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.
I've heard that's a myth Murphdog, and that the only way you can assure that your shares aren't lent out to shorts are if you hold your shares in a non-margin account and specifically request (probably in writing) that your broker not lend them out.
Hey Art. If people invested here think that the ultimate outcome of these trials is that they're going to be able to cure the blind, they're going to be disappointed, however, the Dry AMD market is something like $30 billion and there is currently no cure so despite the fact that this is not a cure for blindness (though that may be something they'll be able to do with embryonic stem cells down the road, who knows) if these trials are successful, the payoff will still be very lucrative, especially considering that this is just one of many uses for embryonic stem cells that ACT has in their pipeline, and it's not even the one with the most monetary potential, it was just the lowest hanging fruit.
Not sure if you've ever seen this video before, but it's a really good overview of ACT and it's pipeline.
There was an improvement in visual acuity in 100% of the lab rats and mice. I'm not saying that some visual improvement won't or can't occur, I'm just saying that improvement in visual acuity isn't the ultimate goal of these trials and isn't needed in order for them to ultimately get FDA approval. A lot of times the rods and cones are damaged, and if that is the case, substantial vision can't be restored, though some vision may be able to be restored. At least that's how I understand it.
Blank, EOM
No visual improvement isn't tied to stopping the disease. Visual improvement would be associated with reversing the disease, which this treatment won't be required to do in order to get FDA approval.
What about people that have insomnia. Sleep aids aren't meant to cure the disease it's meant to relieve the symptoms. Same thing with depression. If I had macular degeneration and it was caught early and I'd lost a minimal amount of vision, I'd be very happy if there was a way they could just stop the progression even if they couldn't cure it instead of having it continue to to progress and eventually going completely blind, wouldn't you?
I know very well what these trials are for. The current trials are Phase I/II. Mainly safety, with a little bit of an eye on efficacy as well. I've posted the trial info on this board in the past and defined what a Phase I/II trial consists of. I'm referring to what the company will ultimately be trying to show the FDA when all phases (1-3) of the trials have been completed is that it slows or stops the progression of the disease, not visual improvement.
"The trial is very simple, the doctors will inject one eye of each patient into the RPE channel with stemcells that will help regrow the communication capabilities of the eye and nerve ways into the brain. Then after about 6 weeks the doctors will test the patient for eyesight improvement."
I actually disagree with a this comment fordwill. Vision improvement is not (nor will it likely ever be in these trials) a primary endpoint. They are looking for a slowing or complete stoppage of the progression of the diseases these two diseases that eventually lead to blindness. In all of the lab rats/mice tested, there was an improvement in visual acuity, however, that is not what these trials are for, it is a potential secondary and positive collateral benefit that could occur. These trials are not about curing the blind. They're about slowing, stopping, or potentially reversing two diseases that eventually lead to blindness.
Further, while I definitely appreciate your conservative analysis and insight, I simply can't agree with you that we're years away from potentially getting a market cap in the billions. You're talking about a medical revolution and ACTC is at the forefront of that revolution. If the clinical trials indicate that the results are better than expected, I believe you could see this stock shoot to $1 in short order, as this stock could attract more interest than any biotech stock we've seen in a LOOOONNNNGGGG time. It's happened to other companies with a lot of shares on much less substantial results than we could get here, and there have been plenty of biotech companies that have achieved billion dollar plus market caps well before their Phase III trials are completed and/or their drugs are approved by the FDA.
Lastly, in regard to analysts not covering ACTC for years, this much I can virtually guarantee you: whenever they reverse split (as they will admittedly likely have to in order to get the share price to an acceptable level to be listed on a major exchange) and get listed on a major exchange, their will be institutional buying and analyst coverage almost immediately.
I really do enjoy your posts, please keep them coming. I truly appreciate your perspective and attempt to keep peoples' expectations in check, however, I think in this case you may be being a little too conservative as to when ACT stock could move substantially higher given some better-than-expected results (and this WOULD include improvement in visual acuity as it would represent other potential uses for embryonic stem cells above and beyond what these trials are designed to measure.
My hope is that the trial results will be good enough to get the share price up to around .50 and then they can do a 1 for 10 or 1 for 15 reverse split. Whatever ratio they're going to do, it will need to get the stock to at least $5, and possibly a little more (maybe they do a 1 for 15 to get the share price to $7.50 assuming they can get the share price to .50 prior to do the split), but no matter what, they're going to make sure that the share price is high enough to a) get listed on a major exchange, preferably the Nasdaq and b) allow institutions to buy in (so the price will likely have to be above $5 as many institutions can't buy stocks priced under $5 as they're considered penny stocks).
farview, there is no cash liability option to settle these lawsuits as it currently stands. IMO, it will be settled in shares, unless of course the shareholders fail to vote for an increase in the # of O/S shares, but I don't see that happening.
I believe the science is going to make or break the company. If the science proves to be safe and efficacious, ACT's finances and share price will take care of themselves, IMO. The key is, and has always I think this next 12 months is going to be a pivotal time, and if the results continue to be positive, there will be plenty of opportunities for jv's providing up-front cash payments etc. and assuming ACT can navigate it's way through the next 12 months, I have a feeling we'll see some positive trial results, an increased share price while we're still an OTC stock, a reverse split of hopefully no more than 1 for 10, a listing on a major exchange and a large increase in institutional ownership, and I don't think it's out of the question that we could see $1 to $1.25 (using the current share structure as a baseline, so roughly a 10 bagger from here) within the next 12 months-18 months.
ACTC's clinical trials are for the treatment of dry AMD, not wet AMD. Since this company's approval was for the treatment of wet AMD, it's really a non-event.
I don't think it does. All he said as that they were "doing well enough". He didn't even hint at what "well enough" means nor any results that they may have seen so I think he's in the clear. It could simply mean that they haven't seen any adverse effects so they want to continue to assist with furthering the science (which is why they initially took part in the study anyway since it was made pretty clear that they weren't expected to see any improvement due to the advanced state of their Dry AMD), which the DSMB has already attested to by approving the injections for the next 4 patients. I personally think it means much more than that, but that's pure speculation (and hope) on my part.
I'm not sure if you're asking why they would inject more patients or why they would inject a higher # of cells, but I'll answer both questions. The next 4 patients in the first cohort will also be injected with 50,000 cells as were the first two patients. The answer to why they would inject a higher number of cells, if they had clear evidence that 50,000 cells were doing exactly what they needed them to they probably wouldn't, but a tiny amount of visual improvement doesn't necessarily mean that injecting 50,000 cells has proven or accomplished what they've set out to do, thought any improvement in visual acuity would be huge news.
I guess anything's possible but I'm not quite that bullish lol. My thought is more that 50k shares just showed more activity than expected. I'm sure they had a pretty good ballpark figure from their mice and rat pre-clinical studies, but maybe 100k would do the trick. Until they announce the results we just won't know, but it sounds really good from where I'm sitting.
What makes this even more impressive to me is that the patients being treated in this trial were supposed to have so few photoreceptors left (and there was something about rods and cones as well) that they were highly unlikely to see improvement in visual acuity, and were, for all intents and purposes, permanently blind.
Now, ask yourself this and put these two statements together and see if 2 + 2 = 4.
Rabin "We're "surprised" by what we saw with the first patients"
Lanza "The patients are doing well enough that "both want us to treat their other eye".
So, if they were for all intents and purposes blind, why would both patients want them to inject the other eye unless there was a noticeable (at least to them) improvement in visual acuity, even at the 50,000 cell injection level?
Further, I wonder if being that the results they saw were "surprising" enough that they want to try to replicate them at other sites doing the testing with the 50,000 cell injection which is the reason for the delay in injecting the rest of the patients from the first cohort. Rabin specifically said on the CC that they wanted the other clinical trial sites to inject patients from the first cohort. Why? Would it really matter if other sites started injecting patients from the 2nd cohort instead? seems like there would have to be a reason for the delay, because I doubt ACT would just decide to slow the trial down by a few months unnecessarily unless they had a damn good reason for doing so. Maybe part of the deal is that there need to be multiple clinical trial sites for each cohort from the trial and the other sites simply didn't ramp up quick enough, but I don't think that's the case as they've had plenty of time to ramp up if they thought they were going to be needed immediately. I don't know what the true answer is, but based on the comments I've seen/read from Lanza and Rabin, I'm starting to think there may be something better going on in these trials than they can let on at this point....one can dream, right lol?
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on your comments Joe. Not sure if you listened to the conference call or not, but they explained why they haven't injected the next patients yet (they're waiting for the other clinical trial sites to get up to speed so they can inject some of the patients from the first cohort) and have said that they'll inject them by the end of the year. To me, this shows a measured, non-desperate, common sense way to proceed. Whatever the reason they want these other sites involved in injecting patients from the first cohort, I'm sure there's a good reason for it. My first thought would be for data integrity/random sampling of results between multiple sites. I doubt ACTC wasn't able to control how quickly these other sites got themselves up to speed.
To your second point regarding the lawsuits, how is it sucking the life out of them? They're being sued for shares, not cash. Though the dilution sucks for existing shareholders, as Rabin pointed out, in terms of the impact on the ongoing operations of the business, it's nothing more than a balance sheet entry.
Per ClinicalTrials.gov for the Dry AMD trial, it's actually for both safety and "exploratory evaluation of efficacy", which is why it's a phase I/II and not just a phase I study (which determines only safety).
Purpose
This is a safety and tolerability trial to evaluate the effect of subretinal injection of human embryonic stem cell derived retinal pigment epithelium cells in patients with dry Age Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) and to perform exploratory evaluation of potential efficacy endpoints to be used in future studies retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) cellular therapy.
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01344993?term=advanced+cell&rank=2
I believe that Phase 3 trials include a much larger number of patients as well, and therefore will take quite a bit longer than the Phase I/II trial.
In regard to the safety aspect, that's not my understanding fordwill. I believe I read that the safety aspect is related to tumorgenicity, i.e. do the cells bunch together forming tumors. I would also say that if they were to find what they believe is the optimum dose prior to the 200,000 cells being injected, I believe they could forgo the remaining dosage levels. For example, if they were "surprised" by what they saw at the 50,000 cell injection dosage, maybe the 150,000 cell injection dosage will be deemed as optimal, maybe they wouldn't inject the 4th cohort who would've gotten the 200,000 cell injection dosage level. I'm not saying this is what will or is even likely to happen, but it is possible, especially since this is Phase I/II trial meaning that they are looking at efficacy to some extent as well, correct?
Gary didn't say when the prelim results were going to be released, though he did seem to pretty much state that they'll be released via a medical journal. The caller asked if would be a year from now and he kind of chuckled and said no it'll be much sooner than a year and that they've been working on it for the past 6-8 weeks and though he can't give a definitive date, he expects it'll be before too long. He also alluded to the fact that the medical/scientific community works at it's own pace and that it'll be published when the medical journal is ready to publish it, ACT can't tell them when to publish it.
Gary didn't allude to anything they saw particular, he just said that they were very pleased with the results so far, and that the next four patients in the trials will be injected prior to the end of the year, but that they're trying to get the other sites (besides UCLA/Jules Stein) up and running so they can participate in the injections of the next four patients in the 2nd cohorts.
The DSMB already voted unaninmously to allow them to proceed with injecting the next four patients about a month ago.
I'll do ya one better: here's a link so you can listen to the replay now that you're home from work:
The call will be available live and for replay by webcast at:
https://us.reg.meeting-stream.com/advancedcelltechnology110911/
It sounded to me like Gary knew exactly who the company was going to be and the terms were going to be. I didn't get the impression that they were going to partner with three seperate companies, but rather he had been in talks with three different companies and that they were going to pick one of them.
Reading between the lines, Gary is saying that they have a lot of good stuff going on, and by the time that they need to secure additional capital, the share price should be much higher. At least that's what it sounds to me like he's saying.
He alluded over and over again to great results from the first two patients by again saying that they're very pleased with the results and then later saying that he would hope that once the prelim results are announced that he thinks that they should be able to raise capital on more attractive terms...
18,000,000 shares is a non-event, it's less than 1.5% dilution. If you don't want people questioning your integrity, try not alluding to the fact that people are "associated with the company in some way" when they've said numerous times in the past that they're not, and also stop alluding to the fact that the results of the trials may bring the share price down on their own. This has nothing to do with whether or not you think the dilution was priced in, that's your opinion (though it would be nice if you'd support it when asked). Also funny that you're here trying to say "I told you so" but yet were the one talking about how others "appeared to have to be right at all costs" and how hard it must have to be to live with someone like that. Were you referring to yourself by chance? Just asking.
"what will your answer be if I put it in writting that I WILL NOT BUY 1 MORE SINGLE SHARES OF ACTC. I wonder then what will your next excuse about my intentions be!"
You said yesterday "in writing" that you were done posting here, so forgive me for taking anything you put in writing with a grain of salt lol. I don't wish anything bad for you at all. If you're not going to buy one more share of ACTC and the price goes up from here, how are you harmed? You're not, you'll only benefit, right? The only way you would or could be harmed is if you wanted to buy your shares back cheaper and the share price went up.
I look at things from all perspectives. There are definitely things that can and may go wrong and ACT stock may go to zero. It's very possible. For me not to realize and acknowledge that would be stupid on my part. I actually posted in the iCell board the other day that I think it may be in the best interest of the company, it's shareholders and the furtherance of the science if they sold the company to a bigger, better-funded pharma company. If I thought everything was going flawlessly I wouldn't have made that comment. What I find interesting is why because you had a bad experience with the stock of a totally unrelated stock which had totally different circumstances that you convinced yourself to the extent that you not only recommended that people sell half their shares now, but that they sell the other half when the stock jumps 20% because the next day it will go to zero, and then alluded to the fact that you know something the rest of didn't about what was going on "behind the scenes", but based on your most recent post, you hope that the stock runs to $10, so you apparently don't intend to sell your stock on the next 20% pop, you just recommended that everyone else should.
Suffice it to say that IMO your intent becomes more and more transparent the more you continue to post and contradict your previous statements.
Thanks diannedawn, that will come in most useful!
farview, why in your previous post did you start calling the science into question when everything that we know from the clinical trials so far and from the pre-clinical animal trials indicates that it works very well? What evidence do you have that it doesn't work or why do you believe it may not work? Why did you call Rocky and his affiliation with ACT into question when he's stated numerous times in the past that he's not affiliated with the company? Why did you try to give the impression that his silence here implied maybe something was wrong and then acknowledge when I called you on it that you knew full-well that he has still been posting regularly on iCell? Sorry, but none of it makes sense to me. If you feel you're "wasting your time with me" then don't reply, I could care less, but rest assured that when you make unsubstantiated claims to attempt to spread FUD, I'm going to call you on it every time whether you respond to me or not.
So what it sounds like you're saying is that the company could file for bankruptcy, get rid of their debt and then re-issue shares. OK, I can see why you could think that would be possible except for a few things:
1) they're not being sued for cash, they're being sued for shares (though the companies suing appear to be trying to get some cash compensation as well, but I doubt they'll get it because I think the shares they receive will cure any potential damages and make them whole)
2) To my knowledge, money awarded as a result of a judgment can't be discharged in bankruptcy, and other than any cash awards that may be given to the companies suing, ACT doesn't have any substantial debt. It's tough to file bankruptcy if you have no debt.
3) A company can't just decide to zero out their common stock one day on a whim. If they did that, Lanza, Rabin, Socius, Caldwell's estate shares and all of the warrantholders' shares would be worth zero. The only people's shares who could possibly retain any value would be the preferred shareholders. Further, I believe in the case of a bankruptcy, one of their creditors has claims on ACT's patents and technology, so ACT would lose their patents and technology in that instance. I just don't see that being a feasible possibility.
SIRI was in a situation similar to the one you describe, and they actually DID have a ton of debt and had every reason and ability to file for BK, but they didn't. I owned shares I had bought from .60 down to .12, and sold them all at .20 because I thought what you described is exactly what they were going to do, but they didn't and after dropping to .05 and issuing a ton of shares and giving away a lot of the company, the stock eventually went back to almost $2.50. Like ACTC, SIRI insiders and key personnel such as Mel Karmazin and Howard Stern owned a lot of shares and options. While the situation ACT finds themselves in obviously isn't ideal, it's not even as bad as the one SIRI was in.
Now, in regard to farview, I think I stated pretty clearly why I'm questioning his motives at this point. He is resorting to what I consider to be basher-like tactics. He's questioning the credibility of the most knowledgeable poster we have here and trying to cast doubt on him by stating he believes he's affiliated with the company after he's clearly stated numerous times that he's not. He's calling him into question because he failed to post on IV for 3+ days when there was nothing new to report and intimating that he vanished and that his silence potentially indicated that there may be something wrong, but when called on it acknowledged that he knows he didn't "disappear", that he's been posting on a different forum. That's intentionally misleading across the board on his part and he knows it.
Secondly, after being corrected numerous times, he continued to post that ALPHA as suing ACT for 380,000,000 shares when in reality, this was the # of shares mentioned as the TOTAL potential liability for ALL potential lawsuits if EVERYONE who could possibly sue them did so (the actual number is actually 428,000.000 in total plus the other lawsuit going on in federal court). Again, IMO, it's intentionally misleading on his part IMO.
Lastly, he keeps saying that he doesn't think that the dilution is priced in which is fine if that's his opinion, but I had to ask numerous times why, in his opinion, the share price had declined so dramatically w/ no other bad news other than the lawsuits and the potential dilution being announced, and rather than giving a straight answer, he has repeatedly said that I'm "beating a dead horse" because I've asked him to support his opinion. And now, out of the blue, he seems to be questioning whether or not the science works or not despite the fact there is zero indication that there has been anything other than positive results. I have no problem with people who have differing opinions than I do, but I do have a problem with people who appear to be saying anything and everything they can think of to cast doubt and fear-monger. To me, this appears to be what both of you are doing, despite your past posts when you were positive. At that time, you both had a full load of shares and had every reason to want the price to go higher, but now that you've sold some of your shares, you have every reason to ant to price to drop so you can buy the shares you want back substantially lower. I can honestly say I really hope this backfires on both of you and you never get the opportunity to buy your shares back cheaper, but my strategy was to not totally load the boat in the first place, but save enough to continue to buy as the share price drops, and that's what I've have an will continue to do. Further, no one should be investing money they can't afford to lose in a biotech penny-stock.
Farview, I wish I knew why I'm the one supposedly beating the subject to death when it's you who keeps saying that the dilution isn't already priced in. I'm simply asking you to lay out your rationale as I have done numerous times, and while I haven't even posted here in several days, you're still opining how the dilution isn't priced in. But yet when I ask a simple question that can't/won't answer, I'M beating the subject to death LOL.
Further, where is your billion share figure coming from? If you add up the shares in the last 8k,it's 428,000,000. I understand that this is ONLY for (supposed) max # of shares needed to settle the lawsuits and that the 428,000,000 doesn't include the Ackman lawsuit in federal court, and assuming that Rabin was counting the other $17 million in Socius funding when he said that they were sufficiently funded through the end of the current trials (meaning at .10/share, another 170,000,000 shares), I'd say we're probably looking at 750,000,000 new shares that would need to be issued. You, however, seem to discount that a JV deal may occurs after the Phase I/II trials end. At that point, I don't think it would be too early to think potential JV deal could be consummated.
It just seems to me that you've been pulling out all the stops to cast a negative light on the company and presenting the "worse than worst-case scenario" than what the company laid out to be not only a possibility but fact. Add to that the fact that you're trying to add more uncertainty by calling Rocky out for not posting here for three+ days (even though you acknowledge that you know he's been posting on iCell), making unsubstantiated claims that you think he's "associated" with ACTC in some way despite the fact he's stated unequivocally that he's not numerous times in the past, and then alluding to the fact that since he hasn't been posting regularly that there must be something "wrong". You're a smart guy farview, but IMO you have a clear agenda right now. To further prove my point, let's take this statement you made:
"And no, I'm not trying to scare folks and buy cheaper shares; clinical testing and FDA may take care of that by themselves."
Well so far based on everything currently known it would appear to be going well based on the DSMB results and the outcomes from the pre-clinical animal testing, but yep, despite that, you don't need to SCARE folks because the science might not work anyway. And then what? You can buy all the cheap shares you want? Doesn't make sense, but good job trying to plant the seeds of doubt though.
I see nothing wrong with playing devil's advocate and I do that regularly with a few stocks I own. I do, however, find it disingenuous when you take facts stated by the company and posters here to which you refer and twist them negatively to intentionally cast doubt on the company at a time when the stock has been under selling pressure. Whether it's intentional or not, that's exactly what it appears that you're doing. Being a concerned shareholder playing devil's advocate is one thing, intentionally twisting facts to fear-monger is quite another. Whether you want to admit it or not, your recent posts resemble the latter, not the former.
Farview, I've asked you this before and I'll ask you again: if you don't think that the potential dilution has been at all priced in, why has the stock gone from .20 to .10 on no bad news other than the lawsuits?
I've looked at both the potential positive and the negative outcomes here, and as I've stated many times, I think ACTC has one of the best risk/reward profiles I've seen, however, I fully understand that it could go to zero.I can't help but notice that you've become much more negative since selling half of your shares, and it would appear to me that you're trying to talk the price of the stock down to the extent that now you're intimating that Rocky is somehow involved with ACTC? I believe he's stated here in no uncertain terms in the past that he has no affiliation with ACTC and has implied that he has bashed ACTC in the past when he deemed it necessary. I wasn't around then so I don't know.
If you want to know what Rocky has to say, I would recommend that you go read Rocky's Corner on iCell.
You can't put a stop in on an OTCBB stock, so whoever ends up selling will be knowingly selling at that point in time.
There could be up to 428 million new shares issued (including the lawsuit from Alpha). This number also doesn't include any shares that may be awarded in the Aronson case either, which is for securities fraud and seperate animal than Alpha and these other warrant reset cases.
Per the 8K's that were filed:
40,0000,000 (approx) Alpha case + 8 million for bondholders + 380,000,000 (for the rest of the potential claims from other warrantholders besides Alpha) = 428,000,000 total shares plus whatever Aronson ends up getting.
Very simple question for you: do you think the FDA would've allowed ACT to start clinical trials with an unproven technology if ACT hadn't povewn to the FDA with a reasonable degree of certainty that it could work? Do you think the FDA just lets companies go around sticking needles in peoples' eyes for the hell of it?
Alpha isn't suing ACTC for 390 million shares, they're suing them for 40 million, however, if they are to win (which I expect they will), that will effectively mean that ACTC is on the hook for an additional 388 million to all of the other parties with whom they had similar financing deals.
I asked you in a previous post (maybe it came across as rhetorical, but it wasn't) why you think that a price decline that ranged from .1625 to .112 occurred starting the day after the original 8k was issued with no other bad news other than the 8k in the interim, but I haven't received a reply from you as to that question yet.
I'll also point out one other thing: based on todays closing price of .1210, the % decline from the day prior to the original 8k being issued until today, when it became fairly certain ACTC is going to lose this case, is 25.5%. Tomorrow should be a very interesting and telling day.
The consensus seems to be that ACTC stock will go under .10, which, besides the fact that I think this lawsuit stuff was already priced in, is exactly why I believe it won't go below .10. If it does, it will have overshot to the downside creating a decent buying opportunity IMO. .099/share would represent approx a 40% drop from the .1625 closing price the day before the 8k was filed, on expected dilution of 25%.
Seriously you've been here for a few months and didn't even know when Rabin took over as interim CEO a few weeks ago. That's how much DD you did before you supposedly bought ACTC stock, but now you want to complain and call for the CEO's head. Please excuse anyone who doesn't take anything you say seriously.
Farview, one last point I'm going to make just to clarify: I did the original math calculation and made my intial argument about the additional dilution being baked in and stating my opinion that the lows were in two nights ago after the market closed, prior to the small share price increase yesterday. Yesterday's pots re: same were simply a reiteration of what I had said the night before because based on the comments here, it seemed like a couple of the posters may not have seen my original post that included the math I provided.
I'll try to put this in as simple terms as I can: I put some of my money where my mouth is this morning. I didn't put it all there, because if I'm wrong and all of the damage wasn't already baked in, it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong. How is that misleading? Because I didn't throw 100% of my money at it this morning? Because I admitted that even though at this point my theory is still correct (the low was in), it could turn out that I'll ultimately be wrong? Not sure I understand where you're coming from with your "trying to have it both ways" comment or that I'm being "misleading".
Knee-jerk reaction. It re-tested the lows and as I expected, so far the low has held. Everyone who wanted to sell on this news sold and created a good buying opportunity, IMO. I'm already up on 5% on the shares I bought this morning. Obviously not going nuts buying because despite the fact I feel that most of this is and was already baked in, I could be wrong and it could always go lower so I'm keeping some dry powder to buy more should the opportunity arise.
If you recall, Caldwell was also a finance guy and I believe would've been the one to make the final recommendation as to whether or not ACT partook in these financing deals. It's not like Caldwell was a biotech veteran who was relying on Rabin to review and approve the financing deals. I don't think I said Rabin wasn't aware of them, he probably was, what I said is that I don't believe he's responsible for them, i.e. I don't believe he's the one who dropped the ball. I don't know where this idea comes from that Rabin would've tried to screw over ACT by bringing toxic financeers to the company.
The company is still viable and making progress in the clinical trials because of these deals. No they weren't made on the best terms but I doubt they had lenders beating down their doors offering them financing given the financial shape they were in, hence the reason Rabin has been stating that he wants to do things from a position of strength. The bottom line is had they not done these deals, the shares purchased prior to these deals would be worth zero, IMO. For those who bought in after the deals, I'm sure the information about these financing deals was out there in SEC filings and could've been found by doing some digging. I personally didn't know about them, but I'm also not complaining because a) the company wouldn't be in existence today without them and b) I know I have no right to complain if I didn't do the proper DD prior to investing in the stock.
True or false Rocky: without these deals ACT would at best not be in clinical trials now and at worst (and more likely IMO) would be bankrupt. Not sure that you can hold something against a guy for something he as you put it "finished off" (meaning he didn't start it) in February when he took over in late-Dec. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on Rabin's culpability in all of this and the extent to which his feet should be held to the fire. Clearly there have been ongoing financial issues with ACT for awhile now. As much as I'm not a fan of Rabin's, I think he's done a decent job since he took over. That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see him back to only the CFO as soon as these Phase I/II trials are complete, but I don't think he deserves the criticism he's getting from some here from those pointing the finger squarely at him and calling for his head when the guy is basically playing the cards he was dealt (pun intended).
There's been what seems to me to be a lot of bashing going on here lately. Few seem worried about the one thing that's important: the progress of the clinical trials. Keep your eyes on the prize people, not the short-term action in the stock price. We all gte discouraged from time to time, but it's clear that some here weren't cut out for a stock like ACTC.