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.
The irony is that their fundamentals have gotten better EVERY month. They have more cash, more and better results and more significant catalysts to come: MCC, t-cell, phase 2b, new indications in both cancer and non-cancerous indications, neopulse in Europe, revelation of significant institutional investment, a partnership that is still very possible at any day, etc.
Further, go back and look at their 2014 strategic update. They have virtually met every single goal with the lowest burn rate around for this level of research.
Finally, punit and his team have and are doing an amazing job. They have taken low salaries, have respected investor money by keeping their burn rate low while at the same time producing first class results. Further, they have been able to recruit to some of the best scientists in the business.
I agree 100% in your theory. That's why I believe it will break back hard and fast, especially if ANY catalyst is released by the company.
Great post. That's about right.
The link below is the updated slides on ONCS website. They were updated on 6/62014 and are slightly different than any of the others before.
A great line on slide 5 which is in bold:
"Therapeutics Amenable to OncoSec Intratumoral EP Technology:
ANY DNA-encoded protein targeting key pathways of immune subversion"
Further, on the right side of the slide is that is augments immunogenicity. Let's keep our eyes on the prize friends. It will come.
http://content.stockpr.com/oncosec/media/3edbc526ab7184e1257fcbcac727954e.pdf
Has anyone done an analysis of how many shares needed to be covered and where we are now with that ?
When this turns around, and it will, it's going to turn hard.
I actually called the FDA last week and asked what us public and what us not. They clearly stated that at this stage, the FDA cannot even acknowledge that oncs even submitted an application. They said that the company controls all information at this point.
Alright, Alright, you are busy on the Yahoo board I know. Just yanking your chain.
This is the requirement for 13F (institutional holdings). Answer is #25 which is 45 days from the end of the quarter.
http://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/13ffaq.htm
This is the difference between 13D and 13F:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/schedule13g.asp
For 13D (investor more than 20% controlling interest; some cases 10%), it is 10 days from the purchase.
http://www.sec.gov/answers/sched13.htm
Unfortunately, my reading is that if it is only 5% without anything else, the rule is seems to be 45 from the end of the calendar year. Hence, the filings by Deerfield earlier this year.
"The Schedule 13G filed pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be filed within 45 days after the end of the calendar year in which the person became obligated under paragraph (b)(1) of this section to report the person's beneficial ownership as of the last day of the calendar year, Provided, That it shall not be necessary to file a Schedule 13G unless the percentage of the class of equity security specified in paragraph (i) of this section beneficially owned as of the end of the calendar year is more than five percent; However, if the person's direct or indirect beneficial ownership exceeds 10 percent of the class of equity securities prior to the end of the calendar year, the initial Schedule 13G shall be filed within 10 days after the end of the first month in which the person's direct or indirect beneficial ownership exceeds 10 percent of the class of equity securities, computed as of the last day of the month."
Quoting, http://law.uc.edu/sites/default/files/CCL/34ActRls/rule13d-1.html
See also: http://www.sec.gov/interps/telephone/cftelinterps_reg13d-13g.pdf
Even Warren Buffet has people check his work. It's important to check others work because the goal is to get it right, not to feel right.
It's not off topic. I think in the earlier presentations in Jan/Feb, he said 1h2014. But in later, he said when enrollment is complete and mentioned 2h2014. However, those estimation I believe referred to final results, not interim.
Lasers answered this once before and I think the conciseness was interim any time (when enrollment is complete), final date 2h2014. Right?
Do you agree? As I mentioned before, I'd definitely like someone to check my work.
Is that how others read it? Let me know if I'm wrong.
Partially true.
If under 5%, then it is 45 days after the end of the quarter.
See example of baker bros. Holdings are reported till the end of quarter (3/31) but the filling came out until 5/15. See attachment:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1263508/0001144204-14-031196.txt
However, if they own more than 5%, then is the 10th of the following month. And, if they continue to buy, each buy over 5% has to be reported as well. Again, baker bros examples below.
http://www.insidermonkey.com/hedge-fund/baker+bros+advisors/320/
I think the confusion rests on how much the instutition owns. If over %5, it is the 10th day of the following month (13G). If under 5%, then quarterly (13F).
For example, earlier this year, Deerfield filed 13 G (over 5%). On the other hand, if you try to find Baker Bros.'s holdings you will only find 13F's with a date of 3/31.
Well Tremors, its a good thing that your institution got out when they did. They would have been torched. However, the silver lining is that I hope you have been able to load up for yourself at these prices. :)
Looks like it will be July at the earliest. Here is a link to sec interpretation for Schedule 13G (in section #2):
https://www.sec.gov/interps/telephone/cftelinterps_reg13d-13g.pdf
Larson,
I appreciate your enthusiasm but I really think you need to do some DD on your own. That is why the moderators have pinned the article and trial results that we have. Further, the questions that you are answering are located on the oncosec.com website. I'm not trying to stop you from asking questions, but I believe reading these articles and going to the website and spending some time would greatly increase your confidence in this company. I believe after you do this, you will get really excited and will help you get through times like this where the pps doesn't reflect the value of the company.
Good luck.
Yup. That's how I read it too.
Thanks so much ERO. If and when you finish your further analysis, I'll post it. Enjoy Eastern Europe.
The more I look at this potential deal, the more I'm convinced that the best deal for oncs would be a licensing deal where a big pharma would pay for the opportunity to use immunopulse in a phase 2b trial.
I think big pharma actually wants a partnership deal and oncs ' shares because they realize the impact that oncs could have in all cancers, making the shares extremely valuable. Oncs wants a licensing deal because then it can license immunopulse to all big pharma with a anti-pd-1. Mrk, bms, and Roche want to tie up our intellectual property from the other two.
Playing these three against each other offers oncs a big advantage in negotiations.
Great post. And, that is the G U N that punit is pointing directly at big pharma right now.
One more thing:
Merck REALLY needs this partnership. MK-3475 is there flagship and one and only oncology drug. They want thus to work and bad. They are not going to let this go.
Also, punit keeps emphasizing that oncs wants to become the premier intra-tumoral company in the world. Hence, they are creating the environment that every big pharma drools over. He deserves to ask a big price tag in partnership negotiations.
Guys, I think at this point we have to take management at their word. If you looks at the 2014 objectives now, oncs HAS absolutely delivered. I just think that this takes time and punit is asking for a lot and he is right!!!!
Thanks bud.
I do feel troubled about ero. What bothers me is that this is the second time that admin has scared away very quality posters. First, it was the deletion of trebor4's posts and then this oust of ero. Both were fiery but quality posters. I hope admin notices this.
We don't want to be the yahoo board, but we also don't want to inhibit real discussion. Just my two cents.
This is the latest response from IR:
"Thank you for the kind words. While we have no direct control over the market, we have a number of upcoming catalysts that we believe will reflect very positively on the company. We sincerely appreciate your continued support, and look forward to sharing our future successes with you. Have a great weekend!"
Believe me that life is well developed. By the way, please contribute any knowledge on anti-pd-1 additions that you have.
Actually, I hope you pop in more often. I really enjoy your analysis even if it is not what everyone wants to hear.
I really think that the S-3 was for two things:
1. Institutions
2. Partnership
One down, one to go.
We did pretty much agree with this and we have been right so far. Punit mentioned at the Marcum conference that the S-3 for negotiation purposes but that they would be opportunistic if the opportunity presented itself. It did. Now ONCS is in a position to negotiate and partnership on their terms. This downturn is so temporary IMO. I think in a month or so we are going to singing Punit's praises and recognizing the genius behind his methods.
I'm a personal injury attorney by trade and this reminds me of negotiating with insurance companies. One of the sayings that I always hold on to is that a real negotiated deal is one where both sides walk away from the deal somewhat dissatisfied. No one is going to get everything they want. Making deals is tough and Punit is right in the thick of it. At the end of the day, ONCS' science is top notch and their cash position strong. It's all good friends.
Thanks trading jeff, yours as well.
Here is the direct link and below that is the print-out of the rest of the presenters for that section:
http://www.isdv.org/2014/schedule/2014-dna-vaccine-conference
Advances in Immune Therapy for Cancer
SPEAKER
Soldano Ferrone
Harvard University
Checkpoint Inhibitors Game Changers for Immune Therapy
SPEAKER
Michael McCarthy
MedImmune
Immune Therapies for HPV Disease
SPEAKER
Cornelia Trimble, MD
Associate Professor, Gynecology & Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Induction of T cells for Cancer Immune Therapy
SPEAKER
Mark Bagarazzi, MD
Chief Medical Officer, Inovio Pharmaceuticals
New Approaches to Cancer Immune Therapy
SPEAKER
Phil Greenberg, MD
Professor, Immunology and Medicine/Oncology, University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
Advanced T-cell Engineered for Cancer Therapy
SPEAKER
Martin Pule
UCL Cancer Institute, UK
Intralesional DNA Immunotherapy: Converting Non Responders to Responders
SPEAKER
Robert Pierce
OncoSec
Anti-CTLA-4 and CPG: Experience with Direct Lesion Therapy
SPEAKER
Holbrook Kohrt
Stanford
Experience with T Vec and Allovectin
SPEAKER
Rene Gonzalez
University of Colorado
Sorry, I'm distracted. Never mind.
Thanks.
During our last slide back in Feb we went from .55 down to a low of .41 before we quickly legged up. That is a 25% drop. We all felt like crap and wondered when the hell this is going to go up. It went from .41 to .97 in less than a month.
This time we have been as high .97 and then going up and down finishing at .66 today. That is a 32% reduction. We are irritated now.
Any of you chartists have any thoughts on this. It seems to me like this is really primed to run. Thoughts?
I was wondering if any of you who have access to short interest numbers can see how much of that is going on right now. If so we might see a short squeeze if partnership news is announced. RNN comes to mind.
If you add the prior fillings together and include warrants and add that to the 30 million shares (including warrants), it is roughly 30%.
ONCS with the new offering.
It will be a pic of his running shoes with a weird "M" and "O" insignia next to a Chinese proverb talking about working together.
I was just yanking your guys' chains a little. I personally love reading into and over-analyzing his tweets. It makes the journey more entertaining.