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.
You can't go a week without your conspiracy manipulation nonsense you better expect to be bullied and ridiculed.
Yup, were is been mAniPUlaTededed. Comeon we went up 20% in fours day and now we give vback havled that in two days!! WTF ya gotta be blind not to see it. What else could possiblility explain it???? Why else would a stock move like THAT ?!?!?!? It'd be nice if we could have more than a week without manipulation.
The 50 day EMA ($5.61) stopped us dead in our tracks on last month's rise, and is giving us trouble again yesterday and today. But I fear not the 50 day EMA, for soon it will be support.
So tentatively we've double bottomed with last December's low. Today we closed 3 cents over the 20 day EMA, so we got that going for us. Hopefully we've seen capitulation and the proverbial weak hands have been mostly flushed out. Now we have to plow through the "Ijustwantmymoneyback" crowd.
Stockdoggy, you can believe whatever you want. Just know that when you go on and on and on about manipulation everyone else has a right to call you on it and/or tease you about it.
Hi stockdoggy,
First off, would you agree this very short video describes this discussion?
Hello micro. I look forward to hearing what response you get from you complaint.
I think the interest rate the brokerages were charging was due to increased risk coupled with scarcity of shares available. They have actuarials that figure that stuff out.
About for your line of friends, where were they getting the shares to short on these high-volume drop days when we had net covering?
And yes, we're all on the same team here. It's a wild ride but I think it will be well worth it.
Stockdoggy, again, you and others want to attribute the fall in price to manipulation, . . . based on the fact that the stock fell in price.
Beside the price and volumes traded, the only real data we have is shares shorted on the rise and shares covered after the drop, which doesn't help the "Short attack" argument.
Beyond that each person comes up with what they believe is a plausible (but vague) explanation based on assumptions that are debatable, if not highly questionable. Just go back and read these posts and cross out anything that is pure conjecture and see what is left.
A couple things.
You said, "Nothing illegal, just immoral," but what you describe is illegal. The SEC specifically says manipulation of a security's price or volume is illegal and you claimed several times the shorts were doing this to drive the price down.
About shorting. Black Friday we opened >10% down so the uptick rule was in effect and we had a 3.5 million share day. We know shares available to short were scarce so how did shorts "drive the price down"? Where did all of these shares come from?
You said, "I think that institutional shorts continued shorting during this time to keep the price somewhat in check." Why would they want to keep the price rise in check?
About manipulating small company SP, do you really think that would go unnoticed by our institutional investors?
Don't feel bad you're not alone. I've also had no luck contacting IR using the form on MRKR's site or the email address on their site. A couple straight forward simple questions and . . . **crickets**.
Micro I'm not trying to be argumentative either. It just irks me when people go on and on about manipulation.
I certainly do not think there is "never" manipulation, or insider info passed around, etc. Many years ago I stood up for a wedding and my bridesmaid partner was a woman who was a specialist for the NYSE. I picked her brain and when it came to manipulation of the kind we're talking about she laughed said good f*cking luck trying that shit on the NYSE or NASDAQ, but to stay the f*ck away from OTC and pink slips where that kind of thing does happen (her nickname was "truckdriver mouth").
Here's the deal. If anyone really believes this episode involved any manipulation, file a complaint. Here's the link:
https://www.sec.gov/tcr
They specifically state to file if you suspect:
* Manipulation of a security's price or volume
* Insider trading
Here is contact info for both FINRA and the SEC:
https://www.saveandinvest.org/protect-your-money-report-fraud/reporting-investment-fraud
A long time ago I had a broker place trades I did not authorize so I reported him. It was only ~$4k or so but it's the principle. I didn't think they would take my tiny claim seriously but I got a call within a day or so and they were great, they treated me like they were my attorney or something. Call or write and tell them the circumstances. They won't blow you off, or laugh or whatever. They'll look into it.
As for manipulation, I know someone who was a part of what I believe was a scam on the OTC. Twenty-plus years ago a friend got a tip from a friend whose broker said E-Prime Aerospace (EPEA, OTC) was going to take a big pop but he didn't know when or how high. Being young and foolish, my friend bought a small boat load. The friend who had shared the tip said he was an idiot for buying so much. He paid 6 cents/share and for a year and a half it bounced around between 5-10 cents. The message board was "fun" the whole time and he even told people on the board about the tip. Anyway, then one week it slowly kept climbing past a dime and into the teens. Then a few days later it went insane; by noon it hit 58 cents and the "idiot" sold even though E-Prime really was a legit company and did have a long shot outside chance of success. Two hours after he sold they were delisted. They were late filing whatever form, which they rectified a couple days later. The stock fell to the 20 cent range. I suspect the broker's connections gently goosed the stock for a week, then bought a shit load to start the ramp up and sold into it. I think someone on the board filed a complaint with the FTC but I have no idea what became of it.
In any case, I think the scenario you laid out is essentially correct, bearing in mind that - I would bet - 95%+ of retailers could not make heads or tails of the data themselves so they panic sold out of ignorance, which helped lead to the cascade you outline. I don't think shorting played a significant role once we started falling and on the contrary short covering probably cushioned the blow on the the steps down.
Also, there is no need by some here to single out Fidelity only because it is the only brokerage people reported on this board. Every broker was doing the same searching for shares internally from clients or going to external sources. Why? Because that is their job.
Yes the bid might have been placed by a short covering, maybe, maybe not. So again you claim the price drop was fraud because you do not think it should have dropped, and that it should not have dropped as far as it did. Is that correct? You should try to be critical of your own beliefs, especially when they require some extraordinary conspiracy, are based on no evidence whatsoever, and are fueled only by your emotion.
A few questions. Have you contacted IR to ask if they are pursuing legal action against this massive fraud - or the NASDAQ to see if they are investigating this multimillion dollar fraud? Do you think the Baker Brothers would agree with your take? How long have you been in the market?
Well for one thing there is more than one market maker for MRKR. The average NASDAQ stock has over a dozen. As for the 19th, it was $1.20 drop at the open, not $2, and what happened is no mystery. They is opened where the bids were.
This is from Tuesday but skimming the board I don't think I saw it posted, apologies if it's a repost:
Nomura analyst Christopher Marai maintained a Buy rating on Marker Therapeutics Inc (MRKR) on August 9 and set a price target of $16.
Marai said:
“Ph2 AML IND in 3Q19, Data update Pivotal (Accelerated Approval?). The trial will evaluate multiTAAs in post-aHSCT patients in both active and adjuvant settings. We believe post-transplant AML is a logical approach to rapid registration, given promising data to date and potential for accelerated approval. We see three key AML settings with registration potential: r/r post-transplant; MRD(-) post-transplant (taking advantage of the recent FDA guidance document. See also our initiation for more on MulitTAA potential in AML. Our View. MRKR presented data from the TACTOPS trial (NCT03192462, IST) testing MultiTAA in pancreatic cancer (see our note). We were encouraged by the results, noting the difficulty of pancreatic cancer as a solid tumor with low immunogenicity and fibrotic microenvironment.”
According to TipRanks.com, Marai is a 4-star analyst with an average return of 7.0% and a 49.3% success rate. Marai covers the Healthcare sector, focusing on stocks such as Syndax Pharmaceuticals Inc, Global Blood Therapeutics, and Voyager Therapeutics Inc.
Marker Therapeutics Inc has an analyst consensus of Strong Buy, with a price target consensus of $13.67.
https://www.smarteranalyst.com/new-blurbs/nomura-keeps-a-buy-rating-on-marker-therapeutics-inc-mrkr/?mod=mw_quote_news
But. . . but. . . I thought we were Good? And we are fighting against the Forces of Evil??? I gotta admit it makes life a lot easier when you know you are Always Right and when thing's don't go your way it's obviously because of a conspiracy by the evil forces operating in the market. No matter what the available data says, no matter the mental gymnastics required to maintain your belief, doggonit, there has to be a simplistic explanation wherein I am Always Right.
So the shorts shorted over a million shares as we climbed to nine - but we kept climbing - and then the shorts were net buying to cover on our drop, but somehow they caused the steep, deep decline with 10mil shares traded? Hmmm, does the word "preposterous" mean anything to you?
It seems like you are trying very hard to continue to believe in your fantasy, despite the fact that there is no evidence for your belief whatsoever other than the share price went in a direction you did not expect, and dropped further than you thought it should.
In the Earning's PR they did not use the term "pivotal" phase 2 for the AML study to begin this year. The description they give for the study fits, assuming the number of patients is sufficient for statistical analysis. But still, these sorts of things are not written "off the cuff" so to speak. Why didn't they specify it is a pivotal phase 2. Hopefully it's a meaningless oversight.
Boy, shorts now days must be geniuses! Or magicians, or something. Drove us all the way down here through >10mil shares traded and yet those MFers were net covering!!! Holy Stickman on a stick!
This isn't OTC, or pink slips. Ask IR if they think this is some nefarious coordinated attack by evil shorts.
Boy, shorts now days must be geniuses, or magicians or something. Drove us all the way down her through >10mil shares traded and yet those MFers wee net covering!!! Holy Stickman on a stick!
I find myself saying that daily most of the time. About the market and life in general most of the time. So it's normal for me now and doesn't bother me anymore, lol.
I thought this was interesting. Just a FWIW. From the comments section in the last SA "article."
TheArtfulSpeculator:
I believe we will see the AML IND in the very near-term- I would expect it before Labor Day.
A lot of exciting opportunities. Bear in mind, the PC Trial was pushed for by Baylor who felt that it was important to provide a potentially life-saving therapy to Pancreatic Caner patients. It emerged as a result of expanded access/compassionate use opportunities; it is not MRKR's fault that it worked so well that it became a serious commercial venture.
NEA, Aisling, Perceptive, Baker and Vanguard?
Eyeballing it, it looks like about 10 million shares traded the past 2 weeks/ten trading days since The Great Deluge began. So we'll see what the net change is in shares short to see how big a contribution they might have made. As for what I think is causing this, skeered longs who don't know the data and probably a lot of traders we likely picked up the past couple months, many of which might have kept hoping for a bounce to sell into and as we kept sinking more and more threw in the towel. That's my guess. It'll be interesting to see what changes occur in institutional holdings after this minor catastrophe.
As for the fibs, I could see either of the last two you drew. But be warned, if had been trading the past year I would have half the shares I started with and would be existing on potato soup, which I would cry into.
I am part owner of a company with a great, great future, not a speculator in a paper asset. Not to concern myself with the market's temporary mis-valuation of this science/technology.
4.20. but maybe 4 dollars is the target
jesus christ, lol. seriously guys this is like a Far Side cartoon. Or maybe Bloom County.
There is no reason to single out Fidelity. All brokerages will try to find shares for their customers to short. It's their job, it's a service they provide. They are not all trying to "drive MRKR to financial ruin." Also they are not immoral, or any more greedy than the average person doing their job or the average person investing for financial gain.
The shorts are not harming MRKR. What fraction of the 8 million-plus shares traded since a week ago Friday do you think were sold short vs were sold by longs? The effect of shorting is minimal and ephemeral. The only way it harms the company is if they had to raise money immediately, which they do not.
You think since it's SOP then the effort Fidelity is putting into obtaining shares to short shouldn't be questioned no matter what extenuating circumstances there may be?
Re. Cancer Symptom Response. I just now am listening to Monday's CC. This part of the discussion made me think again about including Cancer Symptom Response as an endpoint.
Arm B patients (18:19), Dr. Smaglo:
"3 out of those 6 patients achieved what we refer to as some degree of stabilization which I would define as being, of feeling better basically and that's really remarkable. For patients for even a short period of time to have a limitation,even an improvement in cancer-related symptoms such as pain, fatigue and so on is not something we would expect to be able to achieve for these folks.
I think it's important to highlight that a couple of the patients who previously of, who had achieved disease stabilization with the Multiple T cells were just doing better in terms of their quality of life."
--------------
Cancer Symptom Response:
" A critical challenge in oncology is interpreting clinical trial results to inform clinical decision making. Clinical trials typically focus on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) as primary endpoints, which do not reflect early signs of meaningful patient benefit or harm. Cancer symptom response (CSR) can provide information about early treatment response, and studies show that CSR predicts long-term health outcomes. . .
. . . cancer symptom response (CSR) has evolved as a clinical outcome assessment in oncology clinical trials, and it is recognized as an accepted primary efficacy endpoint for regulatory approval of cancer treatment [8]. CSR is a complementary yet distinct endpoint from OS and PFS, and it requires careful consideration of its measurement and interpretation. "
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6476191/
This is not simply your average shorters buying from a brokerage firm, this is Fidelity in a all out attempt to drive MRKR into financial ruin,
Why do you guys torture yourselves with false imaginings? You collectively build a strawman short in your mind and beat it up. How many shares were shorted in June and July? What did the share price do? What percentage of shares traded daily do you think are short shares? Do you think Fidelity is the only brokerage that loans shares to short? Shorts are not Snidely Whiplash, longs are not Dudley DoRight. Both think a stock is going to change price, they just disagree on which direction.
Yeah I haven't read that one completely yet. I think that's the one where they also had the Whipple procedure - surgical removal of the head of the pancrease.
Who was it that called it on Monday? They said a couple days down the the bounce Wed or Thur?
Yeah that one is very interesting (you posted that Sunday didn't you?) to me because I used to do research on glycosaminoglycans like hyaluronanic acid and their role in acute rejection in transplantation.
I agree with Poods this could be an interesting combo for our therapy. It's another way to "pop holes" in the dense matrix of the tumor that might allow for a better response to our therapy.
And 3 CR in 60 patients is pretty impressive. That's a couple percent more than they found in the megastudy I posted where CR's were at a rate of about 2.9%
Complete Responses in one large clinical trial and one metastudy.
The original trial for Folfirinox compared to gemcitabine:
In this study comparing Folfirinox to gemcitabine there was 1 Complete Response (CR) out of 343 patients. The one CR was in the Folfirinox group of 171 patients. See Table 2:
FOLFIRINOX versus Gemcitabine for Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1011923?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3Dpubmed
-------------------------
Here's one larger study from last year looking at CR in what is called Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer (LAPC), which is Stage 3 cancer and metastatic pancreatic cancer (as opposed to our study looking at Stage 4, metastatic cancer).
They analyzed 11 studies with a total of 563 patients and found "The pooled complete response rate (CR) was 2.9%."
So CR is rare even when including Stage 3 pancreatic cancer patients which have significantly better survival rate than Stage 4 pancreatic cancer (see below).
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-26811-9
This is the clinical trial the patient in the previous post was enrolled in. Here they tested GVAX vaccine + listeria bacteria that secretes mesothelin (CRS-207).
This randomized study demonstrated that Cy/GVAX followed by CRS-207 significantly improved OS as compared with Cy/GVAX alone in patients with metastatic PDA. This 56% improvement (2.2 months) is significant in a disease where effective first-line therapy—gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel—showed a 27% improvement over gemcitabine alone (8.5 v 6.7 months).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4397277/
Here is a CR where the patient was in a clinical trial testing a pancreatic cancer vaccine called GVAX, after which the tumor actually increased. But they also had a long history of varied chemo first.
"This report describes the methodology of the patient’s treatment including the use of metronomic chemotherapy, combination chemotherapy, sequential therapies, and immunotherapy with the hope of providing a roadmap toward the successful treatment of this deadly cancer, and perhaps other cancers.
The patient then enrolled in a phase 2B clinical trial (NCT02004262) in early-July 2015 that investigated if the efficacy of a GVAX pancreatic cancer vaccine given with low-dose cyclophosphamide and live attenuated Listeria monocytogenes engineered to express mesothelin in previously treated patients with a histologically proven malignant adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. The patient was in the treatment arm that received 6 doses of modified Listeria alone. She participated in this clinical trial until a repeat CT scan in February 2016 revealed an increased size and number of hepatic lesions. Corresponding blood work showed her CA 19-9 had increased to 16,311."
http://pancreas.imedpub.com/elevenyear-survival-with-unresectable-metastatic-pancreaticcarcinoma-a-roadmap-to-longterm-survival-for-metastatic-disease.php?aid=21001
----------------
Yeah that is a good one Poods, That's one I posted Sunday. And there's another case study another below.
A 3-year disease free survival in a patient with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma following folfirinox chemotherapy: A case report.
"Complete response is a rare outcome in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. . . In our patient, a complete response was achieved after 35 cycles of FOLFIRINOX over 16 months. . .
To our knowledge, we present the first case of a patient with metastatic non-resectable adenocarcinoma of the exocrine pancreas to achieve a complete response and continues to be on a 3-year disease free survival after monotherapy with FOLFIRINOX."
http://www.alliedacademies.org/articles/a-3year-disease-free-survival-in-a-patient-with-metastatic-pancreatic-adenocarcinoma-following-folfirinox-chemotherapy-a-case-repo-10396.html#3
-------------------
This patient was also on chemo for years before the CR. This group used gemcitabine with other agents including platinum.
"The journey from diagnosis to remission in this patient took 4 years of persistent chemotherapy treatment."
https://www.hematologyandoncology.net/archives/may-2012/lessons-learned-from-a-complete-remission-of-advanced-metastatic-pancreatic-ductal-adenocarcinoma/
------------------
Here's one on Folfirinox with a twist.
" (a patient) who achieved a complete response after initial chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX followed by maintenance chemotherapy with irinotecan, leucovorin, and 5-fluorouracil (FOLFIRI) and who has not yet recurred after 3 years from the initial diagnosis of metastatic disease."
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/crionm/2015/659624/
http://pancreas.imedpub.com/elevenyear-survival-with-unresectable-metastatic-pancreaticcarcinoma-a-roadmap-to-longterm-survival-for-metastatic-disease.php?aid=21001
---------------------------------
"Are you talking about Arm A? there are 7 out of 9 patients still alive. you can check it out in the PR."
Cancer Symptom Response (CSR) is another possible primary endpoint for a PII/PIII that might be useful because of our non-toxic therapy. It seems I read something in the data or articles that made me think about this but it's too late to go digging anymore tonight.
I'm not sure if this might have any bearing on Arm A patients who still get chemo with it's side effects, but if Arm B patients getting Multi-TAA alone are also experiencing fewer symptoms, CRS might be a good endpoint to add.
------------------
" A critical challenge in oncology is interpreting clinical trial results to inform clinical decision making. Clinical trials typically focus on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) as primary endpoints, which do not reflect early signs of meaningful patient benefit or harm. Cancer symptom response (CSR) can provide information about early treatment response, and studies show that CSR predicts long-term health outcomes. . .
. . . cancer symptom response (CSR) has evolved as a clinical outcome assessment in oncology clinical trials, and it is recognized as an accepted primary efficacy endpoint for regulatory approval of cancer treatment [8]. CSR is a complementary yet distinct endpoint from OS and PFS, and it requires careful consideration of its measurement and interpretation. "
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6476191/
Oh, and another good thing in Arm A is that of the six patients in the trial long enough to hit the Progression Free Survival (PFS) mark only one of the six has seen disease progression. And as Poods noted, for a PIIb/PIII we would likely have to use Median OS as an endpoint, but it's possible we could use the surrogates PFS or even Overall Response Rates (ORR). The fact that our treatment is nontoxic might make it possible for us to use the later, which would take less time for the study and might be easier endpoints to reach.