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.
you've lost me. what does the number of chat board posts have to do with whether someone is long? I'd argue the opposite. You have clowns like fungderf who have admitted they have no stake - and they post 25 times a day. i think there are a good number of paid promoters or bashers on here - and the more daily posts, the more likely that's what they are.
my point is that if you've truly been long this stock - and lost most of your money - how can you not be frustrated and pushing for a greater sense of urgency from management and the board.
you're right about that - the traders, the shorts, the lawyers, Paulson, and the board members (like Tanya and the other zombies who have done nothing) are the only ones who have made money here. And they've taken it straight out of the pockets of the common shareholders.
As for me, i'm voting against all of the board members going forward. That's about all a fed-up shareholder can do.
yes, her bio is the key here. she is a financial / wealth advisor - as well as an attorney. a compliance person dealing with wealth advisors more specifically. I spent years in the financial space and know these types very well. the compliance lawyers are the most risk averse, anti-business people you will ever come across. They take weeks and months to do something that should take a day - because they are focused on the risk side of the equation, almost to the exclusion of all else.
the reality is, she came in to clean up the mess that Nader created - and at that point, it was 100% damage control. But that time has passed. We now have the ultimate "stick-in-the-mud" as our COB. She also has no clue about biotech or pharma, again because she has no experience in the industry. Time to get rid of her - because we can't afford to have the most powerful person in this company (in such a dynamic and fast-moving space) be a wealth management compliance officer, with zero industry expertise. It's an embarrassment, and you would never see something like that in a legitimate biotech company.
exactly. As Benjamin Franklin said "Blame-All and Praise-All are two blockheads". Monroe has zero credibility with me with his/her pie in the sky optimism. I maintain that Monroe is getting paid to promote the company. Clearly has not been a long, or wouldn't be taking this "all is well" BS stance.
At the end of the day, shareholder value is the name of the game here. Sure, we want to save lives, but anyone who says they're here just for that is full of it. This is an investment - and the scorecard for an investment is the share price, and if investors have made or lost money. Using that as our scorecard, current leadership gets an F. In fact, If there was anything lower than F, they'd get that - because I'm down over 80% in after-tax dollars. In the greatest bull market in history (with most investments doubling or tripling over the past 5 years), you can't find anything else that has crushed investors like this POS.
I've got nothing personal against Tanya - she's simply a wealth management lawyer and way out of her depth. It's not her fault that she's totally incompetent in this role - but as a shareholder, it's time we start demanding change and finding someone with a sense of urgency here.
I agree. all of the wounds of this company have been self-inflicted - Nader was an unmitigated disaster in every way, and the fallout has been massive. the conspiracy theories of this company being "targeted" by big pharma, the FDA, etc. - has always been a complete joke. CytoDyn under Nader was a very bad actor - submitting false data, Nader's fraudulent trading, partnership with Martin Shrekil "the pharma bro", etc. - and the shareholders have been paying the price for the fallout. The 13D group was spot on - again, their main point was the Nader would destroy the company - and here we are at a share price that is 90% lower from when they were saying that.
My point regarding Tanya is that while we have purged the worst elements (Nader and his buddies) we still have very weak links that would never be present at a real company. Tanya is former wealth management advisor and a lawyer - that's fine - but no way on earth she should be COB at a real company (and at a company where the COB should have some industry expertise). Again, if we were on a real exchange, with real investors - an activist would have come in and purged her years ago.
I'm still long (and somewhat exhausted). I still think there is some value in this drug - and at least we're not committing fraud, submitting incomplete information to the FDA, and bragging about $100 SP on random webcasts. But having an overly conservative, and totally inexperienced (in the biotech world) COB is troubling. And while i like him, Jay doesn't give me confidence that we'll see value at any point in the near or intermediate future. There is no "lack of urgency here" - and i think the investors who have suffered for years and watched their investment implode damn well deserve a sense of urgency to restore some value. What we really need is a deal-maker - someone focused on restoring value as quickly as possible.
defending someone who has presided during a period when shareholders have lost 85% of their investment value shows that you're likely a paid promoter for the company. you certainly don't speak for real shareholders who have lost their hard-earned money under the stewardship of Tanya and this board.
this is spot on. she is terrible - her background has nothing to suggest that she can add any value to a company. she's a lawyer, who had a background at a wealth management firm. way too conservative - but beyond that, i don't think she has even basic business skill.
of course the problem has been that the company had no money to pay anyone good to come in - tough to attract talent with a stock at all time lows, and no cash in the bank. i had hoped the new infusion of capital would attract a new CEO, with a business focus. I would think that CEO (if good) would keep Jay at CMO, and then immediately demand competent board members - because we don't have any.
we'll see. I'm afraid we'll be stuck with her and the same zombie crew we've had for years. Doesn't mean the company will fail - just means we're many years from making any money here.
It's nice to get a letter - but how about a phone call for investors where we can ask questions?
As for the letter, it was well written and organized. But it adds to my conviction that we are likely years away from catalysts that will restore any real value to shareholders - by real value, i mean anything over .50. Much of the updates were "starting to enroll in 2025" - that means any meaningful data is 2-3 years out.
Part of the CEO's job is the communicate, and get investors excited (and maybe attract new investors). Sending out quarterly letters further makes me question whether Jay is the right man for the CEO role. I do like him - but he may be more of a CMO type.
how's that long NVDA and SMCI position taste? i am printing money on the short side. may close SMCI for 70% over just a few months. But on NVDA, there is a loooooong way to go :)
not your fault though - you're just another typical retail clown. betting against someone like you is the proverbial taking candy from a baby.
Wow - at one point the stock had basically doubled from a couple weeks ago. Obviously we're back down some, but I can only wonder what happened?
I will say those who trade the stock must make a lot of money - if i knew more about technicals, trading, etc., i would join - but i'm sure i'd lose my shirt.
To the extent there is something real behind the scenes, i guess that remains to be seen. I don't have a clue what that could be. The other angle (as i mentioned before) is that we're finally getting the benefit of the hold being lifted, and the recent infusion of cash. There was no reason for the stock to trade lower after those events, so maybe this is a correction of that trend.
I maintain that we are a ways from results that drive the stock materially higher (i.e. 50 cents or higher). But, could we keep trading up to .25 or so? I don't see why not. Because remember, we never got any SP credit for the lifting of the hold, or the large cash infusion. The smart trade may be to bet on this going higher for awhile. We'll see.
when will we get an update from Jay? From getting the cash, to the announced trials, new CRO, etc. - a lot of things have happened. It would be great to hear something (anything) from company leadership.
hey look - if you're too chicken to take the bet, that's fine. you can write 3 paragraphs, but either put up or shut up.
well, it comes down to sizing. these pre-revenue biotechs are small relative to my other holdings, so i've sized them correctly. But in terms of missing the point - just so that i'm clear, you're saying that RNXT will tank before their 60% readout in 4 months?
Tell you what. Let's check back in 3 months - beginning of November. Let's see:
1. What the price of NVDA is relative to 128.6, where i went short.
2. If RNXT is still in business.
If either NVDA is higher, or RNXT has tanked, I will delete all of my accounts and never post again. But, if NVDA is down and RNXT is still kicking, you have to do the same. Up for the wager?
well, the good news is we'll know one way or the other by year end, when trial results come out. not much need to discuss before then - it'll either be good or bad, and nothing else said will affect that. I have never claimed to know for sure. But, here we have a tangible milestone within months - it's coming. CytoDyn doesn't have such a milestone, which is why i'm concerned about that one.
I just re-loaded my short on NVDA and SMCI. I guess we'll find out who's right :)
Exactly. How anyone is still holding onto these ridiculous conspiracy theories is beyond me. We had a CEO indicted by the DOJ of fraud - and a CRO who was submitting incomplete and inaccurate data to the FDA. Can you see why the FDA may be a little bit gun shy? And blaming short-sellers? They don't attack strong companies. I've never shorted by the way, but they have made a killing to be sure.
Looking back, everyone from the 13D to Furestein (sp?) to everyone who called an alarm on this company a few years back were directionally spot on - they said Nader was a fraud and would bring down the company - low and behold, the stock is down 90% since they made their claims. But no one seems to admit or recognize this.
If you want to make the case as to why $150MM is cheap, i'm fine to hear it. But it needs to be based on something concrete - like how soon the company will receive FDA approval and get to revenue. We need advanced human trials for that.
I still hold shares and warrants - but re-allocated a lot over the past couple years into 2 other bio-techs. I'll become a buyer again when there is some event on the horizon that moves this toward revenue. Human trials within a year of creating solid data would be a good start. I think that's a year or two out - one thing i've learned in this space is just how long these things take. Of course, if we have a call, and Jay lays out near-term revenue opportunities, that would change my view.
I'm just looking at this as it is - not how I (or anyone else) wishes it to be.
Many believe the stock is cheap here. My question is - based on what?
Yes, it's down 90% over the past few years. But that doesn't mean it's cheap - the share price on its own doesn't mean anything. It all comes down to the current market cap of the company. Right now the market cap is roughly $150MM. If you look at other pre-revenue bio-techs, they are often less than $50MM in market cap. As an example, I'm an investor in another public biotech that's nearing the 60% read-out in phase III, with incredible results thus far - and it has a market cap of $30MM. So it has 1/5th the market cap of CytoDyn - but with trial results expected in the next 3 months that look to be a major catalyst.
My point is, $150MM is not a cheap market cap for a company with no trial results anywhere in sight - likely 1-2 years out (at the very least). You could make the case that the market cap should be closer to $50MM at this point. People may disagree, but that's the new reality in biotech. the COVID-related market mania that sent this stock to $10 is over - we're back to the reality of stocks trading on fundamentals - and bio-techs will be judged on revenue (or how close they are to achieving revenue) - which we're a long way away from.
this is the correct question. i'm long (have been for many years), so i think there is potential value in this molecule. What i cannot get any sense for however, is the timing. to the best of my knowledge, Jay has effectively re-booted the company - more or less starting from square one after the disaster of Nader. He is using information from before to guide them on new trials - but none of that data can be used, as we know (or we would be using it now). great example is the recent PR mentioned "starting a trial in the coming months" - which likely means EOY 2024 / early 2025 - enrollment by mid 2025 - then another couple years to get data. Bottom line - trials take a really long time - that's just the nature of biotech and there's no getting around it. I think the reason we're stuck at 0.14 is because the market sees that we're many years away from even approaching revenue.
This is the question I'll ask in a conference call format - " when can shareholders realistically expect to see some value restored to their investment? and what is the timing of events that would drive this assignment of value?"
i'd love to be proven totally wrong. but for those perplexed by why lifting of the hold and influx of money left us trading lower than before, this is likely the answer.
i'm fine with longs and shorts on the same board - but you should have some type of stake as you say. and you should make it clear. just be honest. the problem is that no one knows who anyone is, and whether they're long, short, whatever.
for the record, i've been long for over 7 years, and have seen roughly 90% of my after-tax investment vaporized - hence a touch of frustration. at this point, i'd rather this go to zero and take the write-off than watch this hang around 0.14 for another 5 years, like it has the past 3 years. it's like living with a zombie that doesn't kill you or eat your brains - he just keeps to himself in the guest room and uses your credit card for gas, coffee and groceries until you're eventually broke.
my concern as I've said is the stage we're at - just starting pre-clinical trials. This is my 3rd biotech, and based on experience from the other 2 - going from pre-clinical to actual revenue is a 5-10 year process. At the very least, we could be stuck at these levels for 3-4 years. some say all we need is a partnership - but one of my other investments signed 2 partnership deals, and the stock didn't move. what i've learned is that it really comes down to when you are actually close to generating revenue - so the notion that signing a partnership will massively boost the SP is total BS.
oh well, guess i need to get that guest room ready.....
I hope it works out too. I do like Jay - i'm just not sure he's the guy to turn this around. He seems more like a CMO / science guy than a turnaround specialist. And given where we sit, we need a turnaround specialist. somebody to restore value to our investment.
What i'd love to see is a wheeler-dealer type to come in and negotiate a deal to sell the entire company to a biotech or BP for 50 cents.
I've said it before, and i'll say it again - if the stock is so cheap, and things are looking positive - why on earth has Jay not bought any shares in the open market?? It is totally legal and CEOs do it all the time - the most powerful action a leader can take to show confidence and leadership in their stock.
So Jay - do you believe in this company (and the stock) or not? Or is this just a side gig for you - that you view as a flyer and a call option? Actions speak louder than words....
Wow. I may have been critical / cautious here, but did not expect this stock to get destroyed like this, pushing toward 11 cents.
If Jay is a real leader, he needs to address shareholders, and at least give some hope here. I realize he can't control the SP, but he can control communication when things look dire. That's what a real leader does. We'll see.
It is a good thing the company received the settlement funds from Amarex, as well as the warrant offering. Otherwise, we would be in big trouble. The company was already running out of options to raise funds (with the last offering at effectively 8 cents - incorporating the free shares). Now that the stock market looks to be moving into a much more difficult phase, the appetite for a pre-revenue biotech (with all of the past baggage this company has) will effectively be zero.
I'm still holding shares, and all of my warrants from 4 diff offerings - so i'm pulling for them to make it. My base case remains that we may see $1 sometime in the next 1-2 years in the muddle through scenario. But what i really hope is that they can negotiate a buyout in the near term for anything at $.50 or more. This would be a home run, and I would vote all of my shares for a deal in that neighborhood.
you're right about that - pre-revenue biotech is a gamble. this one seemed like a layup in 2016 with the strong HIV data, no safety signal, etc. But, one takeaway from this has been that leadership has to be just as good as whatever the product is, and that was my big mistake, and the rest is history. once burned, twice learned as they say.
hopefully you're right and they get this across the finish line. My only point is that we need more communication, and a dedicated plan to create value fast. And until we see that, i'm not sitting back and waiting for animal trials that will take years.
I want to hear from Jay (or whoever) the exact timeline for translating the science into shareholder value. The time to sit back and be patient is long past.
no doubt, we have lost many great posters. I thought SALTZ was the best - always a well reasoned, rational and highly educated approach. I think he finally had enough of Nader, and sold in the $3 range - smart man. And while Grip and I disagreed at times, don't forget - he called this trainwreck years ago - even though no one wants to admit that. I wish i had listened and sold every share i had back then.
With regard to the 13D group, they have been attacked repeatedly by the leadership at Investors Hangout. But again, remember, the 13D's core point was that Nader was going to destroy the company - that was it. So....they were dead on accurate, and may have saved this company from 2 years of a clinical hold, and a continued black eye in the biotech and pharma community as we are the company whose CEO was indicted for fraud. It's like you had a group who wanted to remove Bernie Madoff because they knew he was a fraud, but you "defeated" that group and left Bernie in place. That's a victory?!?
Yes, i'm long and I'm complaining. What i can't understand is, how more longs aren't pissed off at this point - and demanding something be done to restore shareholder value? It's like the twilight zone - you've lost 85% of your money, and you're not upset about that? you don't want accountability?
As for me, i want to see change at the top - whether that be Jay, Tanya, etc., because for all the "progress", the SP is at all time lows. Jay seems like a good guy, but isn't a business guy. And Tanya has been COB during a period when value has fallen by 75%. In any legitimate business, she would have been tarred and feathered by now.
Laslty, i want to see some creative ideas on boosting the SP. That could include finding an aggressive buyer who would take a shot on our molecule and selling the entire company for $.50 (just a random idea - but one i would vote all of my shares for).
I understand all of what you're saying. but at some point, given that human life expectancy of the average investor is only about 80 years (shorter if you've lived through owning CYDY) we need to see some sign of a financial profit in this company Punch in the 10-year graph on your iPhone stocks app - that's a loss of -85.4% over a 10 year period. I couldn't even find another stock that has erased that much investor money over the same period. You know why? - because they've all gone out of business.
the whole "the science is world changing", "it's right around the corner, etc." is the same song & dance i have been hearing for 8 years in this stock - we've always been "one quarter away", "in discussions with a partner behind closed doors", "nearing a buyout", etc. All of it has been pure fiction - never a shred of reality to any of it, and during that time the S&P 500 has tripled, and CytoDyn investors have lost nearly all of their money.
I look at this very simply - over 8 years i have lost 85.4% of my hard-earned, after-tax dollars. All the time i've heard fairy tale after fairy tale. So forgive me if right now (as we sit at $0.14) i want to hear more than just "we're starting mouse trials, we're publishing white papers, etc.".
I want a real leader to step up and tell me when shareholder value will be restored.
correct. the warrant offering closed last Thurs night at midnight. But those shares won't be registered immediately, so the investors who exercised won't have those shares available to sell for a few weeks i believe.
It may indeed be the case that once those shares are available to sell, we see major downward pressure on the SP - because the equivalent cost basis of those warrant conversions is in the .08 cent range (factoring in the free extra 20% shares that were given to those who exercised). So, the smart trade would be to sell down current shares until the SP hit's about .09 - free, easy and fast profit for those who converted their warrants.
Put another way, any way you slice it, the company has effectively set the market at .08 - that's the effective price of this warrant conversion, and is the only reference point for how the company is to be valued. No different than a big public company doing a follow-on offering, or debt issue - they set the price for their stock via those offerings.
In reality, the only money that has ever been made in this stock, has been made in these types of warrant schemes, driven by Paulson investors. And it has driven a continual downward spiral in the SP to .14, and has also driven an incredibly bloated share count of well over a billion shares outstanding. So you have a small number of players making money, with the long-only investors footing the bill and getting murdered. It's like Buffet's quote "if you're sitting around the poker table wondering who the patsy is, it's you".
The SP may well recover, but getting back to $1 is likely years away, at least in my opinion.
well, so much for that theory of the warrant exchange suppressing the price. not the first (or last) time i've been wrong about this company and stock.
on the plan B. Jay, time to man up and speak with shareholders - because despite what seems to be good news, we're not a penny richer for it. And i for one, am ready to hear something positive (cause I'm not getting that warm & fuzzy feeling from the 80% loss on my brokerage statement)....
ok, thanks for that clarification. that would further bolster the economic case of that offering serving as a lid on the SP.
Ideally next week, post-transaction, we get either (i) a jump in the SP, or (ii) CC announcement from Jay. Actually, i'll take both !
The warrant exchange deal closes Friday, at least that's my understanding. My theory has been that this has put pressure on the SP, as people sold shares at .14 to buy (exercise warrants) at .09. But, i could be wrong and we'll find out next week if there is anything to that theory.
Aside from that, what we really need is to hear from Jay. A lot has happened since the last call in terms of new trials / protocols, etc. - and obviously cash in the bank from the Amarex settlement and this warrant exchange.
Jay should address shareholders and frame these events - I would think he'd be chomping at the bit, as these are all positive developments (especially the cash in the bank). He should also give projections on the timetables as to when all of these trials could begin to deliver data, which ones could lead to a partnership, etc.
Personally, I think we need some explanation as to why the stock remains at all time lows here - and when we we might expect to see some recovery.
I am truly perplexed by the SP action here. The fact that we're trading lower than before the hold was lifted, and before the Amarex settlement makes no sense to me. Because those were the 2 big unknowns (inability to run trials and solvency) clouding the future of the company - they've now been resolved, and the SP is.......lower? It's like the Twilight Zone.
My only explanation is that people are selling long shares to raise cash to exercise their warrants at the 9 cent range. And I can imagine that's driving the SP, because volume is so low there's clearly not any buying of size on the other side of the table.
Still, It's pretty damn frustrating I have to say.
the settlement is very good news for the company, regardless of whether or not it's less than was expected. it's clear Amarex has serious issues - and frankly, this was likely the maximum amount we would ever extract from them. Plus, we needed cash now - not 6 months from now.
At a $650K / month burn, this (plus some cash coming back from the Welch escrow) gives the company 1.5 - 2 years of operating cash. Not enough to run a real trial - but enough runway to get some results from these small pre-clinical trials to attract a partner - which is the only way we can fund a trial. But, that can work fine.
I'm frankly surprised the SP didn't respond better to this, as it took my major worry (solvency) off the table, at least for the intermediate term. Now it's all down to the drug's ability to perform. Jay won't make Nader's rookie mistakes, and will do a better job with trial design - so if the drug works in any of these indications, we should learn that in the next 6 months. I believe it can work, otherwise i wouldn't be long.
So, that's what it comes down to - can we show a good result in any of these trials? Because now that money's no longer an issue, that's where all eyes will focus....
while no board is perfect, this is the best one - because all views are accepted. Personally, i like hearing both sides of the argument, as it leads to better decisions.
I contrast that with Investors Hangout, where posts are deleted or labeled bashes if they question anything other than the most bullish predictions. Of course, the irony is that those predictions have been dead wrong - and have lead to anyone following their lead to lose 90% of their money in this stock. To be clear, I don't blame the bulls on that board for being wrong - i blame them for suppressing anything other than a very narrow view (and yes, that view as been devastatingly wrong for investors).
As for me, I'm still in the "show me" phase. Skeptical until we see trials that have started and begin producing positive data. While it's not my base case that the company goes bankrupt (although it is certainly quite possible), I'm skeptical until i see some actual positive development or results. Frankly, anyone who thinks this company deserves the benefit of the doubt clearly hasn't been an investor for any length of time.
If I had to guess, I'd say we're 1-2 years from that data - but we could get news on the Amarex settlement this Fall that may give the SP a boost.
simple question - given that the stock is down over 80% since the battle against the 13D was "won" - what kind of win was that? Because shareholders have been almost completely wiped out.
Let's remember - the central message from the 13D group was that Nader would destroy the company. That was the one thing they based all of their arguments on - i read their letters and listened to their calls. Removing Nader was job #1 for them. And they ended up being exactly right - spot on. Because he eventually was convicted of fraud by the Department Of Justice, and the stock has lost literally 85% since then (all while the rest of the stock market has doubled).
It's crystal clear in retrospect that they saw the disaster coming down the tracks - and wanted to remove Nader. The fact that you think it was a "win" defeating 13D / keeping Nader in power, shows me that you are operating in fantasyland, vs. reality.
The S&P 500 trades at a cyclically adjusted (Shiller) P/E of 34 right now. That's in the top 1% most expensive at any time in history - only in 1929, 1972, Japan in 1989 and the Tech Bubble of 1999 has the market been this expensive. In every case, we had 10 years of dismal returns from those levels - because when you double the price, you halve the return. Simple math. Also, in every case, the market mean reverted to trend - which is about 3,200 on the S&P.
So, you may be right about a new bull market - but it would just buck every market trend in history if that occurred. And to those who think AI has changed the game, that's exactly what they were saying about the internet in 1999 to justify the crazy multiple back then (and i think we can all agree the internet was a pretty groundbreaking technology itself). Everyone wants to torture the logic at the top to justify that the party will continue.
For me, I'm preparing for a much more difficult backdrop going forward based on valuation. And as a side note, i've been short NVDA for a few weeks now to put my money where my mouth is (the hype reminds me of CSCO in 99' - which still hasn't recovered to it's high - 25 years later). The question for this board, is how will CytoDyn fare when the backdrop gets more challenging? I can't think it will be good for company that continually needs to raise new capital.
with the new offering, while the SP hasn't hit $.10, the "market price" has effectively been set at $.09 - at least based on the offering email to convert warrants that I received. To view it as anything other than an act of desperation would be naive.
I signed on to the bet that I would retire from posting if we hit .10 - if anyone wants to push that issue, i'll drop off now and ride off into the sunset - because that's more or less where we are. To Grip and others who called it, well played. Whether we technically hit it or not, who knows. But let's be clear - the real issue isn't whether the stock drops a few more cents to $.10 - the real issue is that this is the last straw - i don't see any other possible source of money for the company after this - so, can they survive on this last gasp of cash. I guess time will tell - but the risk reward has become very poor. I say that because the chance that this company fails due to lack of funds is very high - and the upside scenario at best is making a profit several years down the road, as they don't even have a trial close to starting (and trials take a really long time to enroll, collect data, etc - many years). So again, a very poor risk / reward profile. I've moved most of my biotech money into other plays as a result, but i still watch CYDY - it's like watching the Jerry Springer show.....can't look away.
I agree. It's like there were never any adults in the room. And when qualified people joined, and saw what a train wreck it was, they left very quickly (and there was never any real explanation as to why).
The 13D group was villified on the Investors Hangout board - saying they had bad intentions, wanted to buy IncellDx, etc. But, let's remember - what was their core message? It was that Nader was going to drive the company into the ground. That is exactly what has happened - they were exactly right. It's not possible they could've destroyed the value that Nader destroyed - because again, the stock is down 90% since then, and we've had a DOJ conviction of fraud, years-long clinical hold, etc.
I do think Jay is a good guy, a smart guy, and his heart is in the right place. I worry that he's never handled a true turnaround like this - because that's what this is. But, if he can pull it off, it should be a massive return. If he can't we can all write hand-written notes to Nader for vaporizing our money.
For sure - while we may have disagreed over time regarding the big picture and outlook for this company, your prediction on the direction on the past few years has been spot on - and mine has been dead wrong. I totally underestimated the amount of damage Nader could inflict. I just hope it hasn't been a fatal blow.
I don't expect anything material to occur before the Fall. I say that because no trial will start, and the Amarex arbitration won't occur before November (most likely). In the meantime, the company will raise money through these warrant exchange programs, and may have another traditional raise as well. In other words, the raises will keep the SP down, as participants who get free warrants (or cheap shares in the .11 range) will sell current holdings to fund these new purchases / exercises. that's what's going on right now, plain and simple.
frankly, i'm really not sure whether to be bullish or bearish at this point. I have a lot of shares and warrants - so i clearly want the stock to go up. But this feels like a true "re-boot" to me, and Jay has said as much on the call. A re-boot can work out great - but it takes a long time - just getting data from a trial that hasn't been started will take years - and why would the SP shoot up a lot in the meantime, other than random spikes such as we just witnessed?
I've been accused of "joining the bashers" after calling the recent call a flop. but I'm not joining anyone - i'm just looking at the current fact pattern as an investor - where we stand with capital / cash in the bank, where we stand with trials, and where we stand with any other potential developments (like the Amarex settlement).
I remain in the camp that what we have here is effectively a call option. You can put money in this and there is a chance you make 20X your money. Or, you can lose everything. Classic case of high risk / high reward - but on steroids. To me it seems about 50/50 as to which case plays out, and while I have taken chips off the table to fund 2 other biotech investments, I will keep a core position along with my warrants.
what i will say with confidence is this - no one (on the board or anywhere else) knows how this will play out, and I'm first in line to admit this. and the more someone professes to know exactly what will happen here, the less credible they seem to me.