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.
What's the concern? Let's assume he is working remotely. It's not unusual for CEO's to work remotely these days. The focus should be whether he is growing the business effectively...He's making over $1M a year to essentially run a manufacturing operation. Although, his role is likely more focused on business development strategically -- with oversight over the manufacturing operation. If he has a good group running the plant operation (which it seems he does) that should work. He needs to produce and grow this business now. It's officially his to grow. It's time.
Putting it all in perspective remember where this company is.
Pros
: High growth high demand industry
: Barriers to entry are high.
: Stellar regulatory record.
: They are fully set-up for growth.
: increasing efficiencies
: BOD fully qualified and well connected.
: Management team highly qualified and time tested in this industry.
: Health Care is a defensive industry.
: Sale of IP may bring future value?? Big questions here.
: Sales expanding albeit slower than we like.
: Industry is consolidating big time.
Cons
: Excess capacity is a cost.
: General Market conditions currently difficult.
: Lack of profitability to date.
: Not fully established as a long term viable company. Makes sales solicitation more challenging.
I like the odds here even in the tough conditions we have been witnessing lately. There is value here in my opinion. This is a good place to be in my opinion.
I think somewhat predictable trading pattern. Those that are exiting have either been scorched badly by past events over the years that they aren’t seeing clearly and focusing on the exit — or short term traders looking for the quick buck and not taking the time to understand the situation fully. CDMO is likely 2 good accounts away from ridding any concern of long term viability in this market. Once that happens, signing new customers becomes much easier. Lias signaled there were 2 good accounts in the wings very close to signing. Lias has proven to be very conservative in his remarks to date. Indicates, imo, that these 2 accounts are as close to a done deal as one can get without signing. So we have 2 opposing forces at this time with no clear winner. That is about to change in the upcoming new year. Close those 2 accounts after the first of the year and the believers will be in good position to ride this into new highs. Although as we all know there are no guarantees in this world just good bets. All IMO.
I thought the call was positive. It makes sense to be proactive at this time with such a shut down. He seems to be managing the process properly getting all pieces in place prior to delivering new and bigger contracts. I would not be surprised that the specifics of what was necessitated in this shut down was addressed by any potential new customers prior to signing on the dotted line. It all takes time and I expect new contracts to be announced soon after the first of the year. Beating earnings while missing on revenues likely because of issues addressed during shutdown indicates they are managing the daily operation efficiently. I also liked that they are taking the tough questions on the call. These guys are gaining my trust with the caveat that we must see more signed contracts soon. Completely different approach from the previous group. Not even close at this point anyway. These appear to be real business managers. Still early to come to any definitive conclusion. But you have to like what you see to this point.
Does anyone recall how big he indicated the market was? I heard a number but it sounded ridiculously high. He might have been talking about the entire Pharmaceutical industry. I don't know. I just caught part of it.
More like 40% to 45%
Sure it’s the current guard that is not transparent concerning the ownership of the IP. Wouldn’t have anything to do with the former leadership. The fact that the question is being raised at this time in the development history of Bavi speaks volumes for how transparent the former leadership was concerning whether they were sole licensees or owners of the IP. It makes sense that UTSW owned the patents since Dr. Thorpe was an employee of UTSW at the time he filed the patents. Normally there is an employee contractual arrangement that ensures anything the employee patents during the employee employer arrangement is owned by the employer — in this case UTSW. This brings up further question as to whether PPHM could sub license the IP during the many years they claimed they were looking to partner. And Is sub licensing the same as partnering or were we being sold a bill of goods by the old guard? Were they even contractually capable of partnering? It would be interesting to see that licensing contract. This is eye opening in my opinion. Thanks for bringing it up North.
Maybe I missed something. When did Brekken say that UTSW was letting its IP sit on the shelf? What role is Oncologie playing in this entire scenario. It seems you are implying that we have been misled. Could you elaborate? Was the IP not PPHM’s to sell?
This is positive. Sure we would like to see the details. We will get a glimpse at how well they are doing end of quarter. I see nothing negative in this news. Still have to watch the bottom line.
Anything is possible but you gain nothing by announcing prior to inking the deal. I don’t care what the circumstances. This is a business deal and manipulation happens throughout the negotiation process. The other side is working for their own interest and will likely try to gain an advantage. Don’t hand deliver it, no matter what is stated.
The date was pretty specific before 4/30/18. I’m not bashing. I’m just stating the obvious. I hope it all comes together and I do know that it can. That does not excuse the behavior.
Does anyone understand the damage that can be done by pre announcing potential deals being completed within a specific time period before they are inked? What do you think the negotiators on the other side of the deal will do when they hear or see Lias publicly make such a statement? I wouldn’t want to be trying to finalize a deal for the company after the CEO makes such a rookie mistake. What is he getting paid again? That is a no win statement that should never be made — Negotiation tactics 101. It’s almost self sabotage. Can the deal still go through. Yes but he made it potentially a lot tougher with that statement, not to say anything about what Wall Street will do if the negotiations are prolonged or even stalled for good because of possible new demands by the negotiating parties. We want communication but it must be responsible communication. This is anything but responsible. He must know this!!! It’s concerning anyway you look at it.
I don't believe there is an assumption of "international investors" standing behind Oncologie. Why do you make such an assumption? Do you know something we don't?
I used numbers on the web for other companies. Recent sales for companies garnered 16 to 17 times EBITDA. EBITDA was somewhere around 45% of gross revs. Of course that can vary from company to company and should improve with improving revenues. So it was, at best, an estimate. A lot of assumptions but if this process is run well with optimal results being the goal then high 20’s are within reach.
I haven’t seen any projections or numbers that indicate they will not be able to finance further expansion without further dilution. Depends on a lot of factors. Not saying you’re wrong but I don’t believe it to be a foregone conclusion. If they decide they need expansion prior to profitability then, of course, yes dilution will be necessary. One thing I do know they are not sharing any future plans. Time will tell. That is about the only sure thing any of us can say. I have asked for some of the numbers. It’s all a big secret. Now that is somewhat concerning. We will see.
If you look at the multiples concerning EBITDA of the most recent deals for these CDMO’s and assuming they reach the 200M in revenue with no more dilution then a share price of 28 is very much in reach mathematically. It certainly won’t happen overnight but it is more an expectation than an impossibility if the 2 assumptions above occur.
Now that is the 100M dollar question for North. I anticipate a creative response.
The point made about doom and gloom is that they rely on us to simply complain as individuals. It makes them bolder to know we sit back and complain individually and do nothing constructive to protect our investments. For 20+ years I saw the same pattern. It got us nowhere except into a deep hole with our investment. I don’t blame the old BOD. I blame myself because I did nothing. It is a destructive approach because it does embolden the crooks of the world and makes us nothing but targets and eventually victims. I don’t know if these guys have ill intent but until they start communicating transparently I have no choice but to assume the worst— and do everything possible to protect my investment. That does not include sitting back and doing nothing but complaining. Use your energy constructively and come together for the common cause of protecting our investment. There are quite a few that already have. I hope tomorrow’s communication puts an end to our concerns, but we’re ready if it doesn’t and you should be too.
So much doom and gloom shared repeatedly and publicly. Find a hobby or do something constructive. It’s not healthy and it certainly doesn’t help the cause.
This is the pad response to most questions. Nobody ever gets an answer.
Received a couple private responses today to be added to the list. Please send me your email address. Thanks
This group is gaining size. It is not my group. It is our group. The focus is fair disclosure. If you don’t think that that current leadership has been fairly disclosing relevant facts that affect our investment decision — join a group that represents our interest. Our goal is certainly not to disrupt business operations but to gain fair disclosure of the facts. It is our legal right. It only makes sense to speak as one against obvious fair disclosure issues.
Our IR representative is using this pad line when questioned;
“Thank you for your email. I have forwarded your concerns on to management for their attention.”
Yet nobody hears back from management. There are fair disclosure issues here. Join what is essentially our group and let’s shine some light on this situation. This is not about disruption. It’s about honest and fair disclosure.
Contact me and I will add you to the list. Thanks
Bfiest@comcast.net
Bfiest@comcast.net
This is obviously not a friendly deal. They rely on the fact that we stay as independent shareholders complaining on a message board and do not organize a strong united front that highlights the Our only chance is a united movement
This seems to be at play:
The Supreme Court upheld in 2011 a previous ruling that if “disclosure of the omitted fact would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the ‘total mix’ of information made available,” a public company’s failure to reveal certain information is considered “material” and could potentially subject it to civil and criminal investigation.
Left unsaid is the fact that companies may have their own opinions on who’s a “reasonable investor” and what he or she might consider “significant.” Hint: Companies often find ways to claim news that would prompt probing phone calls from investors and reporters isn’t significant enough to merit disclosure.
Those interested in fair disclosure from the company contact bfiest@comcast.net. Please include your ihub alias. I have some thoughts on how to proceed and gain the information that we deserve. Difficult to do individually but together it becomes a much more compelling process with more leverage. Doesn’t hurt to discuss possibilities but has to happen off a public discussion board.
Insider is a term describing a director or senior officer of a company, as well as any person or entity that beneficially owns more than 10% of a company's voting shares. For purposes of insider trading, the definition is expanded to include anyone who trades a company's shares based on material nonpublic knowledge
Read more: Insider https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/insider.asp#ixzz56bmYQNrI
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook
I’m sure they are juggling multiple balls. I certainly don’t like that they sold but it could be for multiple and normal business reasons one of which I mentioned. Now if they continue to sell then it can be disturbing. But it’s early.
S White is not returning calls. The company is not answering my questions. But that is okay. I’m following proper protocol and I am documenting. At some point those questions will be answered as this process evolves or otherwise. Give it time.
Semantics. I spoke facts not innuendo. Now is Ronin a participant. Okay — may or may not be. It seems we are expecting these guys to come through this process with no hurdles or obstacles to overcome. It seems we demand immediate results and immediate gratification. This is not a start up but it is close. It is a challenging process. They were not left in great shape. I know I would want some time to turn this ship. Doesn’t mean we don’t question. Doesn’t mean we don’t have a level of mistrust especially after some of the things said at the shareholders meeting. But it is early. We gave the previous team years to deliver. These guys deserve 6 mths — don’t you think? At this point I believe the saying trust but verify is appropriate. If you’re going to mistrust then I hope you are also questioning behind the scenes — and documenting. That has value.
Possibly what is at work here is forced selling. This whole downturn caused by hedge funds borrowing money to short volatility. Bad call with excessive volume behind it. Now they have to pay the piper. They do this by selling stocks to raise the money causing the whole market to suffer. It’s a vicious cycle. That could be at work here. Forced selling which is happening with many hedge funds right now. May not be anything sinister. Hopefully it comes to an end and we see a reversal soon.
I wish you wouldn’t post publicly about no desire to take them to task. The best thing all of us can do is stop posting on a public board. They do read the board. They are still concerned about me. I can tell
by their CYA approach to some of my questions. If everyone would simply stop posting except to indicate private messages sent — that concerns them. Those real shareholders that play into their hands by posting anything about the science being dead really make me wonder about their motivation.
These guys are big hitters. Many are former CEO’s. The IP is just another asset. To believe that they don’t know generally what they have in the science is to completely discount their level of accomplishment. They know generally what they have in the science and were likely complicit in the strategy to allow Lias to run the show as he did. Or maybe the stand still agreement was at play. Ignorance is the last possible scenario to believe. AIMO.
Maybe it can be looked upon as a stretch but it is quite logical in this situation. I am not trying to avert blame. I am simply assigning logic to the situation. Lias is the new manufacturing CEO. King is the science guy and apparently is tasked with dealing the science. Do you really think it a stretch that King was involved with directing Lias in how to approach shareholders on the dealing of the science? Of course not. It is perfectly logical. If Lias acted alone in such a strategy I would then question his ability as CEO. That is not how these scenarios occur. This was a concerted strategy and King at minimum was involved. Lias was following direction both legal and professional. AIMO.
We know that Lias was affiliated with King through past dealings. That is how King came to know him. Lias was Kings guy. There is a relationship there. If you think that Lias is now acting alone in his dealings with shareholders and kings resignation and now apparent new independent position is not at work here then you are more trusting in his autonomy than I. This is a concerted effort. AIMO.
And to add you don’t think CDMO legal okayed his approach after a number of certified letters were sent in from shareholders. It is a highly emotional and legal issue. He was directed to use such a strategy and certainly was supported by their legal team. He would not decide this approach himself in such a situation being new and walking into such a charged environment. This was given the legal teams blessing because it was the best approach legally under the scenario.
I don’t like what he said but it again the market knows what they have by now. It will have no bearing on negotiations at all imo. And realize this if King is actually behind the scenes dealing the IP it was likely he that directed Lias to react as he did in the meeting.
One other thing, it’s important to know definitively who your market is (the BP’s that are on the hot list) and what their HOT buttons are. What will really get their attention? And strategizing happens after every meeting. It’s a building process.
Is there something that we can use from this meeting to really tweak greater interest in future meetings? Is there anything we can use to gain higher value for the IP? I don’t care if you have a toilet paper company or something as complex as biologics. It’s the same process. You continually build your case with each meeting assuming there is known value. And yes there is a point where you play each of the interested parties against each other. It’s not a haphazard process. It’s 90% planning and 10% execution.
If they just haphazardly started the process of dealing the IP without significant preparation then there is a problem. The process is critical.
I think comments to shareholders are taken with a grain of salt when it comes to dealing the IP. Either you have something of value and it is known or you don’t. Shareholders are always the last to know. Although I will admit we have some pretty sharp shareholders doing some pretty deep digging. Negotiations take on a whole other level of information — much of which we are not privy to regardless how much digging is done. I want a competent, independent third party to value the science and I am not comfortable if SK, or any other individual with limited negotiating experience, is doing the negotiating. It’s the process that concerns me not what was obviously scripted for the shareholder meeting. Hell for all we know they were still putting their marketing plan together, strategizing and not focusing on dealing the IP prior the meeting. In that event he wasn’t actually telling mistruths now was he?
Its important to have proper valuation. It’s important to have a sound strategy and all your ammunition ready to go before meeting with BP. And it is important to have experienced negotiators at the table when time comes. You don’t throw amateurs at this..I don’t think any of us would complain about them paying for such expertise. My concern is more about that process than anything that has been said to shareholders in a public forum. That is where the focus should be. The process is where the rubber meets the road. Bottom line..
“geo, actually Dr. Lias has harmed our shareholders interest by disclosing negative information out of negotiations and as such signalling possible other candidates that they can come in for the taking.
He is personally liable for that IMO. “
It is quite a normal approach here in the US for companies to under promise in the hope to over deliver. Although I admit he did over do it. Harming shareholders with this approach is a stretch. Shareholders are harmed much more by over zealous statements. Such an approach has no bearing on any negotiations that may exist. It’s a whole other game behind closed doors. As long as they are negotiating in good faith — that is all that matters.
Personally I am only concerned by the process, or lack there of, at this point. There should be a competent, independent agency determining the value of the science. I don’t like using the good ole boy network for such an important process. Have not connected with SW. Will continue trying.
Personally I believe there is 20+ years of disappointment and mistrust spilling over into an entirely new situation that, at this point, doesn’t warrant it. If one takes a fresh look at this situation it is too early to come to the conclusion that Ill intent is at play. This situation needs time to develop and these new players need support in delivering value. Doesn’t mean we don’t question it simply means we provide them the benefit of the doubt at this point. My concern is all this conspiracy talk becomes self fulfilling prophecy. Put yourself in their shoes. They just now took the reins and they are getting formal letters from shareholders questioning, to some extent, their intent. At some point that becomes quite bothersome and could lead to a desire to escape such mistrust and distractions and take the company private. It’s only human.
Give it some time. There were a number of shareholders that were willing to support the last group, right to the end, who obviously were self dealing. Trust but verify at this point. Give the process a chance to develop. It’s too early to sound the alarm. AIMO.
“When you are trying to sell something you never never ever admit to a lack of interest unless of course you have an alternative agenda.”
I’m not ready to believe in this widespread conspiracy yet. The audience, in his mind, was over bearing shareholders with excessively high expectations — not BP’s vying to purchase the IP. It is quite normal to boo hoo the science and purposely lower expectations in a situation where a number of shareholders are voicing their opinion formally that the science is compelling and we should get top dollar for it. He also wouldn’t be openly joking about taking the company private if that were indeed the plan. That would be quite reckless. Remember this is a fire sale no matter how compelling the science is. It very possibly will be discounted to some extent. If you are trying to dupe shareholders you don’t openly admit there is no formal process in place to deal the IP and joke about taking the company private. That could invite well deserved legal problems. It is all part of the public record now. It is more likely that he, at this point, is simply trying to lower expectations and giving his buddy SK the opportunity to deliver some meaningful value. Putting such a negative light on the sale of the IP to what he perceives to be as over bearing shareholders with excessively high expectations is a normal approach and does not point to a conspiracy in and of itself. Doesn’t mean there isn’t negative intent behind the scenes, but this approach is not evident of that possibility. He did over do it a bit though. AIMO.
When I said he will pay for his attitude toward shareholders I primarily meant In distractions. There likely will be more letters questioning the approach. And he’s bringing it all on himself. Why?? To flex his muscles. Not smart.
But his sole job is to make this business a profitable, healthy business allowing shareholders to finally reap some benefits. All will be forgiven if he does that. Personally I don’t care if he’s the biggest ahole on the face of this earth if he produces a winner.