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.
Trying to corner and control the price of a stock - always ends humorously. Just do a leveraged buyout. I'm sure that will work. Why doesn't management buy stock? They only sell.
I love hearing your rationalizations. I've wasted so much time here and the only useful thing I got was a stinking patent with no chemical structures.
They have it already - generics are available for the entire world. They take them. There is no need, sorry. Come again with a viable business plan.
Doesn't sound like you did it investing in the stock market, like I did. Plenty of people make wealth in one area and throw it all away in another. There are countless examples of this.
I control the entire hedge fund FYI.
The stock is not at a bottom and I'm not trying to cover. I will cover when the stock is less than 0.10 per share. I calculate this fair value by calculating the book value of their investments in their platform, which is $10m since inception. Factoring in depreciation, waste and despite purported return on said investment, I suspect the company is worthless but I'll give them some benefit of the doubt.
I have no issue waiting until the stock hits 0.10. It won't take more than a year or two.
Your math is a little off on the borrowing.
Shares do become available on a periodic basis as some cover.
I do think Seaside is getting hosed.
I'm not interested in getting anyone here to sell. I'd just as rather you all hang on till zero.
$20,000 won't help. $2,000,000 won't help (see Seaside). You're just wasting your time - this is a hopeless cause. Wish you the best, though. Stay diversified.
That's a complex problem no one will ever solve. It's easier to just take the pill every day. It stops being good for big pharma (Gilead is really a small biotech company that grew into a big pharma in just 10 years) in a few years when the drugs go generic. Gilead won't have this monopoly forever. Their drugs will be generic in but a few years.
The cure for HIV is elusive for a number of reasons. Vaccines/removal of residual virus (aka cure) have been less important since the advent of once-a-day HAART which results in close enough to a cure. There are groups that have reported cures with stem cell transplants involving CCR reconditioning - the treatment is more dangerous than just taking the once-a-day pill. I wish NNVC the best but I doubt it has a cure for HIV. Especially given that there are no good HIV models except for a bona fide human being (no other species gets HIV).
Investing is about compounding returns. If you start with $100,000 today and compound it at 10-20% per annum you will become a multi-millionaire, possibly a billionaire in a matter of time. "Sticking around till 200 or 0" is just a loser attitude. You want to get rich investing, right? There is a way to do it. It involves buying stocks that are going up or are going to go up. That have bulletproof logic and limited downside risk. Speculating like a wild man and beating your chest regarding your ego is a way to keep your account from blossoming.
Remember what Einstein said - "Compound interest is the most powerful foce in the universe".
Newly diagnosed patients with HIV are essentially cured if they take their one pill every day. Confirm receipt, understanding and acceptance of this message. This is a fact.
Flu is the most developed market out there. AVII looks like the winner for rapid development of anti-infectives. Dengue, Ebola, Marburg and many more seem to be working well for them. I don't even own AVII since I think these markets aren't that interesting and there are yet more competitors in the woodwork.
Also let me know when the ADME, PK PD and tox package is done for a drug. That'd be great. No IND until 2012? Gimme a break. A pre-IND meeting? Who does those, LOL. Pre-IND meeting by Q1 2011. So an IND will be ready... by the end of 2011? Sometime in 2012?
Atripla
Kaletra
Combivir
Truvada
Viread
Isentress
Selzentry
Trizivir
Reyataz
Prezista
Epzicom/Kivexa
Emtriva
Intelence
Sustiva
Fuzeon
Ziagen
Get in line. All of these drugs work really well. When you get resistance you just go to the next one. Running a study that proves you're better is almost impossible since they all get you to zero. You'd have to run a study that waits years and years to show less resistance. $100s of millions and years and years. Smart companies calculate the risk/reward and either proceed or don't. We'll see what NNVC does.
We pay 20-40% APR rate to borrow NNVC. We and the rest of Wall Street are happy to do so because the likelihood that it will trade below $0.50 is so high. You should be worried anytime someone is willing to pay you 30% per year to short your stock. I mean, it is stunning how obvious a short this is.
By then Atripla will be generic and one pill, once-a-day will cost <$1 a day. HIV is just not an interesting market, sorry.
Dengue is a shot in the dark that everyone is taking. This company has nothing interesting.
You should have learned more about HIV before committing to this. There are twenty drugs approved. The only area of unmet need is Africa, and that is a societal thing - they just don't like taking medicines and complying with them - education will have to take place over decades and centuries. There is no market for a new HIV drug unless it is targeting patients who are non-compliant with their combination drugs or people who were infected 10-20 years ago. For those patients the generic market is available as doctors swap out NRTIs for different NRTIs. There is endless swapping. New integrase inhibitors are doing well, however. So maybe there is hope.
Gilead seems to make billions of dollars selling these 'too expensive' drugs. There are also generics both available and coming for pennies. You can take the older generic drugs for very little, they're just less convenient (more pills per day, more lipodystrophy).
Good luck with Nigerian accounts receivable. The rest of the world is interested in US/European/BRIC sales.
All the problems solved with a patch.
Too bad HIV drugs get you to UNDETECTABLE levels of virus. That's right, ZERO, within weeks. One pill a day. That's why Gilead is a $40 billion company. You're fighting a war that's over.
Heavy and large. Not amenable to delivery other than IV formulation. Polymers break down in the stomach. Poor NNVC. The best laid plans...
They're approaching the market rapidly. NNVC is messing around with Berkley (why bother?).
Of course they work in the cell. That's the only way an antiviral can work. You can't just throw a soapy material into the body and hope the virus binds to it instead of real cells. What a farce! At least show the EC90. This is more humorous and entertaining than actually profit generating. Hopefully you guys will buy and I can borrow a million shares or something substantial.
HIV is no longer an unmet medical need, sorry. There is a plethora of drugs that get the patient to undetectable levels (UND) as we say in the industry, very quickly. Have you been paying attention? Atripla will get you to undetectable in weeks with no side effects. There's no need. The FDA will make you go through phase 3s like everyone else.
Now dengue is different. But everyone is on dengue and AVII is the favorite.
That's a pretty embarassing admission, don't you think?
I'm sorry but if you look at the Isentress or Celsentri approval pathway, these are great HIV drugs that get you to undetectable levels of virus very quickly (eg, you can't get better than that). So it will take years, sorry to burst your bubble. You can't get an HIV drug approved faster than 4-5 years. And that is FAST.
No front load charge on shorting, just an annual rate. We're paying anywhere from 20-40% APR in our accounts to borrow NNVC. The APR goes away when you cover.
Buying would be great for me as it would probably free up some borrow, as we say.
Unfortunately you would be doing the opposite of diversifying. You should be spending your time looking for more stocks you like. BMRN is pretty good. Might double over the next few years.
How? You can only get approval in the US by running a US-based study. Even going straight to phase 3, which is possible after a phase 1, will take 4 years. There's no shaving time off this process, sorry.
That's kind of big for a drug. What do you think the MW is?
Yeah. He did IT, lol. Fixing computers doesn't count.
I pay people like her from $500 - $2000 an hour. She makes more money talking to us than she does at her job. "Consulting". So a donation is out of the question.
I've never seen such a group of letters and words that have caused my eyes and mind such dissonance.
I'm short some real companies where I'm actually afraid of their success. These guys will shoot themselves in the foot if they ever get a chance to. Drug development is a trial and error process. Seymour and Diwan have never done this before. They seem to have Menon as a consultant. His industry experience is questionable and he works for another company (Cellceutix) at the same time. This is the management team you're trusting? LOL.
I think it's because you're being conned.
AVII has good dengue results. Lots of companies do. It's evidently not so hard to eliminate dengue. HOWEVER. Getting the drug with good PK PD ADME tox and human-ready is a different ball of wax. That is expensive ($5 - $20m). That is time-consuming. No one will actually do it in my estimation. AVII might stand a shot since they received a huge government grant.
AVII wrapped up the PRV game a long time ago. Have you looked at the competition? PRVs got a lot of attention.
It's a polymer, friend. The patent says it's a polymer. Many drugs have polymer aspects - they are largely disadvantageous as polymerases are ubiquitous.
Academics will do anything - they are the bane of drug development - show me a license deal with Gilead, Merck, Pfizer or someone in the space and I'll get excited.
You are really jazzed about some university playing with a petri dish? C'mon. When has UC Berkley ever received a FDA approval? Get with the program.
Listen closely. These comments refer to possible FDA approvals of a drug candidate from Nanoviricides.
With respect to Dengue, I am suspicious that NNVC will be able to beat AVII and several other companies that are ahead of the drug development process.
With respect to HIV, I am suspicious as the FDA approval process requires phase 1, phase 2 and phase 3 testing that will take one hundred million dollars and more than 5 years of time.
Approval in the United States is critical to build value for the company. If you are suggesting approval in another country, I am not interested, nor is anyone else.
You obviously post on Yahoo as well. I think you should be careful assuming anything about what researchers are working with which projects. Most of these labs will work with dozens of projects at once. I know the MD Anderson folks very well and if you listened to them on investing tips, you'd have no money now. They know how to treat cancer and run experiments - they don't know what makes a good investment or what might work or not work. If they did, they'd work for a drug company like Nanoviricides.
I'll ring her up regardless and see what she thinks. Guys like me will write big checks to these folks to really understand what it is going on. Thanks for the recommendation. At first glance it doesn't appear that she has experience with drug development - she's more of a translational research person. There are dozens of good dengue labs. The most relevant experiments are done in-house and then quickly filed for an IND, etc. Passing this off to academia isn't a great plan.
It's possible you're right - I just think it's a fringe theory and far from commonly accepted. Most people in the scientific community think cancer is caused by an accumulation of genetic changes in key pathways such as VEGF EGFr AKT p53 the whole kinome, etc. The eventual mutation of DNA repair contributes as well. How viruses are implicated is unclear - enough exposure to carcinogens and simply the accmulation of mutations as one gets older is enough to explain cancer without any inclusion of viruses. So you may be right but I much prefer your relatively Socratic style to Mr Feelgoods who just googles for something to support him and turns his head on anything else. Difficult to talk to.
I repeat, AVII is far ahead of NNVC with respect to Dengue.
Any HIV trial requires 48 week endpoints and several studies. One can't get around this - the disease has dozens of approved drugs, there are no exceptions - it's a 5-year+ process that is immutable.
Of course the FDA cares about EC90. Undoubtedly they'll ask NNVC to produce these figures. Any antiviral has a EC90, PK/PD, etc. NNVC noted they have to spend the newly raised money to figure these things out in the prospectus.
About shorting, shorting speculative companies is a great way to make a fortune. There is a you know what born every minute, and it ain't me.
Amen, brother.
I would like to figure out the cause but it is obviously multi-factorial. Immunodeficiency makes sense with recent advances (DNDN), correlation of HPV and cervical cancer, etc.
But obviously carcinogens make sense too. I think most scientists are cautious before they accept new evidence. Those pursuing fringe theories, or worse, accepting them as fact with scant evidence, will fail in their endeavors. Your moderator seems to harbor this method - undoubtedly this is what led him and you all to investing in NNVC. I urge you caution before accepting specious findings as fact. The conversion from specious to fact is what makes people rich, no doubt. However I think the analysis of this conversion is what it is important - not assuming and defending it. I suspect there is no way this technology moves out of the fringe, specious, dubious category - which is what it has been since AllExcel etc. What is that, 20 years? I believe things can come out of left field but this is unlikely.
AVII has NNVC beat to the punch on Dengue.
HIV has been cured already, sorry. No room for new drugs unless they're oral, once-a-day and have a good resistance profile. Good luck doing those pesky clinical trials - takes about 5 years+ to get a new HIV drug approved.
I have no limit - you saw my portfolio - I have hundreds of stocks in it. No one position will influence my destiny. I am here to be your messiah. Diversify like me. Anyone who has more than 10% of their portfolio in NNVC is doomed to repeat basic money management mistakes.
Big pharma loves new things that work, especially when they have patents. Have you heard of licensing, partnerning, mergers and acquisitions?
Why do you think the short position is what it is?
The company doesn't have a CFO.
The CEO and President have never developed a drug before.
The company has taken a long time to file an IND, a very simple achievement in drug development.
The company cannot find a single institutional investor to become a significant holder.
The company has been unable to raise cash through traditional means.
The company has been unable to find a pharmaceutical company to collaborate with.
There is substantial doubt regarding the experience of most of the company's executives.
The stock price moves seem geared towards their promotional press releases and penny-stock promoters.
The company insiders sell stock through a suspicious entity.
The scientific rationale of the proposed products is unsound and the lack of advancement is not a coincidence.
The company was censured by the SEC in early prospectus filings, indicating they were too aggressive in their statements regarding their potential products.
The CEO does not appear to work out of the main company headquarters.
Despite many experiments, recently filed regulatory documents indicate newly run experiments must meet management's criteria for efficacy and toxicology to pursue an IND filing - rendering prior experiments unreliable.
I think I got everything?