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.
What CP nicely documents here is not a stretch by any means. This is how it is done in successful businesses everywhere everyday. It's called using every bit of leverage you have to close a strategic deal. I am sure our VP of business development understands this process and knows how to play the game. Us "worry worts" I assume you mean anyone that questions the company -- expect and hope to he$$ that this type of strategic planning is occurring behind closed doors as we speak. The concern is that they seem overly protective of the status quo. Nothing ever seems to change in terms of diluting their own power and say in this company -- for the common good of the company. If they make a strong strategic deal I will commend them -- hug them -- apologize to them for my 2nd guessing of their intentions. The only variable that should stop such a deal from happening in the near future is if Bavi does not perform as we all believe -- assuming they are collecting the data as they described in the latest call. Anything less impactful and they have what they need to ink a good deal. They need to make it happen. We should all expect this.
Absolutely correct.
Well I've been here long before the inception of Mr. King as Peregrine's CEO. I did not indicate this was my opinion. I apologize. I will do that now. But it is very educated opinion based on listening to him over the years and seeing the results that we have all experienced since he took reign. Seeing simple details missed on a consistent basis. Details as simple as ensuring that a web site is updated in a timely manner with important and sometimes sensitive information to shareholders. I just recently witnessed him try to outline a plan to overcome this difficult situation we find ourselves in. The plan is being formulated on the go. There was no contingency plan in place. It was obvious the details were not formulated. Recently I heard him refer to this unfortunate situation that we find ourselves in now as interesting. That is not a communicator. That instills anger in people who have seen mishap after mishap with these trials and have lost sometimes 6 figures because of these interesting situations. I've heard for years that we are in discussions with potential partners and yet we never are capable of landing a money deal. At some point it's not a stretch to realize there is something wrong at the top. This is not a personal attack against Mr. King. I am sure he is a very nice man and very capable in the clinic. But he has failed to show me anything as a CEO. He should be held accountable because all of mankind loses if he is not capable of bringing Bavi to fruition. But let's just keep giving them a pass. How has that worked so far?
What you may fail to understand here is that a figure head without leadership skills can be effective if the people below him fill the void and have the missing skill set. They CEO in this case provides a very capable manager autonomy to build a very productive environment. I would not be surprised if that were the case with Avid. I've been in the private sector around manufacturing my whole life and I've seen it all. I do know that a strong manager can make a huge difference in such an environment. The problem occurs when the CEO or figure head is in a situation that requires actual leadership. Direction is needed. A charismatic leader that can communicate clearly the direction and path that he/she feels will be successful. Mr King is not a dynamic, influential communicator. That is just a fact. It is not a knock on him as a person. He is not visionary. He is not a strategic leader. He doesn't strike me as a person that sweats the details that others are responsible for. He again rules by providing total autonomy. He doesn't set high expectations and he likely doesn't hold people accountable. He is a clinician acting as a CEO and that doesn't work when CEO skills are needed. His speeches lack passion. Details are missed on a consistent basis. Contingency plans are not even formulated for the most important trial in the company's existence. So a CEO can have completely different experiences when leading two completely different divisions. This is not an anomaly. It happens more than you know.
His track record is the result of his lack of the proper skill set. Not everyone has the inherent capabilities to be a CEO. A CEO must be a visionary and high level communicator. He must inspire people -- not only employees but those he wishes to strategically partner with and others that will benefit by what his company has to offer. He must have passion to fight through adversity and the foresight to prepare for it. He must set the culture and ensure that excellence is demanded in every facet of the organization and will be rewarded. I'm sorry but Mr. King does not have the skills to be running this important operation. I am sure he is a brilliant clinician. The transition to CEO takes an entirely different skill set. He should step down for the good of cancer research, for every cancer patient that should currently be benefiting by Bavi's approval, for every employee at Peregrine trying to be part of a special story and for the good of every shareholder that believes in the science and has contributed their hard earned money so that the science can prevail. Mr. King please step down and bring in the talent necessary to get the job done right. By doing that you will show the strength and selflessness needed to bring this high potential biologic to suffering cancer patients throughout the world -- a biologic that you have been instrumental in discovering. Please the signs of inadequate leadership are everywhere. Take the high road. Bring in a CEO with the proper skill set. And do it now...
If what you say is true I hope they get what they have coming. They have been horrible stewards of shareholder value and a case could easily be made in my opinion. Are they living up to their fiduciary responsibility if they continue this game of unlimited dilution, protecting only their inner circle and lack of partnering with financial backing -- which I believe they have had their opportunities? The problem here is not Bavi. But I will give them the benefit of the doubt one more time. Let's see how they handle this. Frustration!
The responsible approach and likely only approach to success is the second course of action. It is a must. They need to get out of the way and put this technology in much stronger hands.
This is the way they should have represented projected dilution. They just don't seem to have a knack for communicating with wall street. It's simple math and the numbers can take the edge off of any further fear of excessive dilution. Communication skills are lacking or they just don't care what wall street thinks.
Thank you.
Was it stated in the call what the profit margin of avid is. They have a backlog of 58 million in revenues. What does that really net out to? I am a fan of Avid but it would be nice dealing with realistic numbers here. Does anyone know the built in margin?
I stand corrected.
Yes and I am not a complete proponent of the current BOD. I have more faith in my intuitive concerns than their ability to direct the company responsibly when it comes to "certain" -- but not all decisions. I will give them credit where credit is due. I have been a proponent of increasing the board with more Biotech experienced professionals and have voiced that opinion consistently in the past.
Knowing the history of this company all to well, it would be productive if we had a route to more communication at the executive level. To be able to at least voice our opinion productively, with positive intent, in a limited manner on company direction type decisions, as a powerful group of shareholders, instead of complaining individually on a message board would be the focus. Does anyone have a system in mind or experience with such a process? I would be willing to volunteer my time to set it up and do all the legwork. The goal would be, ultimately, to sway some of the decisions made that affect our investment negatively and, at minimum, hold these guys more accountable for irresponsible decisions made that hurt shareholder value. It's very important that we consider this now. It's been a tough ride for many longs. I think it is worth discussion anyway. Now I certainly don't want to become a distraction so it would be used in a responsible and limited manner. Besides that is the only way it would bear any power. I have specific thoughts on a system that would work but I would like to hear others thoughts first. We have a choice here -- to continue complaining or to take a more responsible and active role in communicating our wishes. I believe in Bavi and with good decision making this should be a very good investment and that can happen sooner than later.
King was in question avoidance mode for that specific question. He knew what he was saying and he knew the perceived implication of not restructuring at this point in time. You could hear it in the way he was answering the question.
What legitimate business entity doesn't restructure in a situation such as this?
It would seem that since they shared such a positive general interpretation of the data that led to a stoppage, no less, that they would have to back such a statement up with specifics. They put their own spin on it. If they merely said stoppage based on recommendation by the iDMC then there would be no argument. I believe we should be privy to the information that led to such a statement. Otherwise nothing can be conclusive and companies can spin anything for their own personal advantage. If they are going to spin such a result they should be required to back it up with actual data.
Obviously they had enough information to come to the determination to stop the trial. We should be privy to that same information. Vague statements can be misleading. It would seem such information would be mandated legally.
Why are we left to speculate? Why don't they share the results that led to the stoppage? All this speculation just leads to erroneous conclusions. We should not be left to interpretation of vague statements. What were the results of both arms at the time of stoppage? Let us interpret the actual results ourselves. That seems like a reasonable request.
I'll bite. I believe a previous deal that was originally refused is back in play. And I believe they are wise enough to take the deal now -- assuming they have the leverage to do so. At some point this story has to change. Why not now? It is possible.
Agreed.
I understand your sentiment. But I have to believe we still have something significant here in Bavi. I am as long as most here and I am not ready to throw in the towel on the science. What I will not accept is a management team that once again seems to protect only their inner circle and continues to squander valuable resources with an apparent incapability to bring this process to a successful conclusion. I have not lost faith but they need to bring something of substance and soon. Status quo is not acceptable. They need to sell or partner and get this drug in more capable hands. Anything less...
They need to partner -- at minimum. Get some support and dollars behind Bavi.
Something tells me they are more than prepared. I hope my intuition is correct.
With an aggressive cost cutting approach and logical plan to progress the bavi platform into the appropriate area, they still can win this game. The drug works and it appears to work in a compelling way. Now does management have what it takes to deliver a successful result? Let's see what they come up with. This game is far from over. If you have lost faith that is understandable but you are giving them a pass. The drug works. Now they "need" to do what is necessary to bring it to fruition. Let's see what they come up with. This next conference call will be telling.
Agreed wholeheartedly!
I have one question. Wouldn't the Bavi group have access to the same I/O therapy and wouldn't a doc do the same for a Bavi participant leveling the field? Or am I missing something?
Thanks much.
Can you share the link to the call? Thanks
It's very important to gain the specific information and everyone stay together. It is possible that someone wants us all to run in our own directions in panic mode. I take responsibility for my investments but something is not right here. This goes against all logic based on the specific information we have been fed to date. Everyone stay together and demand specifics. Anything is possible but we deserve specifics that we can evaluate properly. That is what's important NOW.
We need specifics. What are the numbers? Specifically why are they stopping the trial? Have they in any way vetted the results? What is the specific justification? We don't want vague, general statements. It is very important that we get this information. 2 months improvement and Bavi has proven that it can't out-do the control group by 2 months?? Anyone that has the specific information please share. Specifics! Thanks
Although seemingly of little importance it shows a lack of attention to detail that is critical at this stage of the game. That is the perception that is created anyway. Who knows what the reality is. But as we all know perception is reality. They need to start taking care of these details. There really is no excuse. Everything is important at this critical stage. They have the finances and the resources to do so. This is some of what new and existing investors see right now. It should be a non issue. Be accurate with your communication both with the spoken and written word. In saying this I see tremendous things happening with the science. They still have to execute.
If this drug performs as we believe it can and shows proper efficacy in either of the two early look ins do you not think it would be an ethical issue "not" to approve early? I do and I have to believe the company feels the same way. Get the drug to market!
It would seem quite obvious that a better approach would be to do everything possible to increase the share price and gain leverage that way. That is win/win hardball. Nobody can argue against that.
It would be interesting to know what questions we could come up with collectively for the stock holder meeting, no matter what our position is with the new stock issuance, and who would be willing to ask such questions in a proactive and positive manner either during or after the meeting?
I believe such a vote would be documented as an abstention not a no vote. Of course I am not sure that this wasn't the case. It depends on how they define unanimous.
Concerning the vote for authorizing 175 million new shares, I want to make certain everyone recalls that the board vote was not unanimous. Now we don't know for certain who voted against the authorization but my bet would be Steven King. It seems likely that Pohl and Johnson would vote as Swartz votes -- regardless. They are his guys. That is my only reasoning. There is no definitive proof. But think about that. That doesn't normally happen in PPHM land. Why the 1 vote against? That person must be adamant that this is the wrong move or at least unnecessary at this point. And if that person is in fact Steven King that would weigh heavy on my decision. He heads and runs the day by day operation of the company. Something to consider.
Is it possible that this 175M shares is more a defensive legal move than anything else. Obviously the board knows this would not be popular with shareholders when packaged as simple cost of doing business at this stage of the game. They have been telling us that the money in the till is enough to get through phase 3. Then why all of a sudden do they need this ridiculous amount of buffer. And it "is" an obscene amount of shares. Also it seems probable that without a shareholder friendly explanation that it will be voted down. They normally don't open themselves up to such a situation when they want something to pass. What latitude does that provide them if it is voted for or voted down? They are likely CA shy at this point and concerned about further legal issues with some shareholders who have lost patience or possibly have ulterior motives in mind. If it is somehow voted for then they have a lot of buffer to deal with the many unknowns down the road that come their way. That is a win situation and hopefully they would never need to exercise that option. With #3 voted down it provides them cover to consider deals that some may find less than desirable or some may potentially use against them as warrant of another class action. They can point to #3 being turned down as reason to do whatever is necessary to continue bringing this product to market and be more assured that any class action will be thrown out since the shareholders failed to provide them the necessary funding to maintain optimal leverage in any current negotiations. Again a defensive win situation for them. Just thinking out loud. This could be just a legal defensive maneuver. Maybe I'm over thinking it but there is not the best relationship between retail shareholders in general and this group. Seems like a potentially logical move to me.
Thanks CP. I appreciated the detailed response and am glad you see the validity in RRdog's post and support such an approach.
Excellent post. Thank you much.