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.
If you lived that loss / experience then thanks for sharing. Always nice to learn from other peoples bad trading experiences.
TTall was mostly just getting into the spirit of the thing. Get with the party man!
Thank you jason_luke, Closet-Investor and WolfWayne. So nice to have a date and a pretty good idea of the results of the cognitive tests! My complex investing just got very simple.
AXON is down 6% after hours today. I wonder if that has anything to do with AVXL being scheduled to present great news right after AXON's likely not so great news.
Partnership announcement is what I have been hoping. Same thinking. Just don't want people to be dissapointed if it doesn't happen. Too many good things in the near future to generate a negative out of nothing.
I hope the new database is good. So hard to create a good one, but so important.
Your in the northwest US right? Not Canada?
Is this new database part of Obahmacare? It seemed to me that whether you agree with that health-care system or not, it does provide an opportunity to better centralize such a database. If they can come up with the right laws protecting individual health information privacy, but still allow good access for reasearchers, such a large database, if it contains sufficient detail, might be the best medical weapon ever developed. DCVax-Direct aside.
Glad to hear they are trying to get it right. Hope they got it right.
(They sure didn't get the rest of the user interface to Obahmacare right. Not being political, just my experience. Chaos.)
Not sure how you got on the subject of partners and uplisting... so thought that was a typo... sort of. Not sure about that issue. I guess I would agree that a potential partner would not care much about listing. Maybe more reliable financial records... but not sure.
But as for large investors, there is actually an SEC constraint regarding stocks that are trading under $5. The SEC calls anything under $5 a "penny stock" which is not my definition, but the SEC's definition matters more... The SEC forces investment firms that handle other people's money, to control risk by adding a bunch of hoops to jump through to invest in a "penny stock". So generally, apparently, these firms do not invest in any stock under $5. They don't want to jump through all the hoops.
So $5 is a magic threshold above which volume starts to increase.
I had copied out just one paragraph of that SEC doc about penny stocks. The SEC's definition of a penny stock was in a previous paragraph.
http://www.sec.gov/answers/penny.htm
Probably already been responded to... but it's not necessarily big Pharma that would be the big buyers. There are funds that have rules against investing in stocks with SP's below $5, or any SP if it's OTC. Those big dogs are out of the picture until AVXL gets up-listed.
http://www.sec.gov/answers/penny.htm
"Because of the speculative nature of penny stocks, Congress prohibited broker-dealers from effecting transactions in penny stocks unless they comply with the requirements of Section 15(h) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and the rules thereunder. These SEC rules provide, among other things, that a broker-dealer must (1) approve the customer for the specific penny stock transaction and receive from the customer a written agreement to the transaction; (2) furnish the customer a disclosure document describing the risks of investing in penny stocks; (3) disclose to the customer the current market quotation, if any, for the penny stock; and (4) disclose to the customer the amount of compensation the firm and its broker will receive for the trade. In addition, after executing the sale, a broker-dealer must send to its customer monthly account statements showing the market value of each penny stock held in the customer's account."
No. Not a pump nor a dump. It went up on good news and the hint of more good news to come. Not a pump unless it does not pan out. It will pan out.
There was no dump. After the good news, the NASDAQ continued dropping. A constant, fairly steep drop that continued the entire day, only leveling out partly toward the end of the day. More than a 3% decline. That is unusual for the NASDAQ.
The XBI looked about the same shape, but it dropped over 7%. People finally got scared and started selling. That's all. No dump. No strategy. Just an unfortunate bad day for good news. Maybe some warrants sold... but not the big picture. The big picture was just a very bad day for the markets.
As people have said, a reverse split in the biotech space is usually associated with weakness. Not the case here, but often the case. And it often results in a droop in sp. For that reason people are conditioned to fear it. For that reason bashers often billboard an upcoming reverse split on Yahoo. So people are conditioned to be pissed at anyone talking about it.
But maybe it would be a good idea right now for this company.
Let's say they had great news tomorrow, or at the Oct 8-12 at the CNS Summit in Florida. Let's say the SP went to $4 or $17 (wth) in two days. It might be weeks before they would be uplisted due to the all the processing. Not sure how long it takes... but if it takes weeks or months, then by the time they were uplisted the feeding frenzy might be over with the big dogs never having had a chance to compete for shares. That would not be in our interest because we want volume that matches the importance of the good news. Volume that eats through the remaining warrants, funding the company, and then continues afterwards, elevating the share price.
So... a reverse split now might avoid that. They could uplist prior to news. Or... as someone just posted, maybe an uplist to the NYSE would solve that delay problem. IMUC is in the NYSE. Hell, if they can qualify, we could qualify now!
Missling was asked about uplisting at a recent conference. His reply was, "It looks like that will happen.".
I am starting to believe that he does choose his words carefully. He could change his mind any time, as the situation changes, but with that reply, he communicated that he had no plans of forcing the situation. No plans of a reverse split.
Not that it would bother me any. I don't think that such a move for a company doing well is the same as when a company is struggling.
Duplicate somehow.
All that selling across the biotech sector means money on the side... The longer the drop, the more money. I have a suggestion as to where to move that money.
Last week someone speculated on Anavex-plus usage and cost. The model predicted an astronomical AVXL SP in the not so distant future.
That model used a per pill price that was about equal to the max out-of-pocket charge that H Clinton was talking about. My point being that even if that Clinton plan were to be carried out, it doesn't look like it would interfere with the likely business model for Anavex-plus.
I would assume that insurance would cover some portion of the cost, thus the cost to patients would be well under Clinton's proposed cap.
Only green in an absolute blood bath today. I don't remember ever seeing it this bad. I have a watch list of 10 biotechs. Everyone of them is red right now except us. We are currently up 7% and the other 9 range from -6% to -16%.
$13M cash and only $1M Debt as of 9/15/2015
(Wanted to point out the low debt also).
So what is about to unfold is not a pump and dump.
(not directed at you Millstone)
Like most that have posted on the question, I am not expecting a data update in tomorrow's presentation. But data could certainly come sooner than people have dared to speculate today... or not. Can't be too concerned at this point. Looks like good news for Alzheimer's patients, and a very large move in SP sometime between now and the end of the year. That is plenty to be excited about.
We can calculate the latest date data mature, but we can't calculate the earliest date (from this PR). I have a good guess. I think TT would agree. But don't want to risk dissapointing anyone. So will sit on my hands as TT is doing.
Bernie Madoff had a great relationship with his kids, until it all unravelled.
Maybe. Maybe a partner already. And or people distracted by lots of other, biotech action are bringing their small gambling rolls back into their main AVXL pile for the chance of another wild ride next week, and month, and quarter.
Actually I think Biotech usually bottoms ahead of the wider markets. The wider markets have often continued down till the end of the year as I vaguely recall, while biotechs more often bottom about Sept 30. At least the ones I looked at recently.
Hopefully we are seen as a safe haven if things continue south in the broader markets. It appears we are in go mode. If big news next Tuesday, or soon thereafter then we may be green in a sea of red again. A safe haven. Not a bad place to be.
Between VW smog fraud and this EU strong opinion on internet privacy... these are big ticket items. The Facebook finding being the larger. Facebook, Google, Apple, Net-Flix, Amazon... they make up a huge percentage of the US stock market. Facebook and Google will be effected. Probably not Apple since they are very careful about such issues. But... even Apple is forced to send info to the gov. So... this immediate issue could effect them too. Not sure about Amazon or Net-Flix. Maybe Amazon to some extent.
This is usually the worst week of the year for stocks... including biotech. The bottom is often in about a week. The timing of the conference is that from that point forward we are looking up. No way I am going to risk getting a better deal until Tuesday, however. No way, and I like to gamble. But not taking that risk.
Shorting Facebook right now, for the near term would be a bet I would take if I did options, which I don't. An EU court just issued a strong opinion that Facebook regular data feed to the US security agencies is not legal in Europe. This will apply to all similar companies, like Google I would imagine.
This is a big deal in my opinion and might open the door to more scrutiny of the marketing of information mined from sites like Google. I'm not sure what all they do, but for me that is the larger issue. Data to the gov does not bother me. But selling data to the highest bidder bothers me a great deal. Though I do not know the extent of it.
EU types would worry for this reason: History of blackmail of foreign politicians with personal info in the US. I read that was how the FBI started. Was started as a tiny agency tasked to dig up dirt on politicians in the Phillipines running for the presidency. But once techniques were developed, Hoover used them to blackmail our own politicians into voting increases in the FBI size, budget, and power. That is a very fkd up history... if true.
I think the US used the fear and anger after 9/11 to rationalize data mining for private sale that would normally be seen as civil right breech. Again, I am not opposed to the gov data mining. I am opposed to private individuals being able to buy data on people. 9/11 may have been a good reason to increase gov access to private info, but there were changes to the private sector rules at about the same time. Made no sense. Now, if you have an enemy, and you are wealthy enough, I worry you can dig until you get dirt on someone these days. Then you can control them, regardless of how rotten your motive was to begin with.
9/11 occurred at about the same time as the dot com bust. These internet companies were all losing money. Changing our laws to allow sale of private info saved the internet companies, but at what cost?
But foreign leaders have to worry about blackmail by the US gov.
And you would need to purchase so many wheel-barrels to move the money around.
The draw-back to the preventative market would be that it is sooooooo large. How would they ever manage to mfg enough medication!?
I shouldn't say they bought all of their drugs. They did have a research group. Dr. Vamvakides was in charge. Dr. Vamvakides or Vamvakides and Dr. Maurice came up with the synegistic Anavex 2-73 plus. That is their front runner drug at the moment. They did not design the components. One they bought and the other is a generic in common use for Alzheimer's, but they did develope the synergistic combination. Apparently such are patentable if they exhibit "special synergy". That is to say: patentable seperate from a patent on Anavex 2-73.
I don't remember if any of their other drugs were developed in house.
Vamvakides is now retired.
They bought most or all of their drugs from an Israeli research group. I have forgotten if the group is private or not, but I think it is associated with a University.
I see. Jerkwad filed a "citizen petition" to the FDA asking the FDA to not approve a drug. He aknowledges having shorted the company that produced the drug/therapy.
That would be like prompting legal firms to publicize actions against a pharma company. Even if the companies never got a single client with a complaint, the publication of the action would take a hit on share price.
It would be intersting to look back at whether the "citizen petition" got any press, and if so, by whom.
Also interesting, of course to read the petition and see if it made any sense. And interesting to see if the response by the FDA, if any, made any sense, and whether it was PR'd and by whom.
You dissappeared for a while beachlife. I felt responsible. Good to hear from you.
My numbers were certainly off. The population that responds well to TMZ (Thanks for the compromise abbreviation) is apparently closer to 45% or so than the 35% I stated off the top of my head. So I expect at least that type of a percentage to show synergy with DCVax-L.
As for the other 55%, I will take your advise and look back over the data. It has been a long time since I viewed it. I should review these things more before posting so loudly.
Maybe a mouthfull of nothing, but I think even Sentiment would agree, very well written. Like Sentiment, a talented writer.
Will remain a mystery for now whether this person is real. If so, I appreciate their concern.
I think DCVax-L will prove out at least in some subgroups, if not all, and I think DCVax-Direct will ultimately be a blockbuster. Good to great therapy without a blockade inhibitor, and tremendous panacea with one... maybe. But I appreciate the concern if it is real.
"He also inserted himself into the FDA approval process for pending drugs of companies he was shorting."
This is mentioned twice, but no statement of what exactly the guy did to inject himself in that process. I believe it, but would really like to know what the guy did. If real, it reflects as much on the FDA as on this crooked whack job.
Some posters thought PR's might be delayed due to the chaos in the markets. I think that is possible. May account for the short notice for the Sept 29 conference presentation.
Last year, about this time, they presented on Friday of the Thursday-through-Sunday "CNS Summit".
This year the "CNS Summit" runs Thursday Oct 8 through Sunday Oct 12. It is being held in Boca Raton, Florida.
Last year they did not PR their planned presence until the Monday prior to the Friday presentation.
http://cnssummit.org/
Lots of good stuff in the Tootall, but this section (stanza?) stood out for me.
"Consume my heart away; sick with desire
And fastened to a dying animal
It knows not what it is;"
The Phase 2AB is a 52 wk contiuation of Oral 2-73(Plus). It is just an option, but sounds like most patients plan to continue with the drug.
Not sure if that is long enough for you concerns, but it is pretty long.
If ipulator's purpose was caution, then thank you ipulator. This is a small cap biotech after all.
But very hard to not feel like we are blessed here. Though maybe not totally rational to feel that way. But for the near and medium term... I feel pretty confident. Basically I think the chances are good that this will pan out for at least one of the drugs in at least one major indication, and likely more. And if not... it is likely to draw huge interest while we test things out.
If I was planning a major clinical announcement for Oct 9, and had the goal of selling off all remaining warrants + moving SP up enough to uplist as a result, I would want as many big dogs' eyes on the company as possible. One way to get those eyes on the company is to present at business conferences such as the one now scheduled for Sept. 29. And that timing would be ideal.
I called all my fish back into my boat this morning. I only had a small percentage out. Conference may not be a major catalyst... but I don't want to risk it. This is my main play.
What a gift for stocks to be low today; even AVXL after the PR.
Sept 29 now likely marks the beginning to the end-of-year run, whether that climaxes in October or January.
May not be the right conference to post clinical data, but it would be the right conference to post major business related developments. Just not sure you can put those types of announcements off more than 4 days. If you can, maybe there is news of a partnership?
Probably not, but maybe. And that Florida CNS Conference 10/8 -> 10/11 is still a clear possibility for a clinical update.
But would there be a partnership before the next data release? Maybe. If I were going to parter I would have people on the ground in Australia snooping around. I might know what is about to unfold. That might allow me to negotiate before the fight around the dog food bowl.
Maybe.
Never Mind. PR is 3 Hour Old news. I see the post now below.
No PR on Yahoo Finance. Should have checked my email this morning. I did get a heads up from TD Ameritrade.
I've been trolling with my fish as bait. They keep coming off the hook, so I know it has to be a big one out there nibbling.
I lost Flippers recent post on the issue, so went to the web and quickly found this publication: (Which I think is a Brazilian publication referencing the Italian publication that you are referring to)
http://www.ajnr.org/content/32/11/1978.full
"
Incidence
Although the occurrence of pseudoprogression has long been known, its real incidence has not yet been reported in a large series of patients, perhaps because only in the past few years has there been standardization of initial therapy. Some reports with a small number of cases described a variable incidence of pseudoprogression (Table).10,11,13?????–19 The wide variation in the incidence of pseudoprogression may be due to a lack of defined criteria for correct diagnosis of this entity, patient selection bias, and the variable response criteria that have been used. The association between pseudoprogression and MGMT promoter status seems to be high. A 91.3% probability of pseudoprogression in patients with methylated MGMT promoter tumors and a 59% probability of early-progression disease in unmethylated MGMT promoter tumors have been described previously. Pseudoprogression has been reported to occur predominantly (in almost 60% of cases) within the first 3 months after completing treatment, but it may occur from the first few weeks to 6 months after treatment.11"
I was trying to get the total number of patients apriori and just multiply that by the 40%. As you pointed out that would need to include the patients turned away from the trial and moved to... forgot the name of the compassionate use category.
Even if there was not a single pseudoprogressive patient in the main trial, the 300 in the trial would be part of the apriori sum. Just trying to form that sum, multiply by 40%, then try to explain where they all went.
But as you pointed out, it isn't 40%, it's 10% to 40%... so it is too murky. Not worth debating.
I did subsequently bring up the question of whether the simple variable of MGMT Methylation might be enough to ask for AA around once full enrollment is achieved, but prior to full trial maturation. I know there are other relevant variables, but that is a broad and important, and objective one.
Ok Flipper. I will taper off here. My last post was written same time as your prior. But it looks like the estimates of percentage of pseudoprogressors is so wide, 10% to 50% that it is very difficult to analyze much in that realm. Maybe that is not a super useful label.
Maybe more worthwhile to be analyzing around the more objective variable of Methylated MGMT. Whether that is native or tumor MGMT... whichever is appropriate. (Tumor is certainly appropriate but native is better if it correlates well enough because it is so convenient).
Perhaps they have submitted an AA request or some such for the Methylated MGMT patients. If that status is known for all patients from day 1, then they could send in the data for all patients, in and out of the trial, for consideration.