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.
I would be VERY surprised if a buyout were to happen anytime soon WITHOUT the share price starting to move significantly beforehand. Human nature being what it is this news would leak either from Advaxis's end or from the acquiring companies end.
Granted, the recent events point to something, but a buyout is only one possibility. Interesting times, for sure.
A speculative question for those more experienced than I....
Considering the recent dilution at $2, what is the likelihood of a lawsuit if Advaxis sells itself in a buyout at a much higher share price, say $20?
It seems to me there would be, since a case could be made that Advaxis shouldn't have done this with a buyout looming. They can't really say the buyout wouldn't have been possible without the dilution without admitting collusion. Is my thinking correct on this??
In the course of one post you went from $10/500M to $20/1B. Granted, you said hopefully both times.....lol.
Go around quitting time and talk to some of the staffers as they leave. Ask them about the mood and their perception of the future.
Time will tell FBG, but since you're in the mood, YOU stated firing DOC would cause a 20% RISE in the sp. Care to tell the message board why you were COMPLETELY WRONG??
Hov, you're completely wrong for calling me out. Reread my post. To save you time I'll copy what I said:
They've shown that already by stopping the trial, and they really may not allow it to resume if they determine the risk is too great.
I've emphasized the words MAY and IF for you since you seem to have missed it the first time.
Time for a reality check on the hold guys.
So you have a COMBO trial, 2 drugs that are hoped to work synergistically together (that means 1+1=3 or more). Drug A steps on the gas and doesn't have many serious side effects. Drug B releases the brakes and has some know side effects, some of which are significant. During the trial a patients dies. OK, it's late stage disease, could have been that. But if it wasn't, perhaps is was Drug A but more likely Drug B.
I'm here to suggest that if it wasn't the disease that killed the patient, it doesn't matter (as much as some here would believe) if it was Drug A OR Drug B. The FDA won't care if it was Drug A or Drug B, they care about saving and prolonging lives. They've shown that already by stopping the trial, and they really may not allow it to resume if they determine the risk is too great. And THAT means, even if it was Drug B which caused the death, the trial is dead. No one here can spin that as being good. Some here WILL try to spin it as being "less bad" than it could have been, I suppose. Personally, I think it'll suck in either case.
Like it or not, that's what this hold means.
Blue- I agree with the first part of your post, but not with this statement:
I can assure you gajj I've done the math....years ago. I understand the warrants as well as anyone on this board, which is why I bought shares this time, not warrants. Warrants have to get to $5 to be in the money, and I still have some, though diminishing, hope that they will do so. It would take the combined effect of several catalysts to achieve this, including stellar trial results, partnerships, etc. There is a small chance that time alone will do the trick because as EMA decision time gets closer there will be some entities that won't want to miss the run up beforehand. And though TL stated 13 months, it could be as few as 6 months, putting the decision time perhaps even before the warrant expiration.
That stated, with an exercise price of $5 and the expiration in Oct, the common sp will have to be above $10 for the warrants to be in the money, a pretty unlikely event with only around 6 months to go. But if the sp is say at $7 in August, the warrants won't be below $2, providing small partial relief. $7 is much more achievable and may even be a break even number for some of us, as I recall lots of folks here buying them for about $1 when they were first issued.
OK, Bourbon and Iggy, can each of you provide some perspective for the message board re: Axal.
Just a quick search showed that there are 33,000 new cervical cancer patients in the EU alone each year. Of these, approximately 70% are caused by HPV. Assuming Axal gets approved (best ever results, after all) and there is a 50% market penetration and the treatment costs 50K - this would mean there is over 500M in yearly revenue. Almost all of which is profit because Axal costs next to nothing to manufacture.
I'm asking your perspective because I find it hard to imagine that Advaxis would downplay the importance of this. So lets say all this happens and Advaxis walks away with 30% of the pie - that 150M per year. Every year. In the EU alone. Certainly enough to fund all operations without any further dilution for.....well...forever. And all this may start as soon as next year.
Iggy, I think I know where you stand, but would appreciate your thoughts. Bourbon....I just can't see how management would downplay this at the meeting. Sure, it's only 33K patients per year, and maybe the logistics and uncertainty for approval sidelined an upfront deal, for now at least, but this isn't chicken feed. This is real money and has the ability to fund all operations. What would the management gain by downplaying this?
Or sale of HER2?
Hey Bourbon, go ahead and quote me in your responses all you like. That first quote WAS mine, and I stand by it.
But be more careful in any subsequent quotes in the same message. I NEVER said "However, the patient death and clinical hold....." but your quote attributes it to me, however unintentional.
Funny, I was thinking the same.
BTW, Good call Blue - you said yesterday this would be over today, pre-market indicates you're correct.
I believe Advaxis already knows what was responsible for the patients death, but cannot say at this time. The patient died on Feb 27th, a full 2 weeks ago. That pt already had an autopsy and is buried. It's highly likely that the clinical investigators leaked the cause, but the announcement has to come from the FDA. Last time it took months and the vaccine was exonerated. Hopefully this time will be shorter, but being a Phase I/II they may just take their time.
But lets get real here. Did anyone really expect that NO patient would die while receiving Advaxis treatment? These are last stage cancer patients, of course some will. Given a large enough population of HEALTHY patients, some will. Unfortunate for sure, but we still have lots of catalysts in the next few months. Hopefully the EMA will take the word of the FDA and not request to do their own analysis of this death. Maybe Advaxis should get ahead of it and give them all the info they have on it now. Just thinking out loud......
Blue - I really don't think they'll "short us all over again". Not with EU approval looming in probably less than a year. That would be the definition of madness. I fully expect this to climb into then high 20's by 2019, perhaps higher. As we get close to decision time I'm going to short with out of the money puts to protect my gains while maintaining my position. Seems like cheap insurance to me.
BTW, I'd like to thank you for your eternal optimism. I and a few others here are the same, ignoring the manipulation while believing in the science. It's been a Category 5 whitewater trip for sure, but I appears the worst is behind us.
An interesting quote, equal:
It seems to me that if something is extreme, as in being the MOST managed, it is that way for a reason. Just conjecture surely, but if indeed it is the most managed, it could be that the powers managing this stock know Advaxis either has what is necessary to succeed or it doesn't. After all, you don't extremely manage something without having a pretty good idea about what will transpire.
And Advaxis has never had a bad trial.
Wrote an email to IR asking if extending the warrant expiration is under consideration. I don't expect any information, but asked if they could pass the suggestion along to the decision makers on behalf the the long term shareholders who have been invested for close to a decade for some of us.
I suggest any warrant holders do the same. Appealing to the "just" side of people may just work in this case.
Also pulled the trigger and bought some common shares. I guess I'll be hearing from someone soon asking how I'm going to vote.
I'm not so sure that was a cash raise.....
Nice thought but absolutely not. The EMA is going to look at the data in front of them an nothing else. They might ask for additional information but it won't be about other constructs or combination therapies.
Funny thing is folks WILL blame Advaxis for failing to deliver without ever acknowledging that for the most part it isn't even in their control. Sure, the EMA can ask for for morn info during the timeouts but you can bet your ass Advaxis will be all over it.
But I'll reiterate - the sp will climb and reach higher and higher the closer we get to any anticipated decision date. The clock is ticking.....
The ONLY facts?
How about the FACT that we have a construct under consideration for EU approval?
Do you think that is at all relevant?
Interesting how most (all?) of those on this message board complain about the silence and yet you state "with all the talk over the last year".
Fact is Advaxis has NOT been hyping, talking, issuing irrelevant PR's, or communicating beyond the requirements of the law.
Fact is we have a construct under consideration for approval in the EU.
Fact is an analysis of EU approvals suggest we are likely to be approved, especially if they take into consideration the biomarkers. (Though I don't think so, since they weren't a part of the trials.)
Also, there is a GREAT deal of history to suggest that as the date of the EU announcement gets closer the sp WILL rise in anticipation. If approved it will pop, if denied it will crash.
Don't misunderstand me, I believe as most do that management is out for themselves and perhaps are playing some sort of game with the larger holders such as Adage; we are all just along for the ride. I don't like it any more than anyone else, perhaps less so because I own a s*** ton of warrants that are almost worthless right now. And no one really knows if they will make the money by their expiration. If the powers that be are really trying to take out the warrants they are playing a dangerous game. While 13 months as the time from EU submission to decision has been tossed around a lot, it could be as short as 6 months - around the time of warrant expiry. And between now and then we have other catalysts. So I'm hanging on for now and am getting ready to add shares - just waiting for the right sign.
Sry, I was going off another post, but I believe the difference between my stated 2 months and 5 months is minimal. Something else needs to happen, and it'll be sooner rather than later.
OK, so let me ask...what "ducks" were put in a row? I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand this theory.
The dilution raised about 20M, at the current burn rate of 12M/month, it LESS than 2 months added to the runway. I'd argue this is NOTHING. This actually begs the question of why did they even bother?
To me, allowing shorts to cover is the only thing that makes any sense. (And btw, thanks to iggy for pointing out we'll have to wait till mid March to see if this is true.) And if for some reason this ISN"T true, then I'd say we're all in for a world of hurt, because more dilution is on the way. Think about it...if we always have to have at least a year in the bank, where are we going to be in 6 months?
Wow, not sure I could disagree with this more.
Unfortunately no.. Considered generally safe, it does come with some concerning drug interactions..
Just read through most everyone's posts concerning today's events. Most agree that this just doesn't make any sense at all. When something doesn't make sense, it's usually because some vital information is missing. Gross incompetence? Sure, that's one possibility, but these BOD folk's weren't born yesterday either. And they are politically connected. And politicians make deals, sometimes (most times?) under the table deals.
We submitted for EMA approval and there are still 7M+ short shares out there. Those short shares KNOW they have to cover, and if many here are correct about the HFT not being able to shake out retail shares, well, don't those shares have to come from somewhere else? And coincidentally we're offering more shares.
Personally I believe we're going to see just one or two entities buy up most of the offering, and shortly after that we're going to see the short position plummet. After that we're going to see Prostate combo results, which maybe, just maybe, explains the timing of all this.
I don't believe the game is over, not by a long shot. But it is getting very interesting indeed!!
As a Pharmacist, I highly recommend Zofran as an anti nausea/vomiting medication until this phase we're in passes.....
I curious...Would more people vote for share authorization if Advaxis extended the warrant expiry?
Thanks for clarifying Iggy. PM me your email if you're willing, I want to let you know something and if you agree, to follow up.
Just did a quick Ctfl+F on the corporate presentation, neither company came up.
This is just the second time I can recall that Advaxis did this. The first was way back in the TM days.
I agree, they are just getting a pulse, and yes, just like last time, they'll start talking about "aligning with shareholder interest", blah, blah.
But I hesitate to vote them all out however, as I am unfamiliar with the process of replacing them. How long will THAT take, and what would that setback mean in the broader market?? I can easily see the market responding negatively, at least in the short term. And one could make the argument that the new crop of folks that eventually gets put in may not be any better than the current folks, and, perhaps worse in that they'll want THEIR payday before "aligning with shareholder interests"...
What a mess....
Let me float an idea that I know will go absolutely nowhere: what if we target just one or two board members, as a shot across the bow for the others?
Someone yesterday was questioning if we could get approval without a placebo control arm. In oncology, it would be unethical to do such a study. These people are dying, so you have to give them something. Almost always it's standard of care, in other studies it's historical control, which is almost the same thing.
Love this quote from the article. Just started reading it, but it deserves to be discussed here:
I'd love to be wrong about this, but I think if there was submission today we would have seen at least much more volume and probably a greater sp increase than we saw today.
But I really hope you guys are right.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree, I just think the market will react in a positive way well before approval. When I was in DNDN most of the increase came well before the approval date, the anticipation of approval was built into the share price months before approval. Some folks actually got out in the days preceding approval for fear it wouldn't get approved, in which case it would have been catastrophic.
As for your prediction of a $4-5 range for approval, lets do some math.
First, see my pinned post on what Advaxis might be worth if sold. In it I projected approximately 1B in sales for cervical ca alone, but that was in both the US and the EU. Let's do a rough estimate and say the EU is about twice the population of the US, so the EU gets about 2/3 of this number, say 600m in sales/yr being conservative. At 50K outstanding shares, (I know, this is too big also, again I'm being conservative) this is $12 a share. For one construct. For one indication. Considering the sp is based on multiples of yearly revenue, it's probably much higher than this. (I'm open to estimates from anyone, this board could use some positivity). Now also factor in everyone taking notice and seeing our platform and what is in the wings. Do you begin to see the potential?
I know I'll be accused of being overly optimistic, but numbers don't lie. Sure, some of my presumptions may be off, but even if it's half, we're still well above $10. So again, if you're a short looking at the possibility of $10 in under a year, are you going to cover sooner or later?
And you point out something else I forgot to mention. Even IF a drug causes some sort of toxicity, it may well be used if that drug is shown to prolong life!! It's a balance of risk vs benefit after all. You may well die of cardiotoxicity with Herceptin, but you may very well die SOONER without it.
Hov - Terry in his last post he used terms such as "I'm certain..." and "Probably..." in referring to things he couldn't possibly know for certain, but apparently wants readers here to believe.
If he "is certain", why didn't he provide a reference about canine cardiotoxicity?
He uses terms such as "as you recall" to make readers feel as if they should know what he's talking about, and to feel bad about themselves if they don't. But the assertion that that pretext was applied to itself was at best, subjective assessment of facts. Could it be that "herceptin was rushed through FDA formalities at warp speed" (if it even was!) because it saved lives? And he further negates the entire process by calling the decision makers "ice-cold bureaucrats" which they of course are not. They are scientists who are trained to evaluate sometimes difficult evidence. Sometimes the information they make these decisions on is incomplete (because at times serious side effects take years to show up and aren't apparent for years), and sometimes the information is flawed or even hidden.
Terry ignores you because he has no defense to your argument. I'd listen if he had anything reasonable to add, but we'll probably just get more double (triple? quadruple?) speak.
The problem with statements like, "I'd be perfectly happy with $10-12" is that those statements are incomplete, aren't they? What is actually implied is that those people would be happy with $10-12 a share in a sale of the company.
But if say, Advaxis got to $10-12 a share based on it's merits, say positive trial results, EMA submission, a licensing deal with major upfront cash, etc., well, then those people who say they would be happy certainly wouldn't get out, they'd naturally wait for more, because at this juncture, getting back to 10-12 would certainly mean the company is on it's way to much much more.
So any action, such as whether to sell your stock, based on perceived "happiness" such as a $12 pps, is based wholly on the circumstances that generated that happiness, i.e. a sale, where you had no choice whether or not to sell, or merits, where you would have a choice. So it seems those wanting to be "happy" and get out at 10-12 want their choice(s) taken away from them. I prefer to keep my choices, and believe the next time we see 10 or 12 will be on the steady climb to 50+.
hmhmhmhm??