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.
Must be true then.
I'd love to read or hear the statements on partnership you are referring to, but have not been able to find them.
Do you have a reference, please?
Here is a quote from an interview 26/10/2016
No PR should equal no material news.
More of an awareness show in advance of the planned P2/3 in Australia.
That strictly could be true, because there may be PR before.
I'm not liking the hype either, but am ok with logic as part of DD.
It is the first time the company has MS as a topic on a scheduled agenda. Is that really to ignore a null outcome with Biogen and pretend nothing happened and publicly go looking for new MS biz Dev opportunities?
Agreed, the near term Klamer show has only a very remote chance that it is to communicate lukewarm prospects for the future of Anavex.
Did Anavex actually say that
It is possibly, but seems unlikely. It would mean that MS being on Klamer's agenda for Sept 11th is then for finding a new MS partner, while silently just sweeping the Biogen MTA relationship under the carpet or issuing a PR that nothing came of it.
Wouldn't that be nice, albeit perhaps too much to hope for.
If so I'd definitely hold onto the stock as unlikely to dip under the $BIIB pre-deal level and comes with the benefits you mention.
Whereas, $AVXL trading separately will of course go higher on some partnering/licensing deal, but will likely be more volatile with folks taking profit wondering what's next and when.
Makes sense to me given that the agenda includes MS. Whether partnership, licensing or something else we will have to wait and see, but something regarding MS and Biogen is likely to be PR'ed before the event.
Unlikely. No inventions not already included in the original disclosures of a patent can later be part of amended claims.
In other words unless MS was part of the descriptive text of the invention (or perhaps already in dependent claims), one would have to file a new patent application possibly as continuation part.
PS! I have not checked if the patent in question includes any disclosures around the use of the compound in MS.
I suppose the intention with the rule is to allow the market sufficient time to consider the possible reason(s), as we do, what the purchase(s) might be an indication of.
And in this context how is vicinity defined?
Is it 7 weeks, 1 week, 2 days or some other period...
Perhaps, but either way no disadvantage for AVXL employees!
Simple explanation for recent silence and resulting SP drop could be to optimise employee shares incentive value?
Presumably good timing for setting the price of remaining employee incentive shares covered by that 2015 plan/prospectus.
While everyone is busy with the form 4, has anybody read the S-8 yet?
S-8
Ah, I was about to note you had agreed with something. But, saw your edit in time.
You are now on ignore.
OFP Btw. I have posted a number of other considerations here today that I expect you to come with some well rehearsed responses to. I would be sad if you don't
The main point, as I read Falconer's post, is that not too much upwards movement in share price will occur until one of the planned trials produce unquestionably positive data.
Do you also disagree with that, or are you just disagreeing with anything that is positive regarding Anavex?
Or probably less likely, a buy out.
Hard to disagree with Falconer.
Some here are repeatedly implying that Anavex will far from have the funds required for conducting the 3 trials announced to commence this year, and in particular not the AD P2/3.
I am suggesting that the several pre-clinical and the phase 1 and 2 clinical trials already conducted, could not have been funded in full either by Anavex alone, but instead by a majority of the cost being meet by external organisations. This should be as clear as alleged for new trails based upon dissecting past Anavex financial reports held up against guesstimates of trial costs.
Now, let's imagine Caulfield/Alfred Health are receiving funding, as they do, from government or other organisations in Australia or elsewhere to run trials. If so, then whatever grants that may go towards Anavex drug trials do not need to and will not appear in the accounts of Anavex.
Therefore, my argument remains that it is reasonable to expect that the majority of the funding required for the upcoming trials will not be funded by Anavex. However, the proportion of funds needed for the AD P2/3 trial in particular are such that Anavex is building up the required financial muscle to fund their part of trial activities through the LPC facility.
Or both?
Link didn't work, but scroll down via this one for the quote on funding trials.
https://www.australianclinicaltrials.gov.au/what-clinical-trial/how-clinical-trials-work
Regarding trial design confusion,
this Alzforum link
In the comment section, Kristina Capiak clears up whether the trial protocol was changed during the part A and B 5 + 52 week period.
Here is the link to Alfred Health Annual Report 2015-16
Indeed, as I recall part of Caulfield/Alfred Health operations. They wrote in their 2016 annual report that they look forward to running a larger trial in 2017.
The Australians funded the n=32 trial. They also requested an additional 104 weeks extension trial on behalf of the patients and care givers.
Would it not be reasonable, assuming results still appear promising, that they would find the money for a 300 patients trial that could just result in improved care and commensurate future savings, not to mention the ethical bonuses?
I think so despite your research findings.
Didn't mean to post that 4 times, no idea what happened.
With the long period of no concrete new information/data, it certainly could be worrisome. However, when I do a biotech stock screening at present, Anavex is still up there with the best risk/reward ratio as far as I can tell. So I would choose to invest again and have done a bit more at these prices.
With the long period of no concrete new information/data, it certainly could be worrisome. However, when I do a biotech stock screening at present, Anavex is still up there with the best risk/reward ratio as far as I can tell. So I would choose to invest again and have done a bit more at these prices.
With the long period of no concrete new information/data, it certainly could be worrisome. However, when I do a biotech stock screening at present, Anavex is still up there with the best risk/reward ratio as far as I can tell. So I would choose to invest again and have done a bit more at these prices.
Isn't biotech investing a lot of educated if this and that conjecture, where with some well grounded DD you can hope the few in your portfolio that turns out right pays handsomely for those that go south?
Is that not how you see Anavex too, or is it just a rubbish investment - If the latter why do you care?
If the Australians take on the cost of running the trial with Anavex supplying the drug and processing dat etc., then that may have the Alz trial covered, no?
Just how toxic LPC turns out for Anavex remains to be seen. If, it is of course not a given, we end up running the 3 trial on LPC financial and grants to ultimate approval of one or more of them. Could it be some will change their mind?
Agree, suspect our collective minds are in overdrive to fit the lack of information to exotic theories.
I will accept the idea that the Plus Patent firmly in hand is a dependency for potentially interesting news.
Also fair to assume the Sept 11 event is of some significance.
Thanks! I re-sent my email a little while ago hoping it will reach the destination this time.
Theories on this board about just about everything
Having an email address published on the website and then bouncing emails to it, not professional is it?
More likely just a short term glitch.
Gave up on their website message facility as it seems to be very restrictive on message length.