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'm not too happy either but we have been discussing parting away from R/D and driving towards production...in this respect, this is the route needing to be taken...the 1million was not ideal but we don't know the particulars of the royalties....which could be huge. We're no longer funding it, but will still reap the rewards ala antares with libi at the time.
re-actor, you're right, they're focusing on libigel.
JTFM, putting an article out connecting the already publicly available information would bring reaction much quicker than discussions on message boards or going through formal channels imho. I'd think it a stepping stone into pursuing further actions down the line if an article doesn't give you the response you need. But, in the end, it's your decision.
-RG
Let me start by saying I agree with everything you are saying. Is it possible that they are indirectly acknowledging the MM control over PPS by saying that despite the positive outcome of the study, they would expect little reaction on PPS (as a result of this control)...When they approved Bio-t gel, the pps shot up and down in a day and sporadically goes up and down on no news throughout the year. Wishful thinking would be they're going to release multiple positive PR in a short amount of time to suppress this control as JTFM eluded to.
I can't imagine the BOD actually believing we would be voting for their bonuses...worst fear would be they're using the CRV in exchange for this vote...no bonus, no CRV which would clearly demonstrate their loyalty to their SH.
Deep down I feel like they're blatantly making this merger agreement so flawed as to all but guarantee a vote of no by SH on all counts. To what end, I have no idea...
-RG
A struggling Company would pull out the the stops to survive. Now the illusion of a struggling company will sit on information and play the Ace at an opportune time.
TWST: What would you reasonably expect the company to look like in three to four years?
Mr. Simes: We believe the female sexual dysfunction marker is a multi-billion dollar potential market and, in fact, we believe that LibiGel is what is known in the pharmaceutical or biotech industry as a "blockbuster product." That is, we believe LibiGel may have billion dollar potential. Obviously if we're lucky enough to get approval for LibiGel, that will be a transforming event for BioSante. In fact, the next several years will be transforming, potentially taking us from a product development company to a company with a blockbuster product.
TWST: That leads me to ask you about strategic partnerships, licensing, etc.
Mr. Simes: Our strategy has been to develop our products on our own as long as possible. We think that's the best way to increase the value of the product and thereby increasing the value of BioSante. However the opportunity here is so large, we do believe we will be looking for a commercial partner for LibiGel. However, based on our cash balance there is no urgency to complete a licensing deal.
2008 puff interview
obviously the events of 2011 compromised the future of libi and bpax...forcing the hand at play.
-RG
I don't know how hardcore mods are for banning but he should stil be able to read posts, just can't contribute. If one were so inclined, they could simply set up another account, new email address and maybe a new IP...
Nutsy did contribute but at times at the cost of respect for others...hopefully when reinstated he'll show a little more tact
--RG
I've said this before but you could really write up a GREAT article on what has been uncovered here on this board- if they don't answer you or the answers are vague- maybe consider it?
It is a coincidence getting the response regarding t-testing after you posted to the cafepharma board- maybe someone is listening...writing up a solid article may force their hand, or at the least, discussing the possibility of writing one up directly with Simes...
-RG
It does indicate that off label prescriptions are in the decline over the course of the study with 3% prescribed to women at its best- decline may be due to more information on the negative effects of a toxicity.
From the androgel website, it's still not recommended in women:
"AndroGel 1% is not meant for use in women and must not be used in women who are pregnant, may become pregnant, or are breastfeeding. AndroGel 1% may harm the unborn or breastfeeding baby. Women who are pregnant or who may become pregnant should avoid contact with the area of skin where AndroGel 1% has been applied. "
I personally didn't see the commercial, but contact exposure to hormone creams/gels etc is a big problem given ease of exposure- could be typical fine print so they're not liable if they're used off label.
You do raise a valid point on their ability to use safety study, however, I think the method of use patent may prevent them from using it.
-RG
sadly, we're in the dark; my gut tells me that there is a serious drive for this to go through, which can be as a result of avoiding higher risk scenarios - a hostile takeover, going it alone, parting the pipeline out...
I can't recall if we ever figured out why they acquired a gel/fill machine awhile back but since we can only speculate, any thoughts on circumventing FDA and pursuing libi to market sans approval, then circling back on efficacy studies or using efficacy results from others and go through the approval process again while we're actively churning out libi to the market...maintain cash flow while we're proving efficacy?
also, nutsy got banned yesterday, don't know what he said, but there you go, in case anyone was wondering where he is.
-RG
Back in 1997 Cerprobe was on the uptrend and people heavily invested were cashing out- one of whom was Ross Mangano, who served as Cerprobe chairman since 1993; he sold 160,000 shares grossing $3.52 million...but he didn't sell all of his shares- actually kept much more than he sold- 453,501 to be precise...three years later the company was bought by Kulicke & Soffa for $20/share- the height of Cerprobe's value.
Ross Mangano is heavily invested in BPAX at this time, and I can't recall seeing any sell orders from him...his investment is also pre 12/11 share price...
-RG
You've misread it- this is the total under the merger of all parties involved- ANI and BPAX - on the board
-RG
prospectus is out
link
-RG
I'll second that! Mergers happen, it's the direction we're headed- some SH's complain that we should not merge and continue it alone- I believe that this option is unnecessarily risky- it'd be an all or nothing going this route; a merger not only buys us time, but it opens it up to suitors. An R/D co is joining a production co- this makes both stronger than going it alone. A few posters on this board are very expressive of their itchy fit akin to pre-wedding jitters- hang tight, it'll be a bumpy ride, but the longterm potential far outweighs the short term risks. Of course, all this IMHO.
-RG
bit of a tangent, but thought everyone that hates this guy enough should know this website exists...
adam exposed
i've said it before...JTFM, you need to write an article on BPAX...it may be the spark that tips things in our direction much sooner than we're currently expecting
RG
You have to also remember that BPAX employees are also shareholders, of which, a few have a large stake in the company. By not including libigel and others to the ANI merger, stockholders (i.e institutions, retail and of course, current and former bpax employees and those individuals that may have partnered on the r/d of libigel that we may not be privy to) provides strength to their investment that is not contingent on the success/direction of ANIBPAX.
RG
They did say it would be released end of November...really waiting until the last minute...
RG
look at his tspt holding...the answer is no.
When he showed up, it was the worst thing in the world or the best depending on who you asked...you'll find it'll probably be the same with his leaving...
-RG
I think the picture is perfectly clear here. If you can't see it then you are simply refusing to.
So what do the MM's not like today? ;)
Google, PFI and Apple are also on this list; I'm sure with the rise in naked shorting, this list becomes exponentially bigger. Phantom shares, plain and simple.
also, ctrl + F is your friend
-RG
I have a question for the board: lets for a second take the word merger out of the picture. If bpax had announced that they were in the process of obtaining manufacturing capabilities and may issue an rs to fund this excursion...how would the market react? Maybe my view is too simplistic but having this merger puts bpax in a position to promote r/d and manufacturing. With this alone I would imagine pps to rise; even if they scrapped libi, the current pps isn't reflective of their portfolio as it stands now...
RG
haha, seems so obvious, but the philosophy eludes even those with the greatest experience; Tang is out almost 50% with their TSPT purchase...not to mention their loss on what they've sold on bpax...to what is their end, I can't say, but in regards to the recent sentiment on this board:
Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stink....
but due diligence is a completely different beast. The "connecting of dots" is apart of this process, imho. Glta
-RG
Could be selling from the decline going into the summer; a lot of conversations of shorty covering at the time as well, but remember, there was some new institutions buying too. We're at lows now, and as Nutsy said, new holdings data should be coming out soon, that should give us a better sense if retailers are alone or institutions are coming back in on the lows prior to merger...
...but don't forget...Winter is coming...
Holdings
It seems Tang and Barclays decreased a part of their position
I'm in SF but I don't qualify as a registrant.
RG
Thanks for your response! Hopefully the BIO forum on wednesday will offer a more definitive picture of what's to come.
RG
I do believe this is a good move in the grand scheme of things; but I can't say I didn't sweat a bit when I learned of the news...
There are few things that I don't understand that I hope those more experienced than I can illuminate on-
1.If getting libi was Simes' goal, why take an exit with this merger? As a Research Scientist in a past life, I find it's not a simple thing to let go of a project that you've spent a large part of your career studying...It seems in this deal, he's basically walking away. Could it be that the board didn't like his management of things thus far and decided to have a change in leadership?
2.With that said, if layoffs are occurring (or will occur if merger goes through) to what purpose does this serve in regards to continuing libigel? I would think dismissing those involved in the r/d up to date and handing the reigns over to ANIP is going to slow development; in the same breath, ANIP is not R/D they're manufacturing...which, as nutsy pointed out, should speak volumes as to where they are at with Libigel and if this is indeed the case, why all the bloody silence about it...
3.All the actions of Tang over the course of this year still warrant investigation because at this point, I think they're in the same position all of us are...or could it be they took the position they did to influence/hasten this merger?
I may have overlooked the answers in the recent filings but if anyone has any thoughts, it would be greatly appreciated if you could share them.
-RG
So where's Tang in all of this?
I do feel the general public places a negative connotation with bpax given the events of the past year....keeping the ani name may be a rebranding tactic.
Any consideration this is mm's covering given immediate drop and partial rebound in such a short time?
-RG
Nutsy, did you end up sending that email, did you get a response?
-RG
I am still of the opinion that JTFM needs to submit an article to seeking alpha; it's essentially already written through all of your excellent posts.
-RG
One writers opinion regarding yesterdays events
Tree-shake
-RG
It can be frustrating reading all of the negative posts on this board; likewise, it's frustrating reading all the positive posts, knowing that the logic is sound, yet having the pps be where it is.
The endless argument (typically made by bashers) on the point of pumpers v dumpers- these two groups are exactly the same in regards to their approach on boards- ZERO contribution to a conversation (also having the grammar of a second grader for that matter). Clearly those that are labeled as pumpers (JTFM, Jadite, Nutsy, Jeff et al), are providing substance to their arguments, whereas those labeled as bashers/dumpers do not.
Do whatever you want to do, invest how you want to invest, but please keep your agenda out of the conversation.
-RG
Speculation on Blind faith is very much different than speculation from Due Diligence; Jeff, JTFM, Nutsy, jadite and all the rest contributing to this board clearly demonstrate the latter than the former.
Jeff made a good point- provide coherent, logic based counterpoints so you can save us all from further loss, or gtfo, with all due respect of course.
-RG
Thank You for posting this...it's always good to re-introduce ourselves to the reasons as to why us Longs have taken the position we have in the first place...very succinct and very true
-RG
JTFM, Nutsy, Jeff and everyone else doing an excellent job contributing to this conversation; I thought I'd throw this out there and see if there would be any takers...
I am finding that there is only negative articles written in regards to any PR through mgmt; There is so much DD on this board that is retained only on this board which the general public (read as the yahoo's reading the yahoo mb) should be made aware of.
Any thoughts on getting together an article for SA that essentially sums up the strength of the company and what outside influences are causing the erratic pps over the course of this year? I wouldn't say a counterpoint to AF but, basically a no bull, straightforward article on the merits/goals of this company
I would wholeheartedly nominate myself, but I lack the in depth knowledge of this company as compared to the aforementioned members of this board...nor am I as eloquent.
-RG
It's funny, everyone always says to take emotion out of the equation when it comes to the market...I find that financial articles should be unbiased, poignant and based on sound fact/reason. In reading AF's article, it is very clear to the simplest of minds that there is a motivation for slandering BPAX and a lot of emotion behind his words-which drives the emotion of the simple minded retail investor who reads it. Shorts end up reaping the rewards...
Two outcomes were to come on the fate of libigel- live or die- I'm sure AF and those that pay him to write this drivel sat on two articles, one the gloats that they new it was dead and they were right the entire time had BPAX axed libigel, and one that, well, they published...
Given the great news...which it is really great news, and JTFM really brings up a good point in that this very well could have gone the other direction...and I don't think anyone on this board would've wanted that, I believe that there is some pressure on the shorts to cover and the machines are really driving the price down as a result.
I was surprised regarding how we did today given the news, but not too concerned; I see the value of what this co has to offer and am glad I paid what I paid for my shares, of which I'm holding on to until AF pulls 'em from my cold dead hands...
RG
The picture is also worth more than $0.52/share...
Thank You for all your efforts on this board...PM me your paypal deets and I'll buy you a beer.
-RG
new article regarding testosterone use repro med
credit to jadite @ yahoo for the find
-RG
Hedge Fund Tang Capital is buying - Tang
Hang Tight
-RG
Interesting read posted by Jeffqdh over at the YB's.
Just a waiting game...
Story of DNDN
Anatomy of a Short Attack- Interesting read for those unfamiliar with this topic; I posted this earlier today but it was deleted. I'm long BPAX and although it's getting assaulted right now, I'm not too concerned. A similar thing happened to VW a few years back- the share price ended up tripling in a matter of days... in that example, hedgies were caught in the squeeze brought on by Porsche; this time round, it could be teva, bms, or any other big pharma for that matter, either way, not too worried.
-RG
The Anatomy of a Short Attack — Abusive shorting are not random acts of a renegade hedge funds, but rather a coordinated business plan that is carried out by a collusive consortium of hedge funds and prime brokers, with help from their friends at the DTC and major clearinghouses. Potential target companies are identified, analyzed and prioritized. The attack is planned to its most minute detail.
The plan consists of taking a large short position, then crushing the stock price, and, if possible, putting the company into bankruptcy. Bankrupting the company is a short homerun because they never have to buy real shares to cover and they don't pay taxes on the ill-gotten gain.
When it is time to drive the stock price down, a blitzkrieg is unleashed against the company by a cabal of short hedge funds and prime brokers. The playbook is very similar from attack to attack, and the participating prime brokers and lead shorts are fairly consistent as well.
Typical tactics include the following:
Flooding the offer side of the board — Ultimately the price of a stock is found at the balance point where supply (offer) and demand (bid) for the shares find equilibrium. This equation happens every day for every stock traded. On days when more people want to buy than want to sell, the price goes up, and, conversely, when shares offered for sale exceed the demand, the price goes down.
The shorts manipulate the laws of supply and demand by flooding the offer side with counterfeit shares. They will do what has been called a short down ladder. It works as follows: Short A will sell a counterfeit share at $10. Short B will purchase that counterfeit share covering a previously open position. Short B will then offer a short (counterfeit) share at $9. Short A will hit that offer, or short B will come down and hit Short A's $9 bid. Short A buys the share for $9, covering his open $10 short and booking a $1 profit.
By repeating this process the shorts can put the stock price in a downward spiral. If there happens to be significant long buying, then the shorts draw from their reserve of “strategic fails-to-deliver” and flood the market with an avalanche of counterfeit shares that overwhelm the buy side demand. Attack days routinely see eighty percent or more of the shares offered for sale as counterfeit. Company news days are frequently attack days since the news will “mask” the extraordinary high volume. It doesn't matter whether it is good news or bad news.
Flooding the market with shares requires foot soldiers to swamp the market with counterfeit shares. An off-shore hedge fund devised a remarkably effective incentive program to motivate the traders at certain broker dealers. Each trader was given a debit card to a bank account that only he could access. The trader's performance was tallied, and, based upon the number of shares moved and the other “success” parameters, the hedge fund would wire money into the bank account daily. At the end of each day, the traders went to an ATM and drew out their bribe. Instant gratification.
Global Links Corporation is an example of how wholesale counterfeiting of shares will decimate a company's stock price. Global Links is a company that provides computer services to the real estate industry. By early 2005, their stock price had dropped to a fraction of a cent. At that point, an investor, Robert Simpson, purchased 100%+ of Global Links' 1,158,064 issued and outstanding shares. He immediately took delivery of his shares and filed the appropriate forms with the SEC, disclosing he owned all of the company's stock. His total investment was $5205. The share price was $.00434. The day after he acquired all of the company's shares, the volume on the over-the-counter market was 37 million shares. The following day saw 22 million shares change hands — all without Simpson trading a single share. It is possible that the SEC has been conducting a secret investigation, but that would be difficult without the company's involvement. It is more likely the SEC has not done anything about this fraud.
Massive counterfeiting can drive the stock price down in a matter of hours on extremely high volume. This is called “crashing” the stock and a successful “crash” is a one-day drop of twenty-percent or a thirty-five percent drop in a week. In order to make the crash “stick” or make it more effective, it is done concurrently with all or most of the following:
Media assault — The shorts, in order to realize their profit, must ultimately purchase real shares at a price much cheaper than what they shorted at. These real shares come from the investing public who panics and sells into the manipulation. Panic is induced with assistance from the financial media.
The shorts have “friendly” reporters with the Dow Jones News Agency, the Wall Street Journal, Barrons, the New York Times, Gannett Publications (USA Today and the Arizona Republic), CNBC and others. The common thread: A number of the “friendly” reporters worked for The Street.com, an Internet advisory service that hedge-fund managers David Rocker and Jim Cramer owned. This alumni association supported the short attack by producing slanted, libelous, innuendo laden stories that disparaged the company, as it was being crashed.
One of the more outrageous stories was a front-page story in USA Today during a short crash of TASER's stock price in June 2005. The story was almost a full page and the reporter concluded that TASER's electrical jolt was the same as an electric chair — proof positive that TASERs did indeed kill innocent people. To reach that conclusion the reporter over estimated the TASER's amperage by a factor of one million times. This “mistake” was made despite a detailed technical briefing by TASER to seven USA Today editors two weeks prior to the story. The explanation “Due to a mathematical error” appeared three days later — after the damage was done to the stock price.
Jim Cramer, in a video-taped interview with The Street.com, best described the media function:
When (shorting) ... The hedge fund mode is to not do anything remotely truthful, because the truth is so against your view, (so the hedge funds) create a new 'truth' that is development of the fiction… you hit the brokerage houses with a series of orders (a short down ladder that pushes the price down), then we go to the press. You have a vicious cycle down — it's a pretty good game.
This interview, which is more like a confession, was never supposed to get on the air, however, it somehow ended up on YouTube. Cramer and The Street.com have made repeated efforts, with some success, to get it taken off of YouTube.
Analyst Reports — Some alleged independent analysts were actually paid by the shorts to write slanted negative ratings reports. The reports, which were represented as being independent, were ghost written by the shorts and disseminated to coincide with a short attack. There is congressional testimony in the matter of Gradiant Analytic and Rocker Partners that expands upon this. These libelous reports would then become a story in the aforementioned “friendly” media. All were designed to panic small investors into selling their stock into the manipulation.
Planting moles in target companies — The shorts plant “moles” inside target companies. The moles can be as high as directors or as low as janitors. They steal confidential information, which is fed to the shorts who may feed it to the friendly media. The information may not be true, may be out of context, or the stolen documents may be altered. Things that are supposed to be confidential, like SEC preliminary inquiries, end up as front-page news with the short-friendly media.
Frivolous SEC investigations — The shorts “leak” tips to the SEC about “corporate malfeasance” by the target company. The SEC, which can take months processing Freedom of Information Act requests, swoops in as the supposed “confidential inquiry” is leaked to the short media.
The plethora of corporate rules means the SEC may ultimately find minor transgressions or there may be no findings. Occasionally they do uncover an Enron, but the initial leak can be counted on to drive the stock price down by twenty-five percent. The announcement of no or little findings comes months later, but by then the damage that has been done to the stock price is irreversible. The San Francisco office of the SEC appears to be particularly close to the short community.
Class Action lawsuits — Based upon leaked stories of SEC investigations or other media exposes, a handful of law firms immediately file class-action shareholder suits. Milberg Weiss, before they were disbanded as a result of a Justice Department investigation, could be counted on to file a class-action suit against a company that was under short attack. Allegations of accounting improprieties that were made in the complaint would be reported as being the truth by the short friendly media, again causing panic among small investors.
Interfering with target company's customers, financings, etc. — If the shorts became aware of clients, customers or financings that the target company was working on, they would call and tell lies or otherwise attempt to persuade the customer to abandon the transaction. Allegedly the shorts have gone so far as to bribe public officials to dissuade them from using a company's product.
Pulling margin from long customers — The clearinghouses and broker dealers who finance margin accounts will suddenly pull all long margin availability, citing very transparent reasons for the abrupt change in lending policy. This causes a flood of margin selling, which further drives the stock price down and gets the shorts the cheap long shares that they need to cover.
Paid bashers — The shorts will hire paid bashers who “invade” the message boards of the company. The bashers disguise themselves as legitimate investors and try to persuade or panic small investors into selling into the manipulation.
This is not every dirty trick that the shorts use when they are crashing the stock. Almost every victim company experiences most or all of these tactics.