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.
"I am thinking management is likely pricing a partnership based on success at upcoming trials, but likely having money change hands when the results come in."
That's basically like saying the partnership is for manufacturing and distribution only, and that shareholders will fund the trials to the degree that trial funding requirements exceed govt funding.
But isn't painting the tape just an end of day maneuver? What good does it do at 11am after the retail chasers/dumpers have been fleeced?
Question on trading..
I've bought several small lots today during times where there was no active trading and the instantaneous response was a sell at the bid (usually the same or smaller than my purchase). Happened every single time and always instantaneous after my trade. There was no follow through after the small sell and it didn't cause the ask to drop so it doesn't look particularly like some kind of psychological manipulation aimed at retail investors. Why would a MM be doing that?
"Price will go Where the Powers (in control of moving price) Intend for it to go. "
That would seem to minimize the value of TA.
Why is that "huge"? What would it have to do with Anavex?
" the failure to disclose 15-month data that "wasn't as good as they hoped" would expose the company to 10b-5 claims "
IMO, since the trial is not powered to show efficacy any efficacy related data from this trial could be considered anecdotal from a legal perspective and would not be considered a "material event" that would have to be reported.
What continues to puzzle me with all those prospects you cite along with how much P2 data is now available is why there's been no P3 funding deal yet.
"3. New Uses for the Drug
A drug can earn three years extension under the three year new use/new clinical exclusivity FDA rule. The name of the game here is not to re-work the medication or re-formulate it, but merely to find a new use for it.
A 2006 article in Biopharm International notes how well this worked for pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly. Lilly patented atomexitine in the early 1980s to treat depression. But further research indicated that the compound could treat attention deficient hyperactivity disorder. So Lilly received new patent protection for atomexetine as an ADHD drug, which it marketed as Strattera. This held patent protection until the end of 2010, long after doctors had stopped using amotexitine as an antidepressant. "
When I read that, combing over every word, what it appears to say is that the three year extension is ONLY for the new use. It says nothing about extending exclusivity for every other use. So if you have an exclusivity as an AD drug and right before that expires you get FDA approval as a cancer treatment you get a 3 year extension but it's limited to treating cancer. I see nothing in the Lilly story above that contradicts that. It makes no sense for them to be going after an antidepressant-use extension when it says "long after doctors had stopped using amotexitine as an antidepressant"
Or put another way, they filed for and received a new-use patent for ADHD and based on that patent the FDA gave them 3 years exclusivity for ADHD. Is that how you read it?
That appears to be the case here as well. The gist of most misunderstandings is that the non-patent-savvy reader often assumes when the company uses a phrase like "extends patent protections until 2035"
that it means ALL EXISTING protections are being extended in time (which it doesn't mean and in fact can't mean). All that phrase meant in the case of the 2015 patent PR is that coverage was "extended" to now include treating melanoma and THAT PARTICULAR protection extends until 2035.
"So does that not imply that as A2-73 molecule is already protected and its potential use in Alzheimer's disclosed - we are as protected for Alzheimer's as cancer? "
My understanding is that the A2-73 molecule (any use for any indication) is protected by the original Greek composition of matter patent for a few more years. When that expires there is currently no method of use patent for treatment of AD. They tried to get one but apparently it was abandoned for reasons Orveko_inc gave possible reasons for. The "disclosures" made in previous patent applications regarding use for AD prevents someone else from patenting that use but lack of a patent (assuming nobody has one) does not stop someone from trying to get approval to sell the drug for that use. You obviously don't need a patent to sell a drug or generics would not exist. The thing that WILL stop them for 5 years in the USA from marketing to that use is the FDA exclusivity but that is separate from patent protection.
The use for Melanoma is different since we clearly have a patent with claims for that use (the 2015 patent). To say "we are as protected for Alzheimer's as cancer" is not true.
Also, then why wont the company state it has 2-73 monotherapy coverage for AD going out to 2035 (the duration of that 2015 patent)? I've asked them at least 3 different times and ways with increasing specificity to pin them down and they will NOT say anything about AD coverage coming from that specific patent. If you don't believe me ask them yourself.
As I recall, the original patent which has only a few years left on it mentioned the same useage in treating AD type disease so I dont see how after that expires you can keep extending that by just continuing to mention that the compound can be used to treat that type of disease. I recall the expert on this (orvecko_inc) saying that the reason they never got a specific method of use patent for 2-73 mono targeting AD is that the original patent mentioned the same useage. I'll defer to orvecko should he still be lurking around.
"Some seem to think that the 2015 patent only applies to "melanoma"."
That's because the claims (which is the important legal part) only mention melanoma. The rest is just intro, background, and summary material and may contain descriptive material that is not part of the claims. When you look at the haggling back and forth with the patent office over the Plus patent, it is ALL over the claims. The P.O. is rejecting specific claims and the company is withdrawing or rewording the claims. You don't see them haggling over wording in the other sections.
You should consult a patent attorney or get a book on patents and read about how they work. I know a retired patent attorney and he has told me I am 100% correct on this.
Ok, I went and downloaded the file. Here's the most recent
entry for AVXL. It shows 6,255 shares in "Fail to Deliver"
state.
20170227|032797300|AVXL|6255|ANAVEX LIFE SCIENCES CORP|5.67
I would certainly agree that if a sky high price (relative to $6) were paid for this stock, the acquirer would run the stock way up in advance to justify the price. (Or maybe allow a few "loose lips" to start a stampede into the stock).
You tell me since you're using it in your argument. The last time I checked the SEC's "Fails to Deliver" report it showed next to no shares sitting in that state. I'm sure if I checked it now it would be no different. But if you like you can check it and post the number to support the "naked shorting" argument.
In any case, my original point was not about what the company is actually worth. IMO acquirers (if they are public co's, with a BOD that answers to shareholders) would not simply ignore the current market cap of a company they want to acquire. Once a demanded premium becomes ridiculously high relative to the current market cap the acquirer could simply buy up most/all of what they want on the open market.
The short interest is not that big relative to the float. Certainly not big enough to take a stock that would otherwise be $40 or $50 and make it trade at only $5.xx
I'm talking about right now, not later. That kind of market cap assumes 2-73 becomes standard of care for AD. You don't get that market cap until there's much more efficacy data than can be produced with a n=25 trial. Otherwise, this stock would not be sitting in the 5's.
"I say $45-$50 per share gets the deal done! "
If this was a private company then the acquirer could justify whatever price they pay since there's no "market cap" as a guide for value. With this being a public company the market has voted with it's wallet and given this company it's current market cap. What you suggest is an 800% premium. I'd love to see some stats on how many times a public company has been bought out for that size premium. I haven't researched it so I don't know but I would guess shareholders of the acquirer would never approve that premium since the acquirer could just start buying stock and probably own controlling interest way before it reached $45.
What use are "targets" when the definition is basically a price where the stock pauses due to resistance and then could go either up or down from there? For them to be useful they need to come with probabilities to give you an idea if you should sell, hold or buy more at that level. For example lets say the stock hits the $6 "target" and there's a $5.50 downside target and a 6.50 upside target. If as it grinds around $6 for several days I see the probability of the $5.50 being hit spiking to say 90% I'd know to dump my trading shares up near $6 so I can hopefully buy them back at $5.50. Likewise if I see the $6.50 probability number spiking to some high percentage I'd know to keep my trading shares or add more while it's at $6.
It's clear from all the patent research discussed here over and over and over again that there is no PATENT coverage for treatment of AD once the original 2-73 Greek patent expires in a few years. Yes there is FDA protection but not any other patent protection specifically for AD. When Missling keeps using the same words "There is no patent issue", those were the same exact words he used a nearly 2 years ago when asked about the patent dispute between the company and Dr. V. I think he just keeps throwing that answer out as a way of appearing to give an answer while dodging the intent of the real question. I would be happier if he just said "We do not discuss IP related issues other than to provide a list of approved patents and published applications". Whether he says that or not, that IS the net effect of their current policy. I have emailed them many specific patent questions and all I get back is a list of current approved patents and published applications.
(And now I await someone re-posting that 2015 Melanoma patent # as if it covers AD which it does not)
"full IP protection upon FDA approval."
Depends on what is meant by "full". FDA protection
is 5 years for a big indication like AD (not 20 years with a patent)
and of course FDA protection is USA only.
Were patients that received a low dose on that low dose for the entire trial or were they moved up as time passed?
"... in order to identify what characteristics may separate the responders from the non responders.."
I'm not sure why they would ever want to share that kind of data in any venue. With 2-73 a couple years from losing it's original patent coverage they should not want to help some generic maker quickly identify responders.
The XBI has had a big run up to resistance just as AVXL has. Gut check in the XBI today.
Looks like another margin call week for the highly leveraged risky flippers. They must be sweating bullets by now.
That kind of high profile success would help with visibility here in the USA but if Glenn should happen to be one of the non-responders you could end up with a high visibility negative perception.
a bullish 'Hammer' Candle says to shorts "Can't touch this"
"If dark pool trades were going on - would we know as retail holders?"
They ripple the market matrix. A feeling of deja vu is the only indicator.
"It isn't about the direction."
Then IMO that level of TA is fine for accumulation but not for disciplined trading. Stop losses will slice you to pieces if you're wrong on direction. First rule of disciplined trading is never let a failed trade turn into a long term position. Its funny how a stock will apparently be deliberately dipped below a support level for only a few seconds to take advantage of traders only to immediately change direction and close above the support level.
" It could surge now or tomorrow,and we see the rally continue, ....or...it could struggle here and retest the 5.00-5.40 support zone. "
So what good is TA if it doesn't tell you which of those is going to happen, or at least give you a much stronger probability for one over the other?
And you'd have to be one to KNOW that, otherwise it's pure speculation. It could easily be simply profit taking after a big run.
Obviously the markets close overnight and new information/rumors emerge before the markets re-open. At the open you get disjointed moves. And a bio stock does not have to be a member of an etf (like the XBI) to react to some PM gap down or up in that index. I'm sure lots of short term traders keep a close eye on important indexes as they trade stocks in that sector.
When you have a lot of market money in ETF's you can have gap downs or gap ups in the ETF's cause similar gaps in the stocks they hold.
"Why would anyone do that instead of just selling on the open,especially after yesterday`s action."
It's called fear. They see the discussion and they see the early PM bids well below yesterdays close.
IMO I dont think a professional short bothers with putting up a single 1k sell order pre-market. It didn't generate any selling at a lower price and all that happened is the 5.60 offer got bought and the ask is now back to 5.80.
Seems likely to me one of the people following this board saw the talk of dilution and the mysterious withdrawal from the March conference and decided to get rid of some trading shares after this big pop from $5.
Question on Placebo effect and drug trials in general...
Does placebo effect show dose response? In other words, if you're doing a placebo controlled trial where the dosage of a candidate drug is gradually increased, does the placebo effect increase every time the patient thinks he's getting more of the drug (assuming he's told he's getting an increase)? Or would none of the test subjects even be told about a change in dosage?
for that reason the accumulators will probably slap it down going into the close.
Good point on the disclosure.