investor
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.
FTM,
One can only estimate but it looks like an eighteen month enrollment process from filing to completion of enrollment similar to 2nd Line NSCLC with a slow initial ramp up.
Using the same methodology we used on 2nd line and "back end" loading I figure the average enrollee enters 2-5 months before completion in June. If that is close , then PPHM is 6-9 months into MOS for the drug arm. However, one never knows for dead certain.
THLD went approx 9+ months on MOS. It would be good if PPHM could well exceed that number. End of Dec (yr end) would put us at a guesstimate of 9-12 months toward MOS in the drug arm.
Once again no news would be best news. 2nd best would be some form of interim news re surrogate results and control arm events.
"When the phone don't ring, it'll be me."--George Jones.
Best Regards,
RRdog
JJPK,
I would not put much stock in what you pick up in the twitter universe even though any thing is possible if you look at the time line of the trial which started in Jan 2011. The good news is that Pancreatic is such a tough indication I don't think much positive value is built into PPHM for this disease. Anything superior to THLD results re MOS might be interpreted very bullishly for PPHM.
I would however, note that the language regarding Cotara is becoming more precise re: "optimal registration pathway" with the FDA as opposed to (and I paraphrase) "well defined protocol".
IMO the data on first line NSCLC is not expected to be great because of the anomaly in the control arm stats. I think PPHM shareholders could be positively surprised here. The ratio of the treatment arm to control may not be as great as in second line but, still could be quite good. MOS numbers might be very good compared to all other prior tests in first line. Such a result would also be very supportive of PPHM second line efforts.
Best Regards,
RRdog
I like this post because it supports my ever increasing
valuation for imaging. Imaging at PPHM is part of the IP "below the water line in the iceberg" but, nevertheless the value is growing.
Regards,
RRdog
FTM,
Sounds like we are agreed on a slight change for the 2nd line NSCLC Phase III trial from split dosage to maximum dosage to optimize results based on the Phase II results.
Best
RRdog
JD1
By combining in Phase II of course we increased the N for stat purposes.
If we run 300-500 patients in a Phase III we won't need to increase N so it is logical to run them all at the same hi dosage which is optimum and gain even more edge over the Phase II.
Best
RRdog
To All,
What has taken a back seat in all the sturm und drang of negative posting and stock volatility is that the MOS in 2nd line NSCLC trial has still not evented and therefor is extending into the ESMO conference.
If MOS has not evented by ESMO, IMO it will be at approx 14 mo - 15.5 mos for the high dose bavi treatment arm. The range depends on how much time in advance the numbers were cut off before being finalized for the Chicago Symposium.
I also note that dosage does matter a bit contrary to some opinion. By pooling the arms PPHM may have gotten slightly better stat results and ratios but the higher dosage was running about 12-16% better than the low dosage arm at the cutoff date for Chicago Symposium.
If Garnick chooses to use only the higher 3mg dosage in the Phase III trial the results might have an edge over the Phase II data to the extent that dosage matters. This possibility will not be lost on either the scientists or potential partners IMO. IMO PPHM will also make it clear to partners that PPHM wants to extend clinicals into the area of combo with irradiation where more PS can be exposed and dosing may make even more of an impact.
Best Regards,
RRdog
Thanks Geo,
Agree 100% with your addition.
Until tomorrow,
Best
RRdog
To All,
I no longer can even make sense of the negative arguments re HR and P Value.
At first, the argument was that PPHM data was weak or invalid because preliminary data release did not include HR and P value and therefore either PPHM didn't have these ratios or was loathe to publish these results as they were not supportive of the clinical trial.
Now, the HR and the P value have been published and not only are they stat sig but they are outstanding at .52 and .015 respectively.
Faced with this result, the critics have not changed their opinion. Perhaps the critics are stubborn or have other agenda.
Conversely, when appraised of the clinical results under non-disclosure agreement, Oxford, Midcap Financial, and Silicon Valley Bank -three very sophisticated lenders to the biotech industry--lent PPHM US$30mm. (As an aside, the same critics postulated that PPHM would not qualify for signifigant credit and shareholders were facing continual and massive dilution. Neither of which was true.)
I am reminded of the quote describing the great Lord Keynes conversation with a particularly vexious female critic of his work. "When the facts change, I change my opinion Madam. What do you do?" I know if the data had been bad, I would have changed my investment opinion.
Dr. Garnick, when presented with the same data was quoted: "Having personally been involved in the evaluation of over 30 Phase II trials over my career, none of which ever achieved statistical significance, including many of today's blockbuster biotech products, I am personally extremely pleased with the quality of this data and the clarity with respect to advancing bavituximab in Phase III trials, which it provides."
I do note that the critics are responsible for not one drug succeeding at the FDA nor for one dollar of biotech revenue. Dr Garnick is responsible for many tens of billions of dollars of biotech revenue.
The weight of the argument is now so heavily in favor of PPHM that the whole subject becomes tedious. There is not much more value in addressing this particular question.
When I play poker, I try to get my money in with favorable odds.
If I am lucky, I might find situations where the odds are 1.5-1 or 2-1 or 4-1 or at best 10-1. At the current P value the odds of this Phase II study being duplicated favorably in a larger Phase III study of similar design are 98%. I want to get my money in.
Garnick, realizing the odds, wants the study to be almost exactly the same except for the increase in "N". Why wouldn't he?? He uses the key code words "straightforward" and "derisk". Faced with these overwhelmingly favorable odds and the size of the NSCLC market as well as the larger overall potential of bavi ,---"If you were a BP, what would you do Madam????"
IMHO, stay cool, use weakness to further accumulate if you are able, and anticipate further major bullish news.
Best Regards,
RRdog
DD,
"When expressing the results of clinical trials, it is best to
consider the hazard ratio alongside a measure of
time, such as median time to the event under scrutiny,
comparing active treatment and control groups (the points
at which half the subjects have experienced the event in each
arm of the study)".
Why would PPHM ever have offered a HR without a time measure. As it were they had to use an "interim" time measure as MOS has still not evented. So to have ranted about HR before MOS was inane.
Best
RRdog
FTM
Thank you very much for this discussion particularly the insights into the importance of P value.
Much of the negativism voiced by DD and AF was based on the assumption that PPHM had not published HR and P values, did not have these ratios or if they had them were withholding data that was not favorable to the PPHM argument.
In previous comments I feel I have destroyed the DD argument re HR and with this article I think you have completely destroyed any argument re P value.
Thanks again,
RRdog
Entdoc,
Completely agree with your ideas about "radiation".
Thorpe at NYAS was very clear in private Q and A that he thought radiation was "far" more effective in exposing PS to the cell surface than any chemo.(BTW--of the chemo he felt the best was doxy)
IMO some form of combo with Bavi and radiation would radically affect the discussion on "dosing". Heretofore, dosing at 1mg or 3 mg is not making a "major" difference. Perhaps, this is because there is only limited (sub optimum) PS being exposed using chemo. If a great deal more PS were exposed using radiation, then the "dosing" issue might become much more important.
One would hope that any "oncology" partner would want to spend serious research dollars in this area or that PPHM will get enough up front dollars to pursue it properly themselves.
Best Regards,
RRdog
FTM
I have had exactly the same thought re MBC for PPHM since I saw the spectacular early results in the clinical.
The knock on pursuing MBC at the time, and hence the descision to lead with NSCLC 2nd line, was that there were multiple treatments for MBC already on the market and that the competition among BP was intense in this area.
Since PPHM is going for an "oncology partner" and not "indication specific" partners I think this issue can be reopened. It will really depend on whether the partner wants to compete in this area, or extend their own marketing efforts in MBC, or combo a product with Bavi to improve the effort and or extend the patent.
This is really a "muscular" financial and marketing issue.
I, for one, hope they go for it. It is a huge market and it is highly visible and emotional one as well which means the news media would be all over any new advances.
Best Regards,
RRdog
Thurly,
I also re listen to the audio from NYAS and not sure it was transcribed. I was there however, and my big takeaway from a number of scientists was that they thought the next "cutting wave"
in the advancement of cancer treatment was going to be in immuno-therapy. The most impressive conversation I had in this area was with a doc who ran the NIH facility in a neighboring state.
It was after those conversations that I seriously began to dig into the PPHM patents. I agree with other posters that the patent position at PPHM is excellent regarding this area and will be very difficult to circumvent as it is "substantial" not "design". In short, PPHM is positioned to control a major area of "cell surface" re cancer.
The other "toy" I was impressed with was the three dimensional imaging models.
Best Regards,
RRdog
Wook,
If you had gone ahead with Cramer call and been in my army, I'd have had you shot for aiding and abetting the enemy and then shot again for stupidity. As you were smart enough to reconsider, you can live. (LOL) In a slightly more serious vein, the time to go on Cramer Mad Money and other talk shows is after you partner and have the credibility of BP with you as well as several hundred million more on PPHM balance sheet. Think about doing it then and I would be for it.
Garnick:
Dr. Garnick talked about "corporate courage". This is rarely talked about. Imagine the courage it took to lay it all on the line against stage 3/4 Phase II NSCLC double blind placebo clinical. I'll say one thing for this management they have "audacity". "Fortune favors the Brave".
Re DD:
Dew now makes the same horrendous mistake he made with HR and P value in a new form. Why anybody listens to this guy is beyond me. He ranted about lack of HR and P values in the PPHM releases prior to interim MOS. Since HR and P values are "ratios", i.e one number divided by another number or one set of numbers divided by another set of numbers, how could PPHM ever release these ratios "without the numerator in the ratio" which was MOS. Even recently when PPHM talked about the outstanding HR and P values the numerator they used is only the "interim" MOS. Therefore, until MOS is evented the ratios continue to get better. Seen in this light the DD comments on HR and P values were not only wrong but,--- absurd.
Now DD makes the same mistake re AA. AA can not be decided upon before the FDA reviews the EOPII data, agrees on the Phase III format and is assured in some way (perhaps the strength of a partner) that PPHM has both the "will and the wherewithal" to conduct the Phase III. Some experts think PPHM would actually have to begin Phase III for the FDA to grant AA. So again, talking about AA at this moment is as absurd as talking about HR and P values without the numerator for the ratio. What rot.
Best Regards,
RRdog
CJGaddy,
That is what a "step function" move does. It is not technical. A step function leaves little room to cover..
Best
RRdog
FTM,
The poster is clearly saying that as of yesterday the MOS in either bavi arm has not evented. Personally, I am very happy with that statement period.
What the poster is not saying and what Gerber could talk about is where the "interim" MOS is on the time line exactly and what the historic context of that number is re control arm in the current study and re MOS versus all historic 1st line NSCLC testing.
That would be fun to see how close we are in our projections.
Best Regards,
RRdog
FTM
TY
RRdog
FTM
My own numbers put us at 2.4 --2.9 x control arm. You are actually running ahead of my extreme posts if you assume 3x.
Best Regards,
RRdog
FTM,
Assuming the tech is as good as we think, we do in fact own the cell surface when it comes to PS .
There are generally two types of patents. The first is less valuable as it is patent by design and can be re-engineered.
The second more valuable are substantial patents. Tough to get around a substance like PS with a substitute. In addition, PPHM has patents all around this thing and with various substantial combos.
Best Regards
RRdog
Firefox,
I hope you are right and I am wrong on this one.
Have a great three day weekend.
Best Regards,
RRdog
Firechief,
You posted the following:
"The $30M is labelled as "debt" but it's de facto not debt. PPHM doesn't have the "cashflow" to repay it, nor the "net asset coverage" to repay it. It's taking the market a while to figure out the implication, IMO. The $30M is a pseudo institutional equity investment, of material magnitude. Disclosure: I've added significantly."
I have to take the opposite side of this argument. This "certainly" is debt and "certainly" PPHM has the free cash flow to pay it down. In addition, Avid alone is an asset that IMO has at least 2x debt to value coverage.
Why would anybody risk 30mm to acquire a de minimus amount of wts for "equity"??? This is absurd on its face.
Oxford is a very sophisticated lender and IMO certainly believes they will get their loan repaid with interest and a warrant equity kicker and probably with prepayment penalty points to boot.
IMO PPHM got the better of the deal and I give mgmt an "A" for the way they negotiated this transaction. I would have given them an "A Plus" except for the following points:
1. I would have taken down the full 30mm in one tranche. When borrowing it always pays to borrow a little more than you need and conversely, when lending it always pays to lend a little more than your client needs. Pay the extra $2 in interest. This is called insurance.
2. By taking the loan in one tranche I would have tried to improve the wt strike price. There is no law that says wts have to be struck at market. They could have been struck for example at 2x market. Oxford clearly believes PPHM unltimate value is going to be several magnitudes higher or they wouldn't have made the loan. In such a scenario, a couple of pts higher to strike would not have made a material difference.
3. By taking the whole 30mm upfront , I would have tried to remove the "going concern" letter from PPHMs' own accountants. This odious letter affects your market value. Ultimately, PPHM will achieve this goal. It will just take a while longer.
4. As people know who read my posts, I would have come to the "debt vs ATM" decision much quicker. I think this same deal could have been structured a year to a year and a half earlier at a savings of 30mm shares of ATM dilution.
In spite of the points above, I think PPHM did an excellent job and executed the debt beautifully with a very sophisticated lender.
The following should not go unnoticed:
One of the reasons mgmt was loathe to place debt on PPHM IMO was they were afraid to risk the other assets of the company should their lead IP not measure up to expectations. Not being really sure on a "gut level" of the real value of their own IP they preferred to finance via ATM for a prolonged period.
Somewhere, IMO , along the 2nd line NSCLC clinical curve mgmt really got it on a "gut level" that the IP is gold. If you are going to convince the investment world writ large of your value you first have to convince yourself.
PPHM management is finally acting like they know not only on a surface intellectual level but also on a real "gut level" that their IP is gold. THEY HAVE STOPPED SELLING EQUITY AND STOPPED DILUTING.
This is a sea change within PPHMs' own house.
Very best regards,
IMO only
RRdog
TY
RRdog
So you are saying that all that BS about HR is just that BS. It cant be accurate until MOS completed??
TIA
RRdog
For those of you looking for new potential pipeline buyers for
PPHM:
BY JEANNE WHALEN AND MARTA FALCONI
U.K. drug maker AstraZeneca PLC appointed Pascal Soriot from Swiss rival Roche Holding AG as chief executive, in the hope that his science background and years at one of the industry?s most successful drug developers can help change AstraZeneca?s fortunes.
Dr. Soriot, a veterinarian by training, has been chief operating officer at Roche?s pharmaceutical division since 2010. The 53-year-old Frenchman also briefly served as CEO of Genentech after Roche acquired full control of the California biotech company in 2009. He starts at AstraZeneca on Oct. 1.
AstraZeneca has suffered a number of expensive drug-development failures in recent years and shown ..."
IMO this is a guy who is going to be aggressive about filling his pipeline and who knows Garnick well.
Best Regards,
RRdog
IMO there has been some stabilizing activity in PPHM in private conversations probably with institutional clients. As I have been highly critical of IR recently, let me be the first to applaud any movement toward the 21st century.
Previously, I had been highly critical of PPHM CFO before PL moved away from ATM type financing and began pursuing debt.
Many had been highly critical of SK deadpan delivery in cc after cc and now applaud him for a more positive attitude and upbeat presentation.
Slowly, over time, PPHM mgmt seems to be improving and trying to catch up with the scientific and regulatory effort which is very forward leaning.
When I do my comparables re biotech corporate valuations, PPHM scientific platform/clinicals seem far superior to any company I can find. The difference between PPHM market cap and midcap valued biotechs (2-3 billion caps) seems to be largely related to balance sheet cash and partnering.
Partnering and balance sheet cash will be driven IMO by clinical data. Since my due diligence indicates data likely to be excellent based on "time analysis" and "platform" scientific due diligence, IMO we are getting much closer to partnering, balance sheet improvement, BOD improvement (see JD1 comments ), and removal of "going concern" letter.
The downside is about $2.30 worst case and should PPHM partner a reasonable upvaluation to midcap biotech comparable values would be about 10-15 x that $2.30. Therefore the risk / reward ratio in PPHM intermediate term without any pie in the sky projections is extremely favorable re valuation IMO. This opinion diametrically opposed to recent articles that claim PPHM way overvalued.
This valuation is made simpler because the denominator is no longer constantly changing due to ATM. The lower ends of the valuation bands are cushioned by outlying value such as a positive event in Cotara, continued growth and positive cash flow at Avid, Imaging progress, cash on hand.
Best Regards,
RRdog
PS: We are getting toward the business end of a long process. My suggestions are the following:
1. Not to become too manic if PPS in PPHM rises. Talk of "victory parties" and zillion dollar valuation targets are a tad premature and only give ammunition to long shareholder enemies. (One can dream in private as well as public)
2. IMO better to stay calm and steady and determine at what points, both fundamental and technical, it might be prudent to add to positions.
3. The message board has attracted a bunch of day traders. While their technical opinions are barely germain, their constant touting of their individual trades does not seem germain to the TOU of this board. My suggestion would be that moderators clean up all posts that deal with personal trades.
4. My further suggestion would be that PPHM long termers on this board refrain from responding to day traders as it only eggs them on to further commentary.
I am consciously trying not to offend anyone. These are just suggestions but they are suggestions based on long experience.
Thurly,
It is clear to me that the FDA and the law is getting more and more flexible in this area and survival is the key stat superceding the surrogate endpoints.
It is also clear to me that the FDA wants to maintain this new flexibility and wants the right to pull an AA drug if it doesn't further prove out.
That is the point I was getting at in previous posts. In order to maintain that flexibility the FDA wants assurances that a full phase III will be run in addition to the AA acceptance.
My point, and I know you agree, is that PPHM will need a major partner for Phase III and be ready to kick it off before AA will be granted.
I think partners will move on the data and will be fairly confident they can get an AA while they go forward with Phase III if the MOS is anywhere close to where I and others have been predicting it will fall out.
Best Regards,
RRdog
Thurly,
This article is excellent. However, it clearly states that AA is provisional and must be proved in a Phase III trial or could be revoked and that a Phase III trial should be planned or underway before AA might be granted. There is no ambiguity about the fact that the AA must be proved out in a phase III trial so the FDA can retain flexibility on the earlier approval.
Given all this and the costs and time associated with a larger Phase III it seems all the more imperative that a partner be on board as PPHM goes into EOPII meetings and Phase III trial protocol negotiations. If you actually need to have begun Phase III trials before receipt of AA then the earliest PPHM could be granted this status according to SK time line would be about middle of 2013.
So, the real big news to focus on would be partnering first not AA.
Do you think that is a fair appraisal or do you think the process could be accelerated even faster if the results were "outstanding"???
Regards,
RRdog.
Thurly,
Thank you. That is very well done on AA.
Regards
RRdog
A couple of thoughts after a down day:
"In the short run the market is a voting machine, in the long run it is a weighing machine." --Warren Buffett.
I guess yesterday was one of those ugly voting days. Perhaps the stock was due for some profit taking??? However, the selling was catalysed by a biased and factually wrong letter that was way behind the curve, written by an anonymous short, promoted by a feckless publisher. If that's the best they got, I feel pretty comfortable. Eventually, the stock moves to "stronger hands" and the science will "weigh in".
On a different subject:
I have mercilessly berated the CFO at PPHM in the past. Now, I see improvement at long last. The decision by PPHM to suspend ATM selling is the correct one. Contrary to "recent fiction" there has been no ATM selling that I can detect for nearly five months. The "rarer" they make the equity the better it will be for us all. In addition, the burn rate is dropping because revenue at Avid is rising and expenses are burning off in the larger, more expensive clinicals. The 7mm in prepayments to Avid was a pleasant surprise and the decision to leverage Avid is IMO also correct.
PL actually appears to have a plan. This is in marked contrast to his "finance as you need cash" MO. PPHM cash plus leverage should see us through a year and may be large enough to affect the "going concern" accounting letter if they take the full 30mm. I expect a lot of science and a lot of FDA and a lot of partnering news, and a lot of growth at Avid over the next year---so IMO PPHM is in a much more comfortable position.
On the subject of IR I have to take the opposite side of KT's argument. This stock has been slapped around at least four times in the last couple of months. Not policing your own market makes you look weak. IR has not learned the same lessons that even PL has mastered. "Price" is a fundamental. It affects corporate perception, corporate funding, and it affects PPHM negotiating posture. Wild lawlessness in the market place is not good for the shareholder/owners of PPHM nor for future shareholders PPHM wants to attract at ever higher prices.
IR seems to take the narrow and archaic position that their function is to set up institutional meetings and to put out PRs when there is news. IMO they are living in a 20th century world and fighting a sort of trench warfare. In the modern 21st century world, fiction can go viral in less than a second. Occassionally, you may need some form of "rapid response" and you may need to be prepared in advance (again a plan of action) should circumstances warrant. If IR is loathe to get down in the mud with the swine and respond directly, they should be prepared with other types of "flanking response". They do of course control the news flow. They can reiterate news, restate or update news, put out new developments they are holding for the right time. Stabilizing action from time to time is not a bad thing.
I do not see much IR effort to reach out to media beyond the PPHM news ticker. Why should only the bogies have access to the media?? PPHM should be preparing the media soil for big things to come and sharpening their media skills as the company approaches bigger news.
Lastly IMO, IR seem to harbor the feeling that somehow institutional shareholders are better than retail shareholders. Perhaps it is because institutions are larger (which they are) or because PPHM thinks they are more knowlegeable or smarter (which is dubious with this crowd).
The whole attitude at IR is sort of like Obama politics in reverse with the elite being favored. Why should we be divided in any way?? Are we not all shareholders?? Can you not get a good idea from an individual shareholder as well as an institutional one??? Are these guys not aware that many individuals hold some multiple of 100,000 shares in their accounts.
In addition, I can think of at least four brokers that carry between 2-3mm shares on their customer retail book. These same brokers also speak to institutions and to the analysts at their firms. I am sure there are many more such brokers than the four I am familiar with because I don't know any of the guys that work at JMP, or Wedbush, or MLV or Roth.
While PPHM IR is courting institutions maybe they should develop an outreach to retail and set up meetings to host this class of shareholder. Memories are short. It wasn't retail shareholder selling that drove the share price to forty cents during the Russell rebalance. I hope IR changes their attitude in this regard. If PL can change, I know IR can improve.
A retail meeting in the NYC area would be a good start. Several brokers would be glad to contribute a conference room.
Lastly, I leave IR with one simple piece of advice. PPHM has the single, greatest regulatory authority in the world working for the company. Somebody in IR should double or triple check his "hookup" before the next conference call so he isn't made to look like a bumbling idiot (last 2 CC) which assuredly he is not. Shareholders are waiting patiently to hear Dr. Garnicks' comments "in detail" as to where PPHM sits at the FDA with regard to Cotara and Bavi in all its manifestations. It would be pleasure to hear in Garnicks' own voice his reasoning on Cotara and on AA for bavi.
Best Regards,
IMO
RRdog
Keep weeding them out guys. It's getting late in the game for anything less than well supported arguments pertaining to value creation.
Volgoat:
Your answer about Thorpes' lab testing many substances was excellent and IMO true.
If I was early in the immuno up reg game like BMY, PPHM would be a very interesting company for me to look at.
Best regards,
RRdog
Don't look at me. I bot PPHM all the way down to .43 and haven't sold. I think this move is trivial. I've been wrong before.
LOL
Best Regards,
RRdog
I agree with JR as well. Let's clean up the board for really productive discussion about the merits or demerits of the value PPHM is trying to create.
Being concerned with making a few pennies on a short trade in PPHM is a little like being proud you found some kindling in a red wood forest.
Best Regards,
RRdog
It is insufficient that a certain "self annointed" biotech guru is "purported" to be buying stock in PPHM. He has done a great deal of damage to many market participants both long and short.
It is insufficient that certain of the gurus' friends and associates are "purported" to be trading PPHM from the long side.
It is insufficient that the same shallow and false guru no longer pounds PPHM with biased short selling recommendations to his misguided followers.
It would be insufficient if the same guru advises his followers to hedge or cover PPHM based on technical stop controls.
The only thing that would be sufficient , IMO, is if the same guru admits he was wrong "fundamentally" and actually recommends his followers not only cover shorts, but, go long at much higher prices than where he recommended being short.
Best Regards,
RRdog
You're welcome.
RRdog
I am particularly excited by SK financial comments re leveraging Avid.
I could not have said it better even if "I had written it myself".
In fact, I had written about leveraging Avid on this board numerous times and had to listen at least fifty times to why it couldn't be done, or would take too much collateral, or was impractical for many reasons. The only thing I would have said differently from SK was "30-40mm" not "20-30MM" but what can you do. One step at a time.
I would like to be an early adoptor of two other theories.
1. Avid:
It is ridiculously low ball to say that Avid did 15mm last year and then predict it will do at least that much in the current year. It is made even more ridiculous when you see clients being forced to pony up 7mm in advance to secure skews. It is even more ridiculous when you say the backlog has gone to 30mm which is way beyond any backlog PPHM has ever had historically.
If the current plans PPHM has for bavi pan out, then Avid is poised to become "one of the fastest growing stand alone small businesses in the country". Avids' free cash flow (IMO close to 50%) far exceeds what PPHM will admit to in the earnings (approx 30%). Therefore, PPHM should be laying plans to spin Avid out as a stand alone company. PPHM could sell 20-30% of Avid and still retain 70-80 % and control of the company. They should raise enough capital to build out a world class cmfg facility for biotechnical material. Perhaps they should make it a hybrid rights offering and give shareholders preference should they also want to own equity in Avid per se.
Avid may not be ready for a spin out today but, the plans should be laid to go forward in the next one to two years. All IMO of course.
2. There is really no reason to ever sell another (not one) share of PPHM in the foreseeable future (other than the standard option conversions, etc.) PPHM should raise capital from partnerships only. They should treat the common stock like "gold" if they want it to be gold. Maybe there will come a day when PPHM has a need to raise a couple of hundred million dollars for some particular project and we can revisit this theory but, for now, they should "never sell even one more share".
Let the shorts "drink their own blood and bile". They are a particularly nasty and insidious group. Yesterday is just the latest coordinated example of how nasty they can get. Make the shares so rare they have no room to cover.
3. PPHM should retain mainstream media consultants. If the results of PPHM trials come in with historic results, and some CRs then they will need expertise as to how to present on a bigger media platform.
"When the phone don't ring , it'll be me" -- George Jones.
Well the phone at the PPHM clinical test center re MOS hasn't rung yet. So, stay calm and focus on "value creation" not price.
Eventually, IMO "you will get a price to match the value". That is worth repeating. IMO, with patience "you will get a price to match the value".
.
Best Regards,
(On a rainy evening after the best corporate presentation ever IMO)
RRdog
The nose bleed section is right.
Full disclosure:
My low price is 43 cents. I think I would have gotten 39 cents except I was in the mens' room throwing up. So, on a personal note it was pleasant two days ago when the stock moved more than .43 cents in one day.
But , when I get past the petty self congrats and start to think more seriously once again, I feel that this whole move is still trivial.
In my well formed opinion, there are days coming when the move will be larger than "todays'" market cap.
Just do the math and the comparisons and the market sizes and forget about how you "feel about things." Get objective only.
The Chicago Symposium starts on Sept 6th. That is an interesting date in that it is exactly eleven months from the 2nd line NSCLC enrollment completion date. IMO there is a 95% probability that the average clinical patient was enrolled between 2-5 months before the completion date. If MOS is not achieved by the start of the symposium it is probably 13-16 months in duration. That would be historic in the many ways we have previously discussed.
What PPHM is not disclosing is data on CRs' and I am eagerly awaiting any news in this area. You all understand my concept of "Volume" in the way bavi approaches the cancer market. The way you multiply volume is with "hope".
CRs' give people hope.
If they can live longer with fewer side effects, that's terrific.
If they have 5-10% chance of CR that's much more than terrific that is "hope". If you have hope you can take the volume and multiply it by a factor yet to be determined.
BTW--PPHM will not need a partner nor an MOS achieved date to schedule the end of phase II conference with the FDA IMO. Those two details can be taken care of during the 60 day period leading to the meeting or afterwards.
Best Regards,
RRdog
FTM,
I share your distaste for the uninformed commentator.
Biomaven also referenced the now discredited "control results" with the radiographic scans. He seems a bit dated in his thinking.
However, I find your refutations clear and refreshing and they are good reminders of why we are here. I think it would be foolish not to respond on occassion where the claims are misinformed if it adds clarity to our discussion.
Best
RRdog
I never beat you at anything. This must be a first.
RRdog
IMO the Roth analyst is a follower. He has dropped coverage because of the technical action and then returned.
If a Wedbush analyst picked up coverage on PPHM, I would take notice.
Best Regards,
RRdog
Rolo,
This article has been out for days.
The latest news is that todays dated Roth Capital report reinterates a strong speculative buy in PPHM with a 12 month target of $5/sh (???).
What is new in the report is that PPHM will present at the Chicago Symposium of Thoracic Oncology Sept 6-8th. PPHM is a "late breaking" entry for presentation on Sept 7th. The implication in the report is that PPHM will discuss the Bavi 2nd line Phase II trial developments.
Best Regards,
RRdog