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.
Seel, Any thoughts about the termination by APHB of it's exclusive distribution agreement with XON? Steve
Keine probleme, mein freund.
From NPR: Home And Garden Giant Ditches Class Of Pesticides That May Harm Bees
by Allison Aubrey
NPR - April 12, 2016
A leading brand of home and garden pest-control products says it will stop using a class of pesticides linked to the decline of bees....
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/04/12/473953151/home-and-garden-giant-ditches-class-of-pesticides-that-may-harm-bees?sc=17&f=1001&utm_source=iosnewsapp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=app
It looked to me like it was all out of his pocket.
My pleasure! Soon to be yours as well.
New bourbon release schedule (3 Jefferson's items in January and another later!!!!):
http://www.breakingbourbon.com/release-list.html
Bees and politics:
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/04/inhofe-misleads-on-bees/?utm_source=FactCheck.org&utm_campaign=34873265bf-FactCheck_Newsletter_4_9_20164_9_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3294bba774-34873265bf-47897617
Inhofe Misleads on Bees
By Vanessa Schipani
Posted on April 7, 2016
Sen. James Inhofe made misleading claims in a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency about the relationship between neonicotinoid pesticides and bees:
Inhofe said many scientists have concluded “that neonicotinoid pesticides only harm bees at dosages that are unrealistically high.” Actually, studies have shown that field-realistic doses of neonics can harm individual bees by inhibiting their immune system and navigation skills, among other effects.
Inhofe said there is consensus “that multiple factors are related to honey bee losses.” That’s true, but Inhofe ignored that researchers stress interactions among factors, e.g. neonics can lower a bee’s immune system, making it more susceptible to viruses, which can then cause death.
Declines in honeybee populations across the U.S. and Europe have occurred since at least 2006. Pesticides, neonics in particular, have been targeted as one contributing factor. Others factors include disease, parasites, climate change, monoculture farming and habitat loss.
Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, made his remarks in a March 23 letter, which aimed to express his “interest and concern with a series of risk assessments” being conducted by the EPA on the effects of four types of neonics on bees, primarily Apis mellifera, a species of honeybee. First used in the 1990s, neonics are one of the most popularly used groups of insecticides in the world.
The EPA released its preliminary assessment of the neonic imidacloprid on Jan. 6 and is set to release preliminary assessments of clothianidin, thiamethoxam and dinotefuran in December 2016. Among other things, the first assessment indicated that “imidacloprid potentially poses risk to hives when the pesticide comes in contact with certain crops that attract pollinators.”
In his letter, Inhofe pressed the EPA to “establish a clear causal link” between neonics and bee population declines to “avoid repeating the mistakes” made by the European Union. But some scientists say it may be impossible to establish a clear causal link for honeybees in particular, given their large foraging ranges and other factors.
Instead of confirming a clear causal link, the EU applied the “precautionary principle” when it issued a moratorium on thiamethoxam, clothianidin and imidacloprid on Dec. 1, 2013, because information about their effects on bees is limited.
The EU’s temporary ban came after an assessment of the neonics by the European Food Safety Authority. Though the EFSA did identify “high acute risks” to bees associated with certain applications of neonics, it also acknowledged “data gaps” for certain crops. The moratorium since has been partially lifted in the U.K. following protests by farmers, according to the BBC.
We take no position on whether or not the EPA should follow in the EU’s footsteps and ban neonics. But we can say many scientists claim neonics do harm bees even at very low doses and may contribute to population declines. However, we stress that much still remains unknown about the cause of bee population declines.
In the next few sections, we’ll provide some background on bee population declines and neonic use. We’ll also outline what is presently known about the relationship between these two phenomena.
Bee Demise and Neonic Rise
According to the EPA, honeybee keepers began reporting “unusually high losses of 30-90 percent of their hives” during the winter of 2006 to 2007. Since then, the number of hives that don’t survive the winter – “the overall indicator for bee health,” says the EPA – has averaged about 28.7 percent per year. However, the loss dropped to 23.1 percent for the 2014 to 2015 winter.
Bumblebees have also declined in the United States and Europe, though this trend appears to have begun earlier in both cases. Little is known about solitary bees, which are bees that don’t live in a hive.
SciCHECKinsertIn total, 4,000 species of bees are native to the United States, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. However, the honeybee, the most commonly studied species with relation to neonics, is native to Europe, Asia and Africa. It was first introduced to North America in the 1600s. Today the honeybee is widely used for crop pollination and honey production across the U.S. and the world.
A particular type of decline seems to afflict honeybees. Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) “occurs when the majority of worker bees in a colony disappear and leave behind a queen, plenty of food and a few nurse bees to care for the remaining immature bees and the queen,” explains the EPA. “While winter losses remain somewhat high, the number of those losses attributed to CCD has dropped from roughly 60 percent of total hives lost in 2008 to 31.1 percent in 2013.”
The EPA cites multiple, interacting factors as contributing to CCD, from parasites like the varroa mite to pesticides.
In total, 161 pesticides have been found in bee hives as of 2014. According to an April 2014 PLOS ONE paper by Francisco Sanchez-Bayo and Koichi Goka, bee experts at the University of Sydney in Australia and the National Institute for Environmental Studies in Japan respectively, three neonics — clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid – are among the pesticides that pose the largest risks to honeybees based on exposure.
First commercialized in the early 1990s, neonics are now used in more than 120 countries. They became one of the most, if not the most, popularly used insecticides worldwide because they target invertebrates, like insects, rather than vertebrates, such as birds and humans. Similar in chemical structure to nicotine, neonics act as neurotoxins for invertebrates, which means they cause paralysis and ultimately death in insects.
Neonics are commonly applied as seed coatings, though they can also be applied in other ways, including directly to the soil. As the crop grows, the insecticide spreads through the plant’s tissues, pollen and nectar. Then, when a pest eats the plant, it ingests the insecticide and dies. Since neonics are water-soluble and degrade slowly, they can remain in the soil or in treated plants for months — even years — after an application.
At high enough doses, neonics can directly lead to death in bees. This is undisputed. Exposure to higher doses can occur when dust is stirred up after planting the coated seeds, for example.
Of more concern is their chronic, sub-lethal exposure to neonics via nectar, pollen and water expelled from plants through a process called guttation.
In the next section, we’ll outline the evidence that counters Inhofe’s claim that “neonicotinoid pesticides only harm bees at dosages that are unrealistically high.”
Realistic Doses Harm Bees
Studies published in Science and other journals have shown that field-realistic doses of neonics can harm various bee species. In fact, two Science studies published on April 20, 2012, spurred the EFSA’s assessment of three neonics in 2013, which ultimately led to the EU’s moratorium on the pesticides.
In one Science study, Dave Goulson, a bee expert at the University of Sussex in the U.K., and others exposed bumblebees to “field-realistic” levels of imidacloprid in the lab and then released them “to develop naturally under field conditions.” The group found that “[t]reated colonies had a significantly reduced growth rate and suffered an 85% reduction in production of new queens compared with” untreated colonies.
In the second Science study, a group of researchers including Mickaël Henry, a bee expert at the French National Institute for Agricultural Research, exposed honeybees to field-realistic doses of thiamethoxam. They then attached miniature radio-frequency devices to the backs of 653 bees and found that a honeybee forager would be up to twice as likely to “die because of homing failure during a day spent foraging on treated crops” than to die naturally that day.
The researchers also used population dynamic models to assess how much these mortality rates due to decreased navigation skills might affect the hive as a whole. They found “populations from colonies exposed to the treated nectar would follow a marked decline during [April to May] and would hardly recover afterward.”
Another study by Francesco Pennacchio, a bee expert at the University of Naples Federico II in Italy, and others found that field-realistic doses of the neonic clothianidin can suppress the honeybee’s immune system by disrupting a molecular pathway that plays a key role in regulating the insect’s response to infection. Published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Oct. 21, 2013, the paper describes a “causal link” between clothianidin and harm to a bee’s immune system.
To be clear, these studies do not, by scientists’ standards, confirm a clear causal link between bee population decline and neonics – which is what Inhofe is asking of the EPA. But they do provide evidence that neonics can harm bees, even at very low doses, contrary to Inhofe’s claim.
Limits of Bee Research
When we asked Kristina Baum, press secretary for the Committee on Environment and Public Works, what a “clear causal link” between neonics and bee population declines would entail by Inhofe’s standards, she told us that “Inhofe is referring to results from studies that look at actual exposure of bees to neonicotinoids in the field.”
A team in Sweden has performed a field experiment on bumblebees and honeybees. Published in Nature on May 7, 2015, the study by Maj Rundlöf, a bee expert at Lund University, and others found that oilseed rape seed coating with Elado, an insecticide containing clothianidin and another nonsystemic chemical, reduced “bumblebee colony growth and reproduction” under replicated field conditions.
However, they found that “the insecticide seed treatment had no significant influence on honey bee colony strength.” While the researchers quantified colony growth as the weight of the bumblebee hive, they quantified colony strength as the number of adult bees.
The Nature paper cites research that suggests honeybee colonies may be better at detoxifying after exposure to neonics compared with bumblebees – evidence that it may not be possible to extrapolate honeybee colony and population level data to other bee species.
Goulson, with the University of Sussex, told us he was less convinced by Rundlöf et al.’s findings on honeybees than their results on bumblebees. The Nature study used sites with a 2 kilometer radius, which may not account for the honeybees’ extensive foraging range, he said.
While honeybees have been shown to forage around 6 kilometers from their hives, bumblebees appear to normally stay within 1 kilometer of their hives. Thus, researchers can’t control field experiments on honeybees as easily as those on bumblebees, Goulson told us.
To be clear, Rundlöf and her coauthors don’t believe their study alone is enough to confirm a clear causal link between bee population decline and realistic neonic use.
Like Goulson, Rundlöf also told us that “it would be very hard, if not impossible, to conduct an experiment that would establish a clear causal link between real neonicotinoid use and bee population decline.”
In order to establish a clear causal link between field realistic doses of neonics and bee population declines, scientists would have to monitor and control countless variables including how different bee species respond to different neonics pesticides, which are applied to different crops in different doses and in different landscapes.
Thus, Inhofe may be holding scientists to too high of a standard when he pressed the EPA to “establish a clear causal link” between neonics and bee population decline, given the difficulty of performing experiments in the field, especially on honeybees.
Even if much remains unknown, scientists are certain that the cause of bee population declines involves multiple and interacting factors. In the next section, we’ll outline the evidence that backs up this theory.
Multiple AND Interacting Factors
In his letter, Inhofe cites a newspaper commentary piece to support his claim that many scientists have come “to the conclusion that neonicotinoid pesticides only harm bees at dosages that are unrealistically high and are unlikely the cause for the decline in bee populations.” The commentary by beekeeper Peter Borst, published in Albany, New York’s Times Union in February, states: “Various scientists, including Marla Spivak of the University of Minnesota; Walter Sheppard of Washington State University; and Richard Fell of Virginia Tech affirm that neonics are not a significant driver of honey bee decline.”
We reached out to all of these scientists, but only Fell responded. He told us by email that Inhofe’s claim is “partially correct” (what we call misleading) because “there is no evidence that field-realistic neonicotinoid exposure is directly involved in honey bee colony losses, and as such, are unlikely to be ‘the cause’ of honey bee decline.”
But he added, “[t]his is not to say that field-realistic doses couldn’t contribute to colony weakening, and hence losses due to environmental stress, diseases, parasites etc.”
In other words, neonics are unlikely a direct and primary cause of bee population declines, but their interaction with other factors like disease and parasites could impact bees at the colony level. Marla Spivak makes similar claims in her Ted Talk, “Why bees are disappearing.”
For instance, Pennacchio’s PNAS study cited above showed that by suppressing the honeybee’s immune system, field-realistic exposure to clothianidin promoted “replication of a viral pathogen in honey bees.”
In a Science review published on March 27, 2015, Goulson and colleagues also stressed the impact that exposure to multiple pesticides has on bees. For example, they write, some fungicides “have very low toxicity in themselves but may increase the toxicity of some neonicotinoids and pyrethroids by as much as a factor of 1000.”
A March 2010 Environmental Microbiology study, conducted by Yves Le Conte and others at the French National Institute for Agricultural Research, also found that the combined presence of the parasite Nosema and imidacloprid led to higher mortality rates in honeybees than one factor or the other on its own. The researchers found this effect at very low doses of imidacloprid, though it was more pronounced at higher doses.
Goulson’s Science review also mentioned that the neonic-induced decreased foraging abilities noted above in honeybees and bumblebees could also exacerbate “nutritional stresses,” which, in turn, could inhibit a bee’s ability to “cope with pesticides,” in a cycle.
Nutritional stresses can also come from habitat loss, one factor that Spivak does argue could play a major role in bee population decline in her Ted Talk. Goulson et al. noted in Science that the “conversion of natural and seminatural flower-rich habitat to farmland has been a major driver of long-term declines in bees.”
The review also mentioned the difficulty in successfully conducting studies on these multiple and interacting factors, but said “a strong argument can be made that it is the interaction among parasites, pesticides, and diet that lies at the heart of current bee health problems.”
To sum up, Inhofe was misleading when he claimed that many scientists have concluded “that neonicotinoid pesticides only harm bees at dosages that are unrealistically high.” Field-realistic doses of neonics can harm bee individuals. While it’s unlikely that neonics are the sole or primary factor causing bee population decline, much is still unknown about the exact mechanisms underlying the decrease. Bumblebee populations do appear to suffer losses from realistic doses, based on the available evidence. Scientists don’t have a clear causal explanation for honeybee population decline, but they know it involves multiple, interacting factors.
Editor’s Note: SciCheck is made possible by a grant from the Stanton Foundation.
Of course.
Good reason to stay indoors and keep warm.
[grin]
This is pretty generic, but a good guide for a comparative beginner.
https://www.alcoholprofessor.com/blog/2016/04...o-bourbon/
Beginner’s Guide To Bourbon
New to this whiskey? Here's how to discover, taste and choose some favorites.
Maggie Kimberl | April 4, 2016 | _Featured, American Whiskey, Bourbon, Spirits | No Comments
bourbon heritage header
All photos by Maggie Kimberl.
Bourbon has never been so popular, yet many people are still unsure how to approach it. It doesn’t have to be intimidating- you just need a plan to get started. And maybe a few bottles of bourbon, too. But how do you know what to choose and how do you keep it all straight (pun totally intended)? Alcohol Professor has you covered.
What You’ll Need
Bourbon – more on this later.
A proper Glencairn glass or other whiskey glass. A typical whiskey glass will be shaped in such a way it will concentrate the aromas of the whiskey in a narrow top opening. You can drink your whiskey out of a shot glass, a rocks glass, or even right out of the bottle. However, you’re going to miss a lot of the nuances in the nose without a proper whiskey glass. Glencairn is the gold standard.
A notebook for taking notes. The Bourbon Tasting Notebook by Michael Veach and Susan Reigler is a handy resource because there are two sets of notes on many popular bourbons as well as plenty of room to take your own. It’s important to keep track of your thoughts as you go.
How To Choose Your Bourbon
Typically I recommend starting with a wheated bourbon (one with wheat in the mash bill along with corn and other grains, usually malted barley and/or rye) like Maker’s Mark or Larceny, as those tend to be more approachable to new bourbon drinkers because they are a bit sweeter and less rough around the edges. If you feel like a little more spice would appeal to you, start with a traditional bourbon. Bourbon traditionally has been made with a majority of corn- legally it has to be at least 51%- and malted barley and rye as the flavoring grain. Immigrants who settled in Kentucky were making rye whiskey up North because rye grows well there, and here it’s harder to grow rye so it was relegated to the flavoring grain. Jim Beam is the best-selling bourbon whiskey in the world, and several of their offerings have recently won Silver Medals at the New York International Spirits Competition, including Jim Beam Black and Knob Creek. It doesn’t get much easier than that. Craft spirits are also worth a look, though many of them tend to be younger right now because the distillers haven’t had the chance to mature the whiskey as much as the older, more established brands yet.
From there, and this is where those notes come in handy, you need to determine what you like in the bourbon and what you don’t. You’ll want to hone in on your personal preferences to determine what you like best and choose your next bourbon based on what you liked and didn’t like about the first ones. If you think you might be leaning toward more spice go for something like Four Roses Small Batch or Yellow Label. If you like the sweeter wheated bourbons, try some of the wine barrel finished offerings from Angel’s Envy or Barton 1792. Just keep trying different bourbons until you find what you like.
The Kentucky Chew
bourbon maggie kimber lThere’s a proper way to taste bourbon, and it involves multiple senses. You should start by holding the glass up to the light and examine the color, clarity, and “legs” (the faint trail of alcohol dripping toward the bottom of the glass when it’s swirled). Then you nose the whiskey by sticking your nose all the way into the Glencarin glass with your lips parted. If you don’t part your lips you will end up with a nose full of alcohol vapor and you won’t be able to smell anything at all. Some people breathe through their mouths and others through their noses. Then you want to take a sip and do the Kentucky Chew, swishing the bourbon all over your mouth. This is a technique that was perfected by Jim Beam’s late Master Distiller Booker Noe, and the tradition continues with is son Fred. You will want to base your assessment of the whiskey on your second or third taste, especially if you’ve been eating. Pay attention to the finish – most bourbons taste different on the finish from the initial sip.
Don’t be intimidated by the bourbon aisle. Before too long you will really know what’s what if you start with a plan and take careful notes. Welcome to the ranks of the whiskey geeks!
I've read them both before and concur that AF is not someone I'd ever want my kids to emulate. Go GALE.
Would hardly be the first time AF has published totally inaccurate and misleading information.
RR, Absolutely agree.
Looking good! Someone wants in.
Nice pop in SP today. Think it's based on reaction to this article?
I'll take all the +9percent days you'll give me.
The evolution of straight whiskey:
http://bourbonveach.com/2015/11/23/the-evolution-of-straight-whiskey/
Go $ROX and Jefferson's straight bourbon whiskey!
bourbonveachdotcom
The Evolution of Straight Whiskey
by Michael R. Veach Posted on November 23, 2015
Many people see the word “Straight” on a whiskey label and do not realize that single word represents decades of struggle to protect consumers from adulterated whiskey. The story of the term “straight” starts in the middle of the nineteenth century. Aging whiskey in charred barrels had become very popular with consumers and therefore profitable to distillers. This meant time sitting in the barrel taking on color and flavor from the wood. There was loss of product through evaporation as well as a lag time between producing the whiskey and the reaping of the profits. Some producers found this bothersome. The result was that by the 1860s there were people taking shortcuts using artificial flavoring and color, amongst other things, to make whiskey. There were no regulations at that time so they could label their product “Bourbon” or “Rye” as they sold it to the consumer. These “Recitifiers” were often more interested in profit than flavor.
Recitifiers were flooding the market with adulterated whiskey and keeping the price low to the consumers. Many distillers who made bourbon and rye whiskey the traditional way- aging the whiskey for years- were having a hard time competing. Making “straight’ whiskey the traditional way, with only the distilled spirit and barrel providing the flavor, just couldn’t compete for the consumer dollar. It also meant the consumer was often getting an inferior product. Marion Taylor of Wright and Taylor had one product that he advertised as “we will make this 9 years old product while you wait.” The distillers of straight bourbon and rye decided they needed to get government help to distinguish their products from the rectified products. The result was the Bottled-in-Bond Act of 1897. This Regulation did not allow anything to be added to the aged whiskey other than pure water. It guaranteed it was straight whiskey, though governmental definition for this term came later.
The next step in the evolution of straight whiskey came in 1909 with the Taft Decision. The 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act created a question of what qualified to be called “whiskey”. After several years of debate President William Howard Taft made his decision on whiskey on December 27, 1909. In his decision he defined straight whiskey as a whiskey aged for at least two years with nothing added to it but pure water to adjust the proof. His decision also defined “Blended” and “artificial” whiskeys as well. His ruling stands today with only one modification to the rule – In 1938 it became a requirement that brand new charred cooperage would be required to make straight whiskey.
In the 21st century the straight whiskey category is once again under attack and being weakened to the detriment of the consumer. There are whiskeys being bottled that use the term straight that have been flavored by putting the whiskey in wine or spirits barrels. (It’s worth noting here that if a whiskey is labeled as “bourbon” it can never have anything but pure water added, even if it’s not labeled straight.) There are companies that are taking the word straight off their label for unknown reasons. The consumer should be asking why and if they are adulterating their whiskey causing them to be no longer straight. Straight whiskey is a pure form of whiskey that should be cherished for its flavor and heritage. Look for it on the label of your favorite bourbon or rye.
Nano, Actually I had been one of the persons invited to vote on - as I recall - some 10 categories for the conference. There were anywhere from six to ten entries in each of the categories. Inovio was entered in many but not all the categories. There were some very successful/promising programs and drugs from which to select.
But I thought I should bank this.... the foundation of my new $ROX fortune.
And I did not notice before thaat each bottle of Jefferson's Ocean cask strength is individually numbered. Go $ROX.
I had reported some time ago when I first saw Jefferson's Ocean Cask strength at Caskers ($105) and then at the Virgnia ABC stores (at ($100).
Today, I bought my first bottle, at the Montgomery County ABA store for $79.38 plus tax, totalling $86.54.
Yay!
I'm thinking that Dr. J likely has a good number of options on CTIX shares, so he will benefit from continued CTIX Brilicidin prosperity, whether he remains here or not. My guess is that the heaviest part of lifting, at least his part, may already be done. After all, B for Abissi is well underway, as is B-OM, etc. There is more to do, BUT...
In the context of meeting the entrepreneurs and key staff of startup companies (in my role with an angel investing group) the greatest challenge and satisfaction one gets is from the early stages of development and of getting a company off the ground. They accrue the largest share of ownership of the new company at that point, something Dr. J could not do at CTIX.
I received my notice from Leo
Not quite that long here myself; roughly 2 years and we both are down.
Diz, You are quite welcome. I know you are a long and have been here for quite a while. I like that BLRX has a broad pipeline, regularly advances that pipeline and has established relationships with big pharma.
The thing to do, if a long, is follow the news but don't stress over short-term fluctuations. Sheff and other folks with "followers" will be here again.
Diz, As explained by a friend of mine:
"One of the problems with small med tech companies that do not have existing revenue streams that one can create a value using, is that when they report news like BLRX did today many traders will use any news, positive or negative to sell. BLRX was trading above average volume before today's news suggesting traders were buying looking for a positive catalyst that could create some quick money. The news was positive but not spectacular and leaves room for speculation about the potential success of BLRX's AML treatment. Coupling this with a generally weak med tech market over the past few days including today then the failure of the stock to respond is not surprising. I suspect that the stock will consolidate between $1 and $1.10 and then attempt to work its way higher. For long term believers the stock looks to be a buy below $1.05."
My interpretation is that Sheff simply used the news to sell. News was not bad at all, but traders always hope for that absolutely stunning news which can give you that multi-bagger in one day.
I am here long-term for a very promising pipeline. Not a trader.
Not that I have one whit of information, but it would be very interesting if Dr. Frost of OPK saw a possibility of a strategic investment in CTIX. Frost is always out to build his next empire, after having built Key and Ivax into pharma conglomerates and sold them.
Edit: Their hiring Dr. Trust stimulated this thought.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/marathon-patent-group-inc-launches-123000244.html
Something from which MARA shareholders may eventually receive dividends.
MSL, Looks like another good reason for us to be grateful Marathon did not get hitched to Uniloc. Thank you for that article.
Looking forward to some numbers which at least are better than last year.
Have a good weekend!
Sounds good to me. Let the judge throw the book at Rosen.
I expect the judge to still allow Rosen that seven(?) day perod for their final response. Which response I hope will be futile.
Tied to their anchor!!
Well, not a lawyer here, but it sure seems to me that Sullivan has effectively disposed of all points raised by Rosen, Kim and Stern.
Broadside after broadside fired into the sinking hulk of Rosen's ship (to extend an analogy Sullivan used in the filing). Let Rosen's ship sink.
Excellent. The rest of us ROX shareholders salute you!
There was some discussion before about Uniloc taking a run at Acacia.
New article:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3960765-debacle-acacia-research?ifp=1&app=1
The Debacle At Acacia Research
Mar. 24, 2016 10:43 AM ET|
About: Acacia Research Corporation (ACTG)
Jenks Jumps
Since the Acacia Research fourth quarter earnings report on February 25th, perplexing events have prevailed.
Management's handling of the situations has not sparked shareholder confidence. Even in what appear to be "right" decisions, the messages are inconsistent and, thus, worrisome.
Actions, specifically share purchases, speak louder than management's contradictory words.
Source
It's sounds more like a poorly written soap opera than a recounting of recent history. A lost court case in December 2015 led to a CEO resignation which led to the assignment of an interim CEO. An embarrassing performance by that interim CEO in the 2015 full-year earnings call followed. Shareholders were, simultaneously, picking up their jaws - hanging because of the interim CEO's shoddy approach to valid questions - and reaching to pull the arrows from their backs - from the eliminated dividend. The dramatics at Acacia Research (NASDAQ:ACTG) were not yet complete. The company then announced its Executive Chairman of the Board was resigning and signing on as a consultant. Even more disorienting was the accompanying announcement that the recently-resigned CEO could also be spending the next 16 months as a consultant.
The events follow in an applicable timeline:
December 18th, 2015 - lost a jury decision on a key Adaptix portfolio case
December 21st, 2015 - CEO Vella out; interim CEO Key in
February 25th, 2016 - Key's performance on conference call is "key" but in a horrendous way
February 29th, 2016 - Vella halfway back in; Executive Chair Harris out and halfway back in
Caught up? Ha! The circus had, truly, just begun.
On March 9th, Acacia Research received an unsolicited bid from ARC Acquisition Company, LLC to purchase all of its outstanding shares for $3.72 per share. The bid of $189 million was based on an approximate share count of 50.8 million shares. On March 15th, Acacia Research filed its annual 10-K reflecting the company had just under $146 million in cash and cash equivalents. The company's accounts receivable balance at year-end was $33.5 million.
Therefore, ARC's bid valued the remainder of Acacia Research's assets at less than $10 million. Acacia had spent the previous 2-1/2 years amassing an inventory of marquee portfolios. It had also endured a grueling revenue trough while the company prepared cases to defend the portfolios and awaited court scheduling and trial dates. At year-end 2014, these assets were valued at $286.6 million. But, by year-end 2015, prompted by the December, 2015 events, the company's books reflected a value of $162.6 million for the patent assets. The value had declined due to normal amortization. But, it declined significantly because of unexpected impairment charges. Still, to classify ARC's offer of less than $10 million for the portfolios as insulting is hardly an understatement.
Acacia Research issued a formal rejection of the offer on March 16th..
"With the assistance of its outside financial advisor, the Board considered ARC's proposal, which provided a premium of only 5% over the Company's unaffected trading price on March 11, 2016 and determined that the proposal was inadequate. Because of the inadequacy of the proposal, the Board's belief that the Company's stock is undervalued at its current trading price and the fact that the Company recently named a new interim Chief Executive Officer and management team that is focused on reviewing the business and executing on its strategic plan, the Board unanimously rejected the proposal."
Doesn't it appear Acacia's management has the situation capably under control? Shouldn't shareholders allow their confidence in management to rebuild, at least, ever so slightly? Hardly.
Seriously. Was "assistance" from an outside financial advisor really necessary? Just the week prior, Acacia had announced it was paying both CEO Vella and former Executive Chair Harris over $50,000 per month for consulting services. Regardless of the offer, some may question why the company needs to dispense over $100K per month for consulting. But, it is certainly a valid concern that the $100K outlay could not be considered credible for delivering a decision on an insulting offer without seeking outside counsel.
Next, the Board believes the "stock is undervalued at its current trading price"? Intriguing. Just three weeks ago, Mr. Key stated definitively during the earnings call the Board believed the company's only value was in its cash balance. When questioned by a private investor regarding why the Board would not repurchase shares to support the stock's price, Mr. Key was stoic, even unmannered.
"If we had a significantly lower level of cash on the balance sheet, our stock would probably be commensurately lower. So we believe the valuation of our company is in the cash balance."
The private investor responded with an astute observation.
"You have just made a very condemning statement."
Now, are investors sincerely supposed to trust this same Board has done an about-face in less than a month?
Acacia's announcement singles out the "new interim Chief Executive Officer and management team" as reason for rejecting the offer. Is this not the same interim CEO who botched the earnings call? Is it not the same interim CEO for which the company formed a three-member Office of the Chairman to assist? The same management team to which Mr. Vella will be providing consulting services?
Finally, entertaining the idea of the existence of a strategic plan is disconcerting. In his questionable performance during the earnings call, Mr. Key was hardly assuring. He referenced how the company would "begin to slowly change the direction of this company". If a credible strategic plan exists, why would progress need to be undertaken slowly? If a strategic plan exists, why did the company decide in just two months it was necessary to disburse $100K per month for consultants? After all, the company cut the dividend which would cost only $25 million annually because its precious cash was indispensable and necessary for purchasing additional portfolios.
The events since December seem preposterous. If it weren't infeasible, it would be easier to believe it was a facetious offer in an attempt to redeem management's horrendous handling of the earnings call and initiate some level of credibility. Imagine the writers of a soap opera drama collaborating around a conference room table.
"Well, they botched that call. What should we do?"
"They need to be cast in a light where they handle a situation well."
"We could bring back the guy they drove away. Perhaps that would restore some confidence."
Pause for impact.
"So, that didn't go as expected."
"What if someone made them an offer and they turned it down, citing how valuable they believe the company really is?"
"Well, it can't hurt to try."
Pause for impact.
ARC Acquisition Company's offer had a safety net as it presented a "conditional and non-binding" proposal. Further, Acacia stated the ARC offer "did not contain credible evidence that ARC has or could secure financing for such a proposal".
A key missing element in all of the disarray is a reversal of the company's stance on repurchases. That still has not happened. Instead, the company stated in the proposal rejection:
"Individual directors and management intend, over time, to buy Company shares in the open market based on such individual's evaluation of the market."
Interim CEO Key did purchase 35,000 shares in early March before the ARC proposal. Then, on March 17th, just one day after the rejection, both interim CEO Key and board member Mr. Louis Graziadio purchased 65,000 shares and 74,196 shares respectively.
Going back to the soap opera writer's table, it's not hard to imagine a sane voice echoing through the craziness, "Just have them put their money where their mouth is". These purchases may well be the first trustworthy indicator for shareholders in four months from the midst of what is an unsettling debacle. It is true - actions, specifically share purchases and even more so, share repurchases, speak louder than contradictory words.
Disclosure: I am/we are long ACTG.
Thank you for the good wishes.
DCPA, You miight see if you can drop a line to Trey, who is already doing various guerilla marketing stunts to promote Jefferson's.
Perhaps $oldier (apologies for "volunteering" you $oldier, but you didn't step back fast enough) has some contact info for him.
The whole article. Link is at end of post,
Better Buy: Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc. vs. Juno Therapeutics
These two early-stage biotechs have more in common than first meets the eye. But which is more likely to pay off first for investors?
At first glance, Inovio Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:INO) and Juno Therapeutics (NASDAQ:JUNO) might appear to have little in common. Inovio focuses on synthetic DNA immunotherapies, while Juno has hitched its wagon to chimeric antigen receptors (CAR) and T cell receptors (TCR). Also, Juno's market cap currently stands nearly eight times larger than Inovio's.
However, Inovio and Juno have some similarities, including some big-name partners and promising pipelines. Which of these two up-and-coming biotechs is the better buy for investors? Let's take a look at the positives and negatives of each stock.
Positives
Inovio's cervical dysplasia immunotherapy, VGX-3100, which demonstrated efficacy in a phase 2 trial, could be its first shot at commercial success. The company plans to begin a phase 3 clinical study for VGX-3100 later this year. Some estimate that the vaccine could reach peak annual sales of around $500 million if approved by the FDA.
The recent buzz for Inovio, though, has centered on its efforts to develop a Zika virus vaccine. The biotech announced good news in February from pre-clinical testing of its experimental vaccine. Inovio is one of a handful of leaders in the race to develop a reliable preventive treatment for Zika.
It also has teamed up with a couple of major drugmakers. AstraZeneca's MedImmune group acquired the rights to INO-3112, an experimental cervical cancer vaccine. Meanwhile, Roche and Inovio are partnering to develop a hepatitis B virus immunotherapy.
Juno doesn't have any products quite as far along in the development process as Inovio does. However, the company does have one phase 2 study underway for JCAR015, a potential treatment for relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Juno hopes the drug could win FDA approval as early as 2017.
There are a couple of other drugs in Juno's CD19 portfolio in addition to JCAR015 that it's also optimistic about. JCAR014 is in a phase 1/2 study targeting treatment of adult B cell malignancies, while JCAR017 is in a phase 1/2 study targeting treatment of pediatric ALL and another phase 1 study focused on adult non-Hodgkins lymphoma (NHL).
Juno also has a significant partner in Celgene (NASDAQ:CELG). The two biotechs forged a 10-year collaboration deal last year where Celgene gained access to several drugs in Juno's pipeline. Celgene forked over $1 billion, which included purchasing around 9.1 million shares of Juno stock. The deal underscored the significant potential of Juno's development program.
Negatives
Both Inovio and Juno face the usual risk of failure in their treatments' clinical studies. It's important to note just how early stage these two biotechs are with their pipelines. Even with Inovio's VGX-3100 in phase 3 and Juno's JCAR015 in a potential registrational phase 2 study, there are no guarantees of success.
As development-stage biotechs, both stocks are also very vulnerable to general market conditions that could be negative for drugmakers. In particular, the political climate hasn't been favorable lately for biotechs and pharmaceutical companies.
And there's always competitive risks. Several larger rivals are working on Zika vaccines. One of them could end up beating out Inovio. Likewise, Juno isn't the only company working on CAR therapies. In particular, Kite Pharma stands out as a significant challenger.
Picking a winner
The similar positives and negatives for these two biotechs make the selection of a winner difficult. Juno's pipeline is impressive. Having Celgene as a partner is a huge plus (and there's always the possibility the big biotech could spend some of its substantial cash stockpile to buy Juno at some point in the future). However, I think the edge goes to Inovio.
Inovio's lead product is farther along in the clinical trial process. Sure, Juno will try to submit for approval of JCAR015 based on a phase 2 study -- but accelerated approval is usually a tougher hill to climb than winning approval based on late-stage results. I like Inovio's chances for approval with VGX-3100.
I also think Inovio has a pretty good shot at being first to gain approval for a Zika vaccine. If the worldwide impact of the virus becomes more severe, being first-to-market could bring big financial rewards for Inovio.
Keith Speights owns shares of Celgene. The Motley Fool owns shares of and recommends Celgene. The Motley Fool recommends Juno Therapeutics. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/03/23/better-buy-inovio-pharmaceuticals-inc-vs-juno-ther.aspx?source=yahoo-2&utm_campaign=article&utm_medium=feed&utm_source=yahoo-2