and the Abbott deal...
keep in mind that for *years* BOCX was claiming to be "in talks" and "working on" and "close to signing" a deal with a major pharma. nobody believed them because no concrete details were given and they had been saying it forever. then, out of the blue, they managed to license recaf to one of the largest pharmas in the world.
we are back at the same place. things are taking TIME, and the company can't say SQUAT because they are under NDA. so...everybody -- myself included -- starts questioning what the hell is going wrong and blah blah blah.
maybe what's wrong is the lack of patience. the company says we will get listed back on the pink sheets...and I believe them. the company says more deals are coming...I believe them. the company says they are confident about abbott (audio interviews)...I believe them.
I believe everything the company says right now, because they delivered on the first major objective of their business model and that part was arguably the hardest (to license recaf to a major pharma). It's just a matter of patience IMO...
PS: if we're still here in 6 months I might be singing a different tune :)
erthang: you're not the first shareholder of a public company to be frustrated by an NDA. NDA's are a standard part of many industries and they fly right in the face of the concept of a public company. yup...it sucks.
why wouldn't they excercise the options and sell them at market price rather than cancel them?
1) if they excercised and sold on the open market ("cashless excercise") they would drag down the stock price and, especially in the case of dr. wittenberg, their own net worth.
2) if they excercised and sold for anything greater than $0 they would have the big tax liability.
guys i'm on vacation...not much time to look into it and a pathetically slow internet connection. from quick glance looks like fluffy is right....a cancellation to get out of the tax burden. not sure about canadian law, but under U.S law NQSO's are taxable upon excercise. the spread between strike and excercise price, that is.
since those options had an expiry date of 12/8/05, if they had excercised them at value they would have had to pay big bucks in april. by disposing of them at $0 (ie cancel), they have no tax burden (because strike = 0 and excercise price = 0...so taxable spread = 0).
erthang calm down...jeez. i was just SURPRISED that your buy order was hanging on the bid for so long. because of the downward slide in share price, i have been operating under the assumption that there is a large seller which is why I was shocked they didn't sop up the liquidity you put up.
ERTHANG: Your post doesn't make sense. You say that volume has picked up because people are selling at lower prices, yet you say you've had a buy order for 10k shares sitting on the bid for 3 weeks and less than 2k just got filled finally?!? I don't get it. If there was a big seller why wouldn't he sop up your 10k bid...what price have you had it at?
(PS: please don't publically state your intention to buy at lower prices on message boards...market makers and large traders DO read these things ya know)
half_full: after doing a few TOS reports on him I got a PM from the moderator that said he was looking into it...haven't heard from good-pal since so I'm guessing they booted him. the whole purpose of us moving here was that we could have a regular discussion without trolls, and it seems that the moderators are in fact here to help in that regard.