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.
$2 billion buyout = $54 dollars per share
$1 billion buyout = $27 dollars per share
$500 million buyout = $13.50 dollars per share (unlikely, too low)
$250 million buyout = $6.75 dollars per share (extreme low ball)
Remember KITE? Analysts kept saying to sell and hold only as the price kept rising. BAM, bought out for an insane amount.
**** MUST READ !!! ****
I must have missed this when reading it a few days ago. "[Mara] Goldstein said the drug could generate more than $400 million in sales within five years of its launch.". Generally drug sales might go up 15-20% per year when you first start selling. If we do the math backwards and reduce it by random 15-20% amounts:
1 year from now: 185 million (will probably be a fraction of this due to FDA approval either late 2018 or early/mid 2019)
2 years from now: 231 million (full year)
3 years from now: 289 million
4 years from now: 340 million
5 years from now: 400 million
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/verastems-blood-cancer-drug-succeeds-105947118.html
As for Arzerra's (ofatumumab) low revenue, I'm seeing that Arzerra couldn't compete with Rituxan and Imbruvica.
http://bit.ly/2xgjVnD
In just one quarter alone, Imbruvica (ibrutinib) had half a billion in sales. I'm sure it has other indications it's used for too, but still, you get the picture:
"Fourth-quarter global IMBRUVICA [ibrutinib] net revenue was $511 million, with U.S. sales of $434 million and international profit sharing of $77 million for the quarter."
Arzerra has low revenue (I don't have the figures though), yet even when Glaxosmithkline's tests showed Arzerra was no better than Rituxan in some lymphoma trials, Novartis was willing to pay $1 billion to buy Arzerra.
Now here's the interesting part:
Here we have ibrutinib vs ofatumumab in Phase 3 head to head:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1400376#t=article
Summary of ibrutinib vs ofatumumab:
1. ibrutinib (Imbruvica) was statistically superior.
2. ibrutinib's PFS was 9.4 months vs ofatumumab's 8.1 months. Ratio = 9.4/8.1 = 1.16
3. ibrutinib had an "overall" 57% reduction in the risk of progression/death.
Summary of Verasem's drug (duvelisib) vs ofatumumab:
1. duvelisib was statistically superior.
2. duvelisib's PFS is 13.3 months vs ofatumumab's 9.9 months. Ratio = 13.3/9.9 = 1.34
3. duvelisib had a 48% (unsure if "overall" or specific groups) reduction in the risk of progression/death.
I don't know about you guys, but if someone is selling at these levels, they are either really dumb, really ignorant, or need the money badly.
To the friggen moon!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually, technically sort of 3rd. CPXX was the first real one. There was another that sort of did. VSTM was the 4th one.
yup, no one knows about it
I did a lot of research tonight and crunched a lot of numbers. After knowing what I know, tomorrow morning, I will be selling every other stock I hold and putting everything into AVEO. :p
Below, 2017 figures. I didn't do other year figures because it's a lot of work.
Average # of Days Between CHMP Recommendation and EMA Approval: 64
Average # of Days Between CHMP Recommendation and EMA Approval (without extreme 90+ days): 58
Minimum Days between CHMP recommendation and EMA approval: 34
Maximum Days (not including 80+ days) between CHMP recommendation and EMA approvals: 78
Maximum Days: 296
Total # of drug approvals in 2017: 56
# of Days that took over 67: 8
# of Days that took under 67: 48
# of Days equal to 67: 0
Breakdown of approval days between CHMP recommendation and EMA/EC (European Commission) approval
# of Days under 30: 0
# of Days 30-39: 1
# of Days 40-49: 6
# of Days 50-59: 19
# of Days 60-69: 22
# of Days 70-79: 5
# of Days 80 and over: 3
# of days of the week count EMA approved a drug in 2017
Mon: 19
Tues: 2
Wed: 17
Thur: 9
Fri: 9
Fact #1: If a drug is refused/not recommended by the CHMP, the company can submit new data and/or request the CHMP redo the review. A reasonable number goes through subsequent times. Some do not.
Fact #2: Of all the drugs which were refused by the European Commission (EC), all were also refused or not recommended by CHMP. To put it in other words, every single drug recommended by the CHMP has been authorized to market by the EC
WHY IS IT DIFFERENT THIS TIME? The majority of CHMP voting members voted YES to recommending the drug for the EU. The FDA Advisory Committee in 2013 voted 13 to 1 (basically every single one of them except 1) in favor of NOT approving the drug for the U.S. Do you see the world of difference here? This is called FREE MONEY people, borderline a guarantee if I ever saw one.
"The ruling is not a surprise -- in May, an FDA advisory committee voted 13-1 that the drug should not be approved."
Here's a little hint. June 8th, 2017 Institutional Holding: 24.80%. Now: 53.76%
https://web.archive.org/web/20160608195209/http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/aveo/institutional-holdings
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/aveo/institutional-holdings
Nasdaq listing extension will send this soaring to 75 cents or $1, killing every single short along the way.
So what happens to the shares after the merger?
1. The shares will be increased from a few hundred million shares to 5 billion shares as it converts the debt into shares (i.e. meaning they should be debt free or as close to it as possible - this is a good thing for no debt, bad thing for the number of shares).
2. There will be a reverse split on or after the merger to reduce the number of shares from 5 billion to about 16.5 million. This will increase the share price (assuming $0.02) to $6. If the stock price is $0.20, then the share price will be $60 after the merger and reverse split.
3. The reverse split means you own less shares, but at a higher price. Mathematically speaking, your share price value has NOT changed. Some people freak out and sell or freak out because they have less shares and emotionally that takes a toll, but financially speaking, the value is identical. So instead of owning 50,000 shares at $0.10 per share ($5,000 value) you'll own 50,000/300 = 166 or 167 shares at $30 per share ($5,000 value). The intrinsic value does not change.
The reverse split is required for:
1. Reducing the number of shares (5 billion is a lot).
2. Increasing the share price above a few dollars so it can be listed on the Nasdaq instead of the OTC/pink sheets.
3. This is critical because it allows A LOT more people access to investing in this stock, which will allow the price to appreciate further.
4. This will also allow institutions (usually institutions make up about 80-90% of good company's stocks) to buy in, further appreciating the stock price, stabilizing it, and creating liquidity. The reason OTC stocks and pink sheet stocks are so risky is there are no institutions involved. It's just everyone for themselves.
5. Being on the Nasdaq does a few things to the company:
a) Force them into doing financials more regularly and correctly
b) Enable analysts to look into them, thus keeping the company honest and giving shareholders more visibility
c) Allows for the stock to be added to ETFs and mutual funds, thus appreciating the stock price
In other words, the summary is:
1. Get rid of debt
2. Allow OXIS to be on the Nasdaq
3. Allow the share price to increase and stabilize
4. Reverse splits are BAD for BAD companies, but GOOD for GOOD companies.
Stuff to read
Too bad the board mod deleted my beautiful post. You can find it on the Yahoo Finance site.
It sounds like a reverse split IS required to reduce the 5 billion shares that get created after the merger. This reverse split will also increase the share price, thus allowing for listing on the Nasdaq (and thus allowing for institutions to come in and buy the stock, thereby pushing the price up and stabilizing it). Reverse splits are good for good companies, but bad for bad companies. This is a good company soley because of: Dr. Kathleen Clarence-Smith's proven record of success + the products in the pipeline. One of them (PainBrake) is ready for a drug application (and therefore revenue) in about a year and a half.
Current Structure
Stock Price as of July: $0.02
Current Common Shares Outstanding (Pre-Merger): 148,932,433
Common Shares Outstanding (Post-Merger): 5.0B
Post 1:300 Reverse Split
Stock Price after reverse split (assuming using $0.02 starting): $6.00
Current Common Shares Outstanding (Pre-Merger): 496,441
Common Shares Outstanding (Post-Merger): 16.5M
Post 1:300 Reverse Split with a higher PPS
Stock Price after reverse split (assuming using $0.20 starting): $60.00
Current Common Shares Outstanding (Pre-Merger): 496,441
Common Shares Outstanding (Post-Merger): 16.5M
We'd have to ask management if they plan on doing a smaller reverse split if the PPS is higher or not at the time of merger in late September. In other words, it may ultimately depend on the PPS that OXIS gets to by then. Possible scenarios:
Post 1:100 (SMALLER) Reverse Split with a higher PPS
Stock Price after reverse split (assuming using $0.20 starting): $20.00
Current Common Shares Outstanding (Pre-Merger): 1,489,323
Common Shares Outstanding (Post-Merger): 49.5M
Post 1:50 (EVEN SMALLER) Reverse Split with a higher PPS
Stock Price after reverse split (assuming using $0.20 starting): $10.00
Current Common Shares Outstanding (Pre-Merger): 2,978,646
Common Shares Outstanding (Post-Merger): 99M
To see this (and more) information, go to http://ir.oxis.com/presentations and click "SUMMER 2017 PRESENTATION"
I emailed them for a recording/play link. But, my post covers it all. Point is the Dr. Clarence-Smith is critical to success. SHE is the proven success and she is who I trust.
I WAS RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING!!!! I said this was really just a reverse merger since Kitty is leading, and it's always been about the management, AND I said (on the Yahoo Boards) that this company has been around for awhile as evident in their SEC history. They have the pipeline. They just need a real leader. I bet you I'm right about the former Pfizer CMO too. It's probably this person:
https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/NonCompliantCompanyList.aspx
Management = former Pfizer CMO and Chase Pharma CEO. 'Nuff said. Watch from the sidelines like my brother who could have bought at 4 cents, or get in on the action. You decide.
If Nasdaq extension is released, this puppy is hitting 500% today.
$OXIS breaking out. Do your dd. New management from Pfizer and Chase Pharma.
I think OXIS is still cheap at these levels. I've seen stocks go up from 0.005 all the way to 0.50 for example and it becomes risky at that level since it's gone up so much, but with the previous support level at 0.02 and now more recently at about 0.038, 0.07+ may become the new support level. I think a lot of people are beginning to see the new leaders have successful track records.
I bet they're waiting for the conference call to release the name of the former Pfizer CMO. I think they probably want to wow investors. But at any rate, it's some former CMO of Pfizer. No matter who it is, that's FRIGGEN HUGE! C'mon, it's Pfizer, one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies. You can't become a CMO of a company like that by being a loser. And you don't join a losing company on a whim. If the former CMO of Pfizer wanted a job anywhere else, he wouldn't have problems finding a job with any company! LOL!!! So why OXIS? Think about it. Think about it real hard.
OXIS (potential 1,000-5,000% bagger) BREAKING OUT!
Here's my DD on the company and its new leaders:
The OXIS story reminds of me Puma Biotechnology (ticker: PBYI). The merger of OXIS "acquiring" GT Pharma is similar to a reverse merger, which the opposite actually happens (where a private company, in this case GT Pharma, takes over a publicly traded company, OXIS, to bypass the lengthy process of going public and basically speed up the process of starting the business). Since the CEO of GT Pharma is actually going to become the CEO of OXIS, I consider this technically a reverse merger. This new CEO actually has an excellent track record of being successful at Chase Pharmaceuticals and selling it off for a good profit to Allergan. The important thing is she is trustworthy to get OXIS going in the right direction. A company may have super-duper products in the pipeline but if the company has a poor leader, the company is going down the drain.
I have to give props to the former CEO of OXIS, Anthony J. Cataldo, who I’m sure realized marching forward with OXIS was way over his head and found the perfect person to lead OXIS going forward. He could have remained CEO, but he didn’t.
As for OXIS reminding me of PBYI, the founder of Puma Biotechnology (Alan Auerbach) first started a biotech company called Cougar Biotechnology. He developed Cougar successfully to the point where he sold it off to Johnson and Johnson for $1 billion. Here is where the OXIS story (or more specifically, the Dr. Clarence-Smith story) reminds me of the Alan Auerbach story. Alan Auerbach then started off another company, called Puma Biotechnology (what can you say? The guy loves felines…). According to Puma’s history (link below), it states:
“On October 4, 2011, Puma completed a reverse merger with Innovative Acquisitions Corp., a publicly reporting "shell" company with no specific business plan or purpose. As a result of the merger, Puma became a wholly owned subsidiary of Innovative Acquisitions. The merged company changed its name to Puma Biotechnology and adopted Puma’s business plan. The company’s common stock began trading on April 20, 2012.”
So in order for Alan to speed up the process of going public, he basically takes over an existing publicly trading company that was going nowhere. He then got it to the point where when good Phase 3 results were obtaining, the stock went from $58.99 to $200.68 overnight. It continues to climb to $270+ (or like 2,000%+ returns) at its peak. Sure, PBYI is trading at $78 now, but other than a few months when the trading first began, not at any other point in its history did the stock trade LOWER than its initial starting of $13.
The point is OXIS is in a very, very promising position with previously successful Dr. Clarence-Smith as CEO and previously successful Pfizer CMO (whom I think is Joseph M. Feczko). It’s the “former CMO of Pfizer” so the current CMO of Pfizer can’t be a former CMO if they’re still the current one, right? The other former CMOs must be like super old. Logically that only leaves the prior CMO of Pfizer, who holds the correct titles noted in the news release 2 months ago, Joseph M. Feczko. When you have these kinds of successful leaders on board, great things happen. These types of successful individuals would not agree to join OXIS unless they themselves saw greater things on the horizon.
http://pumabiotechnology.com/ir_faqs.html <-- OXIS merger with GT Pharma reminds me of reverse merge between Puma Biotechnology and the "shell" holding publicly traded company.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kathleen-clarence-smith-b2232779 <-- New CEO
https://relationshipscience.com/joseph-m-feczko-p3193689 <-- New CMO?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4360883/ <-- Phase 1
The sad thing is I told my brother I could read charts and told him to get in 15 MINUTES before Friday's breakout. He didn't. He just watched in awe, regretting, when the breakout started.
OXIS (potential 1,000-5,000% bagger) BREAKING OUT!
Here's my DD on the company and its new leaders:
The OXIS story reminds of me Puma Biotechnology (ticker: PBYI). The merger of OXIS "acquiring" GT Pharma is similar to a reverse merger, which the opposite actually happens (where a private company, in this case GT Pharma, takes over a publicly traded company, OXIS, to bypass the lengthy process of going public and basically speed up the process of starting the business). Since the CEO of GT Pharma is actually going to become the CEO of OXIS, I consider this technically a reverse merger. This new CEO actually has an excellent track record of being successful at Chase Pharmaceuticals and selling it off for a good profit to Allergan. The important thing is she is trustworthy to get OXIS going in the right direction. A company may have super-duper products in the pipeline but if the company has a poor leader, the company is going down the drain.
I have to give props to the former CEO of OXIS, Anthony J. Cataldo, who I’m sure realized marching forward with OXIS was way over his head and found the perfect person to lead OXIS going forward. He could have remained CEO, but he didn’t.
As for OXIS reminding me of PBYI, the founder of Puma Biotechnology (Alan Auerbach) first started a biotech company called Cougar Biotechnology. He developed Cougar successfully to the point where he sold it off to Johnson and Johnson for $1 billion. Here is where the OXIS story (or more specifically, the Dr. Clarence-Smith story) reminds me of the Alan Auerbach story. Alan Auerbach then started off another company, called Puma Biotechnology (what can you say? The guy loves felines…). According to Puma’s history (link below), it states:
“On October 4, 2011, Puma completed a reverse merger with Innovative Acquisitions Corp., a publicly reporting "shell" company with no specific business plan or purpose. As a result of the merger, Puma became a wholly owned subsidiary of Innovative Acquisitions. The merged company changed its name to Puma Biotechnology and adopted Puma’s business plan. The company’s common stock began trading on April 20, 2012.”
So in order for Alan to speed up the process of going public, he basically takes over an existing publicly trading company that was going nowhere. He then got it to the point where when good Phase 3 results were obtaining, the stock went from $58.99 to $200.68 overnight. It continues to climb to $270+ (or like 2,000%+ returns) at its peak. Sure, PBYI is trading at $78 now, but other than a few months when the trading first began, not at any other point in its history did the stock trade LOWER than its initial starting of $13.
The point is OXIS is in a very, very promising position with previously successful Dr. Clarence-Smith as CEO and previously successful Pfizer CMO (whom I think is Joseph M. Feczko). It’s the “former CMO of Pfizer” so the current CMO of Pfizer can’t be a former CMO if they’re still the current one, right? The other former CMOs must be like super old. Logically that only leaves the prior CMO of Pfizer, who holds the correct titles noted in the news release 2 months ago, Joseph M. Feczko. When you have these kinds of successful leaders on board, great things happen. These types of successful individuals would not agree to join OXIS unless they themselves saw greater things on the horizon.
http://pumabiotechnology.com/ir_faqs.html <-- OXIS merger with GT Pharma reminds me of reverse merge between Puma Biotechnology and the "shell" holding publicly traded company.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kathleen-clarence-smith-b2232779 <-- New CEO
https://relationshipscience.com/joseph-m-feczko-p3193689 <-- New CMO?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4360883/ <-- Phase 1
The sad thing is I told my brother I could read charts and told him to get in 15 MINUTES before Friday's breakout. He didn't. He just watched in awe, regretting, when the breakout started.
Hi all. Here's my DD on the company and its new leaders:
The OXIS story reminds of me Puma Biotechnology (ticker: PBYI). The merger of OXIS "acquiring" GT Pharma is similar to a reverse merger, which the opposite actually happens (where a private company, in this case GT Pharma, takes over a publicly traded company, OXIS, to bypass the lengthy process of going public and basically speed up the process of starting the business). Since the CEO of GT Pharma is actually going to become the CEO of OXIS, I consider this technically a reverse merger. This new CEO actually has an excellent track record of being successful at Chase Pharmaceuticals and selling it off for a good profit to Allergan. The important thing is she is trustworthy to get OXIS going in the right direction. A company may have super-duper products in the pipeline but if the company has a poor leader, the company is going down the drain.
I have to give props to the former CEO of OXIS, Anthony J. Cataldo, who I’m sure realized marching forward with OXIS was way over his head and found the perfect person to lead OXIS going forward. He could have remained CEO, but he didn’t.
As for OXIS reminding me of PBYI, the founder of Puma Biotechnology (Alan Auerbach) first started a biotech company called Cougar Biotechnology. He developed Cougar successfully to the point where he sold it off to Johnson and Johnson for $1 billion. Here is where the OXIS story (or more specifically, the Dr. Clarence-Smith story) reminds me of the Alan Auerbach story. Alan Auerbach then started off another company, called Puma Biotechnology (what can you say? The guy loves felines…). According to Puma’s history (link below), it states:
“On October 4, 2011, Puma completed a reverse merger with Innovative Acquisitions Corp., a publicly reporting "shell" company with no specific business plan or purpose. As a result of the merger, Puma became a wholly owned subsidiary of Innovative Acquisitions. The merged company changed its name to Puma Biotechnology and adopted Puma’s business plan. The company’s common stock began trading on April 20, 2012.”
So in order for Alan to speed up the process of going public, he basically takes over an existing publicly trading company that was going nowhere. He then got it to the point where when good Phase 3 results were obtaining, the stock went from $58.99 to $200.68 overnight. It continues to climb to $270+ (or like 2,000%+ returns) at its peak. Sure, PBYI is trading at $78 now, but other than a few months when the trading first began, not at any other point in its history did the stock trade LOWER than its initial starting of $13.
The point is OXIS is in a very, very promising position with previously successful Dr. Clarence-Smith as CEO and previously successful Pfizer CMO (whom I think is Joseph M. Feczko). It’s the “former CMO of Pfizer” so the current CMO of Pfizer can’t be a former CMO if they’re still the current one, right? The other former CMOs must be like super old. Logically that only leaves the prior CMO of Pfizer, who holds the correct titles noted in the news release 2 months ago, Joseph M. Feczko. When you have these kinds of successful leaders on board, great things happen. These types of successful individuals would not agree to join OXIS unless they themselves saw greater things on the horizon.
http://pumabiotechnology.com/ir_faqs.html
https://relationshipscience.com/joseph-m-feczko-p3193689
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4360883/ <-- Phase 1
AMD vs Intel "SALES" market share out!!!! (by yours truly)
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AMD/community?p=AMD
FOR NEW (& existing) INVESTORS, HERE ARE SOME OF MY THOUGHTS & FACTS I RESEARCHED:
Hi guys. I normally post in the Yahoo Finance Boards, but I felt the need to share this information I found with you on AVEO. I've copied/pasted it and made some grammatical corrections. Enjoy.
My UPDATED thoughts:
The stock price was in the mid $7 range before the fiasco. With similar market sizes and the support strength of the stock price after the last run-up from 70 cents to over $2 (300%+ increase where other pump and dump stocks normally sells off in 2-3 days), I expect AVEO to rise to $6 or higher before mid-August (although the announcement can be sooner). For those who knows how to read charts, you guys and gals know exactly what I'm talking about. The 1 month chart shows MASSIVE support like you wouldn't believe it.
The 90% chance of approval from the EMA is a huge factor (see links below for facts). Short interests is only 2%, so short covering are not what's keeping this stock up. It's longs buying and holding for a huge payday. If approved by the EMA, I expect the stock price to jump anywhere from 70% to 100% on the announcement ($10-$12).
The best part is FDA approval is in sight (trials are being done now, and results expected first quarter of 2018), it could very well make it to high teens or $20 early next year (or the end of this year). Warren Buffet loves the stock market because he says all the information is available for everyone. It's a level playing field. He wins because he researches and believes what he's researched. See the stock EXEL? As someone pointed, AVEO reminds me of EXEL. There are some once in a lifetime opportunities. I believe we are looking at it.
FACTS:
-In late April, 2013 the stock price was around $7.50, awaiting the FDA approval of AVEO's kidney cancer drug, tivozanib (Fotivda).
-A review document from the FDA was not in favor due to "inconsistent" testing/results, sending the stock price down to around $5. A few days later when the FDA's official decision came back as a negative, the stock price went further down to the mid $2 range, where it's drifted down to sub $1. Some good articles to read from 2013:
www.fiercebiotech.com/r-d/updated-aveo-shares-plunge-after-fda-review-raises-fears-of-tivozanib-rejection
https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/08/25/what-went-wrong-aveo-pharmaceuticals/nurRUkhxi5OzRyDvXwlr3N/story.html
-Four plus years later of hard work, AVEO's drug received a recommendation from EU's Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) on June 23rd, 2017 for the European Medicines Agency (EMA, the EU's FDA equivalence) to approve, sending the stock price up from 70 cents, multiple days in a row to over $2.
-This new run-up appears to be a new series of longs and possibly institutions jumping in. In other words, the run, just like the last one, appears to be legit.
-Final decision from the EMA was scheduled to be 67 days from June 23, or roughly August 29, 2017. It could be sooner, but that's around the latest date for the decision.
-EMA success rates for approval for companies seeking and following scientific advice from CHMP is 90% (meaning you roll a dice with 10 sides, if you get 1-9, you win the lottery):
www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/news_and_events/news/2014/01/news_detail_002006.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058004d5c1
-Kidney cancer cases in the U.S. and EU are approximately similar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidney_cancer
-AVEO would need to get good results from trials currently being done comparing Fotiva against the current approved drug, Nexavar, for FDA approval. Results are expected in the first quarter of 2018.