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.
Great! That is what I was searching for. That is a very profound and bold position the company is taking. If it (current trial) succeeds, and (I imagine the FDA must approve?), this drastically reduces cost and time for getting this drug to market.
Good question. I honestly do not know. Just thinking about it; there maybe a rule where shares from firm A, can not be used for purchase from firm A, thus preventing a "vicious circle". Smarter people who know can chime in.
I share your sadness. Well, like I said in a previous post when AVXL was hitting highs, for every buyer, there is a seller. Corollary to that, now that we are heading in the opposite direction, for every seller, there is a buyer.
So there is that. Hope you and I and all longs get rewarded in due time. Until then, keep the faith.
Actually it not just AXON. If AVXL succeeds and becomes the new SOC, it will set the bar so high, it will be difficult for any biotech to overtake them and make money in this lucrative market. Oh and, billions in r/d from the also ran's go down the drain.
Could be. But I recall Dr. Missling mentioning that he was hoping to go into a P3 with as few as 100-300 patients. Does anyone recall this? I may very well be wrong.
I am guessing, they did. Check out the chart. The relatively flat move between 10:10AM and 2PM around the $7.00 mark. They shorted above $9 in pre-market and until 10AM they managed to hit their target $7 and began to "churn" and cover immediately thereafter. May have repeated just before the close.
NOTE: For the short hedge funds to succeed they must have some "inside" info that none of the major large funds are about to take a long position.
Yes they would. Think about this: if you owe $1.00 in your margin account, the broker has the right to loan your shares out, for any of your positions. Call your broker and see if this is not true. So, when people say they are "long and strong" and yet they owe money in a margin account, they are in fact long and weak. Of course the brokerages like this a lot, they make money from the borrower (who is short your long position) and from you.
You are right. I have said this before. The common folk and layperson can debate all they want on the internet.What is needed is an external (read "perceived" neutral) third party with some "authority" that can influence the average opinion. That is what moves the stock.
I can't emphasize enough people refrain from buying this type of stock on margin! I have used margin in the past but not with AVXL. Huge difference in psyche and calmness in the midst of such a huge sell-off. I have no problem holding until I see a need to sell. As a general rule never put yourself in a position where you can be forced to sell.
Very bullish if the data going forward confirms this in any significant way. Remains to be seen. But given that Aricept effect wears off after a few (6 months, I read somewhere), A2-73 improving over time would be astonishing.
Agree on margin. Not only can the brokerage's force you to sell, you allow them to loan your shares for shorting. Finally, going on margin, in my opinion, is a sign of impatience and lack of discipline. Not good characteristics for successful investing.
Fair enough. I too think Saturday will clear up a lot and hope there will be less ambiguity going forward. Personally, I feel good about what we will see because I never was on the "cure" bandwagon. Safety and improvement to the current standard of care is good enough for me and the minimum I want to see from the drug.
Like most, I am perplexed but the two versions of the abstract. Now, I have another interpretation and I would like you or others to comment.
First, assume there are no typos (i.e. 12 weeks was meant to be 12 weeks in the first abstract and 5 weeks was meant as 5 weeks)
So here is the first abstract concerning the MMSE:
In the secondary outcome endpoints preliminary analysis of data from subjects to date shows an average improvement of the MMSE score at week 12 in PART B (week 17 from baseline). A significant majority of all patients tested so far improved their respective MMSE score.
and here is the second or final one:
In the secondary outcome endpoints preliminary analysis of data from subjects shows an average improvement of the MMSE score at week 5. A majority of all patients tested so far improved their respective MMSE score.
Putting the two together, this is what I read: after 5 weeks the average MMSE showed improvement in the majority of patients. After 12 weeks, the average MMSE showed improvement in a significant majority of the patients.
In other words, the drug works better the longer it is taken. Comments?
The bears should stick to picking on Nell. LOL. Mentioning a couple of science buzzwords in support of a "short attack" ain't gonna do it in the long run.
Indeed. Getting "ticker" time on CNBC is no small feat. There are thousands of stocks and trades. It means the CNBC studio/producers/directors are aware of stock "movers and shakers".
Nothing about the drug working. But it would be a positive catalyst, from an authority. That is what I meant. An external authority, not people posting or opining on the internet.
Agree. Safety and proper dosage are major factors, as well.
Ultimately, I would like to see the FDA or some external authority, make positive comments about the drug or the trials. I mean, it's one thing for laymen or even experts debate, but an external authority (patent office, FDA, etc) speaks volumes.
Correct me if I am wrong, but MM's do not directly own shares. I am guessing the only time they have a say in the price is when a "market" order comes in. At that point a incoming "market" buy order is 1) matched to other "market" sell (asking) orders, or 2) an awaiting limit sell (asking) order. That gets recorded as the last traded price of the stock. It is at the discretion of the MM on how they want to parlay their temporary "ownership" of the stock. Absent of market orders, the price will not move.
Not claiming to know this as fact, but that is my educated guess on how this works. Appreciate any corrections.
Let's keep our feet grounded. For every buyer there is a seller.
BTW. I have done a Google search on the term "anavex". Past three days, this is my result:
121,000 -> 126,000 -> 142,000
So yea, word is getting out.
PS. Stock price projection using "value" metrics is pointless at this time. This is a supply vs demand issue. The supply is fixed/known and was reduced by the R/S. The demand will be driven by the data and media attention. At some point the "value" metric will become relevant, but not now.
Exactly why shorting is ultimately a lost cause. Keep the price down (by selling) while covering (by buying). That is the dilemma. The shorts will be fighting each other as well as any new investors.