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.
Mazel - not sure where we will be by year end - but I'm still interested to learn your response to the scenario I posited this morning - see below just in case you missed it.
James
mazel / volgoat - you may be on to something. Perhaps you are correct and the first look-in has already taken place. But no announcement of same - yet. Here's an interesting scenario to contemplate - assuming the first look-in has indeed taken place - the results being in line or perhaps better than seen previously in the Phase II - but PPHM wants to make sure. So they wait for the second look-in sometime in the not too distant future. Assume the results stay consistent - or even show a slowly increasing survival curve.
With the above in mind - what would be the market reaction to a PR announcing the very favorable results of both look-ins, along with a DMC recommendation to unblind the trial and put all participants on the Bavi regimen?
An interesting scenario - and quite plausible. I'll be interested to hear your thoughts.
Have a good day.
James
mazel / volgoat - you may be on to something. Perhaps you are correct and the first look-in has already taken place. But no announcement of same - yet. Here's an interesting scenario to contemplate - assuming the first look-in has indeed taken place - the results being in line or perhaps better than seen previously in the Phase II - but PPHM wants to make sure. So they wait for the second look-in sometime in the not too distant future. Assume the results stay consistent - or even show a slowly increasing survival curve.
With the above in mind - what would be the market reaction to a PR announcing the very favorable results of both look-ins, along with a DMC recommendation to unblind the trial and put all participants on the Bavi regimen?
An interesting scenario - and quite plausible. I'll be interested to hear your thoughts.
Have a good day.
James
PPHMVERYLONG - just a simple question then - if you really believe your own words, "Take my word for it, as I said about 2013 & 2014, in 2015 the S.P. is going nowhere and as investors trying to make money, that is all we care about." then why are you bothering with this stock now? It would seem that you could go elsewhere in the meantime to "make money" and then simply check back in 2016 to see if events merit your reinvestment.
Just a question. Enjoy the rest of the weekend.
James
Guys, just agree to disagree - it's time to move on.
James
CP, Just a small correction. 33% is the correct number for the first look-in - not 30%. Otherwise, your scenario appears to be highly plausible - maybe even likely. We'll see soon enough.
James
The first interim analysis, which will be conducted when 33% of the targeted overall survival events are reached, is for futility and the second interim analysis, for futility or superiority, will be conducted at 50% of events. As these analyses are event driven, the exact timing of each is unknown, however the company plans to provide updates as these events are reached.
MD - while an Asian or European partner is still a very viable and in play option - the most likely choice IMO is still an acquisition - but not of the whole shooting match - at least for now. And the price - for perhaps up to 50% of the entire company - would have to be seriously commensurate with the value that SK, Garnick, Chan, et al believe they are on the cusp of convincingly demonstrating to the world. In short, another DNA style deal - with a likely option to purchase the rest of the company in seven or more years - of course at the then existing possibly "astronomical" value SK referenced a while back. There are several companies where the synergies and goals could line up very nicely. GILD would be an excellent example.
Eric, you're back - man you've been gone for almost as long as I have. Must mean something good is FINALLY around the corner. But whatever, hope you are well - say hi to Jay for me.
James
freethemice, There are a BOATLOAD of folks out there who agree with you and have ceased reading the iHub board as a result. How about you, CJ, Wildhorses, Fire Fox, RRdog, and perhaps a few others, start your own board - and take the iHub middleman out of the picture. Make it a subscription service - even an expensive one. I think many folks would gladly sign up.
Thanks for all your past contributions.
James
Wild, the insurance company will handle the litigation from the get go - so the name of CSM's insurer and the extent of their coverage is most likely already known.
This could get fun again very quickly.
James
Geo, or it could also be that CSM ran the trial for 1/3 of the patients involved - or approximately 40 people - and messed up the dosing for all three cohorts - thereby rendering the data for those 40 participants extremely difficult to interpret or useless - worst case.
But if that's the scenario - then the other two groups - now numbering approximately 80 people - should have received proper randomized dosing of the 1mg, 3mg, and placebo - with data that has been correctly coded and reported - and which should therefore still be reliable.
Again - all fingers and toes crossed.
James
Tech Writer, am I missing something or did you just come across information that tells us that the data from only one of the three cohorts is suspect???
"According to the Tustin, Calif.-based biopharmaceutical company’s complaint, Fargo, N.D.-based Clinical Supplies Management Inc. ran one of three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase II trials for the drug bavituximab as part of a testing services agreement with Peregrine."
If so - and if the cohort run by CSM was not the placebo group - then we should have good data still available to compare either the 1mg group or the 3mg group against the control - which would be a very good result under the current circumstances.
All fingers and toes crossed.
James
FTM - yes, Jazz is indeed busy - very busy to be precise - but quite happily so. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
The fun has begun. Big money will follow shortly.
Take care all.
James
RRdog, re your recent comment:
"As far as your very fine comments on second line it sounds like you are finally crossing the Rubicon of 12 months or better and joining me on the other side. I hope this is correct and I do not want to put words in your mouth. It is getting lonely over here but it is also beautiful."
Turn around - there are quite a few of us sitting right behind you.
Enjoy the fourth everyone !!
James
Dia, Wrong road again. The "entire franchise" is not for sale - not now and not for quite some time at the very least. The folks at PPHM have made it clear for a very long time now that they want to go it alone if at all possible - a real gutsy {or stupid} choice depending on your perspective and the results they actually obtain. But it looks like the gamble - and the dilution - could well be worth it. It seems clear we'll know for sure quite soon.
And at such time as the "entire franchise" were ever to be put up for sale - assuming "WOW" numbers in multiple indications - leading to multiple approvals - would - IMHO - make the numbers you mention likely orders of magnitude lower than any final price ultimately to be negotiated. Who is the poster who maintains that he expects to sell some day for $100/Sh after two or three splits? I can't remember, but he may not be that far off.
Well, off to Tivo to watch my baseball game : )
Take care.
James
Geo, you are going very very far down the wrong road. There are no "contingent" deals here. Not a chance.
Garnick's fingerprints are now ever more clearly apparent in all aspects of his now almost three year old plan. He's circling the wagons - and plans to be able to shoot in all directions - and with great accuracy - if you catch my drift.
WOW numbers !!! Looks like he's going to get them - or already has - in multiple indications per his plan. This guy is REALLY good - and he could have gone anywhere - but he choose to spend the past three years or so working on little ol PPHM.
Once again - this is getting to be fun again.
Take care.
James
Mojo, Fire Fox, Free, great back and forth - thanks for your efforts.
Re the timing for release of the MOS numbers - our DD leads us to agree with Fire Fox - as the significance of a "WOW" MOS number - now conservatively estimated to be at least 10+ months and counting for both bavi cohorts - up to a very optimistic "Holy Cow" estimation from RRdog's group of 16+ months and counting - again for both cohorts - would make it highly unlikely that PPHM could legally withhold such incredibly material information for any more than a very short period of time.
But - and this is the good part - they do have to wait until either number is actually reached before such an announcement can be made : )
So we wait - quite happily mind you. But in the meantime - and here we have to agree with Mojo - and many others - is that that elusive and long anticipated first partnership - with substantial $$$ involved - could indeed very well be imminent as Mojo suggests. Prospective BP partners are of course privy to the numbers - and I would highlight the plural aspect of that statement - so ever more interesting and intense negotiations - as the MOS numbers continue to increase - are likely ongoing as we speak. THIS IN FINALLY GETTING TO BE FUN AGAIN !!!
And of course, don't forget Cotara - as we believe a Phase III approval announcement is also a likely possibility in the very near term - with a partner announcement to likely follow shortly thereafter or possibly to be announced concurrently.
And finally, the Russell BS is now out of the way - and millions of shares have now been "redistributed" {wink wink} to those who actually have some idea of what they've just purchased.
The next few weeks could indeed be very interesting. So good luck to all - and enjoy the rest of your Sunday.
James
FTM, Re your last post and your PD-1 commentary:
"I forgot to mention that 8 months ago today the last patient in the second-line NSCLC trial was enrolled."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this mean that our "minimum" MOS for each Bavi cohort is now at least 8 months - or at least 30% greater than our Control Group MOS of "less than six months" - and at least 10% past the historical MOS numbers you have been posting for the past several weeks?
If so, and in light of the comments made re BM's PD-1, it would appear that we are indeed reaching the point where our results may finally start to make some major waves - particularly the longer we have to wait to see our MOS numbers.
Thanks again for your valuable commentary.
James
toolong, I share your concern regarding the amount of prospective upfront cash that would be part of any deal - although the amount could be substantially increased if PPHM were to license Cotara worldwide, or perhaps with very significant regional territory, to the new partner. Anyway, Cotara is not the reason why we're all still here - so anything that raises substantial cash and gives PPHM the opportunity to more fully develop Bavi - in all its iterations, would be quite welcome thank you. And I don't think PPHM is that far away - months now only - from finding out if they truly do have a long-ball hitter on the team. Is you listen to Thorpe and Garnick, both seem to believe this will be the case. I guess we'll all find out soon enough.
But enough of my ramblings - a fellow long-suffering compadre sent me the following email this afternoon. I thought I'd share it with you all. So here goes.
Greetings, I have read the Lifetech piece and studied the "timing chart" produced by same. Here are my comments.
Lifetech leaves one with the following impressions:
1. They appear to be complete incompetent dunderheads pulling the rug out at this time after touting the stock for three years with a $10 price objective.
2. Proper analysis and the potential of significant dilution should have produced a neutral recommendation at best. Many of precedent biotech/ glacial speed stories were available to them over the 3 year period.
3. They were blinded by the handsome fees generated by the ATMs as well as the retainer to publish upbeat reports on PPHM's progress. I do not believe that they had the necessary talent on board to guide the BOD re proper financing strategies, partnering or licensing and leveraging the IP portfolio. Given the incompetence of the BOD after Dr. Waltz checked out, an IB with the critical experience desperately needed by PPHM was never engaged........and that could have made all the difference over the past 3 years. Believe me I know where of I speak having been trained by one of the top three IBs in the US ...….. and having worked on a number of tech cos prior to our underwriting their IPOs.
Soooooooooo, where are we? Lifetech's price objective is a joke but it does underline their incompetence and the greedy pursuit of the fees that were generated. But that's the IB community in today's compromised world. There are no exceptions in my mind except perhaps for Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan. In the end, I do think Lifetech got it right that PPHM remains a high wire act wherein we just could be experiencing overwhelming dilution before the breakout can take place. Ergo, their near term price objective. Timing is CRITICAL re milestones obviating dilution.
The thought of a Cotara JV accruing a modest front end payment does not surprise me at all. The market potential is relatively small and that puts a cap in place. Imaging is too embryonic for a JV near term, so no pay day there near term. The great white hope remains 2nd line NSCLC where we absolutely need outstanding results vs. historical results. If we nail this one with a JV partner in hand, then we're off to the races.
We CANNOT be solo on a phase 3 trial w/o an AA. For bridge financing I believe the discussion must focus on a collateralized AVID deal. That's all we have in our quiver right now assuming that the partnering process moves deliberately but slowly. On the napkin, I would pencil in a number close to 20M. Seems doable given its revenue and GPM momentum. To execute that transaction, Co. must beef up the BOD and must pursue any cost cutting that can be tolerated (that means temporary salary cuts). In addition, I repeat my opinion that a Pharma veteran with negotiating skills as well as broad and deep operations skills be hired ASAP. This would provide confidence to any entity that would take a serious interest in the AVID proposal.
SK should be "elevated" to chairman and named chief scientist or any other title that would provide a proper profile. To sum up, I think that the Lifetech "withdrawl" has provided the trigger for the BOD and mgt. to set in motion a new strategy that can work to prevent destructive stock dilution and reorganize the management structure with true professionals armed with a clarity of purpose and key objectives to properly exploit the science of PPHM without destroying the underpinnings of the corporate structure.
Yes, I truly believe that Lifetech has opened our eyes that a critical inflection point MUST be reached in the near future with CHANGE being the name of this serious game. To sit around and criticize Lifetech is a complete waste of time. HOPEFULLY, the BOD and mgt. get it. Woeful mistakes have been made by this team in attempting to build a significant biotech co., but it is not too late to allow this Phoenix to rise from the uncomfortable nearby ashes and gain some lift under its wings. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE! Until proven otherwise, the science platforms continue to display unusual promise. Best XX
Hello jonny, I just had the chance to take a look at the Life Tech announcement - and, thinking about their long, as well as recently expressed, positive opinions, I have to concur with many on the board that anything they say at this juncture should clearly be taken with a very large grain of salt. However, in regards the short term outlook for Cotara - their statement is interesting in that it does appear that they do indeed agree with my contention that the near term milestone of a Phase III with a partner is imminent - {which of course makes the timing of their announcement completely inexplicable} - see below:
"Finally, as Peregrine continues discussions with the FDA on a Phase III trial design for Cotara® (which we expect to be concluded relatively soon), we are not confident an upfront payment by a potential partner will be enough to materially change the projected cash outlook for the company in the near-term. We feel similarly toward Peregrine’s HCV program as well."
So they think a deal is imminent - which also concurs with their timeline CJ posted yesterday - and a partner is likely to follow with upfront cash. So they do indeed expect a deal - and their only concern is that the amount of the upfront cash MIGHT NOT BE significant enough to materially change PPHM's cash outlook - whatever that means. So a "relatively soon" deal with upfront cash, and a promise to fund a two year trial will, at least in Life Tech's universe, only merit a stock price target of 50 cents !!! Are these people completely NUTS ??? It would appear so.
Moving back to reality - I return to my original question from several days ago - which was what would be the likely impact to the share price if the exact near term circumstances they envision actually take place? Of course, all the variables RRdog mentioned in response to my post - which CJ deemed interesting enough to post above - will determine the ultimate trajectory of the move - with the amount of upfront cash being just one, but nonetheless a very important, factor.
But bottom line - and looking at our current market cap of 44 million - it would seem a real deal, with a real company, with real upfront cash, and with a real - and fully funded - Phase III preparing to initiate, that a very significant improvement in that cap could rightly - AND LOGICALLY - be expected. And of course that's only milestone #1 in a long and unfolding list - the next of course being the unblinding of the second line cancer trial within the next two months or so.
So jonny, I'm guess you could fairly say I'm optimistic at this point - however I must admit that I NEVER expected that the wait would be this long.
And yes, Mr. Frustrated, I do believe we're just about there. : )
Enjoy your weekend everyone.
James
Rocker, thanks for your post - We've been hearing much the same thing. And it still appears that Cotara will be first - and, depending on the variables RRdog recently mentioned, the resulting price move should be anywhere from quite significant to explosive. I'll be happy with either.
Re "retail" being behind the present nose dive in the stock price - I guess I'll have to STRENUOUSLY disagree with Chris on this point. This is most certainly NOT a retail driven move. As to who is pulling the strings so to speak - I guess we all have our theories - but it appears the strings {or at least a few of them} may finally be cut sometime within the next couple of months.
Enjoy your afternoon.
James
Geo, thanks for your post - but unfortunately your analogy has nothing to do with our reality - nice sports story though. Sounds like it would make for a good movie.
Take care.
James
until2000, you're absolutely correct - no one on the board - with the exception of a few small peeps (hang in there FTM) is talking up the stock right now. But there sure is an overwhelming negativity running wild in the other direction. Hard to understand why when some very significant and most likely quite positive milestones are now coming into view.
So I'm still sticking with Garnick, Thorpe et al and will wait along with FTM to see what the next couple of months bring. I don't think I'll be disappointed.
Have a good day everyone.
James
Well, I just got home from a long day and took a look at the Board over a salad. And it appears my optimism for PPHM's short term horizon is not being received too well. So I remain puzzled by this state of affairs as it appears several "significant" milestones could be reached in the very near future - any one of which would make the stock price soar - at least on a percentage basis anyway. So while I certainly support everyone's right to their opinions, I must admit that the vehemence of the negativity expressed herein is hard to understand. And some of the statements - such as the following - make me wonder why those harboring such feelings would continue to hold the stock.
Please pardon my use of caps below - but I thought they would make it easier to differentiate the excerpted statements from my commentary afterword.
"James - we've spoken about Cotara Ph 3/FDA pathway agreement, the 2nd line unblinding ad nauseum...it's all been talked about to death." REALLY ??
"And the market - which is usually RIGHT - seems to think PPHM has NOTHING and is valuing it's IP at that exact amount. Actually, LESS than nothing. LESS THAN NOTHING ? ARE YOU SERIOUS?
"You don't get it James! Mgmt has no credibility now." NONE AT ALL - NOT EVEN GARNICK OR ALL THE OTHER "STELLAR" HIRES OF THE PAST YEAR?
"Almost an 11 month delay and stock at 46 cents! You need to stop." NOT SURE WHERE YOU GET THE 11 MONTHS - BUT SEEING AS DR. GARNICK "KNOWS WHEN TO KILL A PROJECT" AND HE HASN'T - AND HAS EVEN RECENTLY EXPRESSED CLEAR OPTIMISM RE HIS ONGOING DISCUSSIONS WITH THE FDA - I ONCE AGAIN DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU COULD POSSIBLY SAY THAT A PHASE III APPROVAL IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN - AND MOST LIKELY HAPPEN VERY SOON. YOU ALSO SAY I "NEED TO STOP." I'VE POSTED THREE TIMES IN THE LAST FIVE DAYS OR SO - AND EXPRESSED CONCERN AS WELL AS OPTIMISM RE THE COTARA PROGRAM. SO ONCE AGAIN - YOUR STATEMENT LEAVES ME AT A COMPLETE LOSS.
"No one is listening to the propangada anymore." PROPAGANDA ?? - A QUESTION RE THE POSSIBLE IMPACT OF WHAT MAY BE AN IMMINENT PHASE III APPROVAL IS PROPAGANDA? ONCE AGAIN, YOU LEAVE ME PUZZLED.
"That's what happens when mgmt lies and produces nothing after all these years. All imo." PRETTY STRONG WORDS - AND VERY UNFORTUNATE THAT YOU WOULD CHOOSE TO CHARACTERIZE MANAGEMENT AS LIARS. IN THE LONG RUN THEY MAY OR MAY NOT SUCCEED - BUT IN NO WAY WILL IT BE FOR LACK OF HONEST EFFORT - SO PERHAPS YOU SHOULD RETHINK THE PROPRIETY OF MAKING SUCH INFLAMMATORY STATEMENTS. AND FINALLY, SAYING THEY HAVE PRODUCED "NOTHING AFTER ALL THESE YEARS" IS JUST FLAT WRONG. THE SCIENCE HAS PROGRESSED IN LEAPS AND BOUNDS OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS. AND IN MY OPINION - AND THAT OF MANY OTHERS ON THE BOARD AND ELSEWHERE - TREMENDOUS VALUE IS INDEED BEING BUILT.
ONE LAST THING WE SHOULD ALL REMEMBER WHEN WE REVIEW OR DISCUSS THE RESULTS OF EACH TRIAL - THERE IS A PERSON BEHIND EACH NUMBER - AND MANY OF THEM ARE SEVERELY ILL AND WILL LIKELY DIE IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE. SO I WOULD HOPE EVERYONE WOULD KEEP THIS IN MIND AS THEY COMMENT ON THE NEAR AND LONG TERM PROSPECTS FOR PPHM - AND I FOR ONE WILL HOPE - NOT ONLY FOR MY FINANCIAL GAIN - BUT MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY FOR THE HEALTH AND LIVES OF THOSE WHO WOULD BENEFIT FROM PPHM'S SUCCESS - THAT MY OPTIMISM IS INDEED WARRANTED.
ENJOY THE REST OF THE EVENING.
JAMES
RRdog, thank you for your reply - Your thoughtful responses are always much appreciated by all.
I very much agree with your home selling analogy - however, the point of my post was not to focus on any specific market cap that may or may not be achieved as a result of a Cotara deal - so I'm sorry I phrased it that way - but rather to turn the current moribund discussion on its head. As you mentioned, we have the best "regulatory tactician in the world" working diligently on our behalf with the FDA - so the prospect of an approval with favorable protocols - and a possible SPA - is quite high in my opinion. Of course a partner is still a wild card - but our brilliant tactician is also well aware of this as well - and, as you stated in your post, "is not given to working on waste of time projects." So I have to believe that prospective partners are indeed already involved - and a successful Phase III application will likely bring with it the partner that completes the package.
I also concur with your "value trap" analogy. PPHM has been pounded by ????????? for a very long time now - such that our current $50 Million market cap now likely represents a discounted value for Avid as a stand alone entity - with our entire IP portfolio being valued at less than zero !!! - which as we both agree is a complete absurdity. But that's how the "market" : ( works these days - so I guess we'll just have to live with it - at least for a little while longer.
But back to the point of my first post - with all the foregoing in mind, and having good reason to believe that "negotiations" with the FDA should be winding up in the very near term, I therefore find it quite puzzling that no one on the board seems to be remotely interested in talking about what may be just around the corner.
Of course, you are correct in stressing that the magnitude of any resulting price move will be directly correlated with all the variables you mention - but nonetheless, the price will move substantially on the news. And finally, while a Cotara Phase III approval will indeed be an exciting moment for PPHM, it will likely pail in comparison to the impact of a positive result being achieved in the 2nd line lung cancer trial - which, as we all know, will be unblinded sometime within the next two months.
So - exciting times ahead or total disaster. Take your pick. I'm going with exciting times. FINALLY !!!
Have a great day everyone.
James
Robert, you concluded your last post with the following"
"I think by EOY we'll know if there will be any happy investors in PPHM."
I think it has to be well before EOY for the happiness to start flowing for PPHM investors - because if not - the amount of dilution required to keep the old boat afloat will likely make it next to impossible for any current investors to be "happy."
So I'd have to change the time line to the next three months or so to see some real smiles start to develop. And I think there is a good chance those smiles will be quite broad - and will likely be initiated by a near term Phase III approval and partnering announcement {$$$$} for Cotara - which should then be followed up by the unblinding and release of hopefully impressive results {see a previous FTM post for his prediction} from our 2nd line cancer trial - which could lead to a possible AA - or more likely, a partnered Phase III - either of which means more $$$$ and a much higher share price well before EOY.
A question for the board - right now PPHM is absurdly valued at approximately $50 million. Just for the sake of discussion - assuming we have a Cotara Phase III approval with a partner who provides upfront cash of say $30 Million, and of course agrees to underwrite the costs of the two year trial Dr. Garnick has envisioned - what would be a fair market cap for PPHM after announcement of these milestones?
Enjoy the rest of your day.
James
Well, I just checked back in to see what kind of responses may have been posted about my questions yesterday regarding the probable impact of a Phase III Cotara approval, with or without an SPA, and with or without an announced partner - and what a surprise! With the exception of one nonsense response - nothing : (
In light of the current share price - and with a prospective Phase III approval being the most likely near term major event in the offing - one would think this would be a hot topic.
Enjoy the rest of your day.
James
RRdog, thanks for all your great posts - it makes checking in on this board every once in a while quite worthwhile. A couple questions re Cotara:
1. Are we certain that PPHM will be given a green light to do a Phase III? The current delay does give one pause.
2.However, assuming a Phase III is granted, do you believe an SPA will be attached?
3.Assuming the Phase III is granted - with or without the SPA - do you believe a partner is still likely - or will PPHM be in the same position they were 10 years ago when a Phase III was granted? - with no moneyed partner to take it forward?
Assuming #1 is announced anytime soon - what kind of market reaction would you expect?
Now add #2 to the mix - and where are we?
Now add #3 to the scenario - and a high profile partner steps up with substantial upfront cash - then where are we?
And one last question - assuming a Phase III is granted - with an SPA attached - how much upfront cash would you think PPHM could reasonably expect to see?
And finally - where do you think these stair step events would take the share price?
Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
Good luck all.
James
To all, just a quick question,
What would sentiment be, not to mention the share price, if the SOC numbers had simply been more congruent with historical norms? Would the front line data then have been interpreted in a much more positive light?
It does seem that all those on the CC had some trouble with the SOC numbers - as well as multiple posters here (special thanks to FTM). So it appears PPHM may have simply been the unlucky recipient of an anomalous SOC result - which would lead me to concur with RRdog in that a reversion to the mean should be expected.
Enjoy the rest of your day.
James
jonny - I just noticed your recent post which ends with your statement that PPHM appears to be "Targeted for destruction."
Well lets hope not.
Yesterday I posted a comment followed by a question regarding the apparent disconnect between the share price and the ever increasing quality of institutions now stepping up - most notably Ayer Capital with over two million shares added as of 9/30/11 - not to mention the 250k shares recently added by none other than Goldman Sachs - and who knows how many more shares may have been purchased by Ayers, Goldman, etc. over the past six weeks - I seem to recall KT recently making a case for active accumulation going on - and the reported numbers and significant volume over the past several weeks would seem to support his view.
So on Friday I asked for comments regarding this conundrum. I notice you - as well as many others who harbor serious doubts about the PPHM prognosis - didn't respond to my query - so I thought you all might like another chance.
I'll look forward to the discussion. My post, in relevant part, from Friday follows. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
James
"Happy Friday everyone - just a question for the board. It seems the general tenor of most of the recent postings could be charitably described as exhibiting a mostly negative slant. Of course, with the stock price in the tank, I guess this should be expected. But if things are actually as bad as the stock price - and it's continuing decent - could reasonably lead one to believe, then why are institutions like Ayer Capital stepping up now? Based on just a few of the posts that followed the Ayer announcement on this thread {see below}, it does appear that the good Dr. V may actually know a thing or two about investing. We concur, he does. So what's with this glaring disconnect?
Clearly, Dr. V does not plan to loose money here - I think we can all agree on that - and, if our DD is correct, he would not become involved with a company such as PPHM until he believed the time was right and the upside potential was clearly visible and substantial.
So . . . . what's really going on here?
I'll welcome your comments."
Happy Friday everyone - just a question for the board. It seems the general tenor of most of the recent postings could be charitably described as exhibiting a mostly negative slant. Of course, with the stock price in the tank, I guess this should be expected. But if things are actually as bad as the stock price - and it's continuing decent - could reasonably lead one to believe, then why are institutions like Ayer Capital stepping up now? Based on just a few of the posts that followed the Ayer announcement on this thread {see below}, it does appear that the good Dr. V may actually know a thing or two about investing. We concur, he does. So what's with this glaring disconnect?
Clearly, Dr. V does not plan to loose money here - I think we can all agree on that - and, if our DD is correct, he would not become involved with a company such as PPHM until he believed the time was right and the upside potential was clearly visible and substantial.
So . . . . what's really going on here?
I'll welcome your comments.
James
PS - to RRdog - thanks for your insights - one of our old guard swears you may be the son he never had : )
From purpledawgs
"The Managing director of Ayer Capital is a doctor. So maybe he actually understands the science, and likes what he sees . . ."
From cheynew
"Very impressive credentials."
From RRdog
"This is a good "dig up" on Dr. V. He doesn't just have good credentials he has world class credentials and world class connections. One of the great "tells" in early stage investing is to watch the "feet" that move toward the subject company.
IMO Dr. V. would not make an investment in PPHM if he were not assured of a)survival and b)a reasonable exit strategy. Though again, the investment is not large to start with by institutional standards, the more important issue to a guy like Dr. V. will be his reputation.
Dr. V's network is as impressive as the Dr. himself. It is quite possible that there might be follow on to his 13 F filing. In addition, Dr. V. would be IMO in an ideal position to introduce PPHM to other medical entities he is close to should PPHM wish to divest itself of a technology like "imaging".
IMO it is unlikely that Dr. V. would buy into "me too" type technology in highly competitive fields populated by better connected and financed companies. Judging by his credentials he is too smart for that. IMO only it is more likely that he is interested in the "unique MOA" of PPHM tech. and the bigger picture.
Best Regards,
RRdog"
and one more from cheynew
"I'm not sure what Ayer's reporting requirements are. I'm glad they reported it, though. I like to know who's in this with us and the quality of the big investors. Ayer is clearly a step up from most. It's good to see Goldman and JP Morgan buying more too..."
Have a great day everyone.
Cheynew - Clarification accepted as to your intentions - but I think it's pretty clear that Terry was talking about much more than just the last guy hired - whom I'm sure is likely pretty special as well - so the LOL X 3 still seems quite appropriate.
At any rate - enjoy the rest of your Sunday.
James
Cheynew, this is first time - and the second time - and the third time - within seconds of each other - that I've actually had a LOL response to something Terry has posted - but I guess it had to happen eventually - I just didn't think it would be three times in ten seconds : )
In relevant part Terry posted "Pharmas lost over 56,000 jobs in 2009 and 50,000 in 2010 alone. Do the math. 295 biotech companies, over 100,000 jobs lost and posters think these Genentech people came over to Peregrine because of Garnick? They came because they were out of work and Peregrine was hiring. HERE IS WHERE THE FIRST LOL OCCURRED
My guess is they sent their resumes to every biotech or industry which had a use for their talents. SECOND LOL HERE
With this many people applying for work and so few vacancies anyone hiring has the pick of the litter. Like I said before. Nothing to do with Peregrine per sec. FINAL LOL HERE
Just the reality of the job market."
These were not "out of work" people. They are the cream of the crop - or, to use Terry's phrase, the pick of the litter. They go where they want to - not where they have to - just the same as Garnick.
Enjoy the rest of your weekend everyone.
James
West, nice to hear from you. We concur whole heartedly with your thinking. The enthusiasm and sense of excitement among all the new hires is thrilling - they seem to believe that they may be getting in on the ground floor "again" if you know what I mean. :)
Still long and strong.
Have a great day.
James
pphmtoolong, re your statement: "I just hope all the recently hired talent knew what they were doing when they signed on with Peregrine."
They do :)
Have an enjoyable 4th everyone.
James
A question re Avid - I see the new addition of Leslie Mintzmyer - looks like a fine addition to the Avid team. But what happened to Truc Le??
Littlefunds, I agree that it's not the time to be selling. However, I tend to disagree with you that the "insiders" are the only ones who "know what's going on." I don't know much about Dart - except that he's been very successful in the past. But I do know a great deal about BlackRock - the most important of which is the extent of DD they do before taking any kind of substantial position. So, for me, their 13G filing spoke volumes about what they think they know about this little company.
I also believe that it's quite likely that we will be seeing more 13G's in the very near future. So I'm not so sure that your statement regarding insider buying is that relevant - as they all have substantial options in place and will do quite well when this little company finally launches.
JamesGMS
Names of reporting persons: BlackRock, Inc.
(9) Aggregate amount beneficially owned: 3,597,861
(11) Percent of class represented: 5.63%
Sunstar, you posted,
"Chevy, the dollar is just the first milepost, because of the science. We may suggest that there will be sellers at a buck, and we may suggest that there will be buyers at a buck: and $TWO, and..."
and three, and four and ten and .... "
Just thought I'd add some clarity here. Insurance is a very good thing.
Happy a wonderful 4th everyone.
James
Very interesting and "pertinent" article.
James
An Introduction To Naked Short Selling - National Coalition Against Naked Short Selling - Failing to Deliver
An Introduction To Naked Short Selling - Failing To Deliver (FTD) *
Naked Short Selling / Failing to Deliver
Naked short selling occurs when a seller sells a share of stock, and then fails to deliver it. In a legitimate short sale, the seller first borrows a share of stock, and THEN sells it, hoping to buy it at a lower price before he returns it to the lender, his profit being the difference between the sale price, and his later buy price. It is a bet on a price decline, and legal as described. Sell high, buy low.
A naked short sale is a manipulative trading technique. It takes advantage of a structural deficiency in the system that allows a transaction to occur, and all moneys to be paid, before delivery occurs. So a transaction goes by on the tape - a sale - and it is processed, and has an effect on the price of the stock, but the delivery portion of the transaction is left for days later. Meanwhile, the depressive effect of thousands of these sales extracts it toll on the price - the naked sales are still sales, and are treated as legitimate by the system. At some point after the checks have been cashed and the commissions distributed and the fees paid, the share never shows up.
Illegal In Most Instances
Naked short selling is illegal as described - it can be legal in certain limited circumstances: for a market maker that needs to provide shares in a fast moving market for a thinly traded security, but in that instance it will buy the share back a few cents below where it sold it - Sell at $4.20, buy at $4,00 - which is part of legitimate market making. Or an options market maker will do so to hedge its sale of put options. These are legal, limited-time frame exceptions. All other instances are illegal.
The industry term for a naked short sale is a Fail to Deliver (FTD), because the seller fails to deliver. The FTD is handled by the clearing and settlement system (the DTCC, a for-profit company wholly owned by Wall Street - the brokers) in two ways:
1) The stock borrow program at the NSCC (a subsidiary of the DTCC) enables that entity to borrow shares from an anonymous pool, and effect delivery to the buyer. The NSCC then creates a debit in the seller's account, and holds the cash from the sale (minus commissions, of course) as collateral. It charges a fee to do that, and the program was designed to accommodate "temporary" delivery failures - but has been abused over the years, as "temporary" has no fixed definition, and some unscrupulous hedge funds think "temporary" means years.
2) The non-CNS (Continuous Net Settlement) system, or ex-clearing (ex- meaning outside of) system, which allows the NSCC to handle the cash for the brokers and pay everyone, but leaves the delivery portion of the transaction outside of the system, between the two brokers, on the honor system. The brokers ALL have a ledger in their back offices where they keep track of the IOU's from each other, and this has resulted over time in a ghost, or phantom, float of electronic book entries in the system, with no stock existent to support the transactions - just IOU's.
The DTCC reports that the FTD problem amounts to $6 billion a day, marked to market. It is unclear whether that includes the ex-clearing transactions or not - the language used is ambiguous, and allows for
different interpretations. Many have asked for clarification, and none has been offered - the DTCC doesn't like to talk about this, to anyone, including the regulators.
Critics of the DTCC charge that the Stock Borrow Program creates more book entries/FTD's/IOU's than there are shares of stock issued, which the DTCC has denied in carefully parsed language that actually doesn't deny the direct accusation. These critics maintain that the lending pool is replenished as shares are borrowed, delivered to the buyer's broker, then put right back into the pool by the new broker to be lent out again, thereby giving birth to IOU after IOU. The DTCC carefully argues that it never lends more shares than there are in customer accounts. This is technically true, as Lender A's account has no share in it once it is lent to Buyer B, but when Buyer B re-deposits the lent share into his DTCC account, available for loan, it then gets lent to Buyer C, leaving a nice little trail of IOU's as it worms its way through the system. The DTCC never addresses this, and instead answers questions that weren't asked, in the best tradition of politicians and bureaucrats everywhere.
The DTCC has said that only 20% of the transactions are handled via the Stock Borrow Program. That leaves the question of how the remaining 80% are handled. The answer is via the ex-clearing system.
How can the SEC allow this chronic failure to deliver to occur, creating a de facto phantom float of book entries/IOU's with no shares to support them? Aren't those in actuality counterfeit shares, falsely represented to the buyers as real? If they are treated by the system as equivalent to genuine shares for the purpose of creating a transaction, I would argue they are.
The system tells the buyer that all is well, and doesn't differentiate between a legitimately delivered share and an IOU. Thus, the buyer sees that he bought 1000 shares of ABC on his brokerage statement or on his screen - but there is no way of knowing how many are real shares and how many are IOU's without obtaining paper certificates, which cannot be counterfeited with the ease of an electronic book entry/tick/IOU. The brokers will tell you that of course there's shares there, or alternatively, that it is a non-issue, as the ticks can be sold at any time, getting the buyer's cash out of the trade. These explanations deliberately ignore that there is no attendant share to back up the IOU.
A share is a specific thing, a parcel of rights, from the issuing company. Among these rights are the right to vote, and the right to legal redress (you can sue them as an owner of the company), and the right to any dividends, cash or stock.
An electronic book entry without a share to back it up has none of these rights. The lack of differentiation between real shares and IOU's has resulted in a market where we are trading claims on shares, rather than genuine shares, and oftentimes there are many more claims than there are shares. That is not the way the market is supposed to work.
Systemic Problem of Critical Scope - Rule 17A Sought to Prevent ThisCongress mandated in Rule 17A of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act that our markets have prompt, accurate clearance and delivery. It reads, "The prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, including the transfer of record ownership and the safeguarding of securities and funds related thereto, are necessary for the protection of investors and persons facilitating transactions by and acting on behalf of investors.”
That seems pretty clear. BOTH clearing (booking the sale and paying for it) and settling (delivery) need to happen promptly, and further, the transfer of record ownership needs to occur. The rule makers understood the temptation to come up with a way to game this, so were clear on the necessary predicates. Clear AND Settle, including transfer of ownership.
FTD's violate that mandate. No record ownership is transferred on a stock share via an IOU. Further, none is transferred via a Stock Borrow Program "loaned" share - because if it were, then the lender would lose his ownership, which would be a sale, not a loan - so either the "loan" is a disguised sale in which record ownership IS transferred, in which case the NSCC appears to be deliberately disguising a sale by erroneously calling it a loan, or no record ownership is being transferred, in which case it violates 17A. Those are the only two choices. Neither is pretty, nor legal.
So how does the SEC allow this to go on?
They typically cite Addendum C of the NSCC's rules, which allows for the stock borrow program to loan stock to cover TEMPORARY settlement failures - the kind resulting from lost certificates. The "temporary"
caveat has been ignored, and it has instead become a long-term device to create an unlimited number of electronic book entries.
They also take the position that the ex-clearing transactions are the province of contract law, as the agreements to deliver are a contractual agreement, and the SEC doesn't mediate contractual disputes. A nice way to step out of the role of regulator of the markets, and create instant deniability. The NSCC takes the same position, leaving things up to the brokers, on the honor system.
So the back offices create an unknown number of IOU's, predictably resulting in depressed prices for the afflicted securities, and the regulators say it isn't any of their business.
Systemic Risk
Because of this unbridled FTD manufacturing, a tremendous contingent liability for the industry has been created over time, as the large float of FTD's represents stock that needs to be bought back at some point in the future, but for which there is no guarantee that stock is readily available. In some instances there are reports of companies where FTD's represent multiples of the issued genuine shares.
The collateral used to secure the FTD at the NSCC is cash, but it is marked to market against the price of the stock at the end of the day, and any overage is available to the seller. This means that if the FTD was created at $20 per share, and the stock has been run down to $5 per share, the seller gets to withdraw the $15 dollar difference. This creates a dangerous situation where the system is hopelessly under-collateralized for the true risk - the shares will cost far more than their current depressed price to cover, as the depressed price is often a function of massive selling of FTD's. This is the contingent liability risk. It is likely considerable, and is ignored by the system.
This risk creates a situation where the brokerage community has a vested interest in seeing the prices of victim companies stay down once they are down, as their best customers (hedge funds) have taken out the over-collateralization dollars over the years from the FTD's, and used them to collateralize other securities - many times, more FTD's.
The most obvious way to keep the price depressed and enable everyone
to continue to make money is to issue more FTD's whenever the price of a victim security starts to rise. This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of chronic price manipulation via the issuance of FTD's.
It is likely that there is a severe leverage crisis with the hedge funds that use FTD's, as they have used borrowed funds to collateralize the initial FTD, and then used the over-collateralization to create yet more FTD's. If one of these funds was to unwind it could vaporize the assets of the fund involved virtually overnight, and create yet more systemic problems for other hedge funds as their positions rise in value, triggering more de-leveraging.
It is the classic derivative risk de-leveraging scenario wherein one or two larger funds can cause a meltdown, a la Long Term Capital Management (LTCM) in 1998, where one highly leveraged hedge fund with $2.2 billion in assets caused the entire US credit markets to shut down. LTCM was not naked short selling - they are mentioned to illustrate how one leveraged fund can endanger an entire market.
The SEC is likely aware of this risk, as it heretofore inexplicably violated SEC Rule 17A, and grandfathered in all FTD's prior to 2005, even though long term FTD's were illegal for many years prior to that date, and even though it is in violation of their Congressional mandate. Further, and perhaps more disturbing, the grandfathering rules grandfathers current FTD's below the threshold once a stock hits the Reg SHO Threshold list - market manipulators still get one free bite of the apple even on new SHO entrants - all the fails up until the company lands on the list are inexplicably grandfathered as well, even if they happened today. Wild? It's fact.
SEC Forgives Past Larceny With No Penalty - Why?
Why would the SEC grandfather all prior fails, as well as current fails below the threshold, and knowingly violate their Congressional mandate? It is akin to allowing bank robbers keep the proceeds of all prior bank robberies. There are two logical explanations available to us:
1) The SEC knows about the systemic risk FTD's cause, it is terrified of the implications, and it wanted to, at the stroke of a pen, eliminate that risk from the system, even if it violated the law and was at the expense of shareholders who had been financially decimated by the practice.
A choice was made to allow the brokers and hedge funds to keep the proceeds of their ill-gotten gains, and not require them to ever buy in the shares they had printed whole cloth.
The SEC admits it, in their own bureaucrat-ese. From the February, 2005 Euromoney article on the controversy:
The SEC's Brigagliano says the commission made a choice. "We were concerned about generating volatility where there were large pre-existing open positions, and we wanted to start afresh with new regulation, not re-write history."
Substitute the words "not enforce existing, decade-old laws" for "not re-write history" and you have the plain English version. The SEC violated 17A, knowingly, because they were worried about causing "volatility" - SEC-speak for short squeezes, where stocks with millions of FTD's go through the roof as they are bought in - essentially a return of capital to those damaged by the FTD's, as their cash is returned to them, in return for selling their genuine shares. That would be the fair way equitable markets would work - those who had made untold billions using FTD's would have to pay most or all of it back in short squeezes, as legitimate supply and demand are returned to an unbalanced market (because of the current artificial supply of FTD's).
The SEC was apparently so concerned about that "volatility", that their solution was to give the violators a free pass, and allow the damaged shareholders and companies to remain damaged in perpetuity, never settling nor having record ownership transferred. This decision underscores the likelihood that the SEC understands the systemic risk years of FTD creation have created, and will go to great lengths to avoid triggering an event that would cause the violators to have to settle the trades.
A more cynical interpretation is that the SEC didn't want to cause undue financial hardship for the more politically and financially important violators (the violators would likely be both, as they had years of selling non-existent shares with which to build and solidify their financial importance - and to spread the wealth by supporting their elected officials with contributions), choosing instead to lock in the industry's illegally generated profits, rather than have the violators pay it back - the SEC favored the hedge funds and brokers that had violated the law, over the shareholders and companies that had been brutalized by the practice.
2) The far more ominous logical explanation is that the SEC grandfathered not out of concern for the system, but rather to limit its own liability under the law - that after years of permitting felony short selling/securities fraud manipulation, the SEC ultimately came to realize that it had committed collateral crimes, and could be held accountable - as accessories to the felonies. This explanation posits that in passing Regulation SHO, the SEC wasn’t just grandfathering the previous illegal short selling to protect the short sellers, but rather it was, much more importantly, protecting the SEC itself. And it focused the ire of the victims on the rule violators who financially benefitted, rather than upon the regulator that had permitted the felonious activity for years.
The legal argument would go like this (simplified): The felony committed and suborned in this situation is USC 18, Title 514, the commission of counterfeiting of a commercial security, a Class B Federal Felony. By permitting this felony to be an endemic part of the modern market system, and by knowingly failing to enforce rules designed to prevent counterfeiting of a commercial security, the SEC aided and abetted those who have done so, subjecting it to risk of civil and criminal redress. The permission of a large float of FTD's to be part of the markets is a de facto permission of counterfeiting (wherein the bogus IOU/Markers are represented as and have the effect of legitimate stock shares, on the auction price of the security as well as on the long term size of the float), and thus creates an accessory risk for the Commission. Arguments have been advanced that, as in the Elgindy case, naked short selling was used for money laundering for Middle Eastern arms dealers, thus constituting treason during a time of war (according to the Patriot Act), a Class A Felony - that the Commission was ignorant of the outcome of its permitting the counterfeiting does not absolve it of the legal jeopardy arising from that outcome, any more than the driver of a getaway car in a bank robbery is absolved of the murder of a teller during the robbery - even though he was ignorant of the ultimate crime committed. That is not how the law works.
Note that I take no position as to the likelihood of this second explanation being correct. It is a credible explanation advanced by several experts familiar with the legal ramifications of allowing FTD's to remain in the system in perpetuity, and failing to enforce rules designed to stop larcenous action, nothing more.
FWIW, it is far more likely that the SEC folks understand that upon retirement they will receive $700 per hour jobs with top law firms representing Wall Street, and that knowing this they are much more likely to favor Wall Street's interests. Most agencies of the Government have the conceit that comes from unbridled power, and it is hard to imagine Federal employees actually afraid of liability for anything. Thus, the second explanation is a hard one to swallow.
But whatever the motivation, charitable or cynical, you arrive at the same effective point: Years of lawless predation were pardoned (in violation of 17A's Congressional mandate), the profits kept by the criminals, with no penalty or sanctions imposed - leaving investors and the victimized companies out of luck, and money.
So what about now?
Since the new FTD rule was passed (Regulation SHO, for SHOrt) and went into effect January, 2005, more companies have gone onto the Threshold list (a list of companies whose FTD's exceed a "threshold" of 10,000 shares AND 1/2% of their total issued shares), and more FTD's have been created.
The industry can't help itself (and truthfully why would they?) - it is just too lucrative to ignore the un-enforced rules, and continue to manufacture IOU's. The systemic risk continues to build, and the regulators that hoped the industry would heal itself are left unwilling or unable to act - the imperative to create fair markets is clearly subordinate to pandering to the financial well being of the violators.
The DTCC and the SEC take the position that information about this crisis is proprietary and secret, and that our elected officials and companies and we shareholders have no need or right to know the true
parameters of the problem. The workings of the machine are opaque, and transparency is derided as an unnecessary invasion of the industry's privacy.
Again, the charitable explanation for this stance is because they want to avoid a potentially damaging meltdown (albeit of their own creation). The cynical explanation is that investors would riot in the streets or abandon the market if they understood what was being done to them, and would hold the SEC accountable for their role in it. Regardless of the explanation that one feels best explains the SEC and the DTCC's actions, what is unarguable is that the size, scope, and ongoing treatment of the crisis is top secret.
This is very much like the way the regulators handled the S&L crisis, allowing a large systemic problem to develop into a catastrophic systemic problem that wound up costing hundreds of billions of dollars, and every man, woman and child in the US about $2K in taxes. We are still paying for it today.
In that episode, the S&L's accounted for about a third of all the business Wall Street did in the 80's, and every big house stuffed the most larcenous of the S&L's with untold billions of junk bonds and options and precarious loans, knowing and understanding that the American taxpayer would ultimately have to pay the freight via secured deposits. Wall Street was assisted in this wholesale looting of the financial system by every major accounting firm in existence, and the most prominent attorneys in the country. Fraud of a mind boggling scale was perpetrated and perpetuated by that industry, and one of the primary beneficiaries was Wall Street, who that time also got to keep the money, laying off the blame on the S&L's.
This time around we have hedge funds comprising over 50% of Wall Street's action, and we as a nation seem to have learned nothing from our prior fleecing. One can't understand that catastrophe and not draw striking parallels to this situation.
In fact, the entire FTD crisis is very similar to the S&L crisis, in the sense that staggering amounts of money are in play, private interests are operating in an unregulated environment (hedge funds and ex-clearing), leverage is being employed to compound the risk, Wall Street wunderkind are making preposterous profits, phenomenally wealthy players are receiving preferential treatment even as they knowingly violate the law, Greenspan is saying that no restrictive regulation is required, the industry is protesting that there is no problem, and the entire affair is taking place shrouded in secrecy.
That didn't end well.
The above is simplified, and is conceptual, as in reality there is no single share followed through the system - there are debits and credits to participant accounts at the NSCC, which are netted against total long positions, further obfuscating the mechanisms. But the fundamentals are accurate, if lacking in a certain specificity that could fill volumes. Hopefully it is enough for the reader to grasp the issue and the scope thereof.
From "Symphony of Greed - Financial Terrorism and Super-Crime on Wall Street", by Bob O'Brien, in progress.
Good evening CJ, Seems I have a few folks here and in Europe who would like to take a close look at the recent CC notes. So not to be impatient, but would you expect to have the transcription finished anytime soon?
Thank you very much for your efforts. They are very much appreciated by all. Take care.
James
CS, you asked a few questions the other day as follows:
JAMES..............................................
I'd like to hear if you and your 'group' are happy with the performance of management. OF COURSE NOT - BUT NOT ALL THEIR FAULT - THEY HAD SOME SERIOUS HELP WITH THEIR RECENT MIS-MANAGEMENT.
If you are not happy with their performance, what are you guys doing (if anything)? STILL LONG - PICKED UP MORE AT THESE REDUCED LEVELS.
I'd also like to hear if you and your group are happy with the current stock price NO - BUT STILL EXPECT HANDSOME REWARDS FOR OUR PATIENCE - HAS TAKEN MUCH LONGER THAN WE HAD ANTICIPATED TO GET STOCK PRICE MOVING - BUT PLEASED WITH STATUS OF TRIALS AS THEY SHOULD PROVIDE VISIBILITY IN NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS - R&R MAY HELP - WE'RE STILL CHECKING. GROUP MAY EXPAND SOON - TWO LARGE BUYERS ARE WAITING IN THE WINGS - INSURANCE IS A GOOD THING.
and funding 'deal'? NO - TOO BAD GREED AND MANIPULATION PLAY SUCH A LARGE ROLE THESE DAYS - BUT IT GOES BOTH WAYS - AND WE FEEL THE TIDE IS TURNING.
Are you guys buyers, sellers, holders? SEE ABOVE
Are you guys submitting any stockholder proposals? NO
Have you guys contacted management YES
and have any info about the recent events that you can share with us? NOT AT PRESENT - HOWEVER, CC COULD PROVE ILLUMINATING
When do you see some return on your investment coming? IN THE NEXT 3 TO 12 MONTHS WE WOULD EXPECT TO RETURN TO A FULLY IN THE BLACK POSITION - HOWEVER, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SMALL TRADING OPPORTUNITIES, WE ARE HERE FOR THE LONG HAUL. NO CHANGE TO THE "HOME RUN" POTENTIAL HERE - IN FACT, AS SOMEONE HERE POSTED A WHILE BACK - THE CURRENT STATUS OF TRIALS PUTS PPHM IN A STRONGER POSITION THAN EVER BEFORE. IF RESULTS ARE AS GOOD AS WE EXPECT, AS MENTIONED ABOVE, THE TIDE WILL TURN. GREED IS GOOD - WELL, SORT OF.