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.
Bobby, I tend to agree with you. I fully understand that HIV could be valued higher, and that there is value (discounted) in other indications, but I would be happy with $2 as well.
That is a 4X return from my average. You don't turn your nose up at those kind of returns!
Before I get slammed by anyone else, let me reiterate: I PERSONALLY would be happy with $2. I am not saying CYDY is worth $2. Reasonable people can certainly disagree.
Right now, though, the market (which is not always reasonable) says CYDY is worth $0.40, so $2 sounds pretty good TO ME.
Good luck to us all.
I tend to agree. A deal can always fall apart following the LOI/term sheet stage, but it rarely does in my experience.
RE: update on CTC count ...
I believe someone checked in with IR, and IR stated that the FDA would not permit the company to publicize the results for one patient in an expanded access protocol.
Take that for what it's worth, but I am not expecting any update on CTC in the TNBC trial until they have 5 patients enrolled in the naive (i.e., main) protocol.
Good luck to you.
Not a legal filing, but a demand letter from RP's attorney to CYDY dated July 22nd. It was posted as a link on the other board on Friday evening.
RP's lawsuit was filed 8/22 and presumably would incorporate much of the same content. CYDY's answer (i.e., response) should be due 30 days from 8/22.
Blueheel - same, except Christmas was the deadline I had in my head.
That's what I figured, but thank you for the reply. I figured you knew me well enough to know that I am not a cheerleader or an extreme pessimist. I agree that the information disclosed in the letter from RP's attorney is disconcerting, but it's also important to remember that it is only one side of the story. I'm withholding judgment until I hear the company's side of the story, and I'm specifically interested in the events of March April May and June that may have led to the events of July. Regardless, I never thought it was a good thing that RP was terminated.
Good luck to us all, as always!
grip, I'm going to assume that that reply wasn't intended just for me, because if it was you put a lot of words in my mouth that simply weren't there. I respect your opinion, but don't try to create opinions that I stated that weren't there.
Excellent point Bobby. RP is perfectly aligned with shareholders. He is the largest shareholder, so if this is bad for us, then it is worse for him. We will have to see how this plays out, but, for now, I am just grateful for the additional insight into what might have gone wrong.
That would be unfortunate, but not the end of the world.
An incremental raise at prior Paulson terms (e.g., $0.40 shares with 1/2 warrant coverage) and the licensing deals NP keeps referencing are not mutually exclusive events. The former could be just a necessary evil to get to the latter. Especially if the latter is contingent on full BLA submission, which likely is still, best case, 5 weeks away.
I am still very long here, because I am convinced that the high likelihood of combination therapy approval in 2020 will result in a SP that is higher than my average (currently $0.505). Perhaps significantly higher, perhaps not. Everything beyond combo (mono, PREP, GvHD, TNBC, other cancers, NASH?) I value on a highly discounted basis for now.
My background and current occupation are evidenced by my handle. I've been in this stock to one degree or another for 2 1/2 years, however, and I've researched it to the ground from every angle I know. The only weaknesses I see, for now, are financing and (likely) management. Those weaknesses aren't immaterial, but, again, I tend to think I can make money here from a 50 cent average based solely on combination therapy. I also like to think I am not missing much that can be discerned based on publicly-available information, but you never know ...
Given your background (ex biotech investment banker, I understand from prior posts), how do you see CYDY's prospects today? Do you believe combo approval is a near certainty (i.e., greater than 85%)?
Genuinely curious, so thanks in advance for any reply.
Interesting trading. Decent volume, but a lot of small sells at the bid it seems. Then one big buy at the ask (100K).
The volume is still so low overall that it's tough to read anything into any of this.
Other than frustration at the fact that this still sits at .41! (Right there with you)
I think that none of us has enough information regarding the EXACT circumstances of his departure to know for sure. Personally, I would be beyond shocked to see him hold an officer/BOD position at CYDY again.
We can say that, financially, his interests remain aligned with shareholders, so it is certainly possible that he may remain involved, perhaps in a research-only capacity, with leronlimab.
Filed, yes. Finalized, no. My understanding is CYDY has a meeting with FDA at the end of September to (hopefully) finalize the protocol. With luck, the trial should initiate in 2019.
Welcome (back) to the board.
Try reading post #44678, since no one has replied to that yet.
Might find some pertinent information.
GLTU
Primary endpoint in Phase III trial for combination HIV therapy in heavily treatment experienced patients, p value of .0032. If it's been a while since you had statistics, that means there is a 32 out of 10,000 chance that the results in the trial occurred by chance.
Great question, and thanks for the opportunity to point out the unquestioned efficacy of leronlimab in HIV combination therapy.
I can also answer your safety and SAE questions, so feel free to ask those next.
I think it's about not having to pay the fee. On the conference call, NP indicated it would save about $1M.
Thank you for sharing.
Upon reflection, I think I now understand why CYDY extended the TO: to give investors the chance to withdraw their tendered warrants following the Pestell news.
Today's 8-K: "Original Warrants to purchase up to 7,307,490 shares of common stock had been validly tendered and not withdrawn in the Warrant Tender Offer"
The SC-I/A from 7/26 (which announced the TO extension): "As of 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) on July 24, 2019, 7,608,967 Original Warrants exercisable for an aggregate of 7,608,967 shares of common stock . . . have been tendered and not withdrawn."
In short, it looks like investors decided to withdraw about 300,000 tendered warrants following the Pestell news.
This is a great example of the confirmation bias we all need to be mindful of in this investment. I am a strong believer in the ultimate upside here, so I have a tendency to take any neutral news positively (e.g., CYDY extended the TO for a week and scheduled a call, must mean they're about to drop good news!). Sometimes the positive view ends up being correct, but sometimes it doesn't.
To be clear, this is not an assessment of whether the conference call was positive or not (I thought it was).
More sharing an example of how my pre-determined beliefs about CYDY clouded my thinking as to the possible reasons for extending the TO.
Good luck to all, and Happy Friday.
I generally like NP. I believe he is working hard and in the best interests of shareholders. He has his strengths and weaknesses (as we all do).
I generally liked the call yesterday and was not disappointed. I am very long here and still generally positive about the mid-long term prospects.
That said, I believe the BOD/IR needs to advise NP not to answer "very soon" ever again in reference to a timeline question, as it has lost all meaning or credibility at this point.
At this point, I think "we understand shareholders are anxiously anticipating [X Event] and are working as hard as possible to accomplish [X Event] as soon as possible, but there are [Y Factors] beyond our control that may make [X Event] take longer to occur than we all want" would be preferable and, honestly, refreshing.
For what it's worth, my take on RP's exit and the likelihood of any future dispute/disagreement/litigation:
If CYDY intends to exercise its right to repurchase 8.3M shares from Pestell for $0.001/share, which right is triggered only in the event of a "for cause" termination, then RP very well might fight the "for cause" designation if it was not clear cut. 8.3M shares is still over $3M at today's prices; people tend to fight about that kind of money.
If CYDY doesn't intend to exercise that option, then I am not sure what there is to fight about. $600K/year in salary? Some severance?
I haven't reviewed the docs closely enough (no time) to see if the "for cause" designation triggers anything else, but, off the top of my head, I believe what I described above is the key issue.
Probably just an effort to widen the audience. I didn't read too much into it.
Would love to be wrong, of course.
My guess for TO one-week extension has been that CYDY knew one or more warrant holders wanted to convert but needed an extra week to scrape the cash. Would be great if Paulson (the broker) needed an extra week to get it's life together and convert, but I'm not holding my breath there.
If CYDY was betting on news from today's call to induce more conversions, I expect it would have extended the TO by more than a week, since 24 hours (i.e., the TO closes tomorrow unless extended again) is not enough time to decide to convert based on news delivered during the call, gather the cash, file the paperwork, and convert warrants.
Just my two cents.
Would love to make it, but I'll be billing time in the sweltering Southeastern US.
Thanks for making the effort to attend. Here's hoping you leave with positive news in hand.
It's tough to beat a temporary state of forgettiness.
Or Arrested Development generally, for that matter.
Personally, I am planning on taking one of G.O.B.'s forget-me-now pills
IndexGuy, your frustration and skepticism is warranted. I am right there with you, but I am more than comfortable that the cancer platform is not a scam.
There are too many independently verifiable facts. Pestell's research papers, authored with other scientists, relating to CCR5 and cancer. FDA approved clinical trial for TNBC/leronlimab. Etc. None of those third parties is in the business of getting scammed.
That, and the extremely high likelihood of combo therapy approval, is how I sleep at night.
Still, I get the sentiment. I do! GLTU
Totally agree. There is absolutely no way that the board of directors fired RP without consulting their attorneys and looking at the contracts.
Hilarious. Love it ER. Ask and you shall receive!
Christine phrased it a bit more delicately, but she did ask the question.
https://www.proactiveinvestors.com/companies/stocktube/14224/cytodyn-to-begin-generating-revenue-with-incelldx-licensing-agreement-14224.html
[EDIT - I see you beat me to it]
AMEN! Thanks for the reply. GLTU.
I agree with you on both points. RP leaving is not a positive; it is a short-term negative and, at best, a medium/long-term neutral.
My spider sense was tingling for a bit re: RP, mostly because of his noted absence and the lack of response I got from IR when asking for RP to be in a video (not just a vague response - literally did not respond to my emails).
Also agree re: warrant holders who tendered. I would be absolutely livid, and it certainly makes it look like CYDY hid the ball even if the company did nothing wrong from a securities disclosure standpoint.
Still, hard to feel too bad for the warrant holders. They should be OK long-term, because they paid $0.80 for three shares (yes, we can quibble about math and implied value of warrants, etc., but close enough for now).
They should still be able to make money in 6 months when the stock is released.
I am similarly situated re: increased position due to RP/cancer.
My initial reactions are:
(1) RP leaving is a "gut punch", as someone else put it, and it's likely to impact the SP short term (as we are seeing).
(2) The BOD terminated RP. It was and is not NP's decision alone. Many BOD members other than NP are significantly invested here, so their interests are aligned with ours. Terminating RP must have been, in their view, good for CYDY, and you either have to trust that or don't.
(3) RP's exit should have little to no impact on HIV (other than perhaps impaired fundraising, which I'll acknowledge is not nothing). CYDY should still file a BLA and should still obtain FDA combo approval, which should make us all some money from these levels (my avg. is .504).
(4) Too soon to know the impact on cancer. Obviously, it always helps to have an expert in house. But, going back to #2, it appears RP wasn't executing and the BOD (not just NP) thought so. CYDY still has leronlimab, and many, many researchers in the world are working on CCR5/cancer, not just RP. I expect CYDY to find a new CMO.
(5) So what did CYDY lose by losing RP? Credibility, for sure, at least in the short term. 6-month delay (and counting) in TNBC. Expertise, for sure. I expect they will replace the expertise in CCR5/Cancer if they feel it is necessary.
In the meantime, I am not selling and will wait patiently to see how this plays out.
I still sleep OK at night because my "reasonable worst-case scenario" for CYDY has always been that leronlimab is approved for combo HIV therapy sometime next year, and I expect to make a profit on my investment off that alone.
How much profit, and when, time will tell.
Anything beyond combo approval is gravy to me.
Color me less than pleased with the RP news.
However, terminating RP's employment agreement for cause is a decision made by the BOD.
Many of the members of the BOD are also major shareholders/investors, some of whom ponied up a few extra million less than two months ago.
My take is that the BOD believed it was in the best interests of the shareholders to terminate RP for cause.
My only hope is that the "for cause" was unequivocal. The for cause triggers, among other things, an option for CYDY to repurchase 8.33M shares from Pestell at $0.001/share (I believe).
That's the sort of thing people fight over if the "for cause" was less than clear.
I expect it was clear. Am disappointed he is no longer involved.
However, RP doesn't affect HIV, and, even with HIV, it is possible to make a lot of money in this stock.
Time will tell. For now, all you can do is trust your own due diligence and move on.
(This is not really a reply just to you Grip)
Good to know, appreciate your insight. It seems that both of our screen names are indicative of our background! I have come to the same conclusion you have through my own diligence, but it's nice to see other people feeling the same way. I believe this is a unicorn investment, meaning I am not likely to find something like this again for the rest of my life. I have placed my bets accordingly.
Good luck to you.
Nice to see you around here. My background is not science, but I have gotten up to speed pretty quickly. Still, I'm not as comfortable in that area as I am in others.
is your background science, and do you honestly believe it this drug is the best thing since penicillin?
I know that might have been some hyperbole, but it would be good to know if you sincerely believe it has that kind of potential.
Great point. Could be the case. Time will tell!
Let's be clear what we mean by "Paulson folks" (not just intended as a response to you, ER).
To my knowledge, there is no reason why any Paulson investor (i.e., someone who purchased shares and received warrants through an offering brokered by Paulson, the broker entity) was unable to participate in either TO.
If any Paulson investor didn't participate, it was either because of lack of funds or lack of appetite.
However, Paulson (the broker entity) also holds 22M warrants that it has received over the last few years for its broker services.
Paulson (the broker entity) could not participate in the first TO because those warrants weren't eligible by the terms of the first TO.
Paulson (the broker entity) could participate in the second TO, because the terms of the second TO made Paulson warrants eligible.
Based on the results of the second TO to date, it does not appear that Paulson (the broker entity) tendered any of its warrants.
Several posters who are Paulson investors have mentioned that their Paulson rep indicated to them that Paulson (the broker entity) could not tender any of its 22M warrants due to legal/compliance reasons.
I have no idea whether the statement supposedly made by Paulson reps is true or false, but it was reported to us by several reputable posters to the boards.
Quite possibly the most ludicrous statement ever made on ihub.
Couldn't agree more. There is plenty of room between the (ridiculous) assumption that "NP has forced RP out!" and the (Pollyanna) assumption that "all is well".
RP's silence has been unusual based on the past, and most of us just want to hear the status of TNBC trial and explanation of delay from the horse's mouth (i.e., the CYDY officer in charge of TNBC - Pestell).
Count me among those who find RP's recent silence curious. The simplest explanation is often correct (consumed with trial work), but it would be nice to see his face. I haven't forgotten the departure of TC either. If RP is not on the conference call, then I will have serious concerns.
AMEN.
Do you attribute the lack of institutional ownership purely to OTC status (and, derivatively, the stock price) or do you believe there are factors other than OTC/stock price that account for the lack of institutional ownership?