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.
I was frustrated about our day traders/shorters pounding this stock for so long but now I am on the other side thanking them because it brought my average way down and now I am in the green. I never lost hope in Leo and the IPIX team. Hopefully we can look at the last year and say it allowed us to make even more money than we could of ever imagined.
Money aside, it has never been lost on me that IPIX drugs will soon dramatically improve and maybe one day save lives. It is honestly exciting to be apart of this. Hopefully, IPIX continues to create solid and positive gains in their science. The rest will play out in our favor.
Go Leo & IPIX!
Scottsmith, I liked this (your post) so much I read it to my wife and we both laughed out loud... I have been trying to convince her to buy more because time is ticking and I want to maximize my profit. Going to continue to work on her for the rest/entire day... Thanks for the laugh!
Go Leo & IPIX!
I did not. Go Leo & IPIX!
Thank you DaubersUP, I am always interested to hear your thoughts and opinions. I have been with CTIX/IPIX for approximately the same amount of time. We have been through the good/bad times with this company but hopefully sometime soon, the best will be yet to come. I will wait as long as it takes if they continue to make good and solid progress. Go Leo & IPIX!
Thank you for your feedback and your consistent efforts on this board. I really believe we are at the early stages of some really interesting times with IPIX. This stock could take off at any moment and my biggest fear is when to bail and not be to greedy. $10, $20, $30, $40, $50 a share.....
I have said this a lot lately; I appreciate the longs on this board providing reliable and positive post for us serious shareholders to read. I absolutely do not read any of the negative crap posted daily from our motley crew. Go Leo & IPIX!
Very good question. I am a novice and do not know but I highly doubt they can. Waiting patiently... to the moon Alice! Go Leo & IPIX!
slcimmuno, Thank you! it was very well written and explains in details what has been happening to IPIX since the initial attack. Thanks for all of your diligence and hardwork you and the other longs put into this board. Let the results be shown. Go Leo & IPIX!
“Short Activism: The Rise in Anonymous Online Short Attacks”
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2017/11/27/short-activism-the-rise-in-anonymous-online-short-attacks/
Focused on IPIX Science, but feel obligated to post such reads every time I come across them ... for obvious reasons ...
One of the best I’ve seen.
A concise, well-sourced summary of the real damage done to companies by the likes of Mako and what steps can-might-should be taken... one can only hope similar SEC (and other) scrutiny is applied to Short/Distort schemes as they paid last year to the Pump/Dump ones. Two sides of same coin each worth equal attention.
—
“Short Activism: The Rise in Anonymous Online Short Attacks”
In recent years, anonymous online hit pieces against public companies have become an increasingly common and effective form of short activism. Given their success in driving down stock prices, anonymous online short campaigns are likely here to stay. Anonymous online short attacks pose unique challenges to public companies. In order to defend successfully against anonymous online short attacks, public companies must have ready-to-execute plans in place—whether or not an online short attack appears imminent.
This post has five main sections: Section I discusses the rise in anonymous online attacks, Section II analyzes the effectiveness of short seller campaigns, Section III discusses how anonymous short attacks are waged, Section IV analyzes the challenges that anonymous online attacks pose for public companies, and Section V discusses different considerations in determining whether and how to respond to anonymous online attacks, and the strategic decisions required to successfully defend against them.
I. A New Breed of Short Activism: The Rise in Anonymous Online Short Attacks
Short seller activism is generally associated with prominent hedge funds and “celebrity” activists, such as David Einhorn and Bill Ackman. These short sellers often launch short attacks capitalizing on their notoriety and name recognition. [1] In recent years, however, a new breed of short activism has emerged: individuals who anonymously post negative research reports and articles about targeted public companies on widely followed online financial and research platforms, such as Seeking Alpha. According to Activist Insight, “activist short sellers are more often than not anonymous entities and funds.” [2]
Unlike the typical investor, a short seller seeks to take advantage of bear markets and profit from the decline in a company’s stock price. Short attacks are most effective where long investors lose confidence in their own appraisal of a stock’s value. This most commonly happens when a company’s financial position is complicated, when a new industry or product is being valued, when a government investigation is disclosed to or suspected by the market, or when other forces create ambiguity in the valuation.
Under current regulations, investors are not required to disclose short positions, making it difficult for companies and the market to track the existence of short sellers and monitor their activity. [3] The inherent anonymity of the internet exacerbates these challenges. As long as online short activists have access to the internet, they can theoretically launch a short attack that reaches millions of investors from anywhere at any time—and with little accountability. [4]
Until recently, the market dismissed anonymous short activists as illegitimate and not credible, as “real” short sellers with legitimate claims do not hide behind fake pseudonyms and aliases. [5] That premise has been proven wrong. Anonymous short sellers can be, and often are, disguised prominent hedge funds and individuals. For example, in December 2015, a short seller using the pseudonym “Investors for Truth” published an anonymous report about United Development Funding IV (“UDF”) on the investing websites Harvest Exchange and Value Investors Club, causing UDF’s stock price to plummet 35%. After much speculation, Kyle Bass, founder of Hayman Capital Manager, eventually claimed responsibility for the articles posted under the pseudonym Investors for Truth. [6] Such prominent short activists have incentive to post under pseudonyms in order to protect against litigation and reputational risk in the event of public or company backlash, and to protect their bets against premature public exposure.
II. Anonymous Short Attacks Can Send Stock Prices Spiraling
Anonymous online attacks can have an immediate negative impact on a target company’s stock price and generate market momentum for prolonged periods of time—or, at the very least, trigger serious stock volatility. The following examples demonstrate just how devastating and long-standing such an attack can be.
1. Banc of California: Short Attacks Cause Stock Price to Plummet 29%
In October 2016, an individual using the pseudonym “Aurelius” posted an article on Seeking Alpha about the Banc of California. Among other things, Aurelius alleged that the company’s directors had ties to an imprisoned con man. [7] The mainstream media picked up the story, lending credibility to Aurelius’s allegations. The next day, Banc of California’s stock plummeted 29% to its lowest stock price since 2002. [8] In response, the company sent an unsuccessful request to Seeking Alpha to take the article down and issued a press release announcing that it was conducting an internal investigation. Even though the company’s internal investigation revealed no evidence of wrongdoing, the company’s CEO and Vice Chairman have since resigned, and the company announced that it is under investigation by the SEC regarding the statements made in the press release, which it now admits were inaccurate. [9]
2. Bank of the Internet: Prolonged Short Attacks Bring Stock Price Down 37%
Anonymous online short attacks can also subject target companies to years of stock price volatility. For nearly three-and-a-half years, the Bank of the Internet (“BofI”) has been, and still is, the target of short attacks brought by several different individuals posting anonymously on Seeking Alpha, as well as known short sellers Kerrisdale Capital Management and Citron Research. Between March and October 2014, after a series of anonymous negative articles, BofI’s stock dropped approximately 37% to $16.38. Since that time, BofI has been the target of no less than 30 short seller pieces on Seeking Alpha by several known short sellers and anonymous bloggers. BofI’s trouble did not end there. BofI is currently embroiled in two high-profile lawsuits and has confirmed that enforcement agencies have inquired about the allegations. [10] In response, BofI’s CEO has promised to hold the anonymous short sellers responsible for their share of BofI’s stock price volatility, [11] but has been unable to do so—in part, because BofI has been unable to unmask the identities of its anonymous attackers. [12]
3. Eros International: Short Attacks Gain Momentum and Push Stock Price Down 50%
Eros International PLc (“Eros”), an Indian-based Bollywood filmmaker, has been the subject of short attacks since 2015. For example, Alpha Exposure, an anonymous short seller that primarily publishes its research on Seeking Alpha and Twitter, first targeted Eros on October 30 and November 10, 2015. Alpha Exposure accused the company of, among other things, pervasive accounting fraud and questionable related-party transactions. [13] In response, the company issued a press release denying Alpha Exposure’s allegations on November 12, 2015. [14]
Alpha Exposure’s allegations gained momentum, prompting attacks from other short sellers and causing at least one investor to publicly demand that the company overhaul its board and improve corporate governance. Despite the company’s efforts, short sellers have continued their attack throughout 2017, with Alpha Exposure most recently releasing a short report on August 14, 2017, claiming that the company is facing bankruptcy. [15] On October 3, 2017, Eros sued a number of hedge funds and anonymous short sellers under the name “John Doe” for trade libel, defamation, and civil conspiracy, among other claims. Eros announced that “the filing of th[e] lawsuit marks another important step in Eros’ vigorous defense of itself and the company’s stakeholders.” [16] Since October 2015, Eros shares have fallen approximately 50%.
4. Akoustis Technologies: Stock Price Down 43% and Still Falling
Most recently, Akoustis Technologies (“Akoustis”), a U.S.-based electronics company, has come under attack by an anonymous short seller Mako Research and a short seller blog called The Street Sweeper. In April 2017, The Street Sweeper published two short reports, claiming that the company was a pump-and-dump scheme with “no meaningful revenue” and disclosing that it informed the SEC of the Company’s multiple inconsistent SEC filings. [17] In August 2017, Mako Research published an article on Seeking Alpha, alleging that the company’s core patents are “obsolete” and predicting that it had a 96% downside. [18] Akoustis shares traded down almost 5% in the hour after Mako Research published its report, and have fallen approximately 43% since The Street Sweeper’s first reports in April 2017. [19]
III. The Online World of Anonymous Short Attack Campaigns
Online short sellers often post articles and research from a crowdsourcing research platform, such as Seeking Alpha or Scribd, that they consider “home.” These platforms offer ready-made audiences that short activists can reach immediately upon posting an article, and have become sources of financial information for institutional and individual investors alike.
Many online short activists have developed significant followings and generated credible track records. For example, anonymous blogger The Pump Stopper has approximately 1,700 followers on Seeking Alpha, and has launched approximately 24 short campaigns with an average campaign return of -39.80%. Likewise, Alpha Exposure has approximately 1,800 followers on Seeking Alpha, and has launched approximately 25 short campaigns with an average campaign return of -33.90%. In addition to using research platforms such as Seeking Alpha, online short activists also frequently create their own websites and use Twitter to further disseminate their short ideas. This allows short sellers to share their investment ideas instantaneously with potentially millions of people. [20] At the same time, online short activists—like their mainstream counterparts—turn to other methods, including whistleblowing to regulators or tipping off the mainstream media.
IV. Challenges in Defending Against Anonymous Online Short Attacks
Anonymous online short attacks create a number of challenges for public companies, primarily because public companies often struggle to unmask their short attackers. This makes it difficult to mount an effective counterattack or engage the activist to reach a private resolution. As Eros’s CFO aptly put it, “It feels like we’re shadowboxing …. We’re fighting a ghost.” [21] Public companies face the following additional challenges:
First, online short attacks generally give public companies no advance notice, in part because their success largely turns on catching companies off guard. As a result, online short sellers are unlikely to privately engage companies before going public.
Second, the company bears a high burden of proof in refuting a short seller’s allegations. A short seller need only prove that a fraction of the allegations is true, while the company must disprove each and every allegation.
Third, the mere existence of short seller campaigns may prompt federal agencies to investigate the allegations made by anonymous online short attackers. [22] In a recent statement, for example, BofI’s Chief Legal Officer refused to confirm reported investigations by the SEC, DOJ, Treasury Department, and OCC into potential money-laundering, but admitted that “[d]ue to false allegations made in short seller hit pieces and pending litigation, agencies routinely ask questions to assure themselves that such allegations are without basis.” [23] Such inquiries, even if eventually dropped by the government, distract management and divert company resources.
Last, public companies have been largely unsuccessful in litigating claims against anonymous short attackers for libel, defamation, and/or stock manipulation, in large part because these claims implicate First Amendment rights. [24] For example, BofI unsuccessfully moved to compel compliance with two subpoenas to unmask “Aurelius,” an online blogger who has posted 13 short reports on BofI since October 2015. In each instance, the Court found that BofI failed to make a showing necessary to overcome Aurelius’s strong First Amendment rights to anonymous speech. [25]
Given the difficulty in defending against online short attacks, public companies are exploring novel defensive strategies, such as alliances with other companies to promote sharing of crisis-management advice [26] and entering into consulting engagements with known short sellers in order to better understand how anonymous short sellers develop and share their opinions online. [27]
V. Begin Preparation Now and Have a Response Plan in Place
As the above challenges demonstrate, it is critically important to have a response plan in place, even if there is no sign of an online short attack. Short sellers generally try to evade detection precisely so that they can catch the company off guard. Once short sellers post their hit pieces online, the damage can be extensive and immediate, regardless of whether or not the allegations have any merit.
There a number of different options in responding to an online short attack. First, the company can do nothing. This strategy may be effective if the attacker lacks credibility or if a company is confident in its valuation such that the market quickly corrects itself and dismisses the attacker’s allegations. Moreover, the company may avoid drawing further attention to the attacker’s campaign. Second, the company may offer a limited response—attacking either the merits of the short seller’s allegations or the credibility of the short seller itself—to address investor concerns and maintain market confidence. Last, the company can fully engage the attacker, such as by offering point-by-point rebuttals to the attacker’s allegations or initiating litigation. Regardless of the response, the company should be prepared to assess its strategic options and react immediately by considering the following steps:
Pre-Attack Preparation. Monitor the internet for unusual online activity, particularly financial blogs like Seeking Alpha, as well as unusual short activity and media attention. As a general defense to activism, it is also important to develop strong shareholder engagement and communications programs, and demonstrate responsiveness to shareholder concerns. Ongoing shareholder engagement makes shareholders more likely to be supportive of management and receptive to their positions in the event of a short attack. [28]
Identify Your Attacker. The first and most important step in responding to an anonymous online attack is to identify your attacker. This will help you determine whether a response is necessary or appropriate, and will influence how you frame your response. Possible steps to take to identify your attacker include:
Engage a forensic analyst firm. Online attackers almost always leave an electronic footprint, such as an IP address that tracks the computer to a physical address.
Review FOIA requests submitted to government agencies about the company. This creates a short list of individuals focusing on the company to determine, for example, whether any federal agencies are investigating the company, which a short seller may use to buttress claims of the company’s wrongdoing. [29]
Consider whether the attacker is an insider. If the allegations rely on or convey inside information, your attacker may be a current or former employee or may be in contact with one, narrowing the pool of potential attackers.
Analyze the Attacker’s “Playbook.” Even if you are unable to unmask your attacker, the attacker may have an online track record that enables you to assess their motives and anticipate their next move. For example, how often does the author post articles, are the posts generally tied to the timing of public announcements or filings, and how much traction did the last article or campaign generate? This may also enable the company to undermine the attacker’s credibility and his or her allegations.
Decide Whether to Engage. The natural urge is to respond immediately and forcefully, with a blanket denial in order to reassure stockholders and protect the share price. This is often the wrong approach. Publicly responding to the attack may only legitimize the short seller and his or her allegations. It also guarantees that news of attack reaches a larger audience beyond the short seller’s followers. If the company does not respond, the short seller’s campaign may not gain momentum or may be more likely to stay confined to online mediums. On the other hand, a concise persuasive rebuttal may prevent the attack from gaining momentum or fueling speculation. In determining whether to respond, the company should consider factors such as (1) the company’s vulnerabilities, (2) merits of the allegations, and (3) the track record and credibility of the attacker.
Framing the Response. If you decide to engage the attacker, the response should be concise and deliberate in order to regain control of the dialogue, particularly if you do not know who your attacker is or whether any of their allegations have merit. The response should address and conclusively refute each allegation.
Choosing the Right Channel. There are a number of mediums—varying in terms of aggression and publicity—by which to defend against anonymous short seller attacks. These include (1) issuing a public press release or public statement, (2) addressing the allegations during a public conference or earnings call, (3) posting a statement on the company’s website, (4) announcing the engagement of an independent law firm to investigate the attacker’s allegations, (5) initiating litigation by bringing claims such as libel, defamation, and stock manipulation, and (6) informing federal agencies of any illegal activity, if applicable. In some cases, it may make sense to get out in front of bad news—before short sellers attack—and heavily contextualize the story to control the narrative and prevent market overreaction. It is particularly important to weigh the risks and benefits of initiating litigation. While it may demonstrate the company’s depth of conviction, litigating claims against anonymous short activists will likely be costly, time-intensive, and may publicize the short seller’s allegations. In addition, the company should consider the practical implications of bringing a public lawsuit, such as the risk that sensitive company information would be revealed in public filings and during the course of discovery. Contacting federal agencies may prompt an investigation into the short seller’s allegations, drawing additional unwanted attention and scrutiny. It is therefore critically important to be absolutely certain that the short seller’s allegations do not have any merit and be prepared for a potential follow-up investigation. Companies often employ multiple defenses to defend against short campaigns. For example, Eros chose to immediately respond and refute Alpha Exposure’s attack and engaged an independent law firm to assist in its internal investigation. The law firm ultimately cleared the company of any wrongdoing. Similarly, BofI has emphatically refuted short attack allegations during several earnings calls and has aggressively sought to unmask the identities of its attackers by issuing subpoenas in connection with court proceedings.
Conclusion
Anonymous short attacks have the ability to cripple the stock price of a public company—whether large or small—or, at the very least, cause stock volatility for months or even years. This is particularly true as certain anonymous short sellers, such as Alpha Exposure and The Pump Stopper, gain legitimacy with established short campaign “track records” and broader followings, enabling them to more easily move the market and undermine investor confidence. As anonymous short campaigns become both more common and more effective, public companies should have a defense plan in place and must be prepared to react immediately.
Endnotes
1Steven Davidoff Solomon, Ackman, Herbalife and Celebrity Short-Sellers, New York Times (Jan. 1, 2013), available at: https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/ackman-herbalife-and-celebrity-short-sellers/?_r=0.
(go back)
2For example, in 2013, there were only four new anonymous activist short sellers compared to 12 new activist funds. In 2016, there were 12 new anonymous activist short sellers, roughly the same number of new activist funds. Activist Investing Annual Review 2017, p. 34 (Feb. 2017), available at: https://www.srz.com/images/content/1/4/v2/147747/Activist-Insight-The-Activist-Investing-Annual-Review-2017.pdf.
(go back)
3Under current federal securities laws, investors must disclose when they acquire a five percent or greater long position in a publicly traded company, and funds must disclose long positions on a quarterly basis to the Securities Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). See 15 U.S.C. § 78m(d); 17 CFR § 240.13f-1. Despite repeated requests, the SEC has declined to promulgate rules requiring disclosure of short positions similar to those governing long positions. See, e.g., Letter from Edward S. Knight, Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Chief Regulatory Officer, Nasdaq, Inc. to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, SEC, dated Dec. 7, 2015, available at: https://www.sec.gov/rules/petitions/2015/petn4-691.pdf (requesting “swift action to promulgate rules to require public disclosure by investors of short positions in parity with the disclosure regime applicable to long positions”).
(go back)
4Although outside the scope of this article, anonymous online short sellers may also use the internet to launch unsubstantiated smear campaigns and illegal “short and distort” or other stock manipulation schemes.
(go back)
5See, e.g., Keith Fitzgerald, The Short Attack on Ekso Bionics and How to Handle It, Nasdaq (June 3, 2015), available at: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/the-short-attack-on-ekso-bionics-otc-ekso-stock-and-how-to-handle-it-cm483956.
(go back)
6Julia LaRoche, An Anonymous short-seller called a company a ‘Ponzi-like real-estate scheme’ and the stock has crashed 65%, Business Insider (Dec. 11, 2015), available at: http://www.businessinsider.com/short-seller-report-on-united-development-funding-reit-2015-12; Julia LaRoche, Kyle Bass is going to war with his latest short target, Business Insider (Feb. 5, 2016), available at: http://www.businessinsider.com/kyle-bass-goes-after-united-development-funding-2016-2; .
(go back)
7Aurelius, BANC: Extensive Ties to Notorious Fraudster Jason Galanis Make Shares Un-Investible (Oct. 18. 2016), Seeking Alpha, available at: https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/38682326-aurelius/4925647-banc-extensive-ties-notorious-fraudster-jason-galanis-make-shares-un-investible.
(go back)
8Zeke Faux, Banc of California Drops Amid Accusations From Short Seller, Bloomberg (Oct. 18, 2016), available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-18/banc-of-california-drops-as-short-seller-alleges-ties-to-con-man.
(go back)
9Jennifer Surane and Zeke Faux, Banc of California Tumbles as CEO Resigns, SEC Begins Probe, Bloomberg (Jan. 23, 2017), available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-23/banc-of-california-ceo-sugarman-resigns-sznewajs-named-chairman.
(go back)
10Kevin Dugan, Feds Probe Bank of Internet for Possible Money Laundering, New York Post (March 31, 2017), available at: http://nypost.com/2017/03/31/feds-probe-bank-of-internet-for-possible-money-laundering/.
(go back)
11BofI Conference Call Transcript (Oct. 14, 2015), available at: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1299709/000129970915000138/conferencecalltranscript20.htm.
(go back)
12See Section IV for a discussion of BofI’s attempts to unmask its anonymous online short attackers since 2015.
(go back)
13Alpha Exposure, Unlike the Name, Investors Should Not Love Eros, Seeking Alpha (Oct. 30, 2015), available at: https://seekingalpha.com/article/3621886-unlike-name-investors-love-eros; Alpha Exposure, Eros: Return of the Short Seller, Seeking Alpha (Nov. 10, 2015), available at https://seekingalpha.com/article/3671166-eros-return-short-seller-2015.
(go back)
14Eros International PLc, Eros Says Content is at the Core of Their Business and Baseless and Misleading Allegations Don’t Change Their Fundamentals, Erosplc.com (Nov. 12, 2015), available at: https://erosplc.gcs-web.com/news-releases/news-release-details/eros-says-content-core-their-business-and-baseless-and.
(go back)
15Alpha Exposure, Eros: Roll the Credits, Seeking Alpha (Aug. 14, 2017), available at: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4098646-eros-roll-credits.
(go back)
16Eros International Plc Commences Legal Action Against Market Manipulation, Business Wire (Oct. 3, 2017), available at: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20171003005903/en/.
(go back)
17Sonya Colberg, Akoustis Technologies, Inc. (AKTS): Deal Guy, Paid Promotions, Discrepancies and Other Risks, TheStreetSweeper (Apr. 11, 2017), available at: http://www.thestreetsweeper.org/undersurveillance/Akoustis_Technologies__Inc___AKTS___Deal_Guy__Paid_Promotions__Discrepancies_and_Other_Risks.
(go back)
18Mako Research, Akoustis: Strong Sell On Product Obsolescence, Paid Stock Promoters, And Ex-Gottbetter Team Involvement, 96% Downside, Seeking Alpha (Aug. 9, 2017), available at: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4096904-akoustis-strong-sell-product-obsolescence-paid-stock-promoters-ex-gottbetter-team-involvement.
(go back)
19Mako Announces a New Short Target, Activist Insight (Aug. 9, 2017), available at: https://www.activistinsight.com/members/viewnews.aspx?neid=20918&mode=4.
(go back)
20Trista Kelley, Hated Short Sellers Get Bold in Anonymous Age of Twitter, Bloomberg (May 5, 2015), available at: http://bloomberg/com/news/articles/2015-05-05/secret-shorts-nameless-naysayers-shake-markets-in-twitter-age.
(go back)
21David Lieberman, Bollywood’s Eros International Fights To Recover From Anonymous Fraud Claims, Deadline (Nov. 20, 2015), available at: http://deadline.com/2015/11/eros-international-stock-fall-anonymous-attacks-1201629162/.
(go back)
22By contrast, in the absence of egregious and blatant illegal conduct, the SEC will generally not bring enforcement actions against short sellers. Charles F. Walker and Colin D. Forbes, SEC Enforcement Actions and Issuer Litigation in the Context of a “Short Attack,” The Business Lawyer, Vol. 68, 689, 713 (May 2013), available at: https://files.skadden.com/sites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fpublications%2FTBL_SEC_Enforcement_May_2013.pdf. A series of recent SEC enforcement actions, however, suggest that federal regulators regularly monitor online research platforms, such as Seeking Alpha, and may be more willing to bring suit against individual bloggers. For example, on April 10, 2017, the SEC brought 27 enforcement actions against various online bloggers who wrote anonymous bullish articles on financial blogs, but failed to disclose that they were paid to do so by vendors hired by public companies. SEC Press Release, Payments for Bullish Articles on Stocks Must Be Disclosed to Investors, dated Apr. 10, 2017, available at: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2017-79.
(go back)
23Kevin Dugan, Feds Probe Bank of Internet for Possible Money Laundering, New York Post (March 31, 2017), available at: http://nypost.com/2017/03/31/feds-probe-bank-of-internet-for-possible-money-laundering/.
(go back)
24See e.g., Silvercorp Metals Inc. v. Anthion Mgt. LLC, No. 150374/2011, 2012 WL 356992, at *7-16 (dismissing company’s defamation suit against anonymous short seller “Alfred Little” on the grounds that the allegedly defamatory statements were constitutionally protected free speech).
(go back)
25Aurelius v. BofI Federal Bank, Case No. 2:16-MC-0071 (C.D. Cal. 2016); BofI Federal Bank v. Seeking Alpha, Inc., 1:16-mn-00025 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
(go back)
26For example, Fullshare, a Hong Kong-based company being targeted by short sellers, unveiled an innovative defense plan, called the “anti-malicious short selling alliance.” The purpose of the “alliance” is to unite companies when short sellers attack and promote sharing of crisis-management advice. Lisa Pham and Moxy Ying, Hong Kong’s Short-Seller Invasion Spurs Unusual Defense Plan, Bloomberg (May 22, 2017), available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-23/short-seller-invasion-of-hong-kong-spurs-an-unusual-defense-plan.
(go back)
27For example, BofI’s counsel reached out to Marc Cohodes, a renowned short seller, to engage him as a consultant in order to better understand short seller campaigns, and specifically campaigns waged by short sellers posting under pseudonyms on Seeking Alpha. Not only did Cohodes decline BofI’s offer, but he also took to Twitter and exposed BofI’s attempt to buy him. Owen Davis, Short Sellers: If You Can’t Beat ‘Em, Give ‘Em $15,000 An Hour Consulting Gigs to Turn Rat, DealBreaker (June 28, 2017), available at: https://dealbreaker.com/2017/06/short-sellers-if-you-cant-beat-em-give-em-15000-an-hour-consulting-gigs-to-turn-rat/.
(go back)
28See Tarun Mehta, Shareholder Engagement: Maximizing the Shareholder Relationship, ISS Corporate Services, available at: https://www.issgovernance.com/file/publications/MaximizingTheShareholderRelationshipVol_13.3.pdf.
(go back)
29See, e.g., Aparecium Research, Axon Enterprise: Questionable Earnings, Possible SEC Scrutiny And Material Weaknesses In Financial Reporting (Oct. 18, 2017), available at: https://seekingalpha.com/embargo/4114102 (“We filed a FOIA request with the SEC to collect any documents related to current or past investigations of Axon by the SEC. . . . We believe that the response letter indicates a possibility that Axon is currently being investigated by the SEC, and – given the questions in the 2015 review – it is reasonably possible that it relates to revenue recognition policies.”).
(go back)
Easy to say after the fact, even if it was or it was not. Time will tell whether you are right or Leo is right. I have been long since 2010 and will support Leo every time with what direction this company should go and how the money should be best spent. My best friend who is long and has millions of shares started to acquire more this past week.
Can wait to see where we (longs & IPIX) are in 6 months.
Thanks again to all the longs who keep posting awesome and thought provoking posts... Our time is growing near!
Go Leo & IPIX!
Great Post! I needed that... Well said and thank you! Go Leo & IPIX!
Thanksgiving thoughts from across the grand ocean:
Give thanks for those around you at your Thanksgiving feast, no matter whose company you are in or where you may be.
Give thanks and cherish loved ones, both family and friends.
Give thanks for those no longer with you whose past presence helped influence you to become who you are today.
Give thanks to all those you have encountered in your life for each has left you something whether a passing smile or a learning moment out of tens of thousands.
Give thanks to those strangers who have gifted you, blessed you, with the many comforts of society, culture and technology. All those visionaries from whom we received all the comforts, freedoms and guaranteed rights from the earliest authors of writs to the programmers and designers responsible for the very technology upon which you are reading this.
Give thanks to those many strangers and possibly current family and ancestors from whose sacrifices we enjoy all these freedoms. Remember, not all who paid the ultimate price were soldiers, yet for the lost soldier there is a special thanks.
Today I give thanks for all my blessings though I am in an emerging nation that now allows teachers like me to pass on my knowledge and share with its citizen children some of my lifelong learning and lessons. For this last thing, and as an old man in his autumn of life, I am especially thankful.
Happy Thanksgiving and prosperity to all be it the blessing of wealth,
abundant love, or future generations. God bless us all. --LilKahuna
georgejjl & runninggirl,
To me, this is very exciting article/video and I would have missed it. Thanks for bringing it to the board.
Thanks to all of the believers/longs who work tirelessly combating day traders and shorters. Your hard work will be rewarded.
Go Leo & IPIX!
http://www.ipharminc.com/new-blog/2017/11/21/brilacidin-as-a-successful-example-of-de-novo-drug-design
runninggirl,
Thank you that was a most interesting video.
Brilacidin is leading the way to a new paradigm.
http://www.ipharminc.com/new-blog/2017/11/21/brilacidin-as-a-successful-example-of-de-novo-drug-design
Good luck and GOD bless,
George
Pete, great post and very well written! Go Leo & IPIX!
Biotech - Tons of startups, most dismal failures, financial nightmares, long time for pipeline to reach any credible point of expecting a success instead of a failure in clinical trials.
I believe what I described above is a pretty accurate view of biotech to most investors, especially institutional investors, so why would any investor pay close attention to any biotech until it has reached at least a culmination of P2 clinical trials? What would any investor care about what a CEO was spouting when his product was years from getting to P2 trials? I don't think they even start looking at a startup biotech until P3 trials as evidenced by IPIX institutional listing of current investors recently showing minimal investment by only about two or three marginal clients, not counting Aspire.
Now if the above is true which IMO is pretty much a given, how much validity do you really think there is to the cry of Leo having no cred in the market based on history of 2-5 years ago? It's not like he wiped out a load of investors with a reverse split or other such dastardly deeds. No institutional acct lost money and the only money retail lost was that of uninformed investors that didn't realize the time frame or financial challenges a bio startup faces in its beginning years. Those that lost big sadly lost due to their own inexperience or ignorance of how the game is played by ruthless short MM's and other professional firms that legally fleece the inexperienced investor. Can anyone spell MAKO?
IPIX/CTIX really only came to some visibility about the time of the name change in my estimation as that is when we got the positive news/pics of the B-UP/UPS trial.
We should add to the picture by early Dec when we report top line results of B-OM and that is going to validate the B platform as a monster for both antibiotic (ABSSSI success) and anti-inflammatory conditions (UP/UPS, OM) plus the recent sponsorship of a nice dermatology conference gives some recognition for B as a possible major player in the dermatology arena (acne, eczema, and the more egregious forms of skin problems).
Dec continues with an update on K-OC MOA findings and will bolster Kevetrin as a possible super player in the p53 activation search and as a major combo player for new cancer treatments. This could be a game changer drug for cancer if the results prove what Dr. M expects them to prove. There are a number of esteemed Dr's that believe in K and I hope this is the trial that finally kicks its progress to commercialization into high gear.
We finish the month with conclusion of P with no remarks about major safety issues and we wait a couple of months IMO to get top line data. Again, possible major first in class possibility based on negligible safety issues, low cost, and high efficacy which many here expect to see as results of the P2B.
I say take all the talk of 2 years ago and later and shove it where the sun don't shine as it is not part of the story any longer. Start discussing events today but that would be hard to swallow for all those trying to paint IPIX in a negative light for their own agendas.
If I was a new institutional acct looking at IPIX, I would be impressed with how many high revenue products are nearly finished with P2 results as opposed to caring about some comment Leo made 4 or 5 years ago.
Great Article. We are at the ten year mark; thank goodness cause I have been in this for the majority of the time. Things are going to get interesting over the next couple of months. Thanks Sox, Go Leo & IPIX!
The market doesn't predict news, it reacts to news. Here's my favorite interview for those who haven't read it.
Doctor-Founder-Billionaire Talks About Biotech Investment, Stocks
Not a lot of biotechnology entrepreneurs go on to count their wealth in billions, build supercomputers or own a significant piece of the Los Angeles Lakers basketball team.
But that’s been the trajectory of Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, who launched and sold two biotech startups–together worth nearly $8 billion. He now is heading up a new endeavor featuring artificial intelligence, semiconductors, cloud databases, a supercomputer, nano-optics and fiber-optic cable, all in the name of improving the country’s health-care system.
Dr. Soon-Shiong is also a heavy investor in publicly traded biotech stocks, he said.
The public markets last year welcomed dozens of new entrants from the world of biotech, but many have not been able to sustain the enthusiasm from investors. Many today are trading below their offering price, prompting some to speculate that there could be a biotech bubble.
Dr. Soon-Shiong says that is not the case, and that pressing medical needs will buoy many stocks beyond their initial ups and downs.
And while he stopped short of saying that his new company–Los Angeles-based Nantworks LLC–will definitely file to go public, he said he expects the company to become a powerful standalone player in the high-tech health system that the country is moving toward. He talked to Venture Capital Dispatch about the complex picture for new biotech issues on the public markets.
Q: What is your view of a situation where a lot of companies go public over a short time, and then have a very mixed performance? Is it something people should worry about?
A: No, absolutely not. The evolving tools of science, and their promise, have never been as exciting as right now. There are some real breakthrough drugs out now, particularly in cancer. It’s not a bubble, but people have followed each other [onto the public markets]. There’s been a pent-up demand for growth companies, and there’s capital out there. You will definitely see some of these companies stand the test of time.
As far as the ones that aren’t performing as well, sometimes it’s not the companies, it’s the market. The market is not scientifically driven. People should analyze the fundamentals, not the stock price.
Q: So how does one do that? How can people spot a healthy biotech company, putting aside its stock price?
A: There’s no way to generalize. But you ask: Is the science sound? Is there an unmet need? Has the company built a translational application that is demonstrable in trials? Can you do this at scale? Does the technology improve or impact outcomes for the patient?
If it brings value to the patient, it’s a company of value. We spend $4.3 trillion a year on health-care in the U.S. If the focus of your company is to increase value to the patient, then you will organically grow. A lot of these companies have zero revenue, so the only way to measure them, really, is to ask: Is there forward movement of this technology platform?
Q: What other advice would you give to biotech investors?
A: It’s science. It’s a 10-year horizon. Not everyone wants to invest with a 10-year horizon. There are long lead times, there are trials. If you’re impatient, as an investor, it can be bumpy. Choose wisely, because it takes a decade. It’s never a short-term thing.
When I took American Pharmaceutical Partners public in 1998, it opened at $14 a share. It dropped to $8 a share. Later on, we were so confident of the technology and the business model that we bought $30 million of the stock back. This was eight months after our IPO.
Our drug [a formulation of cancer drug Heparin] came out in 2001, and our stock hit $45 per share. It later split into two companies, and they were both acquired. In 2008, APP was the only safe supplier of Heparin in the country. That’s not a business model. That’s a company focused on benefitting the patient.
Q: So what does the future hold for these biotech stocks?
A: The strong will survive. Not strong as in financial strength, but sustainable value–value to the patient.
blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2014/06/26/doctor-founder-billionaire-talks-about-biotech-investment-stocks/?KEYWORDS=Dr+Patrick+Soon-Shiong
George, thanks for all that you do on this board. You and a handful of others (Karin, Daubers, Sox....) keep me reading, I skip over the others who will remain unnamed because the urge to reply is to great. You will be able to tell the day traders soon that you tried to warn them. Keep up the fight longs and Go Leo & IPIX!
Can you connect the dots to see the picture that is developing???
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5715352e20c647639137f992/t/59c119f859cc6865d161a5b3/1505827323801/2017Sep+IPIX+Corporate+Overview.pdf
Leo Ehrlich:
Quote:
...we can say that big pharma knows that we know there's tremendous value in our pipeline. They know that. We work daily to position our product to command the higher value. The good news is that data will start streaming in very shortly. The bottom line is assuming the data is in line with previous data or interim results, we feel there are opportunities for partnering....
Good luck and GOD bless,
George
DaubersUP, I can't wait, Looking forward to the celebrations... Its been a long wait but it will be all worth it in the end. Go Leo & IPIX!
Kevetrin blind side news soon imo.
Mark this post we get something that no one expects. In regards to Kevetrin. Aimo.
Or what? I have been in this for five/six plus years now and could care less if a partnership happens in the next five months. It would be nice if they did partner but if they do not I will not sell until the sp has reached $50 plus. I buy more of this stock every month it remains at this bargain price. Go Leo & IPIX! long and strong.
Just to get beat back? That's only good for the nickel anti flippers.
Leo has 5 months starting today to deliver us a partnership.
BooDog, I am on the same train and can't wait until it takes off. Matter of time now, too much great science! Go Leo & IPIX!
Think you're missing the big picture. Brilacidin would be the FIRST course of action in active UC and crohn's and other indications. Mesalamine products would be used as maintenance treatment if needed, as they are now. I've been on it for years yet remission does fail once in a while. Who knows why, one bad night on the town or a slip in the diet can flare it back up. Right now it takes a pretty drastic measure to get these indications under control, and not without side effects. Even asocol requires many days to a couple weeks to get things under control. I'm thinking brilacidin will be setting a whole new bar.
We're not all in yet on the data for big pharma partnership imo, but we're getting closer.
And prurisol data is still on deck.
When this train starts leaving the station, it'll pick up speed quickly imo.
$IPIX
So it never met your magic number of .95 but it gained .05 which isn't bad if your average is .82. I'm in the green and hopefully it continues to rock tomorrow. Feel free to let me know how disastrous it will be tomorrow. One thing is for sure, time will tell and I am not selling until I've made some serious profit. Go Leo & IPIX!
Mono, looks like you may have been a few hours early with your wrong guess, SP staring to move! Go Leo & IPIX!
Thanks georgejjl, I have all my appendages crossed in hopes this news is stellar! Go Leo & IPIX!
Remember (81+27)= 108 subjects in the trial are taking Prurisol twice per day.
Since there are 189 total subjects in the trial including the 81 subjects that are taking a placebo twice per day, then 108/189= 57.1% of the total subject in the trial are taking Prurisol twice per day.
Even without un-blinding the Prurisol phase 2b trial data, if they are see PASI 75 results or better in 34% or more of the total subjects in the trial, then the trial is a HUGE success.
Good luck and GOD bless,
George
amen! second laugh this morning, great post. Go Leo & IPIX!
When a poster has been clearly informed but continues to cite Finra's reference to the word "short" is describing a technical transactional event, which does not reflect or have any connection to transactional outcome he or she is intending to imply. ie. Actual Short Interest in the stock...the problem is the Poster, not Finra.
He or she is deceiving and intentionally attempting to leave the "false impression" or belief, that it does, so that the Poster clearly expects the reader to infer that they are and so that the reader believes this "news" is one in the same...
If I were to post at the end of an article about people surviving after getting hit with a lightning bolt...and I comment, "my wife got hit with a "bolt" and survived!"...would I not be deceitful and misleading if I failed to disclose that the "Bolt" my wife got hit with was one from a fabric store that fell off the shelf as she walked by?
So the problem IS the Poster and intended purpose, not FINRA.
The only way for the POSTER to be honest and not deceitful, inaccurate, misleading and just plain stupid, is to ALSO "disclose" that the daily "quoted" information DOES NOT REFLECT ACTUAL "SHORT INTEREST"of the equity and is describing a transaction unrelated to the actual "short interest" naked or not.
But then again...what would be the point of posting useless information if you disclose it to be "useless". Its like walking around with a "t" shirt "I'm an Asshole!" ... and we know that, that would not serve the poster's intended purpose!
nerby, Too funny! I missed that, I don't really ever look at his post because those numbers do not mean anything to me. I think those numbers are meaningless to someone who really understands that science is the only catalyst that will drive this stock to $40 plus... Thanks for the laugh! Go Leo & IPIX!
Dude. I know you're feeling beleaguered. But if you're gonna post that stuff you gotta be able to spell the company ticker right. Just sayin.
Dr. Jerry, I have been ready for 5 plus years now and still holding strong. I have been adding here and there with the current bargain basement prices because the temptation was tooooo much.... Lets get this rocket started because I am very ready! I really hope runninggirl has some knowledge we don't have, today will tell. Go Leo & IPIX!
R you ready for news?
sox040713, another great post. That cleared it up for me. I appreciate you taking the time and putting the facts into laymen terms. GO Leo &
IPIX!
Someone called FINRA to ask what the short volume really means. I hope you'll call them for a clarification if you haven't done it already. Here's the post.
(Courtesy of a post made by pantherj)
The daily short interest report from FINRA is as widely misinterpreted as any report ever put out. Yet, once a few basics are understood, it becomes very logical. The huge short volume seen in the daily reports are almost instantaneously covered; within a few milliseconds or a few hours at worst. The best explanation of this report, that I've ever seen, was posted by "Dave Patch" of "Investigatethesec.com."
Posted by: patchman Date: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 6:31:31 PM
In reply to: fourkids_9pets who wrote msg# 648 Post # of 951
Short Sale Volume Reporting’s are deceiving.
I spoke to FINRA today and found out some very interesting things that until now I did not fully understand. I knew there was something wrong with this transparency of information but was not 100% sure what it was. I think I have my answer and it was enlightening.
I was first directed to the Notice to Members memo dated 9/29/2009
www.finra.org/Industry/Regulation/Notices/2009/P120045
The individual I spoke with wanted to make clear that to maintain proper trade volume reporting accuracy, a trade with multiple legs in the trade would only be reported once in the volume reports. The example given would be.
Investor A is long 100 shares and wants to sell. They enter the order through their broker that is routed to a market maker. That market maker will go out and sell the stock into the market before they have bought the stock from you/your broker to close out their account. They do not take possession first as there is no guarantee they can sell the order into the market. By this Notice, the actual sale INTO the market is a short sale because the market maker sold the stock into the market BEFORE they had purchased the stock from you. It is a technicality since they know there position will be closed out minutes later when they go in and buy your shares. To avoid doubling up on trade volume and distorting the picture, only the sale into the market (consolidated tape) is recorded and not the second leg which was the sale transaction between seller and market maker.
So, this is why the short sale volume is high but also why the FTD’s and bi-Monthly short interest reports are not showing any indications of this volume. The short isn’t really a short it is the execution of a long sale by a market maker. The key language in the FINRA notice is this:
"The Daily Short Sale Volume File will provide daily access to the aggregate volume of short sales in NMS Stocks and OTC Equity Securities reported to a consolidated tape and traded over-the-counter during regular trading hours on each trading day."
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=115555823
That's what I am counting on; oh plus 25% exchange US to CDN! I have been waiting a long time for this. Go Leo & IPIX!
If someone can accumulate 250k, I can easily see this being $4 by year end. That would take someone into the millionaire club.
It is the quiet before the buying frenzy! :) Go Leo & IPIX!
It's sure a quiet day around here.
Sox040713, thanks for the information you sent me! much appreciated. Go Leo & IPIX!
Here is the contact page for Leo just in case you can't find it. I think you should ask Leo those questions, he may give you special access and treatment if you tell him who you are and that you day trade the shi*t out of his stock. Go Leo & IPIX!
Quote:
I would ask Leo about uplisting, lagging share price, financials etc. those are the reasons we are under a buck. not the science.
Karin, Awesome! thanks, Go Leo & IPIX!
$IPIX - Innovation Pharmaceuticals Stock May Be A Triple-Crown Winner With Brilacidin By Year End
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4088788-innovation-pharmaceuticals-stock-may-triple-crown-winner-brilacidin-year-end
Karin, thank you for taking the time to write such an amazing article. Once again you reconfirmed what I already know, IPIX is real and they are close. Go Leo & IPIX!
Innovation Pharmaceuticals Stock May Be A Triple-Crown Winner With Brilacidin By Year End
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4088788-innovation-pharmaceuticals-stock-may-triple-crown-winner-brilacidin-year-end?v=1500491610&comments=show
Here's the link for those that haven't seen it...
Sox040713, another awesome post. Go Leo & IPIX!
Why you don't think B will get more than a $100M deal? Do you have similar examples to back it up? Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
Here's a recent $990M deal for a preclinical IBD drug.
Protagonist Therapeutics Enters into Worldwide Agreement with Janssen to Co-Develop and Commercialize PTG-200 for Inflammatory Bowel Disease
- Protagonist grants Janssen exclusive, worldwide rights to PTG-200, a first-in-class oral peptide IL-23 receptor antagonist currently in pre-clinical development
- Protagonist to receive a $50 million upfront payment and potentially up to an additional $940 million in development and sales milestones; double-digit tiered royalties on net sales
- Protagonist and Janssen to co-fund development through Phase 2; Protagonist retains option to co-detail U.S. prescribers
Protagonist Therapeutics and Janssen will jointly conduct the development of PTG-200 through Phase 2 clinical proof-of-concept in Crohn's disease, after which time Janssen will be responsible for development and commercialization. Per the terms of the agreement, Protagonist will have the right to co-detail PTG-200 in the United States.
www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/protagonist-therapeutics-enters-into-worldwide-agreement-with-janssen-to-co-develop-and-commercialize-ptg-200-for-inflammatory-bowel-disease-300465102.html
Quote:
I don't think B will fetch a deal more than the current market cap would value one at,
Cabel, I understand your frustration but in my opinion people are always the unknown factor and a certain percentage will almost always disappoint. I would guess that this is a common occurrence that cannot be overcome. Go Leo & IPIX!
Thanks for that info.
I find it difficulf that they cannot be replaced . Also Leo said that ITT is the standard used by FDA.
If we loose a number of patients, possibly even through corruption, thr trial could possibly fail.
In our case we could come in below Otezla.
Not likely but with all the corruption in the world, it would not shock me if it ever happened.
Look what happened with us and the 7 missing patients from phase 2a,.. from the 200mg arm. It gave us a much weaker result,.. possibly.
Very frustrating.
F1ash, great post, thanks! Go Leo & IPIX!
Quote:
If a patient enrolls in a trial and then half way through he decides to drop out.
Can the company replace him or must his half treatment be included in the trial and be a part of the final statistics,...?
If he can be replaced I wonder why Leo did not replace the 7 or so patients that were defineded as not having followed the Protocol.
If they cannot be replaced couldn't industrial spys offer incentives to trial participants to drop out halfway,... in the case of competitive drugs,...?
Any info would would be appreciated!
Typically dropouts cannot just be replaced because it would bias the trial results. Most trials have some number of dropouts. There are different methods to deal with the missing data.
"Background: Pragmatically, intention to treat (ITT) analysis has become the ‘gold standard’ for analysing the results of clinical trials. Despite its popularity and wide use, ITT is not without its critics,controversies and misunderstandings. To perform an ideal ITT requires a full set of data, where all patients providing data are followed, independent of any protocol deviation. However, most of the time, clinicians and researchers are faced with non-compliance and drop-outs. Thus, researchers should be familiar with t'he concepts associated with ITT and strategies to deal with missing data
Intention to treat analysis, compliance, drop-outs and how to deal with missing data in clinical research: A review (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233519659_Intention_to_treat_analysis_compliance_drop-outs_and_how_to_deal_with_missing_data_in_clinical_research_A_review [accessed Jul 18, 2017].
As long as the trial is sufficiently sized and as long as companies are careful to specify exactly what their data represents. {Label data with PP or ITT and what method was used to input missing results} it should not be that big of a problem. IPIX has done an excellent job of presenting accurate data with complete explanations of how missing data was handled and makes it perfectly clear if data is ITT or PP. Amazingly some other companies pretend like dropouts dont even exist in their graphs and don't even tell investors if it's ITT or PP data in their graphs. SMH... How they get away with that is inexplicable to me but they do.
Say what you want, but IPIX management plans and executes trials a hell of alot better than several other companies I follow. Many other companies use Investor Relations as a forcefield to prevent answering shareholder concerns, glad that doesn't happen here.
sox040713, interesting does he have any alias's? I would be interested in knowing who this character is, please send me his name in a private message if you know? Thanks and Go Leo & IPIX!
Speaking of Mako, here's a comment to his SA 'article' from someone who claimed to have met him.
Quote:
World's Greatest, Contributor
Comments (214) |
I haven't bothered to read this thread but mako has to be one of the worst investors I think I have ever met.
First, he is about 29 years old and lives in Texas. Most of us were trading stocks and shares before his balls had dropped and his voice had broken. He claims to work for a hedge fund but the fund he claims to work for doesn't even exist or manage any external capital. (That's very easy to check on).
Second, he doesn't have a Bloomberg account. How many hedge fund managers don't have Bloomberg accounts? I have been doing this a very long time and I have never met one. It is $30k per year but it is just a cost of doing business. If you manage serious amounts of capital, it's a rounding error on your expense bill.
Second - he has a very sketchy track record. He started his career at Vector marketing where he was a sales rep. Then he moved to Synergy Promotions Group, also in Dallas as an account representative. Then he ended up a Carrabba's Italian Grill in Dallas as a waiter. Finally he landed a role at Accenture where I am told he was fired because of fraudulent activity. He has a BBA in finance from Texas A&M University.... not something I would personally want to advertise!
Third, he has had some appalling recommendations. Take a look at his ABEO and AVXS pitches. Possibly two of the worst I have seen in my career. He is offside on one by about 50% and the other by about 100%. He has stopped commentating on those two because it must have become very embarrassing.
Finally, he relies on making low quality short pitches on small cap biotech companies which have no proper institutional coverage. His goal is to scare retail investors out of the stock a collect a quick 10-20% on a $100k investment. He has no scientific skill set so he relies on using scare tactics about weak management teams or precarious financial positions.
If the stock is down because of a mako article... just buy some more and thank him for creating an entry point.
Cabel, thanks! Go Leo & IPIX!
If you look at the 200mg ITT population graph:
1) Moderate patients (grren line) started at 67.9% and ended at 25.0% or an improvement of 42.9%
2) Mild patients (purple line) started at 32.1% and ended at 17.9% or an improvement of 14.2%
Again given that it is a small patient pool,.. still the numbers are impressive,.. especially if you consider the Moderate patients ONLY.
If we had only MODERATE patients or even better, replace the MILD with SEVERE patients (which we are doing in Phase 2b),... we can logicially expect better overall results.
Add to that the fact we are upping the dose by 50% and 100% and going to the PASI standard of measurment instead of the IGA (which is more rigorous)
If we take the improvements in the Phase 2b trial:
1) increased dosage by 50% and 100%
2) PASI system instead of IGA
3) replace MILD with SEVERE patients
If those 3 improvments can help us at least hold the 42.9% improvement so that it actually is PASI75 improvement,... then we have easily beat Otezla because:
1) We act faster
2) We have much fewer side effects
3) We have a higher PASI75 of 42,9% to Otezla's PASI75 of 30%
Cabel, thanks for your great rebuttal. Go Leo & IPIX!
I think you miss his point!
!) We know we had at least a one point reduction in the degree of psoriasis in 55% of the patients in the 27 patients of the 200mg arm.
2) We know that the drug is dose dependent, the higher the dose the more effective it is.
3) We know what we know from the pre-clinical mouse studies which were spectacular.
4) We know it is very unlikely to have ASE at the higher dosing levels of 300-400mg
5) We know that the drug starts having a positive affect on psoriasis at week 2 with 200mg
6) We know it is easier to get better results with Mod/Sev than Mild/Mod.
7) We know our MODERATE patients responded better than our MILD.
8) We know that an IGA score of 0 or 1 is equivalent to PASI90.
9) We know that the patient satisfaction in the 200mg was high.
10) We know Dr Menon has not failed one trial in at least 5 years.
11) We know Leo has opened many new sites and that he has access to patients results (without knowing what arm they are in)
And against all that the only thing that you have to say is,...
Quote:
Yes but the patient pool was small.
I agree with that,.. and that is why we now dosing are 189 patients in just two dose levels in current Phase 2b. Almost everyone here knows that. But at the same time we know other things about the Phase 2b,.. many of which point to a probable positive outcome.
We tend to look at other things as well as the fact that we had a PoC type trial in Phase 2a (so as to find the right dose),..whereas you look at one thing,... which sets you apart as being very frustrating to discuss anything with.
The ability to see both sides of an argument is the sign of a mature adult,.. try it some time.
If we did a 200 patient trial on B-UP with 200mg dose with foam,.. I would see lots of positives that would indicate it would work and I would put it all together and feel very good about the possibilities.
Plus I would see that the first trial was with just 15 patients and it was small. But that would not take away all the positive things I would see about the samll trial.
We are not saying Phase 2b Prurisol is a 100% lock,... we are saying things are pointing in that direction.
You are saying there is no way to know.
You see one thing and one thing only!
What would you do if you ever served on a Jury and there was ONLY CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence...?
DaubersUP, you have been one of a number of awesome posters on this board. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and ideas with us. Outstanding post! Go Leo & IPIX!
Prurisol's Importance: data
We are nearing the very important and highly anticipated release of interim data for Prurisol for Moderate-Severe psoriasis. I wanted to put out an email with some very encouraging data and facts that I have been researching over the past several weeks. So hopefully this dribble is worth your time and can hopefully give you an appreciation for what is about to be released.
First, please understand that with regards to market; Psoriasis is currently about an 8 billion market and should be around 9 billion in the next year or two. (2019)
Chart.
Biologics (Injections) are the most effective, but also hold the most severe side effects and the largest chance to become resistant. I think it's like a 33% chance they will no longer work after a certain amount of time.
For IPIX - The current phase 2b POWERED study is using criteria that will give an APPLES to APPLES readout to Otezla. They are using the PASI scale in which Otezla (Celgene's Blockbuster) used. Otezla is the leading ORAL psoriasis drug expecting to do about 2 billion in revenues this year. I will compare mostly with this drug.
The Prurisol phase 2a used the IGA scale. This scale is basically 0 - 5 (0 = Clear, 1 = Almost Clear, 2 = Mild, 3 = Moderate, 4 = Severe, 5 = Very Severe)
The criteria was brutal, it was for MILD to MODERATE patients and the end result needed to show a GREATER THAN or EQUAL TO 2 point improvement. So for example, patients would need to have a 2 or 3 score and to end in a positive result the patient would need to go from 3 to 1 or 2 to 0. That is extreme. In PASI language that is basically saying they had a PASI 90 to PASI 100 score. The 50mg and 100mg arms in the Phase 2a did not show too much promise. But when the 200mg arm data was released this started to show some really good data.
To summarize:
Prurisol met the primary endpoint (2 pt reduction) in 35% of ALL patients who received a 200mg dose per day.
Even better, those patients that had a starting score of IGA 3 (MODERATE) who took 200mg met the 2pt reduction in 46% of patients. (VERY POSITIVE SINCE THE PHASE 2b IS FOR ALL MODERATE TO SEVERE AND AT MUCH HIGHER DOSES - 300mg and 400mg.)
NOTES - So we see that Moderate patients at 200mg had the best results. We don't know if it was a 2 or 3pt reduction, we just know they had ATLEAST 2pt reduction. Going from an IGA 3 to IGA 1 is in comparison to a PASI 90. So 46% had a PASI 90 in the moderate group. (Maybe not quite, but maybe)
In comparison: Otezla reaches PASI 75 around 30% and PASI 90 at 8%. And Otezla works around week 12-16. Prurisol starts showing improvements around week 4 and much larger psoriasis reduction around week 12.
OTEZLA DATA:
PRIMARY EFFICACY at 16weeks
1. PASI 75
- 33.1% Otezla vs 5.3% placebo
- 28.8% Otezla vs 5.8% placebo
MAJOR SECONDARY EFFICACY
2. sPGA (0 or 1 w/at least 2-pt drop from baseline)
- 21.7% Otezla vs 3.7% placebo
- 20.4% Otezla vs 4.4% placebo
OTHER EFFICACY
1. PASI 50
- Otezla 58.7% vs 17% placebo
- Otezla 55.5% vs 19.7% placebo
2. Achieved PASI 75 and sPGA 2-pt drop
- 20.3% Otezla vs 3.5% placebo
- 18.6% Otezla vs 4.4% placebo
Other factors: Otezla took 16 weeks to get to these numbers and only around 8% achieved PASI 90
I'm probably losing some of you, so basically Prurisol works faster and is more efficacious. Not to mention MUCH MUCH safer. Prurisol is part of an existing drug called Ziagen (HIV drug) so the safety profile is already proven and up to 600 mg. Due to this relation to Ziagen the FDA granted Prurisol a 505 2(b) meaning a much smaller phase 3 when the time comes and possibly only 1 phase 3 trial is needed and Prurisol could get 5 additional years of exclusivity (that equals BILLIONS more in revenues) We know that Prurisol is "dose dependent" meaning the more a patient receives the more efficacious it should be. Hence why 200mg worked way better than 50 and 100mg.
This powered phase 2b interim results will be data at week 6 for approximately 189 patients. We are now dosing at 300 and 400mg!!! So essentially we should see an even better read out of data. If this data shows a good % of PASI 75 at this 6 week juncture we could see a huge deal hit the wires. But I would assume Big Pharma wants the top line data which is set for late 2017. The 'primary' endpoint in this phase 2b is a PASI 75 readout. Like I said Otezla is ~30% PASI 75 - THAT IS THE BAR! If we top that we know we own the ORAL market. The kicker will be if we start to overlap into the Biologic's arena.
Here are some great charts for BIOLOGIC's
Chart
Chart
Here is an opinion on where the bidding price action could start for Prurisol if data is comparable with the phase 2A data and matches or betters Otezla:
As to valuation: (from IHub)
> If Prurisol matches (betters) Otezla (~30% PASI 75, 20% sPGA 0/1) and faster on the uptake // ~$3billion starting bid
> If we approach Biologics numbers (50% PASI 75 and ideally higher, with PASI 90s+; ~40-50% sPGA 0/1) // ~$5 billion starting bid
Just remember for every billion that IPIX can get if they decide to sell Prurisol outright, it equals to about $6.25 per share FULLY diluted. (this means options etc)
So lets put a scenario together if they sell Prurisol (the dark horse drug) outright.
5 Billion sale = $31.25 per share with just cash in the bank, but then on top of that IPIX still has Brilacidin and Kevetrin which are the most valuable compounds in the pipeline and are worth much more than Prurisol when the dust settles. Add that the buyout of Prurisol will put IPIX on the Nasdaq where we get new/more investors and institutional buying in which we have zero currently. Sky could be the limit in a very short period if things all play out well with data.
Have a great day and hopefully this helps you all understand how important this interim and top line data could mean to all of us.
Disclaimer: I am long IPIX. An OTCBB biotech company can often have an enormous disconnect in regards to share price and market potential. This normally will reset once a third party verification or collaboration is made.
Cheers,
FOR THE MOST RECENT CONFERENCE CALL (6/8/17) - www.investorcalendar.com/event/15776
Thanks BoodDog! I was starting to lose confidence and it is good to hear your input. Go Leo & IPIX!
Not sure if anyone else saw it on the LII's but it looked like a wave. ETRF moving to 1.17 and then it was like all the MM's started shifting around. Seen this type of game a time or two. Small little bit of a shake then we're moving up.
IMHO.
Cybermich, sad to hear you won't be posting for a while; you always provide valuable input. I agree with your statements and often take an extended break from this board for of the same reasons. It is a matter of time before we see this thing blow into monumental proportions and cash out huge. Go Leo & IPIX!
This is my last post
until a partnership is announced:)
The fact that we didn't sell off after a 40 percent plus run is telling.
Even though the upcoming 2b P reveal could be seen as a risk by some - at current market cap
it is my opinion we are not even CLOSELY valued for the potential of a B partnership.
The shorts would be smart to cover now before any run up.. and who knows they might
have the opportunity to short again after the inevitable exuberance that comes with billion dollar
partnership(s).. wink (lol)
I have to admit it has NOT been fun watching this board over run by lies (and imo slander) of
management - it has been rare that I have come across a company that has been so blatantly attacked
and I was obviously compelled to respond to that injustice on many occasions.. lol
it is my opinion that IPIX has turned the corner..
I will continue to read the many posters on this board that have an excellent handle on the science.
The shorts feed off of companies where they can "twist" any ambiguity in their favor - at this time I
believe IPIX has a clear path to success:)
Good luck to all REAL IPIX shareholders.
Great post Cabel, I think you are right on the mark and it is just a matter of time. Go Leo & IPIX!
I don't think any BP will hold out to confirm the foam will improv things. I think they pretty well know the drug works and works well,.. ie easily beats best on the market!
I think it is just a question of the time it takes to hammer out a deal,.. these things take time,..
We should just have to sit back and wait until a deal is announced. The stock at this point is a lock,.. even if Leo does not advance any other drug after the Prurisol 2b and the Kevetrin OC,.. we have more than enough value to sell for at least 10X our existing MC,... as is!
BP is looking for good drugs to buyand we have at least 1 blockbuster franchise drug and and 1 blockbuster psoriasis drug and a p53 activating cancer drug,.. with blockbuster potential.
It's like money in the bank!
Leo is managing a multi-million dollar company that has rock solid science.
Rdunn88, is a poster and day trader.
I think everyone is wondering what gives you the right to judge Leo?????????? Can you please give us your credentials so that we can all take you seriously.
Notice the overuse of question marks.
Go Leo & IPIX!