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.
What about the one at $5.75 from Nov 13-14?
Georgie, You also pumped the stock relentlessly while later claiming you sold everything at the high. Bot does seem likely.
It wasn’t due to contracting short positions, that is for certain.
The latest report is from 1/11 eod (1/13 settlement). SP was $10.80. It’s $10.79 now. There’s been no volume or price movement since 1/11 eod, so the chance that there is any appreciable difference in shares shorted to the present is nonexistent.
It’s not debatable: despite the downward pressure of millions of short shares flooding the market since CTAD (6M+), SP increased from 9ish to 11ish.
What could explain this? Dumb retail fell for the FUD, borrowed shares and sold them back to the borrower, whose relentless buying supported the SP…and in fact increased it 20%. Dumb retail is stuck. Meanwhile, smart $$ has increased their positions, paying as little as possible, all thanks to the organized barrage of misdirection following CTAD, and the subsequent help of dumb retail. Pretty ingenious by Big $$$ and set up by years and years of kneecapping any positive news releases.
Well, yeah, I mean the ticker, even in its depressed state, is up 200% since you started educating everyone. Add the loan borrowing rate over that period and we could be down several hundred % if we had heeded your advice. Now, imagine that was the only ticker we invested in/shorted…Thanks?
I can vouch for this poster. He's obviously a long, as evidenced by his first introduction to the forum linked below, and 3000+ posts in the five years since then. Please stop giving him a hard time, folks...he's dedicated his life to this ticker and provides the most astute, fair and balanced, non-repetititve DD. We should all be thanking him for his presence.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=137005891
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=137636348
Right. A perfect example is Celator (CPXX), which increased 1700% in 70 days following Phase 3 TLD, even though board skeptics would cite to the fact it was bought for only a 70% premium by Jazz Pharmaceuticals.
Those 2 ex-FDA officials, oft cited on this board, have been employed for several years yet haven’t demonstrated jack thus far. Sorry, but they aren’t getting anything across the line, and putting all of your faith in them is silly, as is ignoring the complexities and political realities of dealing with the FDA. Missling has the data, if it’s as good as touted, he will be able to find a mutually beneficial relationship with a BP. End of story. Stop worrying about getting ripped off. If the CEO is doing his job he’ll solicit several bids and make each BP more worried about losing the deal than overpaying.
P.S. Streeterville/Gold Coast/Viagra Triangle, not Lincoln Park.
Particularly if there is a Big Pharma like Roche or Pfizer spearheading the effort. Missling has resisted partnering prior to ALZ TLD to "maximize shareholder value." Well, now is the time. You don't go before the FDA on your own arguing that they should be flexible and grant AA. You employ the services of BP to make these arugments and use their powers of "persuasion."
Why would BP give you a sweetheart deal at this point? 1) The data is unpredently promising, albeit not a slam dunk approval atm 2) They rightfully belive they can get AA across the line, but even if not, they can fast track an efficient, almost 100% certain PM trial that will result in a blockbuster drug 3) If Missling is doing his job, there will be competition from several interest parties (i.e. Demand to partner >>> supply of 1 partnership, thus driving up cost to partner)
Many BPs have cash to burn, and this is a low, or at worst medium risk, earth shattering reward type of proposition
Anavex continuing to plod along and going in front of the FDA alone is the worst decision for Anavex, it's shareholders, prospective patients, and the quickest approval for the drug. Logic dictates you aggressively solicit bids (and it doesn't hurt to put it out there publicly), and select the best one. You then have the power and might of BP, and their well-compensated experts working for you. Meanwhile, with the generous upfront payment, and achievable milestone payments, you put a floor on SP several magnitudes above where it currently sits. Sure, you give up some future profits, but you greatly increase your chances of success. Everyone wins.
Is there evidence that -.5 ADAS-Cog and +3.5 ADCS-ADL were pre-specified thresholds? Is it entirely based on Missling from last Monday’s CC talking (mumbling) about the SAP? Obviously pre-specified thresholds would lend a lot more credence to the value of the data, but it would be nice if we had outside corroboration that they were pre-specified, such as on clintrials.gov. Also, it’d be nice to have the rationale for their selection, other than just “They’re clinically meaningful.”
Agree, completely! The more I think about the seemingly illogical events of the past week, I think the most logical explanation is we narrowly missed statistical significance for the overall pool for ADCS-ADL, but the company knew we flat-out nailed 50 mg. They could reasonably state we met the endpoints, but because of the late arriving data, they couldn't furnish the breakdowns in an acceptable fashion. In such a scenario, I wonder whether the company is sure we beat .025 or .05.
Also, I still think it was very bad PR (par for the course, unfortunately) not to just say what was happening. The detractors were always going to spin, and implications of fraud are far more damaging to the company's reputation/SP, then just saying "hey guys, we nailed the 50 mg (along with everything else), you just have to wait a bit." Missling needs to do much, much better. It's unacceptable for share price to be languishing after 4 positive readouts like the ones we've had. And it does matter and is an important part of his job. Increasing transparency, and doing so conservatively, would be a very good start toward that end. Delegating to high-level Anavex folks, whom are better at particular tasks than him (some outside communication, eg) would be another welcome change.
BTW, hitting statistical significance for the pooled data is no easy task when the overall patient pool have mild/moderate ALZ, and many of them are taking donepizil (and maybe just started taking it). The possibility that donepizil interferes with Blar could make it even more impressive. In retrospect, I wish there was one arm of donepizil and one or two (30/50 mg) of donepizil naive, Anavex dosed. But I suppose it would've been too difficult/time consuming to find 510 trialees who had never taken donepizil. I must say I'm looking forward to the data for the donepizil naive / Blar 50 mg patients (as I'm sure powerwalker is as well :)), though it won't be an overly large subset. It's one of those things where the Anavex results once approved may be far more impressive than the trials, simply because there will be more folks whom had never taken donepizil.
Since this is my last post today, I want to address a reply to another post of mine:
JKS3, you said "Your thesis is wrong in terms of the rest of the patients. That's where logistic regression comes in. The regression produced a p value of significance dictates the treatment arm did overall better than the placebo arm."
To be honest, I'm a little unsure what you're saying, unless you're confusing me for the assertion I was replying to, and disagreed with, which was as follows:
"Isn’t this a poor result? I mean claiming just 25 patients (8%) of you 340 did great can never be a basis of approval —- without talking about how badly the remaining 92% did. What if the remaining 92% did WORSE than placebo on ADCS-ADL?"
Response in 1 post, as I am post-restricted
Anshu2,
"Isn’t this a poor result? I mean claiming just 25 patients (8%) of you 340 did great can never be a basis of approval —- without talking about how badly the remaining 92% did. What if the remaining 92% did WORSE than placebo on ADCS-ADL?"
That's a very strange conclusion, unless you're hell-bent on being negative. +3.5 ADCS-ADL (clinically significant) is a threshold chosen by Anavex and is apples and oranges to -.5 ADAS-Cog (stabilitzation). Perhaps they abribitraily chose +3.5 as it happened to produce the eye-catching "167% more likely." Or maybe +3.5 is the accepted threshold for clinical significance for out patient profile. If they had chosen a similar ADCS-ADL as ADAS-Cog (say +.5 or some other value showing stabilitzation), the results very easily could have been substantially similar (i.e. 60 taking Blarcamasine, 18 taking Placebo (most of whom were on donepizil). In fact, I expect they were, but we just don't know and won't until the data is released.
Blarcamasine
"Is it possible that the FDA and Anavex have discussed the 30 mg and 50 mg separate trials and they can standalone. Yes they did pool the data to release the information they released but maybe there has been an agreement with the FDA that if either one or both trials pass they will approve. So if the 30 fails and the 50 passes we still get approval for the 50."
Yes, I think it's possible, and if the 50 mg are as good as many of us believe, and easily achieve statistical significance despite low "n," I think they have a great case for approval with a confirmatory study. Aducanumab was solely approved based on its higher dose. It had a much larger "n" (547) which is the only reason it achieved statistical significance, but the numbers still sucked, along with all the other negatives of administering Aducanumab. Get actual BP as a partner (Biogen is most decidedly mid-pharma), and they'll push it forward for us, assuming the results from 2A continue to hold to form (as they seemingly have thus far).
My bet is we don't need another phase 3 trial, but if we do, we'll have BP knocking down our door trying to partner up, we'll sign a lucrative agreement skyrocketing the SP, and they'll design and run a successful trial far more efficiently. Don't pay attention to the scaremongerering, and other promises of long, unnecessarily powered trials with a stagnating SP. It's all they have left at this point, so they'll push it non-stop, but this horsey is out of the barn.
Computing absolute numbers for ADAS-Cog and ADCS-ADL responders referenced on pages 19 & 20, Redux: I never drilled down the exact populations "n"s used on these pages for Blarcamasine/Placebo (Thanks much, Anavex). However, if these numbers are ANYWHERE CLOSE to 338 Blarcamasine/170 Placebo, the results below will be exceptionally close to those referred to by the company on pages 19 and 20. If the "n"s are closer to Doc's 277/152, then the results will still be close to those below, but require an adjustment of 1-5 downward, particularly in the number that received Blarcamasine.
I believe there were (or were very close to) 60 Blarcamesine and 18 Placebo to achieve -.5 on ACAS-Cog
I believe there were (or were very close to) 25 Blarcamesine and 5 Placebo to achieve +3.5 on ADCS-ADL
Plugging the above into the Odds Ratio Calculators, with populations in the vicinity of 338 Blar/170 Placebo will give Odds Ratios, P-Values and 95% CIs very close to those on pages 19 and 20.
Of note: I'm no expert, but achieving +3.5 (clinically meaningful) on the ADCS-ADL seems more difficult than -.5 (stabilization) on the ACAS-Cog, which would account for the smaller numbers of both Blar and Placebo for the former. Anavex picked the threshold numbers (and presumably did so with purpose), so I can't draw too many inferences, but obviously it does superficially look promising that Blar did "better" on the ADCS-ADL requirement (5x placebo, rather than 3.33x on ADAS-Cog) Again, this doesn't mean too much and is an apples to oranges comparison on the already incomplete information we were provided.
The 60 Blarcamasines that equalled or bested -.5 on ACAS-Cog, averaged a clinically meaningful -4.03 (contrast to placebo's overall +4.11), which is incredible, absolutely incredible. I don't know the definition of "super-responder," but if it equals clinically significant improvement from baseline, then those 60 folks had a good number of stabilizers as well as some "SUPER-DUPER-responders" to achieve that mean. Such a performance was likely integral in achieving the pooled p-value of .033. If form from 2A holds, the 50 mg numbers will be bonkers, and with an impressive p-value, despite halving n.
I would hope the management team & lawyers know not to play with the verbiage and mislead investors regarding the ADCS-ADL results, but even the most ardent believer must admit the data release was a bit cagey, and without a logical explanation given it predictably encouraged FUD and kneecapped the SP....again. If not for Missling and the PR's assurances, and working under the assumption that the company would want to pick a threshold for page 20 (+3.5 on ADCS-ADL) to put the treatment cohort in the best possible light, I'd say it's possible that the pooled results would be > .05, but I'd be absolutely shocked if it weren't very very very close. All you'd have to do is power it up a little bit, and it'd be a stone cold lock. But you probably wouldn't even have to do that as the 50 mg results are likely to be fantastic.
Even if you needed to run another trial (and I maintain that a BP partner could push these results through with our safety profile, ease of administration, and likely earth-shattering results on the other endpoints 50 mg dose), BP would fall over themselves bidding to partner for this kind of data. We'd double the amount of ihub AVXL millionaires the second the ink on that contract dried, even if we had to wait a couple years for approval. So zero need whatsoever to mislead. Got that, Chris?
Alternatively, if Missling and co saw the pooled results had a p-value of say .055, but a few quick calculations showed the 50 mg dose cohort would have no issues whatsoever besting the threshold despite the halved n, is it good faith for the company to then claim it met the ADCS-ADL endpoint with statistical significance? Or is that determination only made from the pooled treatment cohorts? Come to think of it, that might be the best explanation for this whole rigamarole.
Anyone know the reason to have co-primary endpoints? If the inclusion of a second means both NEED to be satisfied for approval, regardless of how overwhelmingly positive 1 of them is, it seems an unnecessarily higher burden to meet. Obviously we didn't know this when we started the trial, but the PDD trial pretty much guaranteed ADAS-Cog would be very good. Would that have been an FDA-sanctioned lone primary endpoint? If ADCS-ADL joined CDR-SB as a secondary endpoint, would either or both need to be met successfully for approval?
I reckon it's going to be nearly impossible to figure out the values unless there's a way to go backwards (i.e enter in 90/95 CIs, OR and P-value and get a set of possible values. With the specificity of the CIs, OR and P-value, and the fact that both measures need to have the same "n" values, it we had that kind of calculator, it might be pretty easy to figure out. Your CIs are certainly much closer than mine, but they're not exact and OR is still off by .01. Oh well, from the information I gleaned, ITT was calculated from the "n"s before randomization, so I thought, perhaps erroneously, that 170 and 338 would be correct.
Final post today.
Computing absolute numbers for ADAS-Cog and ADCS: I don't think you need to do distribution and regression to find the possible combinations of Blarcamesine/Placebo for slides 19 and 20 (-.5 on ADAS-Cog and +3.5 on ADCS-ADL) . Inspired by a post on ST yesterday, which linked the formula for odds ratio https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK431098/ , and also provided his results for ADAS-Cog, I verified his numbers and also did my own for ADCS-ADL. My method was as follows: Begin at 1 with placebo, and use the linked forumula to find the 2 corresponding Blarcamesine combos that sandwich the odds ratio. Then move up to 2 placebo, etc, and perform the same plug and chug computation (you figure out pretty quickly how to increase efficiency), until there was a direct hit (1.839 for ADAS-Cog and 2.67 for ADCS-ADL).
NOTE, AND THIS IS ESSENTIAL: Slides 19 and 20 state they reflect the ITT population. If slide 16 doesn't reflect the ITT population (Blar n=338, Placebo n=170), then my computations are essentially worthless.
The results are as such: There were no direct hits on ADAS-Cog -.5 until 38 placebo, 117 Blarcamesine. I stopped there, as I was more interested in ADCS-ADL given lack of information about reduction of decline, but the original poster said the next hit was at 77 Placebo, 204 Anavex. I think 38/117 is far more likely to be correct. For ADCS-ADL, the first hit was 12 Placebo, 57 Blarcamesine. The next was 19 Placebo, 85 Blarcamesine. I stopped at that point, as I had calculated/verified the "worst case scenarios" (ie the smallest, thus arguably the less compelling numbers) for ADAS-Cog and ADCS-ADL and was ecstatic with my findings. The eyeball test tells me this will easily achieve ALZ approval at some point, and if another P3 is required, Anavex should attract a lucrative partnership with Big Pharma, who will speed up the process up and add significant pull with the FDA. Ink the partnership before arguing for approval/P4 on the current data, and I think it's extremely likely, especially if the non-pooled data is as good as I and many others suspect it will be.
-.5 for ADAS-Cog and +3.5 for ADCS-ADL are somewhat arbitrarily chosen, and I'm sure they aren't chosen to place the effect of the drug in a bad light. That said, I think inferences can be made, especially by those with a lot of knowledge about the tests. My simplistic take is -.5 ADAS-Cog is more reflective of stabalizing the disease, whereas +3.5 ACDS-ADL is more reflective of "super-responders," which explains why there are likely far more of the former (especially Placebo). If our populations are expected to decline +4 or so on the ADAS-Cog/year, and decline -1.2 on ADCS-ADL (these are just numbers I've seen floated around), that simplistic take would make some sense. But even if -.5 improvement on ADAS-Cog is mostly just stabilizing, the stated Mean ADAS-Cog score improvement of -4.03 points (pg 19) for patients taking Blarcamesine is astounding.
TLDR: I can't wait to see the 50 mg breakdowns, they're going to be incredible.
Duncan’s PT was $16 and has been so for a good while.
MM sold 3000 call contracts today with a same-day expiration at $12. Of course they’re going to use their financial might to pin it to $12 eod
Indeed. After 4 successful readouts (each of which longs took considerable risk) including in ALZ, Missling has the SP lower than it was 7 years ago after the uplisting. No one said the data had to be released at CTAD. By putting this self-inflicted constraint, Missling and co muddied the waters and put together an unacceptable slide deck. I’ve suspected and voiced it for a while, he knows he has the goods and he’s doing this intentionally, and my suspicions continue to be corroborated at every subsequent event. He and the Board will be granted winter options at artificially suppressed strike prices as they have 1-2 x / yr the past 7. He loves his symbiotic relationship with short selling interests and the Fuerersteins of the world. They can both depend on each other. And guess what: he will never be held accountable because the Board are unjustly enriched and, more importantly, are mostly just his buddies.
Yeah, and what purpose would that serve? None, obviously. As one of the main “Missling is diluting” folks, I reckon I shouldn’t be surprised.
Powerwalker, I got the (approximately) 500,000 figure from the August 9 PR citing outstanding shares from June 30 (77,442,236) Regardless, even if we assume the worst of 500,000 dilution from June 30-November 28, that’s trivial and significantly less dilution than normal, despite Missling knowing the data for much of that time period. It’s impossible to spin that negatively.
I think you misunderstood my post. I said I’d be skeptical if the price was still $14 but Missling had diluted 5 million shares since June 30. Since that is not the case, I feel very positive.
Your cited 19k dilution is an even more bullish sign (in 3.5 months), so thanks for linking the 3Q 10-k. However, I should point out it doesn’t contradict my point, which was citing from June 30 (3rd Q fiscal report PR) as opposed to August 9 (10-K). Given the discrepancy, it seems Missling may have diluted 500,000 shares from June 30 to August 9. To me, that’s even more exciting as he responsibly diluted when the results were unknown, and has not diluted since. I seriously cannot think of a more bullish action, or lack thereof. Meanwhile, folks on here are confidently asserting that a SP decrease has some larger meaning, and others are terrified they’re right.
I find it revealing that some folks declare bad news or a data leak because of price action, or the fact that the Google Doc allegedly sold much of the shares he “owned,” while conveniently ignoring that the actual Doc has seen the results, knows the outside interest in the company, etc, and hasn’t sold jack. The doomsayers prior to yesterday’s Fiscal report/after hours 10-K asserted “no results while Missling secretly sells to Cantor before the floor drops out.” Not surprisingly, there was no follow-up after the 10-K revealed he’s only diluted 500,000 shares from June 30 through November 28. That’s significantly less than usual over the last couple years, and not even enough to pay for operating expenses over a 5 month period. If the results were garbage or even so-so, he’d be pumping and selling shares to Cantor.
I’d be skeptical as heck if Missling was talking a big game, and the share price was still $14+, yet he had sold 5 million shares since June 30. The fact that the opposite is extremely reassuring. And while Missling may be misjudging the market response to the data he’s about to reveal, he has a pretty good idea what makes good data and if he feels good about it and good about other things like PDD OLE and interest from prospective partners, who am I to argue? I’ve long contended that Missling’s words and promises should be taken with a giant grain of salt, but his actions do speak loudly.
No, it most certainly doesn’t. Missling’s ludicrous record in keeping timelines (including lying about near-term dates when trials aren’t even on the precipice of being fully enrolled) is a large reason for the general distrust by the market. With that comes the perpetually suppressed share price, lower strike prices for his options and ultimately enhanced gains when he exercises them if the company is even reasonably successful, as he and most of us shareholders believe it will be. I don’t subscribe to the cherry picking critique, but again, if it’s happening (even if he’s doing it gratuitously), it will suppress the share price, and Missling most certainly knows this. The unforgivably poor TLD PRs, the general lack of transparency by Missling, doing stuff like having an ER in the middle of a trading day to build false hope, etc have the same effect…ie Missling and the board gain (oh yeah, and the Fudsters like Fuererstein), while we and the company lose (through suppressed share price and dilution with worse terms). Hell, non-trading loyal longs have sat through and taken big risks for 3 successful TLD readouts and have nothing to show for it.
You’re a great, value-added poster, so I’ll never understand why you pick drawn out disagreements with other “good guys” like Steady and Hoskuld, especially over basically nothing.
When SPY (and other big indexes) plunged in early June, there was sector rotation and XBI and AVXL rocketed upwards. I’ll take a redux for certain, and it’s why I’m not particularly worried about broader market woes, and scare tactics thereof.
Clintrials dates are a joke and there doesn’t seem to be any effort by Anavex or their CRO to update accurately or in a timely fashion. Rather, they half-ass it after the fact. The PR for PDD completed enrollment was 1/27/20. 14 weeks after that was 5/4/2020. Build in 2 weeks on either side for washout and last visits and you’ve got 6/1/20. On 9/1/20 they changed clintrials to say the trial’s estimated ending was on 9/30/20 and on 10/19/20 they confirmed that as the actual trial ending. Seriously, wtf? The first bare-bones PR for positive results was 10/15/20 (19.5 weeks later and before they updated clintrials) and they presented at CTAD on 11/6/20.
It’s hard to use PDD to gauge potential dates for ALZ TLD, but if they do end up being similar we’re talking first TLD PR around the last week of October
Missling is a piece of work but his first priority needs to be getting the TLD to the public / shareholders. He has no business postponing release until CTAD, and he’ll have ample opportunity to release follow-on data at the conference. He needs to stop effing around and treat the 2/3 data like a real company would, not his personal play thing.
That’s due to XBI’s holdings of CCXI and GBT and maybe 1 other company. On days where XBI is up (or down) because of general sentiment, AVXL will generally increase even more. But today, was due to serious moves (100%, 50% respectively) by considerable holdings, which doesn’t tend to have the same effect on AVXL or other similar companies with no news owned by XBI
Anemic everywhere I look. It’s as if the HF computers took a break today
Missling is a big boy, whom has been given an amazing opportunity. He doesn’t need apologists, and more importantly he doesn’t need to extract every last kernel possible to benefit himself. It seems sometimes he forgets it’s not his company and that there are countless prospective patients who could benefit from the drug sooner rather than later.
We all think the drug will be a success. Missling knows with a high degree of confidence based on all the data he hasn’t seen fit to make public. With even the smallest degree of success (based on the languishing SP the last 6.5+ years), stockpiling option awards can be reasonably expected to be greatly enriching him. Exercising them now isn’t required to demonstrate this, but you can bet your bottom dollar he would be if he had any doubts in his mind.
Market manipulation is a convenient excuse for Missling and his apologists. Market manipulation is a real thing, 7 years of it, not so much. You are right, we should have a MC of $3-5B, and the only reason we do not is because of our CEO. The market doesn’t listen to or believe Missling, which means he’s failed at one of his primary responsibilities. Anavex is going to succeed, but will do so in spite of Missling, not because of him.
The money in the bank is nice, but don’t pretend Missling didn’t double the outstanding share count to achieve it. Printing 40 million shares for our current cash situation is meh.
No, it’s the drug. Missling’s “direction” has chopped 35% off the SP nearly 7 years after the Nasdaq uplisting, in spite of the drug’s remarkable successes. Meanwhile, he has enriched himself with 4 million or so option awards in that same time frame. Funny how that worked.
Years of delays have netted him an extra 1-2 million awarded options. This could be worth hundreds of millions. Sandbagging the share price by saying, in essence “I don’t know why the SP went up” (Spring 2021), followed by a small sale designed to raise questions, never meeting self-imposed deadlines (and missing 50% of revised deadlines) and effing up data releases have torpedoed the share price and resulted in lower strike prices for Missling’s and other insiders’ option awards. 30fold goes easy on this behavior, saying we’d all do it, but I beg to differ. It’s at best incompetence that hurts shareholders (through lower SP and increased dilution), whom have sat through multiple risky data releases without realizing commensurate benefit. At worst it’s borderline criminal and the only beneficiaries have been Missling, the BOD and whomever employs Fuererstein.
Personally, after 7 years of watching him, I believe Missling is a scumbag (no better than Remi) who lucked into a transformational drug, for which he deserves limited credit. I admit I could be overly harsh, but I’m still invested in the company in spite of its CEO.
I’d feel much more comfortable upping his salary a couple hundred grand and giving him bonus shares (not options) for meeting real milestones (not the bad faith ones he’s been given). Awarding him options only encourage this kind of behavior, especially when he has keyboard warriors making excuses for him/blaming the cabal despite years of evidence to the contrary.
1) A re-valuation that takes past catalysts into proper account. This may or may not occur in the relative near-term.
2) A run-up to ALZ results where investors determine the likelihood of success vis a vis the market size of a successful drug and all the other indications that could be treated with the MOA. Currently, the odds of a successful ALZ trial are being factored in between 3-4% or so (and < 1% when you consider MOA validation), which is ludicrously low. The run-up WILL occur in the relative near-term, the only question is how much.
That the SP won’t go up significantly until a catalyst in the semi-distant future. It’s an oft-repeated theme.
As I predicted yesterday:
Some of the more prolific posters will point out many times over the next several months that there are no catalysts that could raise the price until Excellency / ALZ read-outs but this is ignoring the fact that AVATAR had zero positive impact. There is no reason whatsoever the stock can’t go up 100-200% “for no reason,” which would be completely justified given the current valuation.
You go to great effort to convince everyone this is the case (hmmmmmmm…) but when positive catalysts cause the SP to go down, there is more than enough room between catalysts for the SP to reach its deserved level. Makes sense, as this is just what big $$$$, whom desires all of the upside, with none of the risk sitting though catalysts, would want…and will pay $ to various entities (MM, tweeters, etc) to accomplish
That is likely accurate, and I’m very eager to see the new holdings, but those won’t be reported until mid-May (unless a certain ownership threshold is met). The ones being reported now are from period ending December 31, 2021.
I do think Fartstain’s actions weren’t on behalf of short sellers. Let’s face it: there are much less risky bios to short, the short interest is relatively low, there was no run-up, and the cost to borrow wasn’t alarmingly high as it was back in 15-16. And given that the SP stayed in a ridiculously narrow range for 95% of 2 days (all but 9:30-9:45 or so), it seems to me someone was accumulating. We shall see but the motivation is there, and with a little funny business by the MM and a tweet by AF signaling retail shorts, they were able to accumulate at a lower level AND with no risk of sitting through AVATAR results. Incredible coup, if you can do it.
Some of the more prolific posters will point out many times over the next several months that there are no catalysts that could raise the price until Excellency / ALZ read-outs but this is ignoring the fact that AVATAR had zero positive impact. There is no reason whatsoever the stock can’t go up 100-200% “for no reason,” which would be completely justified given the current valuation.
Not sure how they could exit their >26% Acadia position without leaving a huge splash. Wouldn’t surprise me if BB had hired a few AVXL skeptics though.
Missling effect. Guy behaves like he wants the price to be suppressed, which leads me to believe he does. He’s going to make hundreds of millions having the vast majority of his 7+ million options below $5, and getting new ones at $10 rather than $40 will make him an extra $15 million when he exercises them. Sandra and the BOD will benefit in the same way, so they aren’t going to hold him accountable.
There are dozens of examples of this, but an often forgotten one happened back in July 2021. After SAVA and ANVS had a gargantuan run up in the weeks prior to AAIC and AVXL puttered along because it wasn’t being associated with ALZ drugs, what does Missling do? On the day ANVS and SAVA release data and are predictably kneecapped, Missling releases the potentially groundbreaking preventative ALZ news and we finally get the ALZ recognition / association we craved…..and get absolutely crushed.
Adam Fartstain is a crook, but he has less to do with the SP predicament than Missling.
Anavex/Missling cannot blame the ludicrous Alzheimer's TLD prediction on the CRO. If we take the PR literally (as we should be able to), by mid-2022 means before July 1. A 500+ person trial ending in mid-May is not reading out 6 weeks later. It's not a big mistake in and of itself, as no one will rely on that 1 line from a PR a year before the trial completes, but it's a dumb mistake, and it's quintessential Missling. The professional, competent CEO, whom seeks not to overpromise/underdeliver talks generally to start with and then adds more specificity as things become clearer. For example, "TLD is expected in 2022," a prediction which should be easy enough to meet, and then as things get closer Missling can give more details regarding timing.
Anavex's delay issues have always been more in the enrolling (AVATAR was half enrolled in May 2020 and took another 15 months to enroll 18 or so patients) than the data analysis (albeit that's been on the slow side, too), so I agree with Excellence likely reading out in 2023. But, the ALZ trial ends in mid-May, so IMO, it should read out by the end of summer, which would be 4 full months. I'm a skeptic, but even I'd be shocked if it went past Thanksgiving, as that would be > 6 months. I wonder when the run-up into ALZ data will commence? If CRTX is instructive, they sky rocketed 2.5 months before data was expected (perhaps Mid-July for us), but rose steadily (doubled, in fact) in the 3 months before that. So, maybe we'll begin our ascent in April, and we have the possibility of so much other news between now and the ALZ readout which CRTX did not have.
BTW, the June 8, 2021 completed ALZ enrollment PR said TLD "by mid-2022," which is of course stupidly unrealistic. Missling needs to get his shit together.
And someone paid Fartstain to tweet nonsense, and I don’t think it was a short hedge fund since there was zero run-up like in 2015/16. The drop at opening bell and then trade all day in a narrow channel each of the last 2 days has been unusual to say the least .