Retired
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.
Novel approaches such as Sigma 1R modulation is an "idea with no precedence."
The best biomarker can and will be chosen along side of sigmar1 RNA and Anavex 2-73 plasma concentration
Watch or listen to any recent presentation as each indication has mRNA and indication specific biomarkers of response.
Accelerated Approval and surrogate/biological biomarkers is actually part of the plan if one has been paying attention to Anavex's analytical partner Ariana Pharma presentations.
https://www.arianapharma.com/
Point: Either AVXL's ad drug would be approval or not. There is nothing like approval conditioned on an additional trial (except for AA, which is very likely not applicable here).
The exact flow of shares from the Deep Rock transaction is not known and cannot be discerned by institutional holding reports.
Deep Rock may have simply acted as a middle man for other investors which why Deep Rock as an entity never showed up as a holder on the institutional report. The shares were distributed to other persons or entities soon after the transaction was complete.
https://www.anavex.com/post/anavex-life-sciences-announces-50-million-registered-direct-offering-1
That's why the upcoming PDD Open Label Extension data is needed.
I'm of the opinion once the PDD OLE data analysis is presented the Michael J Fox Foundation funded PD imaging trial will be started.
Not sure, do you? I'm also waiting for data too as I know some trial patients were actually Lewy Body Dementia not PDD.
So I'm of the opinion AD, PDD, and Lewy Body Dementia will be among the dementias covered by 2-73.
I'm ahead of the curve on LBD, but as also an alpha synuclein related disease, I'm hopeful it to will be a treatable indication too.
We are waiting for quite a few items on PDD.
I was simply pointing out that a CEO stating a has been made is not the same as a CEO stating a trial will be published.
Maybe I need to be more through in my responses to not confuse people as
Submitted for publication is what Anavex stated, not will be published.
I made a direct quote LOL! No recall needed.
"ANAVEX®2-73-PDD-001 study results will be SUBMITTED for publication in a peer-reviewed medical journal." is also often used. For example:
https://www.anavex.com/post/anavex-life-sciences-presents-proof-of-concept-controlled-phase-2-clinical-trial-data
"ANAVEX®2-73-PDD-001 study results will be SUBMITTED for publication in a peer-reviewed medical journal." is also often used. For example:
https://www.anavex.com/post/anavex-life-sciences-presents-proof-of-concept-controlled-phase-2-clinical-trial-data
Submitted for publication is what Anavex stated, not will be published.
Ah gracias! I am technically retired and don't follow things a closely. I see there was a rule change in 2020.
https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/secg-accelerated-filer-and-large-accelerated-filer-definitions
Haven't read the details but the exemptions to the rule for Smaller Reporting Companies to be Non-Accelerated Filers no longer applies to $AVXL once it crossed over $700 million or more in public float.
Not too much of a stretch for a "fly on the wall" to guess $AVXL has been seeking investment banking advice.
It will be interesting what tier level of firm wins the business and how the deal structured.
We know the rare disease franchise will remain "in-house". but AD/dementia is open for discussion.
ZERO need for any extensions...so lets nip that in the bud..
$AVXL on average files mid December. Except last year when they filed on 11/24/2021.
Yes any activity after the reporting quarters end will be in the subsequent events section.
https://www.sec.gov/edgar/browse/?CIK=1314052&owner=exclude
My favorite phrase, that is still in the compliance rules of the industry is the use of the term "timely disclosure" ... WTF does that mean? It all depended on how nice the auditor was at the time and the subjective seriousness if the internal item being reviewed.
Insiders and Corporations....Form 4s and 8ks
Some information here has been incorrect :
Insiders need to report any changes within 2 days....form 4s
Corporations need to file within 4 days.....8k's, not 3 days
To which I say "no duh" ...
Let’s also be clear that by the time we see the next quarterly company report, the figures and actions contained pertain to the previous quarter, not the one we are in.
During the previous quarter Anavex could not and did not know the outcome of the P2b/3 trial. It is in this context that I’m saying raising further funds is what the company prudently should do and most likely have.
There will also be a recent events section of the filing as well as an up to date shares outstanding figure.
The outstanding at the end of the reported quarter and up to date figure will tell us what actually happened regarding dilution and something about how confident Anavex was in the P2b/3 results over the past 3+ months.
"He has no intention of further dilution" I agree, but situations change and smart CEO's utilize equity in many different ways.
BTW, I never said $AVXL was going to the market for more cash, I simply gave my counter opinion to Investor2014's comments as to when I thought it could be a prudent time where a microcap biotech might raise funds.
I've been on the fringes of the investment banking public and private a long time and "intentions" can change quickly.
I'm very pleased with how $AVXL has been very prudent with the issuance of equity upon the best terms available to a microcap. Heck even the LPC deal was OK for the stage the company was at, at the time.
Wise CEO's raise funds via equity only when needed and market conditions are acceptable.
Funds are NOT currently needed nor are conditions good for equity financing.
AFTER successful P2b/3 results would be the most "prudent" time to raise funds.
It would be prudent for Anavex to raise more funds, through issuing and selling more shares, at least until the result of the P2b/3 trial is known.
Even if the results might now be known to Anavex as amazing, that knowledge will be fairly recent. Meanwhile, not raising funds would be irresponsible to the future of the company and shareholders.
Blarcamesine tweaks on these do-hickies inside the cells and restores function lost due to aging or genetic causes.
Basic enough?
A bad biz model is a bad biz model regardless of the specific challenges of the cannabis industry that make the sector extra difficult to navigate successfully.
Apparently $UNRV stores and sales are a ghost town too ... "This was a decrease of $9.29 million or 46.3% in revenue from continuing operations."
https://ir.unrivaledbrands.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/343/unrivaled-brands-reports-third-quarter-2022-financial
The Company realized an operating loss from continuing operations of $122.80 million for the three months ended September 30, 2022 compared to $11.70 million for the three months ended September 30, 2021, an increase of $111.10 million or 949.5%.
TOTAL STOCKHOLDERS’ (DEFICIT) EQUITY=(42,111).
The equity is worthless.
If the agenda is to bash and spread FUD and there is no recent negative news, well yes, I'm sure some think the fact $AVXL was formed by reverse merger and traded OTC is relevant. Regardless of the fact $AVXL has ascended to top tier NASDAQ.
Anavex has an interesting history and as such an interesting shareholder base.
The driving force will soon be liquidity regardless of the reason.
What up with the use of the NASDAQ cross for a majority of the volume for such a long time? That's something that started happening after I retired. Open and close were always high volume, but $AVXL is seems excessive, but what do I know about how the internals work anymore?!?
but hey at least the brokers keep their funds segregated! Unlike FTX
Yes, I said...the institutional ownership grew in chunks not really the adjective of "gradual" and directly correspond to capital raises.
Yea the shitty institutions might be affected.
In my opinion, the institutional ownership grew in chunks not really the adjective of "gradual" and directly correspond to capital raises.
I absolutely disagree as if you look at a chart of institutional ownership since 2017 until today it shows continuous growth, thus continuous it relative to the timeframe.
Also if you dig deeper into the reports over time, you can see the number of smaller firms and "quality" of firms has also increased beyond just the indexes.
Do you agree?
Yes institutions use leverage, however this was in reference to retail brokerages changing margin requirements.
But, funny and correct commentary as I did margin calls. LOL
The impact of brokerage firms tightening margin requirements with 2.9% is enough to create order imbalances.
I did the gig of margin clerk and the switch from 35% to 100% was one of shittiest phone calls to make.
Also, many here started buying $AVXL on the OTC and it of course had zero institutional ownership. It's come a long way in now it's top tier NASDAQ so having 32% institutional ownership is relative to its progress.
I'm not a conspiracy guy, but I thought the same thing. How convenient? Institutions aren't using margin so which market participant group will be affected the most?
ah yes, "Bingo!"
Technically the SEC has nothing to do with it it's a federal reserve rule, and you're correct that the numbers haven't changed in decades.
Also per FINRA rules, Reg T must be enforced.
https://www.finra.org/filing-reporting/regulation-t-filings
Precisely why I find iHub so entertaining.
Hogwash!
Margin requirements are determined by the brokerage firm.
Over the years members here have produced some great original commentary, research finds, and discussions, but as a public message board it can also sometimes be a cesspool of misinformation.
A law firm put out an "marketing" press release on the CISION platform, this is not new $SAVA news. It is an advertisement for the law firm, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC.
SOURCE Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
The retail public has zero clue on how to evaluate sources in the internet era. This group should gather funds to put out a "PR" too on CISION.
"Cabal Hunters" on Netflix...LOL!
But in seriousness, I would like to see more academic articles and analysis on how equity markets have changed in this "Payment for order flow" era.
If you know the history of equity market mechanics and to age myself, I once helped clients be SOES bandits in equities and arbitrage the options exchanges via direct order routing to the regional option exchanges before data became "free".
Probably right.
How's bidness? Still do work in the industry?
Almost all my friends have sold out to larger better capitalized companies except one here in Denver.
For better or worse, corporate cannabis has taken over yet the storefront names have not all changed. Great for the average consumer who are happy with standardized mid-grade bud, but sucks for those who seek easy access to the superfine.
Small high quality growers and shops will have their day in the sun in due time. A craft brewer phenomena will happen in the cannabis space after federal tax and banking changes.
So the 70% insider ownership you state is an OPINION. LOL!
Since I work with facts from free PRIMARY sources like the SEC, I have no problem showing my work.
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1451512/000162828022009362/trtc-20211231.htm#ifbe1f820ba484696aab835afcc20e4b3_91
In the real world:
All Directors and Executive Officers as a Group (6 persons) 129,248,623, 25.18%