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.
Peregr, I appreciate your sharing that you have a large, long position in PPHM, as do I. Your wanting to replace a 450 pound jockey is a good analogy for explaining where you are coming from.
I consider the rationale behind "sunk costs" and not allowing a predisposition to want to recoup bad money (paper losses) to skew the balanced scrutinizing of current conditions when making a decision for investing new money. Part of the challenge facing long investors comes from recognizing how it is expected that new therapies might typically take fifteen years before their promising products can make it through approval to market. PPHM's current BOD is communicating how they see the proprietary tech is close to delivering shareholder value. This Ronin proposed takeover of PPHM by seeking election of a BOD majority in October has scooped up the PPHM technology value readiness dilemma by placing a clear choice before investors regarding how they want to see the PPHM technology development prioritized. More information directly from Ronin as to their intentions for the tech would be helpful.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Jake, LOL! Rocky and Bullwinkle were a Minnesota sourced creation, I recall. Maybe Dudley Doright should be set loose to help the California Attorney General Office investigate Three's SEC complaint about the PPHM BOD behavior?
With that lead in to the CAG investigation, I fully trust that the PPHM BOD members targeted by the SEC complaint will be able to raise the specter of naked shorting, insider information shared, Pharma talks, confidential communications from Halozyme and such if that information is relevant for defending their actions to issue new common stock using the At the Market placement mechanism during the period PPHM was seeking to reestablish compliance with NASDAQ listing criteria. Since the ATM issue was raised in the complaint, I am presuming that the factors that would influence the perceived need for ATM placements will be investigated, so there is no need for message board posters here to try to figure out a complete story of who, what, when, where, why and how to augment the complaint. Pandora's box has truly been opened.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Peregr, You found another "red flag" area with the Ronin BOD candidates and PPHM confidential documentation, so I looked into the July 31 PPHM announcement where the PPHM Board filed with the SEC their announcement that they are seeking an Avid President and adding to the group of BOD to seat "up to" seven members. I pasted in some relevant segments from the filing below that provide context for a PPHM valuation note I am posting separately.
Have you examined the Ronin director candidate background info posted by others over the last few days? I am curious if you have concerns about the Russian industry advisory role associated with one of the Ronin supported BOD candidates? I recall that PPHM had been implementing trials that included cancer patients recruited in "Soviet" Georgia just before the occupation, such that implications from the occupation were discussed on this message board for a while. I recall Affitech technology was acquired by a Russian interest (Affitech helped "humanize" the Bavi family MABs), so there is a bit of a historic technical and business basis for a PPHM and Russia connection, not just hype. Long time long's may recall the details better than I and should feel free to correct lapses in my memory.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Excerpts from July 31, 2017 PPHM filing with the SEC, bold highlights added:
Avid was formed in 2002 to service the attractive commercial bio-manufacturing market. Over the last 15 years, Avid has become a leader in implementing disposable bio-manufacturing processes at commercial scale for large molecule API manufacturing. The Company has achieved a premiere customer list, excellent regulatory track record and strong competitive position from which it can capitalize on favorable industry growth trends. In fiscal year 2017, Avid generated revenues of over $57 million and achieved a five-year compounded annual revenue growth rate of 31%.
“Avid has experienced remarkable and steady growth over the last several years, and we are taking steps to ensure that it remains well-positioned to take advantage of the growing demand for biologics and biosimilar drugs,” said King. “We have a clear strategic plan and proven track-record in our CDMO business, as evidenced by our investments in the state-of-the-art Myford facility, our progress securing new customers and expanding our services offerings, and our recent record financial results. With the addition of a new dedicated President, Avid will benefit from a leadership team focused solely on executing its long-term strategic plan of driving growth, diversifying its customer base and optimizing its operations and facilities.”
R&D Business Update
Continued King, “At the same time, we are actively evaluating strategic options for advancing our R&D business. We are working with researchers at some of the leading research institutes in the world and have seen renewed and encouraging interest in the bavituximab program from influential key opinion leaders. We believe recent promising clinical data from our bavituximab program, in addition to our other R&D assets, strongly supports continued advancement of the pipeline with the goal of providing patients with new cancer treatment options. Leveraging the scientific expertise of key opinion leaders, we will apply great rigor in assessing additional investments and identifying the best way to move our R&D programs forward.”
“As we recently noted on our fourth quarter conference call, Peregrine is at the start of a transformative journey, which includes exploring strategic alternatives,” said King. “We are focused on enhancing shareholder returns as we capitalize on long-term opportunities available to Avid and pursue the optimal path forward for our drug development franchise. The search for new Board members and a new dedicated leader for Avid mark the first in a series of planned strategic actions that will strengthen the position of Avid as a more independent and potentially as a completely independent entity with a focus on revenue growth and increased profitability. We will also continue to explore the best strategic alternatives for the R&D pipeline in order to maximize value for stockholders.”
Peregrine will be working with a nationally recognized executive search firm to assist in identifying highly qualified candidates for the Avid President and Board of Directors positions. The Company intends to appoint a President to the Avid business in the coming months and include the identified directors in its slate of nominees for election to the Board at its next Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
Bidrite, if the message I have been sending is getting received by the receiver in the way I intended, you should be observing that I am trying to outlay an objective basis for assessing the pros and cons for long PPHM shareholders being called upon to support a PPHM takeover attempt in progress by a few hedge funds that need their proxy vote to instill their BOD candidates.
What will Ronin's new BOD be doing to assure long time long PPHM investors that they will be receiving fair participation in the value of PPHM proprietary technology under development these last several years that long investors have been helping fund? PPHM long investors have been helping fund Avid development as well as PPHM proprietary technology, but Ronin is only communicating support for Avid development if their Directors are elected.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
St stephens... BOD compensation is an issue in and of itself, that received the attention of the two share holders who brought suit against PPHM a couple years ago and negotiated the settlement agreement with PPHM on behalf of all PPHM shareholders in advance of the July 27 hearing. Your dissatisfaction with what they negotiated might be well supported, but all the PPHM shareholders need to recognize that the pair brought the Settlement Agreement before the Delaware Chancery Court in a manner that pretty much usurps all other share holders' opinions about how they should have settled with other terms, since opportunity was given to challenge, augment or redefine the Settlement Agreement terms before the Delaware Court. I received the legal notice at my home mailbox, with what appeared to be too little notice for me to consider going to the Delaware hearing, but I did receive a notification and would not have gone anyway (too far). Like it or not, the Delaware Chancery Court hearing settled what was deemed acceptable to both PPHM shareholders and PPHM Board members for Board compensation, described in the terms of the settlement agreement.
I observe the PPHM Board compensation issue has been getting postured by some as a diversion of attention away from the Ronin, PPHM take over attempt in process. It is also noteworthy that the Delaware Chancery court judge make a statement that he was outlining his observations and views about the compensation decisions made by the PPHM Board for the purpose of helping educate those involved with the questionable compensation measures brought before the Court. I hope the claw back of $1.5 million, the cut in annual compensation to a limit of 75% of peer Pharma Director compensation and the judge's explanation of what was wrong with the previous decision making makes for a sufficient lesson learned for the existing PPHM BOD. We shall see.
Now, what is Ronin doing to provide assurances to long investors that long investors won't get disenfranchised from the value of PPHM proprietary technology under Ronin's proposed Board leadership?
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Threes, your conjecture about how things might go if the Ronin BOD candidates are installed describes one realistic path. There are other paths that could be taken, some with outcomes that would leave me with regrets that Ronin's candidates got elected. I see there is a need for the Ronin team to explain what they intend to do with the PPHM technology. The "they don't know what they don't know" argument is valid for Ronin wanting to size up what is in the PPHM proprietary technology vault before committing to any sort of action plan. However, the defunding of PPHM research to focus on Avid development already has Ronin showing its hand about paths they see are viable. Clarification from Ronin is needed and appropriate.
Long investors need to keep in mind that the "overcompensated current PPHM BOD" is now subject to a compensation Settlement Agreement, but this BOD also knows what is in the PPHM proprietary technology vault. The current BOD has communicated to investors that they are pursuing a business plan that keeps the PPHM tech development funded, albeit, now with about half the PPHM research staff (reference PPHM staff reduction announcement filed with the SEC). The PPHM status quo momentum business plan has PPHM technology development being funded, whereas, the Ronin plan communicated in their letters to shareholders indicate the PPHM technology development will not be funded, at least for a good period during which Avid receives the investments enabled from Avid sales revenue.
PPHM's current BOD has also recently communicated to shareholders how Avid now has unsubscribed capacity and is seeking new customers for its two new, 1000 liter reactors plus their second Myford facility deployment is on hold awaiting expression of interest for new customer orders. Ronin has not responded with an explanation of what they would do with the prioritized Avid investment resources that Ronin described in their letter to shareholders in the event that the new BOD leadership needs to manage resources for this already under subscribed Avid capacity.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Threes, in the process you describe, long shareholders need to recognize that control of the company is being sought by a hedge fund group that already communicated to PPHM shareholders their intention to halt development of PPHM proprietary technology. The PPHM track record already has shown long investors that a professional services company (CSM) mislabeled trial doses administered to patients, compromising the trial control arm sufficiently to preclude achievement of trial design objectives. PPHM regrouped from that trial "disaster" by combining the lower Bavi dose group with the control group and comparing results with the 3 mg/kg Bavi dose arm. In turn, Bavi compared to lower doses of Bavi performed well and follow on trials could proceed. Recent communications on this message board summarizes the more recent developments with tech development.
Now Board compensation is being leveraged to take control of the PPHM proprietary tech without paying for it in a way that allows long time long shareholders to participate in reaping the benefits of what they helped fund. I view tabling of the proprietary PPHM tech development as being a bigger threat to my long held investment than watching the current Board cope with having to pay back $1.5 million to PPHM and have their compensation pared back to be pegged at 75% of peer Pharma compensation to Directors and so forth.
The taking of control of a company I am invested in by a hedge fund group who established their holdings under circumstances much influenced by "insider" knowledge events has me being very vigilant of intent and ulterior motives or agendas. So far Ronin has identified developments already in progress as being cause to align my proxy support. I want to see accountability for the disposition of the PPHM proprietary technology in the event the three new Board nominees are elected before I cast my vote. Citing details in the Delaware Settlement Agreement does nothing to show what Ronin selected Board members will do with the PPHM technology.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Holo, you raise a good point except your reference to the ATM mechanism allowing for coverage of short positions doesn't seem structured to balance the daily naked short sale percentage captured in James' reference. It falls far "short", LOL.
Best wishes and IMO,
KT
Threes, now that you have formalized a complaint against PPHM management and directors with the SEC and you say the complaint has been transferred to the Office of Attorney General in California, I am wondering about what consequential outcomes may result and pondering what direction the OAG investigation will need to go, beyond your initial complaint against the existing PPHM management team and BOD. Notably, your complaint included the following point which you said is now part of the OAG investigation:
MIsleading PR related to the need to avoid a reverse split while quietly selling ATM common shares negating any chance of reaching required $1.00 threshold.
I presume that a proper investigation by the SEC and CA OAG of the ATM sales will extend to all of the PPHM trading market influencers that could support or give cause to challenge the PPHM BODs' perceived need to make the ATM sales to raise operational funds, influence the pps at which the ATM sales were able to be priced, the parties with whom the common shares were placed for ultimate sale and which party acquired ultimate ownership of the new issue ATM shares that may have financially benefited from the PPHM BOD hardship decisions. I observe that over the last six+ months period during which avoidance of the RS has been emphasized to be at risk to avoid PPHM NASDAQ delisting, there has also been an inordinately high percentage of naked shorting of PPHM shares cited, stretching across the timing of your SEC complaint reference to PPHM management's SEC filed communications affirming that PPHM was seeking to restore compliance with NASDAQ listing requirements without implementing a reverse split-- through the period when ATM decision and pricing influencing factors were playing themselves out.
Remarkably, during this same RS risk period, we learned that PPHM/Avid's largest customer had informed Avid it was delaying its acceptance of product and reducing orders PPHM had been anticipating as needed to reach Avid sales targets for PPHM's 2017 fiscal year which ended April 30, 2017. The SEC and CA OAG would likely need to investigate whether this placed PPHM at risk for preserving operational cash requirements needed to avoid its accountant issuing a financial going concern clause and whether knowledge of the Halozyme hardship was privileged information before PPHM publicly announced the problem during their investor conference call.
In turn, across this six month period, the pps ended up at $3.11 (the August 23, 2017 close or about $0.44 pre-RS) which is a about fifteen percent below where the pps was trading at the start of the six months period, on February 23 ($3.56 or about $0.51 pps pre RS). Extroardinarily for PPHM's institutional investor history, what had recently only exhibited Dart's Eastern Capital doing >5% SEC reporting, there has been an emergence of three new hedge funds who acquired just under 15% ownership in the PPHM common and convertible preferred stock over this six month period in which the pps experienced a net reduction. Two of these new hedge fund PPHM, >5% shareholders are now nominating three directors for the PPHM Board who, if approved by shareholder proxy in October, would be taking over control of PPHM and management of Avid plus all of PPHM's technology rights from old, current and ongoing trials, agreements and collaborations.
Since you indicated that the SEC has now referred your complaint to the CA OAG for pursuit, it appears that the inclusion in your complaint of PPHM management action to issue ATM shares during this critical six month period should result in the OAG and SEC investigation extending to all relevant PPHM management, ATM decision influencers in play during that period. Off hand, I can see that investigation of influencers on the perceived need for the ATM and the ATM pricing and placement extending to:
- associated hedge fund position acquisitions or divestment that could influence the pps at which the ATM would be placed (did the ATM placements precede or follow hedge fund position establishment or otherwise lower the cost of position establishment? Was there communication of inside information that influenced position establishment or timing of the ATM placements?),
- the high percentage of naked short trading influencing the ATM placement pps and Reverse Split assessment period (was the naked shorting legal, was shorting practiced on behalf of the PPHM Board itself or the hedge funds associated with the ownership position establishment?),
- the basis by which the Halozyme sales came under hardship (were sales delayed or reduced such that they accelerated PPHM cash flow needs, warranting alternative cash sources like the ATM and more importantly, were the Halozyme sales problems communicated while they were carrying insider information status or were the reduced Halozyme sales influenced by parties who carried a financial interest in PPHM?),
- associated Board member and other trading parties' purchases or sale of options, puts and calls, common or preferred stock that could translate to financial benefit due to PPHM inside information or ATM placements and
- trial progress, technical paper development or trial results information that could have been designated as material insider information held by PPHM management but shared by PPHM in confidence to PPHM's conferring investor groups and Pharma.
Considering all the above, I don't know what to expect from the CA OAG investigation of the ATM sales by PPHM management, but it does appear that the ATM sales occurred during what appears to be a significant PPHM financial hardship period. I do hope that, if the OAG or SEC finds that illegal naked shorting or insider information was used for illegal advantaging of parties over the period that PPHM issued the ATM sales, that appropriate enforcement of penalties be imposed. Pandora's box has been opened!
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
North, I found reference to the 2015 press release written up in SI.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Stopeck BC trial Bavi combo
jq1234, I agree that the theme that PS is pervasive in nature is well known, just as those following the science on this board likely know that one of Dr. Thorpes discoveries was the significance of "inside out" PS, PE and other cell material formed as healthy cells are affected by cancer or viruses. Bavi attaches to exposed PS that would not otherwise be accessible with healthy cells and the Bavi family products are able to carry therapeutic substances to the exposed PS site and attach there.
You may recall that early PPHM research delved into whether just attachment of Bavi to the exposed PS site is enough to "unmask" the virus or cancer cell so that it is recognized as foreign, for removal by the body's own immune system that was being tricked into viewing the damaged cell as just needing normal dead cell clean up rather than an immune system, "invader removal" response. The patent and technology rights surrounding Dr. Thorpe's team discoveries and the ongoing research evaluating how exposed PS and PE can be utilized with PPHM proprietary technology for imaging or therapeutic applications is yet a work in progress that has been reporting back promising results from studies, such as those that Biopharm has been flagging on the message board and CJ has been summarizing in the yellow stickies.
At this timing, I have not seen anything from Ronin affirming a commitment to preserving and progressing value of PPHM technology so that it brings optimal benefit to long time long PPHM investors. The view that the tech should be valued as worthless because the markets are not currently assigning any PPHM technology value, in itself, doesn't impress me for how I would vote my shares. The prospect that an unfamiliar leadership team will take over control of the Board of Directors if I (and other long retail investors) assign them my proxy vote does impress me and I want to see assurances that Ronin's new crew will just not be placing a nail in the coffin that was prepared for Bavi when the CSM mislabeling of trial arm dosing occurred.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Thanks Jeff, your summary aligns with what I recall regarding patent life extension. I would expect even a hostile to PPHM management party would want to see the PPHM tech rights stay intact if they become aligned to benefit from it.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Hayward, I wrote in my last post about how I view the poison pill issue to be a red herring, as it might relate to election of the Ronin Board candidates.
Why? For starters, there would not likely even be this attempt to win favor of the existing long investor proxy vote if the poison pill did not prescribe limits on percentage ownership by aligned parties. Keep in mind that, if Ronin's candidates win Board control, that would have Ronin/the new BOD holding the reins as to whether the PP gets implemented or not. That is because, by my understanding, the BOD has to trigger the PP, since the 15% hostile ownership threshold only makes the PP ripe for BOD action and the PP action is not automatic.
Being big picture pragmatic, the introduction of the PP discussion suggests a third column interest could emerge that sets aside both what the current BOD would seek and the value Ronin says they want to deliver. Whichever Board makeup ends up in charge, the PP improves the prospects of their business plan delivery being accomplished without it being redirected by hostile interests. I would hope that long investors, including Ronin, recognize that Ronin's success and subsequent business plan could be easily swept away by another interest, absent the PP. As long as we have a BOD that is acting in the best interests of "long time long investors", I see the poison pill to be a good thing.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Corporalagarn, how about a camp 4? My sense is that the proxy swing vote needed for Ronin's Board candidates to be elected is still undecided. Introduction of the poison pill rescission talk at this timing is an indicator, just as I view the PP as a red herring issue.
Camp 4. Investor is amongst a group of long investors who have held or accumulated PPHM shares for years, across the period of several reported "unfortunate" events in trials, on through a recent point where announced delays in Avid sales are pushing out the estimated period for PPHM self funding of its research. This long investor group collectively represents enough shares to determine the outcome of a proxy fight for changing the PPHM Board of Directors majority.
These "Camp 4" long investors recognize that the BOD change would result in a new PPHM business plan that would halt PPHM proprietary technology development in order to optimize Avid development (this is what Ronin and SW have written). The long investors recognize that Avid sales potential is good (as has been affirmed by Ronin and the analyst) just as they recognize that delivery of the Avid sales growth should deliver the analyst's price target, regardless of who is controlling the BOD. The Camp 4 long investors recognize they ultimately have a proxy vote choice of: retaining PPHM tech development while seeking Avid growth vs. redirecting full potency of Avid earnings resource to optimize Avid growth. The former will likely take more time for delivery of a pps rise than the latter, since applying more resource to Avid ought to speed things up.
At this juncture, I am wondering if Avid is resource investment constrained, such that PPHM needs to place all the Avid revenue back into Avid development or do the recently announced cost containment measures give Avid the resource balance it needs?
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
JG, are you certain your statement about "patent expiration" is correct?
You wrote: "those patents licensed from UTSWMC are set to expire between 2019 and 2021".
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Bio, picks for a Board candidate might be preceded by an assessment of what attributes are needed to better direct PPHM going forward. This message board has emphasized how BOD decision making that allows over compensation is a problem and the Delaware Chancery put an exclamation mark on that.
Beyond that, let's try to be BOD selection objective. Here are attributes that come to mind:
- background in phama deal making.
- business experience with managing customer development for a mabufacturing facility.
- familiarity with the drug candidate development and approval process
- financing experience and contacts
- legal experience with developing and protecting intellectal property
- familiarity with trial process, patient care and treatment needs
- business collaboration/partnering development experience
- risk management training
- public communications and relations experience
- research grant application and implementation management
- proprietary tech development and patent application experience
- shareholder relations management experience
- demonstrated knowledge of the Pharma industry structure and operations
- ...
Feel free to add to the list and describe how Board candidates you might suggest fit the needs. I presume the Ronin BOD candidates come with business collaboration experience as a forte and see credentials cover much on the list. The current BODs collectively cover much of the list. No individual is a perfect match. That is why a Board of several Directors with complimentary backgrounds is desirable.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Geo, agreed.
Regarding your posts calling for communications from the current BOD, I presume legal sensibilities limit communication options. That Delaware Chancery hearing transcript reinforces the Ronin claims of BOD overcompensation, but Ronin really hasn't touted much else besides their intention to curtail research. The BOD announced cost reductions including lopping the PPHM research team in half. I view that as communicating through action. An announcement of PPHM achieving "self funded research" leading into the ASM would be a nice touch for affirming the existing Board accomplished something of value at a critical time. Not needing the ATM anymore plus expanding Avid sales can improve shareholder value. It would also set up shareholders who see value in PPHM tech with a relevant choice between the current BOD's "develop Avid sales using revenue for funding PPHM tech" and Ronin candidates' "put a hold on PPHM research funding to allow optimization of Avid value development". At least, that is how I contrast the current BOD vs. Ronin's views, considering what has been shared with investors so far.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
TampaTradr, you wrote, "Dark Horse that we must save the Company from (as if we had any ability to sway it much anyway)". Lest we forget, it is the proxy vote from retail shareholders that are being wooed to align with Ronin's BOD picks. We do have ability to sway the BOD outcome, or there wouldn't be the effort underway to diss the current BOD. That said, I don't know if Ronin is a dark horse or white night, considering what information has been shared, so I am awaiting meaningful info from Ronin that gives assurances the PPHM tech value will be optimized to benefit long term long shareholders. Calling out BOD over compensation that is in process of being pared back by a Delaware Court settlement agreement does not affirm for me whether Ronin BOD candidates will act in my best interest to optimize value of my PPHM investment.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Ivan and Geo, the lingering issue for me with Ronin has had a "light shown on it" in the context you are raising.
Consider:
- Unfamiliar (to me) investment groups (Ronin, then Tappan) have established > 5% positions in PPHM on an average cost basis that is (much) lower than mine after I have accumulated a long positionin PPHM over many years. Their presence as shareholders appears to be less than six months.
- Timing of Ronin position initiation about aligns with when a hearing date is being set at the Delaware Chancery Court where PPHM directors are having a proposed settlement agreement heard that should substantially reduce the BOD compensation.
- Replacement Directors with whom I have no familiarity or trusted vetting are proposed by Ronin fo receive a proxy vote leading into to October ASM, with public announcements citing how the current BODs overcompensated themselves and need to go. The July 27 Delaware hearing transcripts have excerpts posted on a public message board that affirm the rationale behind the claims of BOD overcompensation.
- PPHM proprietary technology rooted on Dr. Thorpe's (now deceased) pioneering research has shown prospective value in PPHM collaborations and in applications being forwarded by other Pharma, while Ronin affirms in a letter to sharehokders that funding for PPHM research needs to stop, to be redirected into Avid development.
- Avid development has been announced to have unsubscribed Avid production capacity for new customers, just as Avid's primary customer (Halozyme) has announced delayed orders.
- Avid revenue combined with PPHM cuts in costs makes PPHM self funding or reduced scale research realistically achievable within the next year. Avid sales growth or curtailment places boundaries on how much research can be self funded.
Turning reins over to an unknown party makes me very uncomfortable and questioning prudency. I need to wait and see what new developments arise and will decide my vote just before the ASM. There is much investors don't know about whi's who and alternatives.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Cheynew, quite so. In context of what I just responded to Bigbro1 in a post, PPHM's one third margin with a ten million reduced sales translates to a trimming back of cash for funding non Avid operations of $3.3 million. PPHM announced their cuts translate to a savings of $7 million overall. Math details are absent, but the key point I posted still seems applicable. The 4:1 PS ratio with reduced Avid sales of $10 million might translate to a pps valuation of a bit over $4, assigning no value to PPHM tech. Self sustaining operations is important at this juncture.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Bigbro1, I addressed the Tappan percent in my last post. For whatever reason, 0.15% is reported separate from Tappan.
Is the loss of Avid's largest customer going to cause Avid to fail? I don't think so, since other existing orders can carry Avid financials while new customers are subcribed. Avid now has capacity to add new customers while filling orders from Halozyme and can implement that second Myford expansion that was put on standby if there is supportive customer demand. The market has been noted to carry high demand for mabufacturing (sellers market?) of the nature provided by Avid, so subscribing new customers in line with Avid capacity becoming available seems realistic and a normal and necessary part of Avid operations. Complete loss of Halozyme sales without new orders would compel PPHM and Avid to size down accordingly, just as new orders would support growth.
Do we agree that PPHM being positioned to be self funded, limiting research outlays to staying within the support base of revenues is the underlying critical issue? The fast Avid sales growth of the last four years is plateauing, absent subscription of new Avid customers, so PPHM needs to plan for R&D budgeting within this smaller envelope in the event new orders don't materialize. The $7 million reduced payroll costs that included the cutting of the PPHM research team by half, to eleven, appears to be structured for self funding within the envelop of projected Avid sales for FY 2018 ($50 to $60 million), but investors have not been shown the math details. Presuming that Avid preserves a gross profit of about one third of sales and presuming all Avid employee costs are balanced within that margin, self funding from operations means non Avid payroll, office Administrative, trial support costs etc. need to be limited to $15 to $20 million annually, going forward. Less if Avid sales drop, more if Avid sales expand. The PPHM recently announced cost control measures appear structured to support this balance, such that issuance of new shares to support research, at this point in time, does not appear to be needed. Absent a compelling cause, like supporting operational cash flow that gets upset during surprise, temporary events, issuance of new shares should not be done, IMO.
Now that PPHM appears to have "hunkered down" while seeking new Avid sales, what does Ronin have to offer that isn't already in motion?
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Hutschi, interesting that Tappan is posted at 4.95% and Phatak at 0.15%. A technical separation to avoid SEC reporting, perhaps, or something else?
Archie and Geo, the Ronin trading influence on PPHM needs to weigh with the shorting interest, naked shorting that James has flagged, actions by other hedge funds like Tappan and developments with the company like delays in Avid's Halozyme sales. I would look for a communication from Eastern Capital (Dart) as an indicator of whether or not the existing Board of Directors is really at risk of being displaced by Ronin initiatives. Some posters who didn't seem to have a long position in PPHM before Ronin actions emerged now seem to be focusing on trying to convince that group of 1000 +/- long retail investors to align with Ronin initiatives. I still have not seen anything from Ronin that wasn't already in the works with PPHM (e.g. The July 27 settlement agreement to limit BOD compensation) and am watching for a reason to take the risk of giving them the reins of PPHM's future. There are lots of smoke and mirrors, IMO.
Cheynew, the Avid earnings growing to $57 million for the PPHM fiscal year 2017 that ended April 30 coupled with a projection of similar revenue in FY 2018 with reduced employee costs of $7 million/year and reduced trial expenses suggests PPHM is currently undervalued by the markets. PPHM being self funding from operations appears close. A Price to Sales Ratio of 4 supports a pps above $5, using 45 million as shares outstanding and assigning no value to PPHM tech. Avid's conference presence advertising there is significant unsubscribed Avid capacity available is a good action for bringing forward new customer interest but also an indicator that their existing customers are not situated to subscribe Avid capacity to support their own growth.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
st s., where do you see that "word on the street" about PPHM and Ronin? What is your basis for the "word"?
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Biopharm, I fully agree regarding a deal not being legally encumbered (if there is one) due to Ronin's recent actions (and accusations against the BOD). To suggest that is the case would mean that, anytime a spurned pharma or short interest hedge fund wants to spoil a deal to prevent a company like PPHM from bringing product to market or to prevent a pps rise, they need only act in a manner like Ronin has these last five months. If PPHM has a deal to close, Ronin should not be holding them back unless Ronin is affiliated with the party positioned to close terms with PPHM and is impeding PPHM management negotiation effectiveness. That seems unlikely, does it not?
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Goldfinger, I don't observe there being enough information to sort out if there is a third party exerting influence here, beyond Ronin and the PPHM Board. Tappan's SEC filing announcing they dropped their holdings to 4.95% (my understanding) suggests Tappan's desire to trade freely without needing to disclose to the SEC. Tappan or other such parties with < 5% holdings can continue to move "under the radar". We also don't know if any of these parties are acting on behalf of a Pharma interest. Consequently, I don't yet see long time long shareholders have been positioned to choose between Ronin candidates and the current Board in October. The third column may still show its hand.
I am concerned that Ronin is communicating as if the PPHM settlement agreement that trims back PPHM BOD compensation has not occurred, even though I received a disclosure of the agreed upon settlement to be heard by the Delaware judge on July 27 in the mail (as a shareholder) before Ronin's recent public statements. Ronin also does not appear to have been aware that the Sunrise trial finished, allowing reduction of significant patient care expense outlays around the same timing that Ronin established a position. Nor is Ronin indicating awareness that PPHM Avid sales to Halozyme were deferred to the next calendar year. The PPHM staff reductions are also scheduled to be implemented with their one time charge to earnings for separation settlements before the ASM in October.
Conceivably, PPHM could be situated to announce their operations are self funded with Avid sales revenue for announcement around the ASM. $7 million reduced payroll cost, reduced BOD compensation from the settlement and reduced trial implementation costs goes a long way towards covering the costs of 11 PPHM employees to be still engaged with research. Avid itself was already net profitable. Something to consider...
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Does anyone on the board have a sense as to how the SEC September 5 transition to a two day settlement period will affect ongoing PPHM shorting practices? It would seem that the two day settlement requirement still leaves a window for naked shorting that James reported has been dominating recent trading, but the influence period on market trading will have been reduced by a third. Maybe the PPHM just needs to announce a small dividend to shareholders on record as of date xx so that loose shorting accounting will carry some accountability? Considering the odd PPHM trading, calling out who owns what could be a half million well spent.
Regarding Ronin's announcement today, the update component I was watching for from Ronin was missing. That is, Ronin did not address how they were going to assure that "long time long" shareholders would benefit from fair market valuation of PPHM technology, under Ronin Board leadership. Ronin also gave no reference to the July 27 settlement agreement hearing before a Delaware judge that places compensation limits on PPHM Board members. It appears that settlement already addresses the Board compensation issue that Ronin made their primary point in their announcement today.
I observe Ronin is behaving more like an implementation tool for a Pharma whose bid for PPHM tech would not likely be approved by the current BOD than like a 9% new shareholder interest seeking release of shareholder value by investing in Avid growth. We have learned that further Avid sales growth is awaiting customer orders, which is an area that Ronin has not addressed. What will Ronin do to expand Avid's customer base that is not already being done by Avid sales staff?
As I have observed before past PPHM stock movements, it appears that some parties are seeking to squeeze out shares from long shareholders who own PPHM shares on margin, dropping the pps to a range that can trigger margin calls. PPHM remains a highly speculative, high risk investment which appears recently to be all the more risky in conjunction with the public announcement of Ronin intentions to take over BOD control of the company and subsequent announcements by the current BOD.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
John, thanks for responding. It seems I am mostly "getting it" regarding the PPHM tech, but you are identifying unrefined pathways where the anti PS benefits linked with those of other substances places Bavi family treatment back into the anti viral realm. Complicated and fascinating.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Jake, are you suggesting that a BOD member needs to have large stock holdings in PPHM to carry credibility? I don't see that happening with Board members for my employer. Selection is based on expertise that can be brought to bear that reflects the wide range of interests of a publicly traded company, and such. If Ronin succeeds in bringing three new candidates through election, I don't expect those new Board members to be delivering big insider trades, do you?
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Rev M, is it imminent, you ask?
My view is that PPHM has been running a gauntlet that has suppressed "imminence" until PPHM established its work around mechanism through Avid sales and projections showing PPHM can self fund within the next year or so. Those that may want to see PPHM fail so their proprietary treatment sales can flourish need to deal with that. Weakness in Avid sales to Halozyme is giving an opportunity for Ronin to argue for Board control that would not likely have materialized as credible if Halozyme sales supported a $120 million annual sales outlook instead of $60 million. Value of PPHM intellectual property doesn't even need to weigh in, now that Avid is showing it is on the cusp of expanding sales volume. Cusp? Next year or so it now seems, whereas, before the revealing of delayed Avid sales leading into the last earnings call, PPHM was signalling self funding was coming together for their fiscal year 2018, which ends in April 2018.
Some market potential for PPHM tech mentioned on this board today seem high, but I haven't researched it.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Bio, your logic sequence for Halozyme order impacts makes sense. I recall CJ or someone else on this message board had flagged last year how Avid may be picking up some primary production for trials that had been getting supplied by Cook, due to Halozyme encountering quality and delivery problems. If problems of that sort were real (my memory being fuzzy on this) and they got resolved or a shift to Avid is taking more time, that can explain why PPHM has slowed down their Avid production capacity expansion plans to give customer orders time to create a "pull" for expansions again and why revenues plateaued. On context here is that the Avid sales growth backing off is just a glitch to be resolved soon and the other is a signal that Avid needs to find new customers (beyond Halozyme growth) to support PPHM self funding business plan goal delivery.
Another point is that Avid may be somewhat obligated or compelled to preserve production capacity for use by Halozyme rather than subscribing new customers for that capacity, but PPHM has provided for capacity expansion that can cover both needs, once a customer is indicating commitments to orders.
As I noted in my post to GJH, the science and business relationships are getting complex to keep current on.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
GJH, thanks for sharing your insights on this board. If I am observing the gist of your recent science focused messages correctly, you are calling out how there can be more therapeutic value potential for anti-PS agents when working in tandem with substances like statins, that can make the "inside out" PS sites more accessible for Bavi family attachment, which in turn, can assist the bodies own anti-tumor immune response effectiveness. You are also suggesting that this sort of "helper" mechanism from other substances may show itself to be an essential part of the Bavi family PS or ES targeting agents aiding a therapeutic response (I don't understand why the helper role is necessary for effective therapeutic response as you suggested when it comes to current trials exhibiting a stat sig directional response without the helpers being present, though). The bioscience here is getting a bit complex for this chemical engineer, so I would appreciate it if you could provide a simple affirmation or correction of what I am trying to interpret from your posts.
Something I didn't see you address yet (I am still scanning through a backlog of a large number of unread posts) is the biomarking/tumor labeling benefit prospects being examined as part of PPHM tech research. This biomarking for imaging and simple categorization of tumor types (I recall not all tumors are marked as well as others based on earlier posts by others) was discussed on this board as being a prospectively market valuable offshoot from Bavi research that could generate revenue for PPHM fairly short term (maybe only a year or two out). Do you see the tumor marking value as warranting further research pursuit, distinct from Bavi family/betabody therapeutic value research?
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Jake, Ronin needs to affirm how their plan for PPHM technology doesn't just serve to transfer value to the benefit of third parties who gain if they get tech rights on the cheap or gain if they suppress the technology from ever making it to market. The history of this company through events like the third party mislabeling of trial doses that compromised trial results and "unlucky" control arms that outperform standard of care has me convinced that suppression of trial progress has been practiced. The timing of Ronin entry (PPHM on verge of financial independence through Avid sales) has me scrutinizing what Ronin is offering that is not already in motion (Ronin's answers so far are less compensation to BODs and stop funding research).
As a long investor, I don't want PPHM to completely stop funding research, but I do want research to fund within net earnings from Avid sales rather than from more dilution. Avid sales are not yet enough to deliver this balance, but that can change soon if parties don't act to intervene in growth of Avid sales.
All that aside, anonymous message boards do not involve disclosure of which posters are long, short or not invested in the stock, which is as they are intended and designed. My point yesterday about there being maybe a thousand retail long investors who are targeted for changing their views to align with Ronin, I believe, is about the right count. I also observe that the track record of posters gives a hint as to whether they are amongst the targeted thousand or those attempting persuasion.
Good luck to all with their PPHM investment, as I sense this ongoing, major shake out is just getting underway. I also sense that there would not be any parties bothering with this sort of BOD take over activity if PPHM did not have value that competing interests wish to see change hands. Logic behind turning PPHM into just Avid by curtailing PPHM research raises red flags for me.
A key question: is the curent PPHM BODs the problem for achieving best interests of long investors or have they been an advocate for long investor interests in a business environment that is seeking to transfer PPHM value to others or suppress it, altogether?
Within this question, I presume that the best interests of PPHM the company, the employees and those benefitting from PPHM and Avid patient and customer services align with the interests of long investors. I observe that Ronin is attempting the argument that the current BOD is the problem without making the case that they are not in the camp for transferring PPHM value to the hands of others. Of course, Ronin might be able to do that, but so far, Ronin has chosen to just make the case that the current BODs are the problem.
Some on this message board have noted affilliations that suggest Ronin has cross ties to more recent PPHM set backs, but I observe that case has not been made, either. Giving Ronin the benefit of the doubt there makes sense, as long as Ronin makes the case for what their leadership would do to preserve PPHM value, whatever that is or can become, so it doesn't transfer to third parties without first delivering fair sharing with long investors and the company. The current Mantra of "not the current Board" in and of itself does nothing for me to make me want to align my vote with Ronin.
We should not lose sight that the momentum of status quo has PPHM retaining the rights of PPHM technology, unencumbered with debt and that the company is tracked to be self sufficient as Avid sales grow. That serves my near term interpretation of being long investor friendly, just as the historic dilution path PPHM has been on to preserve the no debt status is only long investor friendly if that has been needed to retain PPHM tech rights while "setbacks" are worked through to recovery.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Bfiest, respectfully, questioning Ronin is what I am doing. It is Ronin's job to convince investors like me that they have a better plan. If they succeed, they achieve a takeover of PPHM. So far, I observe PPHM is pushing back with the BOD member count going to seven, so next move is Ronin's. Other than stepping in to try to realize the Avid value the current team set up, what is Ronin offering to do? Put PPHM proprietary tech on the back burner? That strikes me as a lame offering for me voting to give Ronin the privilege of running the company with their Board.
Yes, I am frustrated with PPHM, too. How I "feel" and what I do with my investments are separate things.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Exwannabe, yes the BOD change in this case had Ronin start out proposing that three PPHM board members be displaced by three Ronin proposed board members. A Ronin statement to shareholders summarized plan changes the new board members would try to implement, if elected. If the vote favors all three of Ronin's candidates, a four member board would have a Ronin 3-1 majority that would be free to displace the current PPHM business plan with the Ronin business plan. Some might suggest that this is a hostile take over attempt because it is seeking to avoid the PPHM poison pill, considering how Ronin kept his ownership below the triggering percentage.
However, PPHM countered the Ronan Board proposal by announcing in an SEC filing they are increasing the Board count to seven. That is in tandem with PPHM proposing that they will offer three new PPHM managment friendly Board members to supplement the current four. That gambit would leave PPHM with anywhere from a 7-0 to a 4-3 majority. In turn, Ronin indicated through a poster on this IHub Board that if PPHM actually proposes three more candidates, Ronin intends to propose three more, as well, again attempting a Board majority. I don't know if either party can propose more Board candidates in the way indicated, but it is entertaining.
Absent something of substance coming from Ronin or an undisclosed third column initiative, I expect I will just need to hold my shares until current PPHM BODs and management bring forward Avid sales growth or some realization of PPHM proprietary value in order to realize the shareholder value I have been awaiting. Current Avid sales at just under $60 million per year would maybe value at a 4X P/S ratio. An Avid sales valued $240 million market cap with 45 million shares places current PPHM value with zero PPHM tech valuation at about a pps of $5.5, which by coincidence, about aligns with the peak pps run up while Ronin was establishing a >5% SEC reportable position in PPHM. By that rationale, current trading has PPHM a bit under valued, relative to Avid sales. Yet, PPHM is using the net revenue from Avid to fund PPHM tech development, which is a point of challengecraised by Ronin.
Now if Avid sales go to where the third mabufacturing facility can support production, the analyst target of around $12 to $14 pps comes back in focus, considering a OS ratio of 4, more if PPHM can start sales for biomarking or other tech valuation mechanisms. We shall see what happens next. All this is in play without valuing the halted Phase 3 trial result, subgroup findings reported at recent conferences.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Jake, LOL! How many shares are enough?
Don't you think the underlying problem is that Ronin wants to win the power of shares they don't own by convincing parties to vote Ronin's preference without their needing to pay he price of establishing a 51% stake in the company? Ronin need only convince maybe 1000 investors like myself to align with them and they should be all set, right? If a 51% stake in the company is being attempted, I would expect to see the pps a lot higher than $4 and I might oblige Ronin interests by selling them mine. Message board anonymous chatter is a lot cheaper for parties to get control of PPHM than buying a majority stake if the retail investors can be persuaded to vote as if the acquiring party owned them, right? Of course, if Ronin is just plying for Avid value realization and the PPHM technology is really worthless, there wouldn't be much to post about, LOL! Long investors would just be holding out for Avid sale value to bump the pps up after the Avid customer sales get back on track, which could happen yet this year, maybe a year out, maybe longer.
Underlying Avid value when their annual sales climb above $100 million goes to $400 million shareholder value if a normal price to sales ratio for Pharma is applied and PPHM technology is valued at zero. And so on.... I posted on this topic before.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Corporal,
Don't you think that Halozyme and other Avid sales projections being delayed translated to PPHM earnings prospects being much diminished, which in turn, held back the pps recovery that PPHM suggested would occur to meet NASDAQ listing requirements? All of this was in the purview of the auditor who released the going concern statement that showed up in the recent Q reporting. Whatever the case, the assignment of accountability for the going concern as a flaw in PPHM management was what I was responding to.
I do find it funny that some might think I would weigh into my formula for my investment that the going concern statement gives cause to support a Ronin agenda. Maybe some of those 1000 retail investors like myself might be influenced by that (I can't write for them), but I for one, would not expect to find that either the current BOD or Ronin had interaction with Halozyme that gave cause for Halozyme's delayed Avid orders.
If Ronin wants to convince me that they should change PPHM's business plan, they need to demonstrate something more substantive than finding flaws with PPHM BOD compensation. Many might be delighted to work on PPHM's Board for less than a half million in annual compensation, but that doesn't mean that their business plans are better, either.
Ronin needs to deliver some meaningful cause to get my support beyond sending me back to painful memories of CSM mischief, Dr. Epstein China mischief (Ronin may not even know about that, LOL), litigation settlements brought by those who speculated with options and short sales before the CSM news or Phase 3 trial halt were announced or whatever ghosts from the past get flagged. Ronin needs to show me how they will do better for me if I give them my support, going forward.
Recall, I started posting today with giving reference to that Washington Post article that explained how the SEC was cracking down on parties who were taking short positions, then maligning the companies they shorted on anonymous message boards. My sense is still that there are other, unidentified parties weighing in on PPHM trading beyond those who disclosed their 5% positions.
I don't really expect Ronin to carry pps support duty just because they established a > 5% position, nor did I expect that from Dart when their position was disclosed. I do expect Ronin to demonstrate to me why I should align with their interests to change the BOD and insert their business plan over current management's.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
djohn, Ronin offering nothing more than a plan that involves monetizing the Avid value current leadership has been developing makes the food fight analogy appropriate, methinks. Food fights make a mess, don't accomplish much productive of themselves and enable mischief to avoid notice through diversion.
I am looking for substance from Ronin that suggests that they are offering more than a path that might set back PPHM technology commercialization. So far, I observe a pps swing that appears to be financially benefiting others (not me, as I have held my shares and bought a few more per pre-Ronin entry plan at a higher price than I might have otherwise had to pay.
I see value realization from PPHM coming together when Avid's customer base gets consolidated and strengthened (Halozyme has reduced orders) so that Avid can reach that $100 million + annual sales threshold. Avid expansion planning has already been set up to support that. I also see value realization coming from PPHM when the PPHM tech gets aligned with partnering that brings value to patients, applying the significant discoveries of Dr. Thorpe and others. Some have said that there has been no value demonstrated, but I do my own review of PPHM developments and I am not convinced that the real issue isn't just that pharma doesn't want to pay the price that the current BOD has been seeking. Maybe Ronin's lower expectations for the technology value will make those Pharma more happy? Maybe there is no value there, like Ronin suggests?
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Jake, my response to your post gets addressed in my follow on posts except for how you point out where PPHM's Board had their flaws pointed out in a letter to shareholders. The flaw that carries the most sway with me is the amount of compensation to BOD members, FWIW. Regardless, bringing in new Board members who will work for half the price or a tenth or whatever compensation does nothing to convince me that Ronin ought to have their appointees take control of the company. Rather, it is what Ronin offers in their business plan. From what I have seen so far, Ronin hasn't presented something that sways me to vote to instill their business plan over the current plan. Conversely, the current PPHM Board has not presented me with anything that indicates PPHM tech value is ready to deliver shareholder value.
If Ronin could help bring the pps back into the $5 1/2 pre-RS range that PPHM was trading at going into that European Conference before the pps collapsed over the holidays with announcement of CSM switching of dosing products to trial participants, that would catch my attention. Of course, Ronin is not in control and a Ronin business plan would need to outline for me how they might go about achieving a pps move within the next year or so. I observe there is nothing of that nature from Ronin to get excited about and the pps run up from Ronin acquiring a position appears to be getting shorted to oblivion. Thanks for what?
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
bfiest, in context of what I just replied to Corporal, Ronin needs to show me they have vision for making Avid more profitable than just announcing they plan on cutting off PPHM research from benefiting from Avid net earnings for funding. If Avid is already profitable stand alone (seems it is), the underlying issue is what can Ronin do to grow Avid sales and translate gains to shareholder equity that isn't already in the queue with the current management team?
Consider the post from Threes earlier today. Threes noted how a presplit 100,000 share position would amount to about 14,000 shares post split and expressed concerns about profitability and risk of further dilution.
Then consider how maybe 20% of the 45 million outstanding shares are about what is being held by a few >5%, SEC disclosing investors or maybe 9 million shares. A 51% controlling interest hostile to the PPHM Board would need to tally to about 23 million shares. Figuring Dart preferences as a wild card for Ronin support, somewhere around 14 to 17 million shares in "retail investor" hands will need to align with Ronin against supporting the current PPHM directors and stock option holders. In turn, that means that somewhere around 1000 long term investors with holdings like those described by Threes need to be persuaded to support Ronin, fewer there are some large long term investors convinced for change.
I see myself as one of those thousand long term investors who needs to be convinced, situated like Threes and other long investors who profile similarly.
All this added together, I don't see that Ronin has made the case that their BOD candidates will bring customers and sales to Avid any quicker than the current Board. When it comes to getting value for PPHM tech, Ronin suggesting defunding the tech development while it is being groomed for sale and turn over to third parties comes off to me like the tech will be getting released at distressed value, which is a big red flag. If the tech value truly became distressed after the Phase 3 Bavi trial halt (I think it did), the ongoing R&D efforts to cull out value and advance prospects for new applications seems essential. Status quo leadership is not the party presenting that fire sale risk to long investors, so if Ronin is going to convince the 1000 retail investors like me to align with their interests, Ronin needs to offer more than leaving the pps floundering without support after their position entry while dozens of anonymous message board posters play off of existing long investor frustrations accumulated over the years. I am not sure if "where's the beef" or "show me the money" coins my sentiment here, but I am certainly not cheering in the streets for a PPHM occupation force entry. Not yet, anyway.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Corporal, an island? Perhaps.
My view is that if Ronin can do no better than acquire a 5% position in a way that sets up a pump and dump that returns the pps back to the trading range it was at before they gave PPHM the time of day, they did long investors no favors. Of course, the trading range is a work in progress as unknown parties are shorting and naked shorting to drop the pps down. Perhaps, Ronin has no interest in supporting the pps while the try to make the case for other investors to align with their BOD takeover interests?
So what do we have to show from Ronin's letter to shareholders? Three Board candidates and a Ronin announced plan to set up Avid for profitability. The Avid set up is already part of the PPHM business plan and Ronin is not situated to accelerate existing Avid customer sales or meaningfully promise new sales, which is the current challenge Avid/PPHM is experiencing, so Ronin is bringing no value there and does not offer anything beyond suggesting that PPHM will cut off funding to their ongoing work with patients and researchers involved in studies? Perhaps, some here have forgotten that PPHM/Avid have expanded Avid sales five fold in about two years?
So other than threats that they plan to sell off the PPHM proprietary tech and Ronin position acquisition inserting a pps swing enabling money to exchange amongst short term investors, what is Ronin offering to PPHM longs that any other party off the street looking to turn a quick buck could not do? I want to see something more meaningful from Ronin than their taking credit for starting a food fight that might leave PPHM tech unsupported!
Best wishes and IMO.
KT