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.
For what it's worth the following is the bio on the guy at Ayer that just took a 13G position in PPHM. This is as good as it gets.
Regards,
RRdog
JAY VENKATESAN BACKGROUND / BIOGRAPHY
Jay Venkatesan, MD is the Founder, Portfolio Manager and Managing Director of Ayer Capital Management, a global healthcare long-short equity fund. He was previously a Director at Brookside Capital Partners, the hedge fund group affiliated with Bain Capital, where he participated in overseeing the portfolio's healthcare investments and was involved in evaluating public and private investments in all healthcare subsectors. Dr. Venkatesan founded and served as CEO of Varro Technologies, a knowledge management software company focused on the life sciences and was involved in healthcare venture investing at Patricof & Co. Ventures and consulting at McKinsey & Company. He received his M.D. from the University of Pennsylvania, School of Medicine, his MBA from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and his B.A., magna cum laude, from Williams College where he was also elected to Phi Beta Kappa
Read more: http://www.chubbybrain.com/company/reva-medical/people/jay-venkatesan#ixzz22yNf0v7I
Geo,
Apologize if reading too much into your comments.
You do question the thesis on Avid but importantly, PL seems to think it is doable after nearly a year and a half of prodding.
Again, I would never give PL any wiggle room. ATM at these levels would be really stupid for reasons previously stated. To those I would add:
1. Aborting of this rally
2. Break of the implied covenant in PL cc remarks.
3. PPHM now has a much better inside view of the real value of their equity.
4. Avids' cash flow and backlog support a modest loan many times over.
4. PPHM should treat their equity like the gold it may become if they want everyone else to treat their equity in the same manner.
EOM on this subject
Regards,
RRdog
Geo--Wouldn't you think reversion to ATM at these low valuations when trying to sell BP on a multi billion dollar valuation would be really stupid as well as highly counterproductive (?????????) when there are so many better approaches to the problem?
I agree with Jake that PL is not to be trusted. That is why I would like to see a loan concluded. You never want to give PL wiggle room to revert to the ATM under the shopworn argument that he "needs to keep the lights on".
This is the second time I have seen you issue PPHM a casual pass on issuing ATM. IMO you would do well to rethink this position.
I do agree with you, however, that Jakes' opinion on the issuance of ATM is probably baseless.
Regards,
RRdog
FTM
If you feel strongly about this stuff and had enough "credentials", I wouldn't worry about the next few millions. That will happen over time. I would just apply to work in his lab any way. The "credentials" are the issue not the money.
Best
RRdog
FTM
I appreciate your comments in this area. We are agreed it is unlikely particularly with the results to date.
Best
RRdog
"Maybe you could implant the tumors in mice and then inject the mice with the antibodies".
That is an interesting idea.
Thorpe is pretty smart and he might think about that for the future but as far as this trial goes I think PPHM just plays it out.
Regarding "resistance" to bavi I don't think that is a likely issue. Bavi is not the active agent. The natural immune system
is the active agent. Bavi is just a blocking agent.
Regards,
RRdog
Jake,
PPHM is paying for that CPA who is issuing the "going concern letter".
If they want it addressed --and they take actions that allow it to be removed-- it can be addressed now. Remember, it didn't take long to address the Nasdaq restriction once the requirements were met.
Regards,
RRdog
Open letter to PL and ES:
Dealing with the Nasdaq requirement and alleviating fears of another reverse split are small steps in the right direction.
Nevertheless, I feel compelled to point out that carrying a "going concern" letter for the better part of a decade has damaged the company image and stock price. This really inhibits buying and leads to a great deal more dilution over time. Many institutions can not buy a company with a "going concern" letter.
Go borrow a little money. It's cheap insurance and it triples your negotiating posture. It's bad enough to say to the market place at large that "you have great science but are willing to sell it through ATM for next to nothing", but, its really stupid to make that same statement to the BP with whom you are trying to negotiate price.
If you can't negotiate a loan vs Avid assets or you don't like the rate, prepayment penalty or warrants (all of which can be negotiated around), why not walk into Allied Capital and borrow against your backlog and receivables. Obviously, the 30mm in Avid backlog is good quality if you are getting 7MM in non- refundable prepayment to hold slots. Consider this a form of bridge financing.
Regards,
RRdog
Thanks FTM,
RRdog
Come back from a few days R and R and am pleased to find much detailed discussion of bavi plus radiation. I have long been advocating the hidden IP build at PPHM and in particular this area of combo with radiation. Nothing in this area that increases value would surprise me. Below I quote the following from an earlier post talking about the meeting at NYAS.
"There was a reception after the presentation and we were able to chat briefly with Dr. Thorpe and later with two of his key researchers . It was during these chats that I was first able to really "internalize" the potential of bavi with radiation. I look forward to a long increase in IP value in this area and IMO the discussions to date on this board have been far too limited in their perspective. This also speaks to my opinion that the IP portfolio of PPHM is vastly expanding beyond what shareholders are focused on as milestone events over the next six months or a year."
What does surprise me is the discussion of "Nutraphils" initiated I think by FTM. This opens a whole new mechanism of MOA. I am sure Dr. Thorpe and his lab are hard at work trying to understand this additional MOA. Hopefully, they will be clear on how it works prior to the next FDA meeting/discussion.
The other matter that impresses me is Dr. Thorpes' obsession (in a good sense) with expanding bavi usage in every possible dimension. This strikes me as a "top scientist that is very, very sure----based on hard scientific testing---that he is in the right direction re cancer and the immune system."
My sense of all this is that the argument being made to BP and ultimately to the FDA will become overwhelming.
IMO ride out any short term volatility and "stay thirsty my friends".
Best Regards,
IMHO
RRdog
FTM,
Thanks for the detailed reply.
Ditto for Mojo reply. Also appreciate your thoughts on 1st line.
We seem close and on the same page.
Regards,
RRdog
Thanks Geo on your appreciation of "volume."
PPHM history re financing has been dismal, two faced, and frankly incompetent. Then again, I could be misinformed.
Hopefully you are right and a little more time will bear fruit.
Regards,
RRdog
FTM,
In answer to your question---I think lots of doubt.
More importantly to PPHM, it highlights how important safety, low side effects, quality of life issues can be. PPHM is very fortunate with bavi profile on these issues.
How do you view my projections on 2nd line NSCLC MOS at this moment in time???
Regards,
RRdog
General comments after a down day at end of month:
In all of the bearish articles that accompany bearish stock action, I see very little understanding or mention of the fundamental science. Though I understand the technicals and the many reasons traders want to book a profit and shorts want an end of month mark, I maintain my opinion that PPHM will essentially be a "step functional" investment. I.E. it will move with the news and the news looks like it will be good.
In spite of all the nervousness because of the so called big percentage gain from .40, IMO the move is "trivial". View it not as a percentage gain from the recent historic lows but as a percentage of the potential market value of the IP. Seen in that light an investor can understand just how trivial a move this last spike really represents.
Debt Financing:
Ostensibly, the reason PPHM hasn't pulled the trigger on debt financing yet is because PL can't get exactly the right terms??? IMO this is the worst kind of small thinking rather than big picture. Debt is not to be desired but it is infinitely better than selling equity at what the insiders now "know" to be billions of dollars below what a proper valuation would be for partnering.
PL's reasons for stalling include the following IMO:
1. Can't get the right interest rate.
2. Can't get the longest amount of time for the interest only portion of the loan payback.
3. Can't get exactly the right penalty on pre payment of the loan.
4. May not have to do the loan if PPHM can strike partnership funding.
5. May not have to do the loan if PPHM can revert to ATM under more favorable pricing.
IMO this type of reasoning and stalling really misses the big picture. A rather modest loan of 30mm/40mm
can be easily supported by PPHM free cash flow at Avid without encumbering IP and makes the following statement to the market:
1. PPHM really understands the equity is highly undervalued and refuses to sell cheap dilutive stock.
2. PPHM is strong enough to carry some modest debt.
3. If you are interested in partnering with PPHM be aware the company can fund without dilution if you do not step up in price.
4. At the current burn rate, with the loan plus cash already on the balance sheet PPHM is prepared to go forward alone another year and a half if it must. It is prepared to raise the ante on the IP during that time and prepared for tough negotiations.
5. PPHMs' accountant can remove the "going concern" letter.
For the above reasons, which IMO show strength, PL should consummate the loan (even if the terms are less than perfect) and pre pay it when a deal is struck. It would be refreshing if this time around PL would live to his word.
Comments on clinical trial MOS:
When Einstein formulated Relativity the key constant was the speed of light. Light always moved at the same speed and nothing in the universe moved faster. The "analogy" to light speed in the proof at PPHM is MOS. The company and its management can be criticised for many things but MOS is still MOS and (with OS) is the key statistic in measuring drug effectiveness.
Today marks the end of July or approximately ten months from the completion of enrollment in the double blinded and randomized phase II 2nd line NSCLC trial. My friends, who IMO are low in their projections on MOS, must realize that it is "conservatism ad absurdum" to measure the progress of MOS from the closing date of enrollment. This is especially so when that same enrollment occurred in multiple sites, multiple countries and over "seventeen months".
My work indicates that the average enrollment occurred in this study at least 3-4 months before Oct 6, 2011-- with a 90% probability. To this we add a month in either direction for margin of error and we get a range of 2-5 months before completion date for the average enrollee. If this is fair then:
1. MOS is currently 12-15 months and counting. If it runs until the end of Oct as SK has hinted may be the case , it would run 15-18 months.
2. My estimate on the "control arm" MOS is 5.5 months. IMO the ratio of treatment/control arm is currently " 2.4 - 2.7 " and counting.
3. These numbers are historic and outperform all numbers even on 1st line NSCLC (other than self comparisons with other bavi tests-FTM).
4. There is the possibility of some CRs'.
5. Based on these numbers, partnering seems inevitable.
A geometric perspective on bavi:
Let's look at this whole problem "geometrically". Dr. Thorpe is telling you that bavi works on a long list of cancers. That is "length". Dr. Thorpe is telling you that bavi works well with a long list of chemo drugs as well as radiation. That is "width". "Length" x "width" gives you "area". Bavi covers a whole lot of area in the cancer market.
Dr. Thorpes' remarks are supported by a large amount of clinical trials, imaging, and lab work on MOA. His remarks are also supported by a large amount of independent and outside work such as surfaced at the NYAS conference and also supported by the ISTs.
In addition, by understanding the implications of PPHM 2nd line MOS outperforming 1st line testing, you get a third dimension of "depth". That means that when Dr. Thorpe gave his now famous answer "They are all pretty sick" what he is really saying is that bavi works well at any level or "depth" of the disease. "Depth" x "Area" gives you "Volume".
"Volume" is where it's really at. When a drug goes "volumetric" the following applies:
1. Almost every doctor can use it in some way or in some combination at any stage of the disease.
2. A volumetric proof is of interest to the FDA as it reinforces Thorpes' work on MOA.
3. "Volume" sounds like "market share" and big revenue to potential partners.
(L x W x D = V)
What is the bavi "volume" worth in the market place???? I kind of like the comparison with GILDs' 11 Billion dollar acquisition of Pharmasset on the strength of its phase II HCV drug. Bavi would appear to be "at least" worth somewhere between a couple of billion and the 11 billion acquisition price for Pharmasset.
Therefore, IMO, I wouldn't pay undo amounts of attention to trivial moves in the stock ( <100mm market value) and I would stay focused on the big picture. Like they say in the "Dos Equis" beer commercial-- "Stay thirsty my friends."
Best Regards,
RRdog
Bristol-Myers Squibb Suspends Administration of Study Drug in Clinical Trial of Investigational NS5B Nucleotide for the Treatment of Hepatitis C
PRINCETON, N.J., Aug 01, 2012 (BUSINESS WIRE) --
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (NYSE: BMY) announced today that the Company has suspended study drug administration in an ongoing Phase II study of BMS-986094 (formerly known as INX-189), a nucleotide polymerase (NS5B) inhibitor in development for the treatment of hepatitis C. This voluntary action was taken to protect patient safety based on the emergence of a serious safety issue. The cause of the safety issue and any potential relationship to study drug are unknown at this time.
With patient safety as the priority, the Company is undertaking an immediate assessment of all patients in the study and following an evaluation of the patient data, will take appropriate actions.
About Bristol-Myers Squibb
Bristol-Myers Squibb is a global biopharmaceutical company whose mission is to discover, develop and deliver innovative medicines that help patients prevail over serious diseases. For more information, please visit www.bms.com or follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/bmsnews.
SOURCE: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Media:
Sonia Choi, 609-252-5132
sonia.choi@bms.com
or
Investors:
John Elicker, 609-252-4611
john.elicker@bms.com
or
Timothy Power, 609-252-7509
timothy.power@bms.com
Copyright Business Wire 2012 ********************************************************************** As of Saturday, 07-28-2012 23:59, the latest Comtex SmarTrend? Alert, an automated pattern recognition system, indicated an UPTREND on 03-13-2012 for BMY @ $33.26. For more information on SmarTrend, contact your market data provider or go to www.mysmartrend.com SmarTrend is a registered trademark of Comtex News Network, Inc. Copyright ? 2004-2012 Comtex News Network, Inc. All rights reserved.
In recent messages I have tried to address some of the reasons why PPHM is valued so poorly if bavi is such a great drug candidate. Most of those reasons have nothing to do with the clinical trials and bavi.
Before listing 22 reasons off the top of my head for PPHMs' low valuation I stated that in spite of these conditions I was a "rabid bull" on this stock. Taking the bullish side of the argument today I note the following:
1. Reason number 8, the NASD delist warning burns off today.
2. Most of the other negatives burn off if the company partners
and bolsters its' balance sheet.
3. The longer the MOS in 2nd line NSCLC extends in time the
better the possibility at the FDA in general, for AA, for
partnering.
4. I stand by my original predictions on 2nd line NSCLC MOS that:
a. MOS is likely to be between 13 and 17 months.
b. That the MOS to Control Arm ratio is likely to exceed
"2.4"
c. That the MOS in 2nd line will be historic in that it will
exceed MOS in all 1st line testing for NCSLC.
Best Regards,
RRdog
Kt,
Thanks. I agree with Tek you are a stand up guy.
Its always a good idea IMO to understand the weaknesses of your own position. There are real reasons for the current price of PPHM that have nothing to do with the validity of bavi.
Again, as I have stated a number of times in past posts, I believe these weaknesses can and will be addressed. Therefore, IMO PPHM looks highly undervalued.
Best
RRdog
RCJ
I dont no why it was deleted either. I agree with you. My list of old negatives spells opportunity that is unprecedented in my investment career.
I think the list answers underlying doubt. The real message behind the question---- "If bavi is so good, then why isnt the price much higher???"----the real message is this must not be a very good product or is a hype job, or the company is a scam.
I wanted to show that there are good and long standing reasons why the price is where it is.
As these reasons are addressed IMO the price of PPHM stock will move higher.
That's all I will have to say on this matter.
Regards,
RRdog
Atone,
The article is written tongue in cheek. I expect all of these reasons and objections to be dealt with as we go forward.
Be of good cheer.
Best Regards,
RRdog
Geo,
You have put your finger on one of the key issues going forward which is deal structure. The DNA/ Roche model is one template.
I have not decided in my own mind what I favor but it is something I am giving a lot of thought to. I am sure the committees at PPHM are spending a lot of time on this issue. Garnick is a veteran of the DNA/Roche battles.
Best Regards,
RRdog
Thank you WH,
It's not often you get such a quick retraction and correction. I wish all the posters, bashers and news sources that comment on PPHM had your integity.
Best
RRdog
FTM
This immunity in the mouse models was expressly talked about by Thorpe at the NYAS. I suggest you listen closely again to the audio.
I suspect this will be a key area that Y Lin and Xi Huang in Thorpes' lab will be focused on.
I suspect that imbedded IP value like this will be a large part of the negotiation with BP and that the milestone discussion will be very complex. I also suspect this is genesis of the nebulous term "co promotion" in the quarterly cc.
Any large BP should want the entire IP team and some form of rights to everything being worked on in Thorpes' lab that PPHM has rights to.
Imaging IMHO is much larger than is perceived by the market place. I think it will become integral to the whole treatment regimen both as a measurement tool and as a prognosticator.
I have long held the opinion,if you follow old posts, that the MBC results that PPHM put up in the preliminary studies were the best that I had ever seen in that area. Garnick probably correctly concluded that 2nd line NSCLC was the "stilletto heel" point of maximum pressure to begin after consulting with the FDA but I am sure PPHM will pursue MBC going forward.
Best Regards,
IMO and just for you to think about
RRdog
Rolodog,
You give a lot of ammunition to your enemies when you start discussing pie in the sky sort of stuff. Better to lay low and profit from their general stupidity and lag time on correct info.
Best Regards,
IMO just a suggestion
RRdog
Wildhorses,
For the Record--RRdog didnt say anything about Alzheimers disease.
I generally dont talk about something I know nothing about.
The comment was made by Rolodog.
Best
RRdog
Entdoc,
What are you doing on this board so late? You should be relaxing by now.
Given the context of the question, "they are all pretty sick" is one of my favorite quotes since first investing in PPHM. It makes no discrimination between 1st line and 2nd line patients and speaks to the size of the ultimate market.
I was surprised by the answer as well and I was the guy who asked the question.
Best
RRdog
My Pleasure
Best
RRdog
Comments on Thorpes' talk at the NY Academy of Sciences:
I strongly recommend everyone listen, and then listen again to Thorpes' talk at the NY Academy of Sciences. The slides that are available with this talk are beautiful and the ones that were removed (at Thorpes' specific request) have to do IMO with either updating or ongoing work and scientific papers yet to be presented. The entire audio is of course available as is the Q and A.
Thorpe is an awesome individual and any one who listened to this presentation and the Q and A can realize how powerful the underlying intellectual achievement has been to date. I am still of the long held opinion that Thorpe will be nominated and win a Nobel Prize in medicine. He may win for advances in cancer therapy or "for other reasons" like seminal work on the cell surface, advances in medical imaging, work on potentiating the immune system, etc.. (As an aside Einstein never won the Nobel for the Theory of Relativity but actually won for his work on "Brownian Motion" .)
From a PPHM shareholder point of view Thorpes' work on understanding the MOA of bavi will IMO go a long way at the FDA when the time comes to advance the drug to market.
As you know it was my privilege to attend this particular talk and I was accompanied by several investment type friends as well as a couple of scientific types. One of my acquaintances actually runs an NIH facility and was particularly helpful in allowing us to get the right perspective on the science. He thinks PPHM is in the forefront of the approach that utilizes the immuno system to attack cancers.
Other than in my set, I do not believe there were any investment types present. The audience was filled with scientific types. IMO the science is in the early stages of leaking out to medical advisors for large investment firms. This is an osmotic process that will take some time.
I was surprised that most shareholders did not realize George Zavoico was a host/organizer for this presentation. Though he is associated with a small investment firm (MLV), my opinion of Zavoico as a knowlegeable analyst is on the rise. His questions on the cc have been increasingly astute IMO.
There was a reception after the presentation and we were able to chat briefly with Dr. Thorpe and later with two of his key researchers . It was during these chats that I was first able to really internalize the potential of bavi with radiation. I look forward to a long increase in IP value in this area and IMO the discussions to date on this board have been far too limited in their perspective. This also speaks to my opinion that the IP portfolio of PPHM is vastly expanding beyond what shareholders are focused on as milestone events over the next six months or a year.
If you do take the time to listen to this presentation pay particular attention to the Q and A. The following inquiries were of interest to me:
1. One question was about sorafenib in combo with bavi and IMO the answer bodes well for liver cancer and partnering in liver cancer. This particular cancer might work as a geographic deal should PPHM go that route.
2. There was a question that revealed Dr. Thorpes' contention that "immunity" was induced in some mouse experiments. This is a big step up from "MOS" and IMO is the starting point for all kinds of research that would be of use in humans and therefore could lead to large value creation.
3. I liked the question about whether bavi might work better on sicker patients rather than 1st line patients because I was interested in whether success in 2nd line NSCLC could be off labeled to the much larger 1st line NSCLC population. Thorpe didn't think it seemed to matter and gave the now oft quoted response that "they are all pretty sick". IMO this answer speaks for itself re off label.
4. I also liked the question about doxy being the most effective chemo with bavi. Thorpes' answer that bavi works well also with Paxy, Carbo, and Gemcitabine speaks again to his opinion of the breadth of this drug and this approach. (Thorpe does seem to have a special affection for doxy when further questioned IMO)
5. Lastly, I liked the question about the relative value of the human mab versus the chimeric mab. I was interested in such mundane investment ideas as "shelf life", cost of production, ease of mass production, availability of ingredients, etc. etc.. Dr Thorpes' response that chimeric mabs were fine was very encouraging.
I hope these opinions will be helpful with your "longer term" investment perspective.
Best Regards,
RRdog
I hope PL is focused on leveraging Avid and along with mgmt and board on making intelligent deals/partnerships for PPHM.
ATM sales would be very negative at this time.
PPHM should be making the statement that they no longer are in the business of funding with cheap stock. That the stock is valuable and that PPHM will fund in non dilutive ways.
Anything under $10 a share is certainly dirt cheap and I use that number only for example.
Again, since long experience tells me to be wary of any statements by PL, I can only strongly advise him not to sell ATM shares at these very low prices when there are other methods for funding available.
Best Regards,
RRdog
Good Morning all.
My advice is simple:
IMO do not focus on price but rather, focus on value creation.
Do not waste time on anger but rather, use the tools and opportunities that are presented to you.
IMO whenever you get a technical "all clear" signal resume accumulation.
Every day without an MOS announcement is a good day.
More thoughts later.
Best Regards
IMO only
RRdog
FTM
Thanks for the following:
"I am so glad to be wrong! I think RRdog is closest to the final results for MOS. Hot dog! (goes with Holy Cow!).
Can't wait to get data from pancreatic and liver cancer trials in the next few months."
Let's just hope that you be right about me being right. Then PPHM might really have something.
The key statement investors want in a PR release is that "PPHM in a 2nd line test for NSCLC has shown greater MOS than any 1st line test in NSCLC." This will be historic and unprecedented.
Best Regards,
RRdog
The MOS estimates in general IMO remain low.
Regards,
RRdog
Good Morning,
Logged on today and read the last couple of dozen posts and thought I was on the wrong board. Must have moved PPHM to the other side of the schizophrenic ward.
I must agree, however, that the stock does seem a tad undervalued.
LOL
Best Regards as always
RRdog
Jake D
I agree--mgmt knows how to take care of themselves and the data is not bad.
It is not unheard of that you can make a lot of money with some really nasty people. On Wall St it happens all the time.
Regards,
RRdog
July 10th, 2012
Let's review the bidding:
1. I have no idea what the next tick in the stock will be.
2. IMO the following will be true of the 2nd line NSCLC trials:
a. MOS will exceed my low estimate of 13 months.
b. MOS is "easy" to determine, and, PPHM will not unduly delay release of data that is a "material fact". (The discussion of delay is a red herring).
c. There is a possibility that there will be two different announcements of MOS if there is sufficient delta between the two "treatment" arms.
d. MOS will outperform Phase III testing MOS in other NSCLC drugs
e. MOS will outperform Phase II testing MOS in other NSCLC drugs
f. Treatment arm/ control arm ratios will be historic and outperform my low estimate of 2.4
g. In an "unprecedented" and historic development MOS in PPHM 2nd line NSCLC clinical trial will outperform MOS in 1st line NSCLC trials in other drugs.
h. I believe these results will be good enough to be "challenged". The most likely challenge will involve the number of patients in the trial as being insufficient. This is because such good results would mean a "PARADIGM SHIFT" in cancer treatment from radiation, genetic, chemo, surgery, and toward immuno based treatment. Such a shift is upsetting to some interests even though it would not eliminate other methods but might actually be used in conjunction with such methods.
i. IMO PPHM will have P values and Hazard Ratio data for this "sophisticated" trial but I have no idea when this info will be released. (IMO it would behoove PPHM to release as much data as possible simultaneously with the release of MOS data)
j. If conditions "a-i" above are close or partially met, I will be very encouraged as an investor. Such results would represent a "major opportunity for big pharma" to fill pipeline with new tech and complementary tech and a major opportunity for PPHM to accelerate their FDA procedure.
k. IMO I would not expect any advance thinking from the analysts covering PPHM. They are followers not forward thinkers. IMO they will adjust their valuations and targets either way after the fact and often according to their commercial objectives.
3. I have no "absolute" idea how good results in 2nd line lung cancer trials will affect stock price on an "immediate" basis. However, on an intermediate basis or longer term basis all clinical numbers at PPHM are related to valuation, to increased deal activity, hopefully less dilutive financing, and to aggressive pursuit at the FDA. "Horizontal platforms" of tech are much more valuable than vertical apps.
4. It is too late in the game to pay attention to all the unsubstantiated BS printed about this company. IMO better to focus on the core issues. For example, once again, "insider buying" is a red herring. The insiders are loaded with "free riding option positions."
One of the great country western lyrics of all time was by George Jones-- "When the phone don't ring, it'll be me." In PPHM terms, every day without an MOS announcement is a favorable PR.
Best Regards,
IMO only
RRdog
Geo,
Obsession with MOS delayed release are reaching previous obsession levels with PL insider buying. Relax and move on to some other worry.
Best Regards,
RRdog
Thanks FTM,
We are on the same wavelength.
In regard to Thurly post 82458:
I think you and I are close on the "numerator" of the ratio. But there is another possibility which is on the "denominator". Because of cryptic PPHM communication on the control arm having reached MOS in <6 months, parsing the syntax-- (one day PPHM PR will hopefully get clear enough that we don't have to parse anything)-- one could work with a range of 5.1-5.9 months to MOS for the control arm. Changes in the denominator of the treatment/control ratio might also favor my opinion/guesstimate on the ratio being a minimum of (2.4).
I also notice a lot of chatter/worry (another red herring??) that PPHM may in some way be holding back on the MOS release of the treatment arm. I think this is low probability. When they get there they will in all probability release the news. This is too highly awaited a material fact to play around with too long. PPHM does not want to commit any errors of disclosure so close to a major change in possible valuations. Remember, one of the knocks on PPHM is that they are chaired by a lawyer.
Also, mitigating the timing of the release of MOS news is the fact there are two treatment arms. Since the higher dosage level was outperforming the lower dosage treatment arm by modest amounts in primary releases of ORR and PFS there is a distinct possibility that it might also outperform re MOS. There is the possibility that it might outperform by > 1 month which would put it outside a "collating margin". Therefore, if the delta between the two treatment arms is > 1 month there is a decent possibility that shareholders could get two MOS announcements. Given this possibility and since there has been no MOS announcement for the lower dosage treatment arm, I suggest we are still counting at least on the higher dosage.
This is clearly IMO only
Best Regards,
RRdog
FTM
I make my minimum on the treatment/control ratio at 2.40
If that were correct , what implications would it hold for you??
IMO only
Best
RRdog
FTM,
Appreciate your work on this chart of NSCLC 2nd line Phase III trials. I think your results would be quite good for PPHM as they stand. (This in spite of the fact that many of the higher numbers you use in this chart as comparisons were deemed not stat signifigant.) I appreciate your effort to be conservative.
Nevertheless, my own work (guesstimates as of this time and counting) would still find your MOS for bavi control to be high, your MOS for bavi treatment arm to be low, and your treatment/ control ratio, as a percentage, to be considerably low. Remember also, that the bavi treatment arms come in two flavors and the higher dosing arm may be a little stronger and longer than the lower dosing arm.
It will be difficult to question PPHM results as the study is randomized, double blinded, and independently run and reviewed. In addition, MOS is a much "harder" data point than ORR or PFS.
Nevertheless, the data is likely to be good enough (perhaps historic in its relationship to front line results) that there will be some skepticism. Hopefully, this skepticism will be outweighed by the science in a "deadly unmet need". Hopefully, other bavi data due out will also be supportive.
I guess I am well across the Rubicon and moving closer to Rome.
In ancient times no Roman general brought his legions closer to the capital. When Caesar did so it signalled the end of the Republic and a new era for Rome.
What is the real Rubicon for PPHM?? What would signal a new era?? As important as this test is as part of the overall data picture, IMO the real change at PPHM that will signal a new era must be financial. Financial weakness and dilution has been the real "achilles heel" (if I may borrow another classical reference) for both the company and the stockholders.
Hopefully this data will generate some or all of the following:
1. Partnerships either global or regional or corporate in some form.
2. A major league investment banking relationship that leads to
alternate, less dilutive forms of financing than the ATM. Such forms would include bridge financing, leverage, convertible bonds, partnership investment.
2A. More and better research reports and larger institutional investment and following.
3. An improved board structure.
4. Short term much higher stock price (on speculation of monetarizing IP) that would allow bridge financing at much reduced dilution levels.
Until any of the above numbered events happen, I continue to look very closely for improved "burn rate" numbers on the CC.
All IMO only of course
Best Regards
RRdog
FTM
"Alea iacta est"---The die is cast.
Caesar on crossing the Rubicon.
Best
RRdog
Geo,
I hear you on that also.
Best
RRdog