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.
Well, I not an expert on this but I don't think that article you referenced is going to change things for NNVC at all. What matters to nanoviricides is what receptors on the cell surface the virus binds too. What protein the virus uses to breach the cell membrane and get inside isn't really relevant, as far as I can tell.
That's not too surprising for a stock that is currently on the pink sheets. I suspect we won't be seeing trades like that once NNVC is officially listed on the NYSE.
I'm pretty sure the NYSE did not get into the details of the science and try to figure out if nanoviricides really work and are safe to take. That's outside of their area of expertise. They look at the share price, and how much money NNVC has in the bank, make sure the financial reporting meets the standards, and so forth. Whether the company is likely to succeed or not is up to the investors to decide, its not the job of the NYSE to determine that. If the NYSE only listed biotech start ups they could be very confident would succeed they would only list those companies that had at least gotten through phase II trials.
But in that post nobody was complaining about the boosters saying the same things over and over. I merely pointed out that nobody was complaining about the boosters saying the same things over and over, which is not the same thing as complaining about the boosters saying the same things over and over.
Well, given the past performance of this company you're right -- there probably will be something else to complain about. Not right away -- I expect tox testing to take somewhat more than 6 months from when it starts, and I don't expect any news on the completion of the manufacturing facility until well into next year.
But NNVC is bound to find new ways to surprise us with delays.
Jeesh, if I comment on the slow progress towards clinical testing on a down day, I'm one of those bashers who only posts when the stock is down. And if I comment on the slow progress towards clinical testing on an up day, I am raining bleakness even on the sunniest of days. So is there any time when it is permissible for me to note that NNVC is on schedule for missing another one of their own deadlines?
The only problem is that NNVC has been "preparing materials for tox" for about 6 years now. There is starting to be a credibility gap.
Which post was that?
The boosters can say the same things over and over again and nobody ever complains about how they sound like broken records. If NNVC management wants me to shut up about tox tests all they have to do is announce that they've been started.
Who says they haven't started?
I would be delighted to see the day when NNVC management even has to worry about the issue of whether to do all the manufacturing themselves or license out part of it. Because that would mean that they have an approved drug to sell.
Tox studies for Flucide have been "on the way" for a long, long time. (They were first promised for the end of 2007.) The most recent schedule for tox testing is just the last in a long line of failed schedules. So the fact that this schedule looks likely to fail as well gives me legitimate cause for concern.
The construction part of the project seems to be on schedule and that is good news.
I see the reverse split and stock market listing as events of tertiary importance. Good news overall, but nowhere near as important as actually making progress towards clinical trials.
I see the tox trials as critical. I don't believe human trials will start until they are done. So that is why I keep hammering on them.
Thanks for your valuable insight in explaining why tox studies have been delayed for so long.
What was their explanation?
Well, when management gives a 6 month range (April 1 - September 30) for when tox studies will start, and we're in the last week of that range and tox studies haven't started yet, it's a reasonable assumption (albeit not a certainty) that something not previously anticipated is holding up the tox studies.
Nonsense. How many shares a company has has nothing to do with whether its likely to be a takeover target. Indeed, to the extent that the R/S succeeds with its intended goal of increasing the market cap of the company it will make a takeover less likely.
Actually, you made a statement of belief, and I responded with a question.
So far as I can tell, there is no basis for your speculation. NNVC's management has already stated that the toxicology will be done with nanoviricides produced in the current lab, not with nanoviricides from the manufacturing facility currently under construction. Again, it seems highly unlikely that tox would already have started without NNVC announcing the fact. After all, it is one of the key items on the path to human trials, so is of more direct relevance to NNVC's near term financial future than the latest petri dish results.
As for why NNVC hasn't started tox tests yet, I have no idea. It would be nice if management would explain what the problem is.
I believe batches of drug substance are continuously being produced, shipped and seamlessly the "Tox studies" have begun.
The broad stock market seems to live or die by the pronouncements of the Fed, which in my view just shows how artificial the whole thing really is.
But NNVC is about as uncorrelated with the broad market as a stock can be. NNVC's stock price will go up if management actually carries out their plan, no matter what the rest of the stock market does. NNVC's stock price will crash if management gets bogged down in another sequence of interminable delays, no matter what the rest of the stock market does.
The half empty glass also known as "facts".
My broker shows NNVC on the pink sheets now. I assume this has something to do with getting listed on a real exchange.
Large scale traders buy at the end of downtrends, when they can get large blocks of shares without driving the price up against themselves. They sell at the end of uptrends, when they can dispose of large blocks of shares without driving the price down against themselves. So we have no way to know whether we have dumb money selling a stock that will soon go to $10 or more, or whether we have smart money getting out while the getting is good, just before the stock bounces down from the top of its trading channel.
As many people sold as bought. So how do you know it isn't the sellers who know something?
Me, I think nobody doing the buying or selling knows any more than what's been publicly announced. So there's not much more to do than wait until October 1 and see who's right.
Actually, I doubt that even Dr. Boniuk can predict when tox studies are going to start. If Dr. Seymour can't predict that, why should Dr. Boniuk be able to?
When we start getting 10 million share trade days we will be closer to where we really belong.
Those purchases were not made today. And they were made at a significantly lower price than today's price.
The statement that garnered responses from Big K and Puffer was:
"I doubt that the people buying today have any better idea of when tox studies are actually going to start than we do."
I stand by that statement. I see no indication that the people buying today are insiders. Today's buyers can guess as well as you or I as to whether tox studies will start on time, but no better.
Me, I'll bet with the trend, so my prediction is that as of the morning of October 1, 2013 there will still be no indication of Flucide tox studies having begun.
That guy got in at 3.50 a share (plus warrants). He's not the one bidding the price up to 5.40.
What makes you think the people buying today are insiders?
If you look at stock market history you can see all sorts of instances where people threw vast heaps of money at stocks that blew up. I doubt that the people buying today have any better idea of when tox studies are actually going to start than we do.
All anybody really knows is:
NNVC said "tox starts in June, -2, +3 months". We are two weeks away from the end of that range.
NNVC has never met a deadline.
It's hard to think of a stock less correlated with the DOW than NNVC. So if they go up on the same day its pure coincidence.
For all those who tore out their hair over the reverse stock split, we're right back at the peak before the split (I divide by 3.50 and get a pre-split price of 1.52).
A stock split, whether forward or reverse, is logically a neutral operation. I'm waiting for the news that really matters. Like the start of the tox tests, now due in less than two weeks. I will be surprised if NNVC goes against its past record and gets this done in time.
It's not a red herring. Remember this whole series of posts was about why NNVC is too risky for the majority of institutional investors. Pioneers are the ones with the arrows in their back.
Yes, I am aware of that. And if NNVC had been a typical small molecule drug developer, none of that would have happened. Which is my point.
I never said there is no difference between leasing and buying. Obviously for a struggling start up whose cash flow is all going to come well in the future (if it comes at all) there are advantages to leasing. But the lease is a claim on future revenues of the company, which investors have to account for. It is an "expense" whether you like to think of it that way or not.
Yes, we do just have to agree to disagree. When I invest in a company I don't think, "Oh good, they have to spend money on something that other businesses in the same field don't have to spend money on! And better yet, they have to wait years for it, which other businesses in the same field don't have to wait for!"
Now yes, all this is because NNVC has radical technology, different from what those other drug start up companies have. That is why NNVC is more exciting than those other companies, and has a lot of blue sky potential, but is also why it is risky and not an obvious choice for a pension fund.
Somebody,... somewhere,.... somehow would have had to build, modify and/or design a production facility specialized enough to scale up production.
Somehow,... at some time,... somebody (directly, or later & indirectly) would have had to pay for this facility new, or to lease space and pay for modifications at another existing facility.
Going from small lab pilot-plant status - to realistic production plant status was eventually going to cost the company money. It was always going to cause a delay whether 'we' built one to specs ourselves, or paid to have somebody else's space modified for us and have them do the production runs.
Most drug development companies can outsource their drug manufacturing to reputable firms. They aren't made in somebody's garage.
I am not changing the subject. I referred to the expense of having to build a manufacturing facility. Somehow you believe that leasing it means that it isn't an expense. It just means that the expenses are amortized as a series of payments over time.
And the biggest expense is the time delay in having to have it built in the first place.
Not every business has to have the facilities it needs built from scratch. The fact is that the inability to outsource the manufacture of nanoviricides has added years of delay to the development of Flucide. The cost of that is enormous, and can't be measured simply in the lease payments for the new facility.