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.
20/20 hindsight is not an investment strategy. There was and is just as much possibility that the company got bought out for 100-1000x in that time period and the person waiting until FDA approval is tomorrow would have missed out. This is a waiting game because the reason for investing is the out come, not the time it takes. It would be great if it happened sooner, but unfortunately we don't know the future. I have little sympathy for these that complain about time lines mostly because they are missing the point, it is the science, the market size and the ability to make it happen. The last part is the most difficult to be sure of but at this point it is hard to see how they can completely screw this up.
Ok, I'll do that. It will take some time, so you might lose interest.
I actually do understand the $.41 SP, It is what a very small # of investors are investing in that a larger number of warrant/convertible note holders want to sell for their proper risk management. If there was a much larger investment, the volume could overwhelm the warrant/note sellers and the SP would rise. I feel this has not happened because we are on the OTC and many investors do not participate in those stocks. It is also because the publicity Is non-existent mostly because the funds are being used for trials etc, not marketing.
Additionally, the SP has fallen steadily over the past 2 years in response to the $200 million raised to get this drug through trials. The company was worth approx $100 million a couple years ago and today is worth roughly $100 million. The $200 million raised is 2x times the value of the company and subsequently the SP is 1/2 of what it was before raising the $200 million to pay for the drugs development. Upon the FDA approval or anything close to that, I feel that this $200 million investment will be worth more than $.41/share. This is what I call and opportunity, an investment and the risk/reward is what I decided was worth taking the chance.
Do I need any other clarification?
planning phase? really? this is in phase 3 with trials complete. over 700 patients injected. If this was already approved and on the market there would be no investment opportunity, it would already be fairly market priced. Why is this so difficult to understand? By your train of thought, all drugs are worthless unless they are already on the market and development is not fast enough unless the drug is already FDA approved before we even hear about it. You obviously don't understand how new and better anything actually comes into reality.
So you feel that unless a product exists already then there is no point to developing a new better product? What is your point? Are you just stating that you want this drug approved now otherwise don't bother?
It just amazes me how posters can put up links that they did not read. Clearly the intention was to scare, but thanks to your post the message was sent that a little more effort is needed if you want to question the science.
I think you really point out how important it is to let the investor draw the conclusions rather than the CEO giving out difficult to predict timelines and events. Thanks for having not only a strong opinion of how Nader has been conducting himself and recognizing when he pulls back in line to what you asked for. To many here post negatively and can't recognize when the changes they ask for are actually made.
"they could have 1-2 years ago" ? "nobody is stopping them" ? Really? What are you inferring? That this company could have gotten this drug on the market before FDA approval, before trials? Do you think the Cytodyn is purposely holding up the process and not getting this approved? what do provide as evidence?
If you have done the DD you claim, you would clearly see this data is incorrect. This article has been brought to the IR rep and they are doing what they can to get it corrected. I will not even comment on your references to your own blog because it is a work of fiction.
It was not meant to be an excellent question - it was a simple question. I think actual investors here that believe in this investment would find it easy to answer it. We can all complain that this is taking longer and that we feel mis-led by Nader's timelines and the financial burden of this process, but that is about it. the potential for this drug is the story, no question about it. Just because you want BOTH, we can't all get everything. If it was that easy we would all just be crazy rich and there would be no risk in investing.
you are re-posting your own post as a quote to support your post? I really don't get how you don't understand just how ridiculous you are.
"general market failure", "partial failure" - now you are backing off what you previously declared failures in a matter of a few hours? I'm going to make my overly positive sentiment very clear with this simple question:
You find a company you might be interested in investing in. The company has a drug that could greatly help very sick people and the market potential is huge. The risk is that the drug may not work, it may not be safe and/or there might be better competition. So, do you invest because you feel strongly that milestone deadlines will be met on time or do you invest because you feel the possibility that the drug will work, be safe and better than the competition?
Your posts are focused on declaring failure because of timelines stretching out and making up theory that there are failures in the trials and that the competition is superior. I think you can see why I have a real problem with your posts. I am very positive about this company and it's product because of facts we all know, not because of looking at a calendar or fictional storm clouds. My positivism is not on the same plane as your negativity because you do not understand the most important reason for investing in this and you base your posts on opinion, not facts.
So if Finesand had signed an NDA they would not be able to short this stock? I guess not signing an NDA was really important to Finesand's investment!
you still do not understand the definition of failure. This drug has not failed, the trials have not failed and the company has not failed. The trials are not all done yet - not a failure. The predicting of a timeline is a prediction - failing to meet the timeline shows that it was a prediction and there for success/failure was not an option because it was described as a prediction from the start.
I really am running out of patience with you - what is your point in these posts? they are not productive other than to pick at a anything and steer it into some conspiracy or failure. Stop portraying yourself as "balanced" - your motives are grossly negative and this is not a productive discussion.
Here are my responces in red: (because you seem to feel the need to mis-direct what others say)
@Ohm: I realize a debate here is futile, as such would require one to remove ones fate - Fate? you do know we all are going to die one day, that is our fate.from the debate and approach the issue in a more general sense. -general? you seem to be very specific about non-factual opinions that you present as facts
So when I write about 'financial aspects', I surely don't mean yours or mine personally. How are timelines and fictitious "failures" financial in nature?
Hence Grip was spot on, it doesn't benefit a discussion when ripping things out of context and redirect into personal realm. True - why do you do it?
As I have mentioned months ago, proving the MOA via CCR5 occupancy tests as CYDY did in the studies before (see NP's paper to failed CD02 trial) - please post a link to this "failed" trial, I am not aware of any trial failures. - is a great idea. Now FDA requires it seemingly - but nothing new. the FDA did not require it, cytodyn decided to use it.
It is a complex story with company financials at its ever most weakest spot while competitors move along. That is the big risk here, especially given the poor communication. The financials have always been complex and difficult, apparently raising 200-300 million to pay for drug trials when the company has no revenue is not a simple task - big shocker! This has always been the case and it this is a reason for you not to invest, then you would have known this from day one. Oh, wait - you are not invested at all, i forgot.
I see you are back at quoting and referencing you r own posts as factual backup to your opinions. As for what you call failures - I don't think you understand what a failure is. Milestones not finished yet is not a failure, a failure is when the outcome of a milestone proves something does not work , i.e. it failed.
here is your list of "failures" with the obvious explanations in red:
Failures like
- Where is the detailed Combo BLA Status update? - not giving you a detailed update when you want it is not a failure, Cytodyn does not need to give you any updates unless they are required.
- Why making a secret about the Combo BLA safety data status? again, it is not a secret, they have not received the final decision from the FDA yet.
- Why did the Mono IND fail and when can they cure it w/ FDA talks? The mono IND is ongoing and pending FDA approval - not a failure, just not done yet.
- Why did the TNBC trial launch fail? Not a failure, just not done yet
-- It is a failure, since they are 6+ month late - No it is not, time is not the measure of success or failure for a trial, the data from the trial determines success or failure.
-- They know about CCR5 Occupancy tests years earlier (papers)
and it was me posting about this detail months ago! - Did you know about the existence of the occupancy tests? could it be the timeline was based on not using this technology and conducting the trial as we have all past trials? upon consideration of the occupancy tests it was decided to incorporate the technology for the trial, delaying the start of the trial. This was all explained months ago.
-- Why fool people that anything could not have been foreseen in Dec'18,
as NOTHING has changed on the regulatory site
nor the already accepted IND.
(If so, they would have been required to publish that). - Could it have been that all the timeline predictions by Nader could have happened - YES, Could it be that as new developments occur that they might delay the timeline, YES. Why is this hard for you to understand?
- What happens after the 27c cash raise from retail? Paulson? Investings on the table MIA? Just because you calculate the SP to .27 in isolation of any other market influences does not make it factually a certainty. It could also be that bashers such as yourself scare away investors that are considering this amazing drug even though it is on the OTC market - so good work fine.
Well, yes, that would be better. I'm just trying to show that the TO is not a failure as many claim. It only looks like a failure because Nader predicted the outcome to be way more successful than it was. Also, the warrant holders must hold their shares for 6 months if they excersize. I'm sure a few warrant holders don't like that too much.
It seems logical to support the TO with some PR news but it could also be the TO is the opportunity all by itself. Let's not forget the warrant holders are getting a sweet deal if they want to put the money down and excersize their warrants, or a portion of them. I have come to the conclusion that the Mgmt really thinks in very separate terms when it comes to developing Leronlimab and raising funds - the two tasks are not coordinated. It would make some sense to do so but they really can't plan PR drug development news in relation to the funding needs. The two events are very separate tasks.
As for how much is raised, Nader spouting off $28-30 million was irresponsible. However, for the past couple years the Paulson cash raises were in $2-3 million increments. Raising $5-10 million with each TO is better and cleans up the warrant situation. I guess I look at it very differently.
The funny thing is that we HAVE to be getting close - there just is not that many steps left to get to FDA approval. We don't need to be overly optimistic at all. The risks involved with any drug development is that there might be a less than good trial, safety/side effects, or competition with superior product - we are past that. As much as we complain about the SP, there is a rational reason for it - it is the cost to raise funds.
I can't imagine a better reason for you not to invest in this company - If you feel that the value of this drug is so little and the ability of Nader to deliver is so impossible. But yet you feel the need to paint a picture of this worthless, never going to happen situation to make sure any optimism gets killed.
If you were a BP, and you were interested in making some money or protecting your revenue, do you think you might be looking at this drug? I would for sure. On top of that, You would not give one crap about the Mgmt of the company because the drug is what is what the value comes from. Nader is not creating the value - the drug is. I'm sure Nader can screw this up but at some point the drug is worth something more than $100mil. We wont know hat until some pharma or VC jumps in. Nader's ability to create a timeline is not why I'm invested. I don't think Nader or anyone else have the level of control over any drug development process to predict the timeline. I would like it if there was better control over delivering on time, but it does not change the outcome even if it is months or years later than expected.
I'm not sure what gets you so riled up over the weekend, but your assumptions don't make much sense to me. Nader is not in a position to filter out anything he decides does not fit his dream, We have a BOD and I am sure if any deals are being discussed they are involved and are representing themselves as well as us. If they were not they would be violating the rules of a publicly traded company, even if it is OTC. I doubt any of them wants a lawsuit, fine or to go to jail.
As for Nader having no leverage - How? It is entirely possible the reason we have no deals is because Nader is using leverage to get the best deal. Any pharma in the market that this drug has or will have an indication will clearly see this company has leverage based on past trial results.
If you think this company has no value because of debt or a lack of any revenue, then i guess your house has no vale because you own money on it and it produces no revenue, Correct? Is your house worthless?
Just because milestones are missed and deals are not done does not mean they will never happen - it just means they have not happened yet and that the ability to predict when they will is not very accurate. You can complain about how Nader gives out timelines He never meets but I am more interested in the actual milestone getting done, at any time. Nothing has shown that this accomplishments won't happen. There are no trial failures, There are no false claims and the funding has shown up as needed in one way or another. I will gladly spend $300 million to develop a multi billion product, even if the dilution cuts ownership by 50-75%, which it has not.
volital stocks do not need to be traded, there is no rule. If, for example you invest in a stock because you feel it is undervalued and the product is developing into a something of great value, you might just accumulate and hold the position. If you feel you are somehow capable of knowing the future and feel you know what the low price is and when the price is too high, you could trade it. But this means you could be selling too low and buying too high because you might not know as much as you think about the future. You could completely mis-read it and not be on the train leaving the station.
CYDY is the only stock I own that is a buy and hold. This is because of the science and potential of the product. I also think the mgmt and BOD is made up of people who are committed to pushing this forward as best as possible. They may make mistakes and have some limits on experience/knowledge, but I can't say confidently I would know any better. The rest of my trading is options and futures, where i am very aware of choosing when to buy and sell. My years of trading experience leave me well aware of the difference opportunities and what strategy is best. Your over confidence that getting in and out of CYDY is the only way is completely ignoring the characteristics of this investment. If you want to trade around a position, there are far better vehicles than a very ill-liquid OTC stock. In the future it might benefit you to realize that your way is not the best way - it is just one way that many here don't agree with.
What is funny is that I looked at other stock Fine rants about and you could swap the ticker symbol and it is the same elaborate bashing. Fine is in the business of looking legit and trashing companies.
Nice! you beat me to it. I'm sure Fine will educate all us morons on how the world works and what everything means.
I'm not saying looking at balance sheets is not important. What I am saying is that when we all know the company raised 200-300 million over the past few years to pay for the development of their one drug that has not produced any revenue yet, I would think the balance sheet looks bad. Not a huge shock. If it showed anything else then the first thing we would all be questioning is where did the money come from? To be repeatedly bringing this up is purely intended to cast doubt about this company.
again, we do know the funding requirements to the end of the year - it is 28-30 million. This has been stated by Nader many times. Your assumption is that potential funding sources have all vaporized is based on no information. It is just silly to assume this when it is very likely they just have not been finalized yet. The assumption that all is of concern just because Nader is not calling you up and mapping out his day every morning is overstating your importance to the future of the company. We are just investors and developing this product is the whole opportunity, which is clearly what Mgmt is doing. You may not like the details and how the sausage is made but this is headed forward no doubt.
totally agree! Is there even one example of a drug that just sailed through trials for less money than expected and had no hiccups along the way? This drug is so important that the financial side of this is very secondary to me. The number of very sick patients that will have normal long life because of this is just astonishing.
But we all know that they need $30mil, Nader has stated it many times. Why look at the balance sheet when we all know they need cash. They claim the dilutive past cash raises are over and the licencing/partnership future is upon us, so why would you glean anything from a balance sheet when one PR of a license or partner deal of any size changes the picture so dramatically? What I am getting at is that We all know the situation, including Mgmt of this company. You pointing it out is just being captain obvious!
Why in the world would you look at the balance sheet? this is a pre-revenue biotech with one drug - of course the balance sheet look terrible. You keep bringing this up as if everyone is thinking they invested in some dividend stock or something. I also wonder why you seem incapable of accepting that just because a projected deliverable date is missed that the milestone will never happen. All it means is that the milestone has not YET happened. There is no failure other than predicting when the event will happen.
I decided to look up examples of when a company stock price moves to the degree that this should to get to an valuation that is on the same planet as the value of this drug. If i assume the drug value should translate to a roughly $4 SP, that is a 1000% difference. This is just a rough estimate of the value right now - not what I think the company is worth etc.. It seems to be a crazy move and it seems like it would take a long time for this move to happen. However I found a few examples that are similar biotech type companies:
https://money.cnn.com/2015/08/11/investing/aquinox-biotech-stock-1000-johnson-and-johnson-pfizer/index.html
https://www.nasdaq.com/article/these-3-biotech-stocks-are-up-more-than-500-over-the-last-3-years-cm947537
I did not look too hard and have not really looked too closely at the details of these type of moves. However the things that I noted that are part of how these moves occurred is that these companies had some sort of partnership with a BP and then good trial results and then a investment bank/VC firm jumps in. Typically these partnerships are at an earlier stage and the drugs complement the BP portfolio.
It is way more difficult to believe there are no high level discussions with BP than there is. We know there are BP that this drug will complement there pipeline and there are BP that will lose huge market share from this drug. I think it is safe to say they are very focused on some sort of partnership before full BLA filing, no matter what mgmt of cytodyn is doing/not doing. We already have enough trial data and are going to have more in the next few months, so PR catalysts are there to spark the interest from the open market, as long as the open market sees there is major support from a BP partner. What is also interesting is that many of these partnerships early on are not for a huge percent stake in the company. The key thing is that they are interested in a partnership based on the drug getting on the market and generating revenue, not on today's stock price. That foundation relationship is absolutely needed to get the VC type money to jump in. Positive PR's on trial data etc.. has not and will not do it alone.
I realize this is kind of obvious, but It is cool to see that there are examples of 1000% moves in a short time. I just hope all the talk from Nader about going alone and this will be the next Gilead is all just talk and not telegraphing that they are not interested in partnerships with BP. I think it is safe to say that investors are more interested in a buy out than a multi-year growth plan.
Cytodyn is just a supplier of a component for another companies’s product. I don’t think the market study is on them to present, it is on the other company selling the final product. I also can’t believe you have a problem with revenue. What news do you want? Any amount of revenue is good, not every pr has to be a huge block buster that meets your expectations.
There are 330 million shares outstanding and 160 million warrants, total is 490 million. This might be different after the TO but the total is still close to this number. I really don’t care too much about this mostly because if it was a billion shares total it is still worth the investment. Even if the total upside I’d $1 per share it is worth it. It is worth it even if it goes nowhere and the world has a drug that extends life and quality of life.
As already pointed out, you math is incorrect, by a lot. Also to suggest this is only a combo hiv drug and not worth much - other combo drugs currently generate 1-3 billion per year of revenue each. Not sure how you think this is not enough to bother. As for this drug potentially only being a treatment and not a cure for many forms of cancer, if I was diagnosed with tnbc and told I have 6-9 months to live, or take this drug and live a normal long life, I think that is very significant. I really don’t understand what you expect a drug to do to be worth it. It this investment only good enough if Nader shows up to your house and gives you a bag of a billion dollars? Does it need to cure old age?
I did not notice that, very interesting. I did not like how they were just cranking up the price tag to make the inventory more valuable. I think setting a low cost price is not just good for the patients but a good threat to BP that not only is risking market share because of the science, but from better pricing as well. Insurance companies will love this price. Wonder why it changed?
I know it is irresistible to use my posts to support your negative agenda, but I have little interest in your take on anything.
So we have 2 weeks until the 1st half of 2019 is over, the milestones that are in the current slide deck are as follows:
initiate Mono trial
inject 1st patient in TNBC
Prognostic test licensed
IND-Protocol for colon cancer Phase 2
Large Pharma discussion for potential licensing or partnering
Not very confident on the timeline being met (actually that might be the most impressive accomplishment!) but the next couple weeks might be interesting even if only one of these are met.
I think you are being a little harsh. Nader has missed timelines as a rule and that hurts credibility. However He does not control the FDA, the patients or the test centers that conduct the studies. He also cannot make another company partner financially - that company has to make their own decision. To think a person gives out a projection and fails makes them is "devoid of empathy" and has no "ethics or principals" is way to far reaching. The guy is overly optimistic and has not reeled it in, that is all.
I think you are assuming there is some sort of inside scheme going on that mgmt. is keeping from the investors. Most likely the milestone achievements just have not been completed by the dates given - by a fairly wide margin. This does not mean their is some sort of smoke and mirrors going on. They will at some point inject the 1st TNBC patient and they will have data readouts - when? obviously not when they originally thought but that does not mean never or that there is some huge problem that they are keeping a secret. It is very difficult to meet timelines when they have very little control over the FDA and the testing sites and those running the trials. It is wrong for mgmt. to confidently put out timelines that are based on very little, but ultimately they have very little to base them on. I am still focused on the results, not when we get results.
This is the most clear explanation, however I have to wonder what the actual attitude about this investment is from the perspective of a warrant holder. Many warrant holders here took the deal because they believe in the company. The large block of warrant holders that did not take the deal are focused on pennies of share price, but mostly risk exposure. I don’t think these warrant holders even know what they own, they don’t care at all. All of the wall of selling we have been hitting is from them, they don’t care. I am completely done with this mentality, there are so many other investments for them to make if they want reduced risk exposure. I get that the low risk they create is paired with a huge payday if the stock pays off but they are the reason that is not happening. There are only roughly 600 individuals that own stock in this company, a few warrant holders are creating the entire stock problem. If in the next CC Nader thanks the Paulson group for all they have done, I’m calling him out on it.