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.
Zero transparency = 100% shenanigans. Always will.
I recommend Michael Lewis's new book "Flash Boys". Just finishing it and if you are an investor and trade you will find it eye opening..
It may explain some of the weird trading we have witnessed in PPHM. The 5 share trades: High Frequency Traders ping a small trade to "see" the market participants. They then use their speed to step in front of other investors and buy/sell to move the stock.
Another is the many 100sh trades. I always thought it was small investors buying...not true, its the HFT.
Ameritrade, Schwab, E-Trade and the bunch of them sell the flow so the trades get routed to nefarious dark pools(private exchanges) where HFT's prey.
You always knew where money was involved the small investor was getting screwed but then it started to effect the larger mutual fund traders.
a new exchange opened in Fall of 2013 (by the Flash Boys) that leveled the playing field, IEX, Investors Exchange. It does not pay for order flow and has devised an exchange that thwarts the HFT's.
A good read and fascinating. Would probably help explain our 70M trade over 2 days....also the trading to 4/ one hundreds of a cent.
Anyways, not meant to sell the book but if you are interested in "our markets" you'll find it interesting.
Happy Easter to all
They call it "liquidity," which anymore means allowing non-equity participants into the market. Completely naked. No underlying equity whatsoever. Churn as many shares as you want hiding behind the market maker exception to Reg SHO.
Exactly. Totally agree. They extract every cent of investing dollars that the longs will spend. They watch for any opportunity to extract the wealth from any target. It doesn't matter what the ticker symbol is or what the company does. Only if there is money to extract from the trading patterns. When I spend money with the intent of investing in PPHM, I give it to the monsters. They only stop when the trading signals says stop and then if it says start again, they start again. Nothing personal. That's the problem. Nothing personal. It's hard to be an investor unless you carry a lot of weight, like a Warren Buffett or an institution or a partner. Otherwise, the money is poured down a black hole, with the company you want to invest it, never receiving the benefit of investing dollars. It takes a big stick to beat them away. Nothing personal. Like a zombie, nothing personal. Black Death, nothing personal. And shorting exists to make a market more efficient. Nothing personal.
Unfortunately when there is zero transparency in the market and unlimited phantom shares to jerk with, this will happen. Another observation is on the volume. Very low interest in beneficial shares. It's stunning how much of the normal trading volume is either HFT, market maker shenanigans, or both.
Observations on PPS and options expiry:
Last month, the market makers tanked the PPS the week after opex to really kick those who took delivery of the "in the money" March $2 calls in the nuts as the stock closed at $2.24 on Opex.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the same thing happen next week. I am expecting a pullback to bludgeon the 50 day at 1.56 and expect we'll retest the 1.50 area as we bottom out and get any $1.50 April call holders who took delivery to give up and sell. They like round numbers. The good news is that if that happens it will probably be on low volume and bounce hard and I expect the next leg up will happen over the coming weeks and months. Have a good holiday. Still better here then it was in April 2012. Hoping I can say the same thing about May-August.
Market makers must be exhausted from all the trading today. You guys can go have a beer now. You earned it.
We have seen several huge volume days this days not supported by any event of immediate significance and instead weakly attributed to internet posts or other non-drivers.. I suspect there was more to it than that unless millions of investors simply woke up one morning with an irresistible urge to suddenly pile on.
I don't think you're giving insiders enough credit, Geo. People who know, I mean really know an inside piece of info are NOT going to pile into 20 million shares PPHM common the day before a deal is announced. They are going to do it 1-3 months ahead of time. That way, after they have a position and the stock drops 50% they can tell the SEC, "Now why would I have put $50 million into a stock when a month or two later my position was valued at $25 million if I knew a deal was coming?" It's the perfect crime. Insiders are not stupid enough to blow the lid off a low floater the day before a deal is announced IMO
The class action lawsuit is complete BS grounded in a ridiculous legal argument already rejected by the Court, but it does give rise to one legitimate question of potential impropriety: When did the plaintiffs that brought forward the "confidential witness" revealing the AbbVie discussions know about that information, and did any of them trade on it?
How do we know they didn't resume discussions with AbbVie after the trial discrepancies were reviewed and Phase III approval with FDA? Whether there is current interest with AbbVie or someone else, deals do not happen over night. Notwithstanding possible delay from the CA lawsuit, there is still the matter of traditional due diligence on IP, GMP, and a host of other metrics, all of which are time consuming. I suspect that some sort of agreement in principle is on the table right now, subject to conditions, and it's simply a matter of time before an announcement.
IMHO, anyone that thinks that management doesn’t want a deal is ignoring reality. There is NO doubt that management had an agreement in principle with ABBvie in September 2012. We will never know the terms. The landscape for cancer therapy has changed significantly since that September and trying to calculate the price of a paradigm shifting market disrupting technology like Bavituximab is very difficult.
...an equivalent antibody to Peregrine's lead immunotherapeutic antibody candidate bavituximab administered with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) showed a 100% improvement in survival and favorable tumor eradication in a model of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) compared to irradiation alone. These data were presented yesterday at the 105(th) Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) being held in San Diego, California from April 5-9, 2014.
From what I can find on the internet, Federal Rules allow CSM 21 days to answer (after service). If CSM is going to push the responsibility to an employee as a defense, I suspect that will be in its answer to the complaint. Also: a question for the lawyers on the board, do Federal Rules allow for a blanket denial? Or is an explanation required?
Great weekend all!
It will be a nail-bite inducing anticipation as we wait to see if CSM eats it without pursuing the employee (settle with Peregrine, block further investigation), or claims no liability and criminally pursues the individual. It will be a hell of a ride!
I think either the mere existence of the CA is a concern for a partner, or it is not. I don't think any analyst would attempt a more nuanced determination based on the "validity" of a lawsuit. Untold millions (if not billions) are paid out every year in this country on lawsuits that most of us would characterize as not "valid", lacking in merit, ridiculous, etc. Like everyone else here, I am simply speculating. It would be nice if someone with experience and insight into a partnering deal could enlighten us on whether the CA might be a sticking point, or not.
Obviously, the one caveat for the partner is if they think the CA is so valid that they are concerned a victory by the plaintiff might be for such a large sum as to prevent pphm from performing. I highly doubt this is the case.
Good point. But on what would you base a reserve figure? The CA suit, after multiple amendments, hasn't even moved beyond the motion to dismiss. There is no discovery or other information to review. Assuming the suit is an impediment, wouldn't it be easier to just wait until May 5 and see if the judge bounces the suit altogether?
Well Geo
good point....
outstanding litigation is just normal business.
You/the buyer/partner can easily review the suit and all discovery and come up an accurate number to use in the offer thought process.
This is called "reserving" It's really quite simple.
It is the number ONE critical aspect of running an Insurance
Company. Now after 40 years in the insurance business I may know something about reserving.
Yep I do. Three prior employers went BK, out of business and it wasn't because they paid me too much.
There are many reasonable explanations for the status of a partnership, including that these thing sometimes simply require long periods of interaction before being finalized. I think the reason many speculate that something is already in play is the inexplicable recent trading activity. It seems like there was much more volume than necessary for someone to execute a simple pump and dump scheme, so what else does that leave? An impending partnership could certainly explain the volume, whether the deal is contingent on closing the CA suit, coordinating multiple players, "just around the corner" or something else.
Even if the lawsuit was settled or pphm was found to be at fault, the negative economic impact to an overall partnership would be minimal. many have said that the case has no merit and even if it does, how much are we talking about? Nothing comparatively speaking. I would argue we have more to gain in the CSM trial than lose in the CA suit.
My take is if there is a partnership that is agreed to with a condition, the condition may well be in the structure of the overall deal. Something tells me we are part of a multiplayer arrangement that needs to come together or something like Calico that is just coming together requiring timeliness before announcements.
What we do know about a partner...
According to pleadings in the CA lawsuit, Peregrine was in partnership discussions with BP, specifically, Abbvie, but discussions halted upon the discovery of the NSCLC Phase II coding discrepancy in Sept. 2012.
Following the discovery of the coding discrepancy, Peregrine concluded a review of the trial data that took a conservative approach of combining the placebo and 1mg/kg treatment arm into one treatment arm and comparing the results to the 3mg/kg arm. This analysis still showed a meaningful improvement in median overall survival, and the company reached agreement with FDA on Phase III trial design. Further, Peregrine received Fast Track designation from FDA.
Because of the conservative approach to the analysis of Phase II NSCLC data, it would be reasonable to conclude that the promising survival data was, if anything, understated since it was compared to a control arm that actually contained Bavi. With the Phase II discrepancy addressed, one could expect that partnership discussions with Abbvie and/or other BP resumed. Indeed in March, SK stated that discussions with potential partners are active and that we will be updated as partnerships are brought to fruition over the coming year.
So why no partnership announcement yet?
- The Phase II discrepancy has been favorable resolved. Phase III has been initiated.
- Recent preferred/ATM financing leaves the balance sheet very healthy.
- There was an unprecedented 80 million share run-up (perhaps some of the volume phantom shares, but certainly not all of it) on the common stock with no corresponding news to justify such sudden interest.
One possibility is that a partnership deal(s) has been agreed to with a condition precedent being the disposal of the CA lawsuit. Others here disagree, and state that the CA lawsuit would not serve as such an impediment. I would argue that active lawsuits create unknown liability (The outcome of litigation is notoriously difficult to predict. Just read the news or ask a lawyer). I'm not saying that my theory is the only viable explanation for the current state of affairs, but I would ask those in opposition to such a theory what evidence/experience they have that the presence of the CA lawsuit on Peregrine's financials would not be a significant sticking point in partnering negotiations.
All imho.
How much of the 80 million share price surge was market makers (who are exempt from Reg SHO) shorting into the run-up? Wouldn't it follow that they would walk the PPS back down after the volume dried up in order to cover their naked short positions? Between that and HFT shenanigan, it seems impossible to discern how many "beneficial" shares actually changed hands (and hence determine a reasonable support level) and how much was counterfeit volume. So we are back to where we started with hopefully at least some new long positions. All imo.
The First Amended Complaint filed on March 28 alleges with specificity that the switching was deliberate (compared to the more general allegation of "errors" in the original complaint):
17. On April 15, 2010, CSM's Project Manager confirmed again to Perceptive and to Plaintiff that CSM was following Perceptive's instructions and Clinphone Protocol. However, CSM's Project Manager's confirmation was false because CSM already had secretly and unilaterally swapped the A and B arms so that those patients that were randomized to the A arm (control arm) and supposed to receive placebo treatments, were actually receiving 1 mg/kg bavituximab treatments and vice-versa.
18. Peregrine's investigation in Fall 2012, revealed that CSM committed other labeling and distribution errors affecting the A and B arms above and beyond the swap of the A and B arms noted above. Further, CSM did not inform any other clinical vendor and did not disclose that CSM had made any sort of Clinphone Protocol change at all. CSM's Project Manager did not even advise CSM's own Director of QA that CSM had changed the Clinphone Protocol.
Switching the complete arms must be MORE then just a database thing. Here is why...
Either that or there is a mention on CNBC and it rockets to $3.65 on huge volume. Ya never know with PPHM.
1.88 and falling. It seems like ... my prediction of ... earlier this morning ... is becoming true!
PPHM is going to soon break the 1.83-1.85 support zone it buinld last week.
Also amazing how they walk down the price with small trades. I'm lost on the whole modern electronic trading paradigm. Bid and ask sizes seem to contradict the price direction. What's going on? Phony sizes being posted? Averaging to fill a large order for someone?
It amazes me how many little trades occur as part of a larger fill.
Okay Level II guys...any thoughts on the bid ask ratio?
Quiet before the storm. Recent pattern seems to be price fade, then volume dries up...then BANG!
deja vu of what? A low volume day with little change in pps?
Something seems very familiar about the lack of volume. It's like deja vu all over again.
I took my first position in TCLN at just over a dollar (all approx pre-split figures) and then added more as it bottomed near $0.25 and then closed most of my position for tidy profit when it quickly moved back to the $1.00 dollar range. I thought I was a genius..and then I watched it spike to almost $16.00 over the next few months. It might feel bad to watch a paper gain erased, but it's not nearly as bad as closing your position and getting left in the dust during a massive breakout.
Shares bought for $1.20 in December are only worth $1.85 today! snivel...snivel...whimper...whimper...poor us!
Pretty clear a deal is in the works. We also know that there was interest on the part of AbbVie that stalled because of the phase II labeling problem, but we do not know the time-frame or conditions precedent to close that deal. Whether Abbvie is back in on the table, or it is others, I would not be surprised if the terms a deal(s) have already been agreed to and will be inked after conditions are met. All imo, of course.
What do you not understand about the words "...brought to fruition over the coming year." Maybe it is the word "fruition" that you do not understand? The dictionary says that fruition means the "state of bearing fruit; hence realization." This means that the partnership discussions will bear fruit...a partnership will be realized...this year. I hope that helps.
Don't the current Federal Rules already permit the judge to issue sanctions equal to legal fees if the case is determined to be frivolous?
Just out of curiosity what is your opinion about this bill in the US Senate that will make losers pay the freight for frivolous lawsuits.
Would this lawsuit fit into that category?
Time to leave for a weekend in Vegas. Have to go and pick up the money that I left there last trip.
Andy c.
How is that "wrong?" Price was above $2.00 at March options expiration, and according to your logic below, any "wall" in April would be at $2.30, or 17% higher than today. Also, by sucker bet, are you suggesting that the options were mispriced on the high side? Not totally discounting the "max pain" theory btw. It just seems overstated.
Wrong as most March options were purchased for .20-.25 where they pinned the close on OPEX. Those that exercised their options on OPEX were smoked as the stock plummeted the following Monday and then went below $2. Anyone in March options were smashed unless they were mart enough to sell on the run up to $3, though the open interest on the options after that run was still very high. That tells you that most people didn't take advantage of that short term spike. Jan, Feb and Mar options were all sucker bets and it appears April will be the same as most buyers paid .20-.30 a share for the April $2 a few weeks back
One hopes this would lead to early dismissal. This lawsuit is a mockery of the legal process, and the plaintiff's open defiance of the Court's earlier rulings calls into question whether its primary motives are collateral even to the classical improper objective of settlement extortion.
My experience:
Judge's law clerk/technical advisor reads plaiintiff's submission handed to him by court clerk------------> discussed with judge
with recommendation for disposition, one way or another----------> judge reads the plaintiff's paper, decides to dispose of now or wait for defendant's response.
The setting of a time for response is normally a clerical matter handled by the court clerk administratively.
A quick motion by defendant, or letter to judge, to the effect there is nothing new in plaintiff's submission 1)requiring a response by defendant, or 2) that the judge has not already fully considered in previous rulings, could facilitate the process. Court's local rules could govern such a process.
The same argument was made about March options, and yet the PPS closed well above $2.00 on expiration day.
This stock is DOA until after April options expire. Once again there are too many open interest contracts at the $2.00 level. The only way this changes will be an announcement of a partner which looks like a long shot at this point. Clearly the plan is settle the suit, issue the executive options and then start with the barrage of good news. Oh well its all staged and choreographed to benefit the insiders. Have a great weekend Peregriners and our day in the Sun will eventually be here!
When would the case file reach the judge? Would PPHM have to file a motion for immediate review?
The plaintiff's last ream of baloney is pathetically disingenuous and is clearly interposed for the purpose of delay. Moreover, it is potentially stalling progress in an emerging cancer therapy. It is precisely this sort of nonsense that erodes at public confidence in our legal system. Perhaps it is time for California to revisit its standards for membership in the Bar.
In aggravated cirumstances such have been described, I have seen judges rule immediately w/o waiting for defendant's response.
WOW! I only skimmed the 31 page piece of rubbish, but the word that immediately comes to mind is DEFIANT. If I were a judge reading this (Which, of course, I am not) I would be, to put it delicately, pissed off. Nothing new. Instead, it looks like the smart alecky plaintiff's attorney is petulantly claiming that the judge got it wrong the first two times he dismissed her case. Pretty outrageous, imo.
Plaintiff in the class action did file PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS & AUTHORITY IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. PPHM has until 4/15 to file their response.
Depends on what your expected ROI is. PPHM is a goldmine for day traders and swing traders, but longs would have to pick the top and not lose their position in a big breakout.
100% of recent rally now LOST.
Have you guys figured out yet that PPHM is a sell every rally stock?
(That's a rhetorical question....)
Evaluating ongoing litigation is an essential part of any due diligence investigation and usually carries some weight in the evaluation. To suggest that such a concern is "very silly" is, dare I say, a tad naive.
Did you really say BP might be afraid pphm might have to use the money to pay off the plaintiff in the Ca ? That is very silly .
CP - I was thinking more broker-dealers who can turn a nice profit filling orders from inventory. But the larger point is that I think that number of shares held and traded by traditional "retail investors" tends to be overstated. I.e., the theory that there are so few shares out there that big buyers and hedge funds need to "steal" shares away from "retail" holders.
skweze, an MM tries to have ZERO shelf at the end of the day.
It are other parties. Fundd, II, big investors, traders, etc that make most of the waves.
According to NASDAQ, there are 26,283,501 institutional shares held. I seriously wonder how many of the remaining shares are held by retail longs and how many are in MM inventories, offshore, or getting flipped back and forth between hedgies and day traders.
ol...or helping get retail out.
I see an increase in PPS related panic......
Hmmmmm
Like I said, I'm selling after approval....I have plenty of time.....
What about the concern that the cash a partner puts into the company could be used to pay off the CA clowns instead of running clinical trials?
Still don't believe the CA and especially the CSM lawsuits have anything to do with announcing any partnerships.
I wonder what the extent of beneficial ownership actually is and how many share sit in MM inventories or get traded back and forth as phantom shares. HFT guys can churn the hell out of a stock for spreads and rebates causing high volume with little interaction of "natural" buyers. Not sure if this fits the pattern on the large PPHM volume days. It seems like the computers would hold a tighter range through the volume, but I don't have an trained eye to spot all the possible HFT shenanigans.
2) Large volume is relative. If the volume is composed of a lot of Box (bot) volume then it isn't real "owner-shares-changed-hands" volume. I'd be certainly willing to follow that theory because as you pointed out yourself your PPHMP hedging technique has a 8.33x700K = 5.831.000 shares limit so they can only be part of the 40Milj volume for that match and only the day we were above 3$.
The CSM suit should have a negligible impact since there is no potential for liability for PPHM other than that bankers and possibly partners don't like active litigation of any sort. I doubt the ambulance chaser lawsuit is over today. I think they have until midnight to file a response to the motion to dismiss, and unless the plaintiff fears sanctions from the judge when he discovers that they have once again recycled legal theories that he has already twice rejected, they will probably file a B.S pleading hoping that they remain a costly enough nuisance to extort a settlement. I do believe the CA is a potential delaying factor, but that it will be resolved in May and allow the company to move forward on (or formalize) some significant matters. (Fortunately the company has amassed a decent war chest with the recent preferred and ATM sales and can afford to wait the P.O.S...ahem, plaintiff, out until May.) There should also be a dollar amount for the CA suit that is currently priced into the PPS, so it would be reasonable to expect a bump equal to the perceived liability as soon as this nonsense gets dismissed. All imo.
I don't understand how the CSM settlement would delay a partnership. Could the ambulance chaser lawsuit could be over today or in May? If it is a delaying factor then a May-June time frame is possible. Then will we see one, two or three partnership announcements? Or to prevent a regional carve up might a BP want to buy-out the entire world-wide anti-PS technology? Lots of questions.
They do it because they can. Too many shares out there to jerk with, not to mention phantom shares from HFT.
PPHM shares are a daytrader's and hedgies' playground... share price up/down over 50% in March alone. March madness indeed
I don't think PPHM is on anyone's hard to borrow list right now, but interest risk would actually increase with short interest. I'm familiar with the strategy of short arbitrage, where one shorts against preferred to profit from mispricing, but I can't find anything published on the math for shorting against preferred to "lock in" a profit.
Generally the borrow cost on stocks is so small it is covered by the interest on the cash received from the short sell. Those cases where you hear about 10-20% borrow costs are really the exception.
So shorting against a preferred (or more commonly a convertable bond) is a standard practice. It allows one to separate the interest play from the equity risk.
When PPHMP was sold it was not very reasonable to short the common against it (as the price delta off the excise was too large). But with the bump over $3 the picture changed.
I would certainly assume some of the new short was the PPHMP ownership.
No comment on this being some grand plan though.
Was anyone NOT expecting a retracement before the next leg up?
After bidride's list of posts from around Sept 7th 2012 that indeed all, some even word by word, have the same wording in bashing PPHM, and after comparing the charts from around that period ans seeing that they are comparable to what is happening now, this short interest is the icing on the cake.
It is clear that a kind of exact same move is going on and I am now more then ever convinced this March rally was the kick-off. In Sept 2012 they also brought us back from 3+$ to below 2$ before shooting us to 5$.
It is the Cramer move, as he explained in his video. Short it to death and make everyone believe the worst, then cover and fill and wait for the true news. In his story the true news was Verizon takes the iPhone while they flooded the market with rumours Verizon wouldn't take it. So APPL went down after they shorted it, the jump up after they covered and filled and Verizon announce the news.
Hilarius, but he added that is what fund managers do.
In the below hypothetical, wouldn't the 10.5% dividend be diluted by the amount of the fee for shorting?
The short increase is almost the exact number of preferred shares that are convertible at $3. Seems to support my theory that the IBs involved with the ATM and preferred deals worked together to artificially inflate the PPS to $3 and then short, giving them virtually a risk free 10.5% dividend.
And CP, your idea of this not being risk free because PPHM could convert the shares at $3.90 leaving you with a naked short is not accurate. In cases of preferred redemption that I can find, the company must give preferred shareholders adequate notice and set a date by which that would occur. They can't simply decide to do it one day, suck the PPHMP out of your account in exchange for $3.90 a share and leave you hanging. It's a pretty long process. Here's an example I could find of a preferred redemption process.
I don't think they will settle at all. (my last reply neglected to add quote tags to the original post so that may not have been clear.) But since the plaintiff's lawyer probably isn't counting on surviving the motion to dismiss, why are they hanging on by a thread? Maybe they know they are the wrench in the machine right now and hope to get bought off. All imo.
They plaintiff side will settle for enough to pay legal fees and a discount McD happy meal coupon for all members of the class.
No disrespect to North or Bungler, but there exists a subset of lawyers who are huge leaches on society [probably true for most all professions, but certain lawyers do such at a higher level].
EDIT: I mean that is a general rant. Not a claim that PPHM would be forced (or elect) to settle.