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.
R/S news leak is no explanation.
The problem with that theory is that it is almost automatic for a company that drops under $1 to put the R/S issue up for vote. It is voted on as an option, so has no cost.
I do agree that if a company does a RS that makes it more liquid (for shorts) and causes a hard drop in price almost always.
Of course, the market is efficient so an R/S really has no effect
GTCB: Just for the record
What I was thinking was a partnership that included a highly dilutive financing aspect.
I really don't consider this likely, was just scratching my brain for an explanation other than the obvious answer of another poor financing deal leaked ( or scrapie, which I still don't buy).
No it's definitely not scrapie.
That could explain a minor drop. The price is now in free-fall.
I suspect either another pitifully done financing or partnership.
GTCB: scrapie makes no sence.
I saw that first post and discounted it. Way to easily to protect a small herd (in addition to your point that we have never seen it in humans).
BUT, enough people are clueless that it could be the driver of today's drop. Picked up a few more shares in case that is right.
Re: low key aquisition.
It's a very safe bet that when the headline doesn't even mention the name of the aquired company, it will not be one of the top 10 for the year.
OT: "You will have nothing constructve to say"
There is no way to avoid it, it is just a fact. Well, you could avoid it by running "pre P3" trials to confirm, but that is obviously absurd.
I think some are confusing this point with companies that clearly manipulate the press on trials, and the pushback on that.
Can we say GPCB?
IO - Guilty as charged
Already editited the bogus post.
And yes, I did miss your point in item 5. It really is item 4b, continuing the theame that running trials to detect minor differences is highly questionable, while smaller trials that show a real clinical improvement are more valuable to patients (assuming enough safety data).
BTW, just plain old beer.
RE: reflecting on the DewD "program survival bias" BS
Let's try and understand this. It a fairly simple statistics point.
Let's say you manufactured widgets. The QA weighs them (with a margin of error, but fair) and rejects all that weigh less than 1 kilo. You bag the widgets and record the weight.
On average, the weight of a widget sold is less than the recorded weight (even though the scale was fair).
This is because some widgets that weighed more than 1k were falsely rejected (and these were all underweighs), while some that weigher under 1k got accepted (and these were all overweighed).
Thus, the final product has more overwighed widgets.
This is really just a straight stat argument. You can question how significant it is, but it is real.
3. Cost effects P3 trials.
Duh.
4. Clinical effect vs. stat sig
This is a point that David at BSR has been pounding the drums on. Running a 2000 patient trial to detect a microscopic improvement in some clinical condiction is just not impressive.
5. Bigger trials might be bad because safety issues could outweight benifit.
Sorry, unless I misunderstand you, you lost your mind on this one.
"gambling games are generally fairly trivial"
I am actually unaware of any gambling game that gives you a positive expectancy that is fairly trivial with the sole exception of counting at blackjack.
I doubt anybody on this board could play in a top level rubber bridge game with advantage (and I have played quite a bit at serious stakes).
Dew's backgammon, ditto.
You want to play 100-200 no-limit Texas Holdem against real players?
All of these have an element of skill that takes inate ability and experience to master.
I'm not at all certain that just seeing through the BS biotech stocks and going with value is anywhere near as hard.
I do agree with your point that it is harder to diversify out in the market. In retrospect, I think I missed the major thrust of you post with my quick response to your "fairly trivial" statement. You are correct in this regard.
"like playing high-stakes backgammon."
Understand your point, that both are skill with an element of risk vs. just luck.
But this is a meaningless distinction, because I am aware of no pure skill game that give the player and advantage (which was what I was comparing it to). There are many forms of gambling that are the same as backgammon.
Bridge/Gin/Poker/21(if counting)/Golf(if good on the #1 tee box)/CasinoGames(if you are the house).
My point is you always have to understand thatb there is real risk here. How many posters on all these boards think their stock is a near "lock"?
"Investing is not gambling ..."
I beg to differ.
It is true that betting into negative expectancy is different from a positive expectancy. But once you have a gambling situation with a positive expectancy the situation is almost identical to investing.
One of the big lessons learned well in the gambling world is risk of ruin. You can have a clear advantage, and still go BK because a bad run hits you.
Same in the biotech world (clearly the highest risk in most investment positions). Even if you are good enough to pick stocks that are probably winners, you can't bet the farm on them because many will go BK.
The degree to which you invest vs. gamble/speculate is simply how what percentage of you bankroll you place relative to the volatility (SD for gambling) of the position (bet).
"want to raise taxes on capital gains too."
The problem here is that if one raises cap gains then you have an obvious reason for people to cash in on gains. So you have 1 year before the change with a big revenue increase, followed by a drop the next year.
And people scream "look, total cap gains tax revenue fell".
The easiest approach is to keep going as we are now. Once our debt get's completely unsustainable the dollar will drop 50% or so, and after our ecconomy goes into the toilet international cash will flow into to buy on the cheap.
Seriously, what is so tough with the concept that we need to get close to balancing out books? After the hugely criticised Bush Sr tax raise in 89? we continued on a path that balanced our budget with great economic gains. This was after the vaunted Regan tax cuts put us in a similar place we are in now.
After the Bush Jr tax cuts we are running a completely unsustainable debt and the ecoonomy growth is debt driven.
I am not saying higher taxes are good. I am saying we must get closer to a balanced budget, and it's hard to get there at a very low tax rate. Despite the fact that the US has one of the largest CORPORATE tax rates, overall taxes are very low.
"patients in the Davanat trial had a median survival of 6.7 months"
WOW!
I considered this possibility and didn't check into it because this is really past hype and into pure lies. It's not part of a sale or other commercial transaction, so you can't call fraud.
If I was the SEC though, I would call them on this one. The safe habour statement does not cover pure lies. And if they used extend to describe absolute trial survival, that is a LIE.
Of course, the pussy whipped SEC will never take action in such cases. Just like those two onc. biotechs saying their drug is approved for commercial use in Switzerland when they really have something like an IND and an inport/export license. Those 2 PR's were flagrant lies.
PRW: krenjp, I think you are to cynical even for the bar set by some small biotechs
It can not be a 7 patient subset, because they list 8 specific events.
Perhapse the largest "disingenous" remark is that patients had failed all other treatments, which was simply not true. Most would not have had the current SOC (Avastin).
" in more tax-friendly localities "
Not going to look this up right now, but I believe the US has the lowest tax rate amongst the devloped countries.
wrt the PR from PRW
1) They say the drug extended survival by x, but no mention what the comparison was against, or how they came up with it.
2) They compare SAE's to those in similar trials, ignoring you could well have more SAE's in trials of unaproved drugs (they did not compare to SOC trials here).
3) No p values. (understandle that it was not stat sig given the size, but they have said such).
I imagine Dew found several other points.
Sorry Dew, but you are wrong.
In Craig's statement he said "We can address the FDA concern in-vitro".
The recent claim was that "The FDA said we could address the concern in-vitro".
BIG differnece IMHO.
RE: Update on Survey of 2008 ...
So much for the "short the field" theory.
OT: "Any reason why they have to do a 3D graph for 2D data?"
Perhapse most marketing people have the IQ of a dead squirl?
Realy, I see various forms of this all over the place, and it pisses me off.
In this case the data is being presented to technical people, and you could be certain that the science guys on board would have drawn up clean graphics. But the marketing guys want PAZZAS.
dewo, is it safe to say you believe that Proelex is a clearly better Lurpron?
Anybody know what Lupron sales are?
"its not clear to me the 12.5 mg arm is more effective in month 1."
Is that the question though?
Doesn't the FDA want data (not theory) to suggest the dossage is not more than what is needed to get the effect? Do we all not believe that the 25/50 dose is more to support the endo trial safety wise?
"why add the 50? well this is the one opportunity to really evaluate .."
Isn't that what PAHSE 2 trials are for.
Think hard here dewo. I really respect your opinion and believe that this could be a blockbuster drug in the real indications. But doesn't the anemia trial seam a little odd. Like they are really just collecting safety data points and it's not going to an NDA?
I don't buy the MNTA story from briefing.
It is absurd that the stock would move this heavy on a completety meaningless remark.
Question, could some fund/institution/etc. think MNTA could profit (future or course) from a permanent impairment to the raw heparin supply (triggered by the NY times artical that was REALLY scary if you understand the Chinease supply chain)?
I don't see why this would be the case, but sometimes the financial guys don't follow details that well.
MNTA now up to 10.35 on 540k shares.
OK, who opened their mouth.
RE 36%
EXACTLY!
I am not going to comment on the precise numbers, but it seams like EVREYBODY fails to do the simple multiplication of yours in these situations.
The fact that there is a real risk doesn't make the investment poor until you factor in the gain/loss.
Biotech is risky. People who downplay that risk do themselves a diservice. But it does pay if you have a decent conecpt what you are doing. You just got to be carefull and not put too much on one play.
I am certainly not an expert here, but after being burnt by CTIC in what I now could easily have avoided, I did make a serious effort to get up to speed in biotech investing. I have enough of a general science/math/engineering backgraound that I understand the issues. Certainly Clark knows biostats better than me, DD knows general biotech better than me, dewophile knows the Prolexx market better than me. But I understand what they say, and can form my own decision.
People are really ill-advised to just toss honest advice that disagrees with their poistion. You have to factor it all in and decide.
Terminology Q, "registrational" vs. "registration quality"?
OK, maybe I am just being pedandic here, but most companies use a phrase like "we have initiated 2 registrational phase 3 studies...".
But I have seen a couple examples of the phrase being
"registration quality".
Logically, the latter is broader than the former (i.e., not suitable for NDA, but still having general P3 characteristics).
Am I just getting overly jaded here?
Re: "zero risk trial"
I agree that is what he posted, but it was before the trial was announced, so he was clearly talking about an abstract regitstrational trial and not the actual design.
I certainly highly respect dewophile. He clearly has an expert knowledge of the clinical aspects of this field (whereas I have none). I consider his input exceptionally valuable in guestimating a valuation. If he is correct, the DD's 36% number STILL makes this stock a buy.
Clark, huh? on GTCB SPA
Are you confusing GTCB and GPCB, or have I really missed something here. I thought GTCB clearly never had a SPA for the US HD aTryn P3.
"..Zero risk trial.."
Actually, dewophile was refering to the drug being safe and effective in the anemia indication. This is far different than handicapping the aproval path via this trial.
. no SPA
. 15 patients on the placebo arm
. a (presumed) Eastern European trial
Certainly NONE of these are high concerns, but they certainly do add doubt past dewophiles expectationcies for the drug itself.
It is a very safe bet that in general (not directed at RPRX here) investor optimisim is far too high in this setting.
re: WYE and ELN on endpoint picking
They will start the Alz. trial and decide later which is a better metric?
Have we just defined a new term, "prospectively defined blinded data mining".
Ho SPA.
Re: OncoVAX's fast track
I think Intracel (the orriginal developer of this) had a fast track back in the 1998.
Vaccinogen is a private company, I would you bet you a substantial sum they are using this PR to raise money from fools.
Re: OncoVax - what's that fish smell?
Smells like a scam to me.
In a few months they announce the PY just meant the drug was available for being used in a trial
IS this the same scam company that tried this in Switzerland with a brain cancer vax about 6 months ago?
Re; Trading
I often trade in/out while having a long term position. Maks plenty of sence to me.
OTOH, GTCB has a beta of about .00000000000000000001
Prob of succcess in anemia
This is all off the cuff, just to sugest discussions.
1) Efficiency. Let's guess that 90% is the true power. That yeilde .9*9 = .81
2) Safety. This seams fairly clear. I will give it a .9
3) CMC. I only care about major issues because a minor issue can be shown to a partner and still generate cash. .95
4) The FDA doesn't accept the trial design as sufficient for approval. No SPA, small trial, some ex US. .8
5) The ex US arm is screwed up. .9
6) Other. In the words of Cheney the "unknown unknowns". .9
That yeilds .499
Fair Harbour Statement: All the above was pulled directly out of my A***
IO_IO, see the bet the
Cheers.
To clarify on GTOP's MyVac
The patients in the P3 treatmeant arm who responded (as defined by showing antibodies) to MyVac did very well, stat sig better survival.
BUT, overall the treatment arm didn't even trend towards better survival.
SO, it looks like MyVac did no more than ID the better survivors.
How do others claiming this type stat differ?
IO, can we say "data mining"
Sector rotation?
I have noticed many bios have been doing well the last week.
"iii) the bar is 1/2 what was seen in prior studies (where the effect was retroactively studied)"
That is simply not true. The "bar" is or course the P value.
The statement that the trial is 85% powered based on 1/2 the prior effect is missing a really important point. Namely, there has to be a std dev (or such) assumption in there. Given that nobody I know of has references to actuall data from the P1/2s (just summary), we have no clue on what this is the earlier trials.
I guess if clark want'd to waste some time he could he could make a much better comment on this.
BTW, what is a "registrational quality" trial?
Re: NSTK average volume spike.
"average volume too...must be a determined buyer with something up his sleeve."
I would tend to think a spike on high volume is described by your response.
A spike on low volume sounde more like seller apathy.
My bet is the price collapses shortly after some more runout by the mo-mo lemmings who saw the spike.