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.
Before everyone starts to panic, let's remember that this company managed to get Abbott Labs to license the technology. Yes, Abbott "only" payed a $250k upfront, but they have also assigned lab personnel, lab time, and equipment to the task of integrating RECAF onto ARCHITECT and further exploring it. They also have plans to publish, as reported by HALF-FULL's response from the Abbott spokesman. I find it VERY, VERY hard to believe that Abbott Labs's blind sample verification process could be duped by Moro...so that relationship adds tremendously to Moro's credibility. I have also posted a lot of evidence from Abbott's website that shows they don't go around signing on any little marker that comes around. To the contrary, they seem to have an extremely selective licensing process.
There are other factors that add tremendously to Moro's credibility, including the verification in Japan/Europe, Dr. Gold's involvement, and Moro's publishing of his full data set at the ISOBM last year.
The penny stock scams that I have encountered and read about do not have even close to that kind of body of evidence that points to their "credibility."
Goodman...As for the article you posted, BOCX only fits a few of the points and to tell you the truth some of them are jaw-droppingly ridiculous. Like the statement that one should altogether avoid a public company solely because it is based in Vancouver. Vancouver might be a hotspot of penny stock fraud, but it is also a hotspot of biotechnology. San Diego is also considered a hotspot of biotechnology. So to not invest in a biotech stock from either of those two cities, as the article recommends, is TOTALLY RIDICULOUS.
Z_For_Three on RB wants us to acquire some $10 mil market cap cervical cancer diagnostics company. What the f**k is going on am I hearing all this right? I am very, very bothered by the statement about "acquisitions" in the recent BOCX p.r.
I have to agree with DC-Steve that it smells like a diversionary tactic. The ONLY reasons I could see BOCX making acquisitions at this stage in the game are:
1) Management is just hopelessly clueless and honestly believes they can acquire a cash generating asset to offsett R&D costs
2) Management has little confidence in RECAF's commercial viability and is engaging in what DC-Steve is calling "diversionary" tactics.
As you can see both of these reasons are terrible.
Please realize that if this company starts making acquisitions it is the beginning of the end. It is absolutely DISGUSTING that they would put this sentence into the P.R, knowing that they have just about zero cash and are already diluting the stock too much. HOW CAN THEY MAKE A COMMENT LIKE THAT TO SHAREHOLERS WITH A STRAIGHT FACE?!?!
Imagine what we'd have to go through just to acquire the TINY $10 mil market cap company that Z is referring to. Our equity is worth around $1 and we have no frigging cash or credit!!! That means we're looking at diluting the company by 10 mil more shares or 30%+!!!!!
Is anyone else STEAMING about this? If you're not, you should be. Or please convince me why I shouldn't be...this is extremely dangerous stuff we're talking about.
I have to say that nothing DC-Steve has ever pointed about about the company has striked me as evidence that the company is a scam. His evidence has been totally ridiculous...and most of it he has had to shut up about and come up with new material after being debunked (ie the convertibles being "toxic" and the company not currying any industry interest).
But this time it's different...I hate to say it I'm with DC-Steve. This smells of scam. I'm not saying the company IS a scam, because they could just be making a stupid decision or (very doubtfully) they have something good up their sleeve. But there is definitely smoke. The company is showing signs that they are going to start prostituting our equity at a very rapid pace -- that is the hallmark of a company that knows they are headed into the ground soon. This is not conclusive, but the SIGNS are there. We need to learn more.
Goodpal, good find. I also found illegal telemarketing complaints against them for the Netherlands, France, Luxembourg, and Ireland. The one you posted was for the Channel Islands. So clearly, a few years ago J.P Turner was running some illegal operations overseas. Nothing malicious, but illegal in the sense that they were marketing securities without a license in those countries.
The good news is that they are "clean" as far as the U.S goes...I found one technical complaint against them by the NASD(small fine because they didn't file some stuff in time) but that's immaterial.
Although illegal telemarketing is not exactly a big deal in my book, I'm very concerned. J.P Turner is obviously familiar with exploiting offshore loopholes. That is dangerous stuff. Naked shorting and shady financing arrangements are often done offshore. I'm glad they are "on our side" so to speak, but to me this COULD be a major red flag.
At the same time, you would be very hard pressed to find a NASD member without a black mark or two on their record. LOL, if illegal telemarketing in Europe and the Carribean are the only black marks one could consider them angels relative to their peers :)
FWIW, the Better Business Bureau has them down as remarkably clean compared to other securities firms:
http://www.atlanta.bbb.org/commonreport.html?compid=12000156
(note: I also found a case against a broker but that's not systemic)
Headache: probably not much of it.
Thanks Headache...Notice that there are only a few presentations in the "NEW MARKER" section, so we should command some attention. If only we could get our hands on a transcript of the event!!!!
he's obviously goodman/kuwaiti-guy come on guys are you serious? was it not obvious from his first post?
he figured if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
smilincat: Starts tomorrow ends on Friday
And I just realized that the relative quietness of the company in the past two months is probably related to a "quiet period" in their agreement with JP Turner.
Well I guess that was our NEWS guys...The officers are all in Greece right now so I doubt we'll be hearing anything else before the conference. Maybe they'll announce something interesting at the conference.
good-pal: if I thought that "some of RECAF was hype but not all of it" I'd be selling my shares immediately. You either believe or don't believe that Dr. Moro has been publishing honest data. That's the way I look at it at least.
And P.S I don't believe that the company has intentionally mislead investors...Using the word "approved" in place of "cleared" does not strike me as intentional deception. It seems to me like a technicality. The original P.R stated that they received approval for a 510k, and in my opinion informed investors should have immediately realized what a 510k involves from a regulatory point of view -- it has it's own process just like the PMA/BLA/etc applications have. It is not the responsibility of the company to educate uninformed investors, and frankly if investors didn't know what a 510k was to begin with it's tough to believe that they would have acted any differently if the P.R stated that the company "recieved FDA clearance for Histo-RECAF" rather than "received FDA approval."
Can you honestly say that investors who DID NOT KNOW WHAT A 510K IS would have acted any different if the wording was "clearance"? Give me a break. This is Wall Street not Disneyland and the company should not be held accountable for the ignorance of investors when they CLEARLY STATED IT WAS A 510K. The SEC should have notified them to change the wording, fined them a few thousand dollars, and moved on.
Now...if the SEC found that Moro misrepresented the study results (the second part of the SEC inquiry) I would consider that serious and would probably end up orchestrating a class action suit. However, Moro's publishing of the data in totality at least year's ISOBM, and Abbott's signing on, convinces me that there was no tampering.
That leaves the only possibility for wrongdoing as the scenario where Moro connivingly "doctored" the samples. Ie: the samples weren't blind, the samples weren't representative, etc. If Moro did that, however, nobody would ever be able to find out until a third party tests RECAF.
I think it's a ridiculous argument...One would have to believe that Moro and the other prestigious doctors that have published 90% specificity/sensitivity are working in collusion. One would also have to believe that the folks I talk to at the "research center" are all working in collusion with Moro to "dupe" the public. That's ridiculous. To the contrary I find the lab folks to be extremely passionate and confident about the technology. It's also pretty tough to believe that Dr. Gold hasn't "looked under the hood" of the science. And then there's Abbott.
rmzport I thought good-pal = Goodman/Kuwaiti Guys. Why? The trademark bad grammer and "any thoughts" after posting some ridiculous piece of information.
longterm will you occasionally refer the RAGING BULL board to our investorshub.com board so that new investors can find the more "civil" board and not be deterred by the incessant bashing.
LT: I think you are right and I think they have the potential to be invaluable in a number of ways. We need a point of contact on Wall St. Currently we have NONE. Now we have one. Clearly they are not a big name firm, but they are "in the mix" to a greater extent than anyone BOCX has ever dealt with.
Good idea Headache...I guess it's back to thoroughbreds. Seriously though can anybody come up with any rhyme or reason for the company to make an acquisition right now? First of all we're totally broke and are very far from a line of credit, so the deal would have to involve equity. THAT IS RIDICULOUS. If these guys go past 50 mil shares outsanding I will seriously considering liquidation.
Maybe when the stock price is at $5 - 10 we can talk about using equity for acquisitions, or selling equity for cash transactions. But until then these guys have absolutely got to be kidding. On the surface, that comment from the P.R is TOTALLY OUTRAGEOUS.
I think the company tried this B.S a few years back and failed miserably. They bought the rights to some ridiculous lab product, I forgot the details...check the 10-k if you care. The plan was to generate cash flow to pay for RECAF's development. It was a flop of course.
ERTHANG being extremely critical of your investments is a good thing. I would liquidate all of my shares immediately if one piece from the puzzle moved out of place. Love and blind faith are for the Church not the stock market.
There is very little doubt in my mind that the primary reason for this new IB relationship is to make that placement.
Wow...now this is comedy! "Among other services that J.P. Turner will provide to BioCurex, Turner will assist the Company with the identification and evaluation of potential acquisition candidates. "
These guys are thinking about acquisitions?!? Are you f**king kidding me? Well I guess all that cash on hand has to be spent somehow...LMAO!!!!! I really hope they threw that line in to appease J.P Turner or something because, if they are serious, we are in SERIOUS trouble.
As for the rest of the P.R, I'm very happy that they have formed an IB relationship but I'm not getting excited about J.P Turner's abilities quite yet. At least this gets our foot in the door SOMEWHERE, and we need it considering we are so far off the investment radar it's not even funny.
NEWS:
BioCurex Announces Investment Banking Agreement with J.P. Turner & Company, L.L.C.
Friday September 23, 9:30 am ET
RICHMOND, British Columbia, Sept. 23, 2005 (PRIMEZONE) -- BioCurex, Inc. (Other OTC:BOCX.PK - News), a biotechnology company, is pleased to announce it has formalized a relationship with J.P. Turner & Company, L.L.C. to assist the Company with market awareness and provide business advisory services. J.P. Turner, headquartered in Atlanta, is one of the nation's fastest growing full service brokerage firms with over 120 offices from coast-to-coast. J.P. Turner will provide BioCurex with introductions to other broker dealers, research analysts, and investment companies that J.P. Turner believes could be helpful to the Company and its shareholders. Among other services that J.P. Turner will provide to BioCurex, Turner will assist the Company with the identification and evaluation of potential acquisition candidates. The engagement is for 12 months
ADVERTISEMENT
Dr. Gerald Wittenberg, Director, stated: ``Their breadth of services and geographic reach will support numerous opportunities for the Company. We are looking forward to their assistance and introductions to the financial community as we progress in our licensing efforts for our RECAF based blood tests and future imaging and therapeutic applications. We recognize the value of J.P. Turner and their experience in the support of our initiatives. Expanding our exposure in the investment community with a well-known corporation such as J.P. Turner will be of considerable value as we move forward to achieve our corporate goals.''
About BioCurex
BioCurex is developing products based on patented/proprietary technology in the areas of cancer diagnosis, imaging and therapeutics. The technology identifies a cancer marker known as RECAFtm, which is found on malignant cells from a variety of cancer types but is absent in most normal or benign cells. To read more about the Company, please visit the News section on our web site (http://www.biocurex.com).
Note:
The Company has not authorized the release of this information in any form that contravenes the Communication Act and will not be responsible for unsolicited massive distribution of this material by e-mail or facsimile by unauthorized parties. Statements in this press release, which are not historical facts, are ``forward-looking statements'' within the meaning given to that term in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The Company intends that such forward-looking statements be subject to the safe harbors created thereby. Since these statements involve risks and uncertainties and are subject to change at any time, the Company's actual results could differ materially from expected results.
Contact:
BioCurex, Inc.
Dr. R. Moro
(604) 207 9150
Headache if they had a table in Vegas with greater than 50% probabilities and a 5 - 10x payoff I'd be sitting there all day :)
Regarding the data "REALLY HOLDING UP"...the statistical significance of the trials published to date are impressive but warrants caution. If you read the posters from the last ISOBM, where they give details on the data, you will see that they were achieving p-value's of less than .001 in study's where alpha = .05. On a statistical basis, that means that there is less than a tenth of a percent probability that the results were due to "sampling variation" (otherwise known as "chance"). That is an extraordinary degree of statistical significance, and keep in mind it factors in the relatively small sample sizes of around 50 - 100 patients (ie; it is much harder to achieve that kind of p-value as sample size ("n") decreases).
However, it would be naive to conclude that this is "bulletproof" evidence that RECAF works. Why? Because BOCX performed the tests. Many things add to the case that Dr. moro is an honest researcher and the data should be considered credible, including Abbott's licensing of RECAF (the biggest), the reproduction of results by prominent scientists in Japan and Paris, and Dr. Gold and Dr. Abilev's involvement with the company. BUT ONE CANNOT ASSUME THAT MORO IS AN HONEST RESEARCHER AT THIS POINT.
I have placed my bets on Dr. Moro, and so have most of you, but just realize that the primary risk to this investment is Dr. Moro having tampered with the data to make the pubic believe RECAF is a revolutionary marker. If he did that, we're all screwed because it will come out when RECAF is independantly tested. LOL if that is the case we'll mob him :) Seriously though, I think he published honest data in the past (which means truly blind, random, and representative samples). If he did publish honestly, given the p-value's on the trials there is barely any chance that the results will not be reproducable by independant testing.
exactly erthang
goodman i was referring to your 1st and 2nd bullet points on the post. Regarding Abbott, I have a feeling the company obtained a high royalty rate in exchange for a low upfront. They hinted at this in the "Discussion P.R" if you read closely and I posted it at the time. Second of all, we only saw one payment from Abbott. In either the "Discussion P.R", the Abbott P.R, or the filings they say there are milestone payments (that's plural) and then royalties on sales. If we knew more about the size and amount of milestone payments, as well as the royalty rate, we could talk intelligently about the deal....but at this point we're both just guessing when we say BOCX got the shaft and the next deal will be better.
Regarding your other bullet points from the post...You've got to consider each indication separately. You've got to stop thinking about it as "approved" or "not approved" -- this product has many applications ("indications), each of which have very different regulatory hurdles, markets, and clinical procedures.
For the general screening indication, since RECAF is the universal test it will be given before, not after the PSA. The PSA is the localized test. So in other words, if RECAF works as well as the data published the general screening indication would mean it is offered to EVERYONE as part of a standard blood test (ie the nurse asks "Do you went a HEP-C test?" "Do you want an HIV test?" "Do you want to try this new RECAF test?"). Patients who turn up positively can opt for additional tests to "zero in" on the cancer, including the popular serum assays, mammagrams, full body scans, etc.
In this scenario PSA would still be administered at the general screening level to the appropriate demographic (ie males age 40+). That goes for the other serum assays as well. RECAF would serve as a catch-all for the dozens of cancers for which there is no serum assay currently.
Keep in mind the data has to REALLY HOLD UP if we are to become a general screening assay like HEP-C, TUBERCULOSIS, HIV, etc.
As for other indications, RECAF will be used differently. I have spoken to folks at the lab that refer to a "combination use" indication which I have posted about a few times. It involves using RECAF with the PSA to enhance sensitivity/specificity. The tests simply become "paired," just as the PSA is paired with the Gleeson test in virtually all practices nowadays. For this indication Abbott would run the data on a sample set 2 times...once with PSA, once with PSA + RECAF. Sensitivity/Specificity would be compared across the two groups to determine if adding RECAF to PSA improves the PSA by a statistically significant margin (alpha = .05 always). This can be done with CEA and all other serums of course.
This indication is similar to the general screening indication because it might not require a PMA (ie; only 510k which is super, super quick).
All post-therapy diagnostic indications (ie followup, relapse, etc) of RECAF will require multi-year trials and PMA's...no doubt about it.
I'm with Gooodman I think BOCX had to bend over backward to get into the door with a major pharma. The next licensing deal will obviously be much more on BOCX's terms.
erthang: no
Time's running short on my prediction of news. I still have faith the company will release something significant prior to or at the ISOBM conference. My guess is it will be some sort of clinically oriented news...like more data. Maybe, just maybe, it involves Goshen. Or maybe, just maybe, it involves SOMETHING DIFFERENT from past clinical trial data that, while significant, has been rightfully considered by the market to be prelminary and unverified.
A company that trades on the pinks, was formed with a reverse merger into a bulletin board shell, and has had SEC issues will not be taken seriously when it releases unverified internal data. As BOCX longs we know that first hand! If they release some fresh data for the ISOBM I hope there is SOMETHING DIFFERENT...not just more of the same.
Oh that's a good one goodman...LOL.
goodman you're confused as usual by I'm too busy to straighten you out right now. Maybe someone else can chime in.
headache: agreed, but the opportunities for bizdev are off the charts...last year's ISOBM pretty much set in motion a very positive period for the stock.
Boy do I wish we still only had 15 mil shares.
yup the therapy will took too long. it's all about the diagnostics for the next few years.
Industry norm would be for Abbott to source this out to third party reference labs for large sample testing. The data will then, as Abbott indicated, be published and more importantly, it will be used to form the basis of the first 510k that Abbott will hopefully file with the FDA. Of course, before they send it off to the reference labs they must develop the assay for the ARCHITECT. I've posted that they are nearing completion and have enjoyed success with this part of the process. So hurdle #1 most likely won't bring us down. Hurdle #2 -- the reference labs like Quest, Joli, Universities, etc -- will determine the fate of this company. The independant data they produce will determine if RECAF is for real and whether this stock deservers a $200 - $500 mil market cap or a $2 mil market cap (we would trade for pennies if the data was bad).
Keep in mind that all of the above assumes that Abbott will go the 510k route as opposed to the PMA route. Both BOCX and Aurelius have emphatically told me they believe a 510k is sufficient, but despite what they say the FDA and Abbott will determine regulatory strategy for RECAF -- not BOCX!
If we filed a 510k we could literally do the "trial" in a matter of weeks -- it's not even a trial. The reference lab will simply run RECAF against a database of known healthy, malignant, and benign tissue. The results are obtained very, very quickly.
Now, it is virtually impossible to imagine a scenario where the FDA would require a PMA for the general screening indication but if they did, we're looking at a whole other process. PMA trials can years, and then there is the 6 month decision time plus 3 - 6 month objection period, committee oversight period, etc.
The general screening indication will most likely be a 510k as the company has been asserting, but most other indications will require a PMA. These include indications that have an element of time to them, the two biggest being:
- RECAF to monitor for recurrence of cancer after radiation/chemo/surgery/etc
- RECAF as an early stage cancer marker...ie as a predictor of cancer
Don't expect these indications any time soon. But if Abbott is determined we could see an FDA approved RECAF assay for the ARCHITECT system (label = general screening) in 2006. We could see data as early as the first half of 2006.
Great stuff Half_Full...can't wait for the conference.
goodman...I'm not sure I feel sorry for those who didn't sell during the ride from $3 to $16. Look at MYOG they're another good example of a parabolic move. BCON and BSM went parabolic recently, too. The point is that 90% of the gains in "story stocks" are made on large gaps -- ie; in a few days. It is usually not a slow trend up. In our case, my guess is that we will go parabolic as soon as Abbott or somebody else publishes reputable/credible corroborating data.
If you've ever been in a stock that goes parabolic, it is a lot of fun and will make these boring days worthwhile!
Headache I didn't realize you were a Canadian...how unfortunate :)
Headache, NQSO's are taxed per ordinary income anyways, in both Canada and the US. You're right about the cap gains rate, though, although it is not important to an analysis of Dr. Gold's tax consequences...I was using this site:
http://www.fin.gc.ca/toce/2002/cgtc_e.html
-- The inclusion rate is 50%, not the cap gains rate.
As evidenced from this other site below, however, NQSO's are taxed as ordinary income in Canada, but there is actually a 50% deductible. So Dr. Gold would be paying over $50k -- still WAY TOO MUCH for most professors, even distinguished ones.
http://www.watsonwyatt.com/canada-english/pubs/memoranda/showarticle.asp?ArticleID=10323&article...
Regarding your point about socialism in Canada, don't take it so literally. Obviously they are a capitalist country and not a true socialist state, but they are much more socialistic than the U.S that's for sure!
Great post Headache...Re Gold, I actually think he is much more involved than your typical SAB member, which still isn't much. You have to remember that SAB's are largely a dog and pony show to drum up credibility. They aren't meant to do a whole lot.
Re the inside sales, see my post...the net shares sold were very marginal. The post by goodman was misleading (not intentionally though) because it doesn't give dets on the derivative transactions. You've got to check Edgar's.
Goodman: You call insiders selling 4%, 6%, and a cashless option excercise by Gold to be selling "a lot of shares" ? Shame on you. THAT IS NOTHING!
Moro and Wittenberg each sold a paltry amount of shares -- that is indisputable fact (6% and 4%, respectively). Gold is the only insider who you can make an argument that he sold "a lot of shares." So right away the statement that "insiders" sold a lot of shares is patently false. ONE insider arguably sold a lot of shares, but by making that statement you are revealing yourself as totally ignorant of corporate stock options and the tax consequences associated with them. There's nothing wrong with that, but you better pull up a chair and understand this before spewing garbage commentary.
Dr. Gold is a professor in a socialist country. I don't care how acclaimed he is, I can assure you he makes only a few hundred grand a year at most and pays an astronomically high tax rate on top of it. Most likely the figure is $250k or under, which would mean his net income would be well under $150k/year. And that is very optimistic. Yet, this guy would have had to pay over $100k in taxes by June if he excercised the options and just held the shares he received from the exercise, as opposed to exercising them and selling.
Not only would he have been liable for a huge tax burden of over $100k (with Canada's current tax rate)...he would not have any offsetting income to pay that burden.
Let me make it simple for you...Gold had two choices with two very different consequences:
CHOICE 1: Excercise his options and hold onto the stock (ie not sell it immediately)
CONSEQUENCE 1: Canadian tax were due in June, so he would have had about 2 months to come up with over $100k to pay to the government (average excercise was around $1.50, strike was basically 0, 150k options traded, and cg tax rate at 50%...do the math). Unfortunately, though, he wouldn't be receiving any income on the trade because he would simply be holding the stock -- and a risky stock at that. So Gold would have had to tap into his personal savings to pay the taxes. If you think professors have that kind of expendable money on hand you're kidding yourself buddy. Moreover, academics are a notoriously risk adverse bunch.
CHOICE 2: Exercise his options and sell immediately...also known as a "cashless excercise" (this is what Dr. Gold actually did)
CONSEQUENCE 2: His tax liability would be covered by the income immediately received from the cash excercise. So he would actually be making money on the transaction as opposed to losing over $100k on the spot.
You're welcome...oh creature from the depths of who knows where.
Gooodman: Foam is right, you are confusing option excercise and other derivative trades with actual common stock sales.
During the price spike, here are the real #'s:
Moro sold 65k around $2....He owned 980k shares at the time, so he only sold 6.6% of his position.
Wittenberg also sold 65k around $2...He owned 1.6 mil shares at the time, so he only sold around 4% of his position.
Gold sold 150k but they were options he was recently granted...he did an excercise and sell transaction and was later issued more.
ERTHANG: no offense but with close to a quarter of a million dollars invested in this company, I'd think you'd want to be reading the filings for yourself including the Q's, K's, Form 4's, etc...
This link might help -- bookmark it:
http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/default.aspx?cik=1092562