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.
Until today I hadn't read up on MAXN since around the time of their split from SunPower. I haven't bought shares of either. Looking at the stock chart of MAXN I am wondering if now is good time to buy MAXN. Do you think now is a good time for someone to buy their initial shares of MAXN or do you think it would be best to wait for a possible further drop in the stock of MAXN before buying the initial shares?
Those with SIRC in a taxable account, instead of in a ROTH retirement account, depending on their situation, might benefit in regards to capital gains tax by holding the stock for long periods of time.
I know that realized losses are not exactly the same as unrealized losses, but on my brokerage account statements (on the portfolio balance screen on the brokerage's web page for my account) they still cause the stated value of my holdings to less.
Regarding holding periods, for me it has always been very hard to hold onto a stock if my unrealized profits in it have dropped by 75% or more. Regarding tax effects, my stock activity is in a ROTH retirement account, thus I don't have negative tax effects from selling within the account provided I don't make withdraws from the account prior to retirement age.
True, but if I had sold SIRC when it had dropped to $2.50 (or even $2) from $3 I would be in a far better position than if I hadn't patiently held onto it till about 47 cents (hoping good future announcements by the company [such as completing the audit, getting caught up in the filling of financial statements to the SEC, filing for up listing to the OTC:QB, dramatically increasing revenues through acquisitions, etc.] would result in the stock being back over $2 within a month or so).
A loss is a loss whether it is a paper "unrealized loss" or a realized loss from a sale. In both situations there is a loss in value of the holdings. But yes much of a stock's price movement is random (or seemingly random) very short-term fluctuations, in which case it is often unwise to sell on drops rather than to wait for the stock to go back up before selling.
I don't base my ideas of a possible considerable drop in the stock of SIRC on the how the business is doing (the business is doing great) [other than that the stock has fallen greatly while the company made numerous highly positive press releases], but rather on technical analysis of how the SIRC stock and other green energy stocks are doing. Solar Integrated Roofing is doing great business wise and is even getting better, yet despite that their stock has experienced a huge percentage drop since early February. That drop is of about the same percentage drop as a number of other solar and green energy stocks on the OTC, despite a number of them having far poorer financials. That tells me the main reason that SIRC stock was bid up and then down (on the ask) has little do with the differences between Solar Integrated Roofing and other solar companies whose stocks trade on the OTC (such as HYSR).
SIRC's stock movement from February 8, 2021 is still in huge downward trend and it thus looks to me that it will go down substantially further. I sold about half of my shares at 46 cents/share and later I sold the remaining half at 48 cents per share. Though the stock soon went to an intraday high of about 80 cents per share it soon resumed its downtrend and is now at about 54 cents per share (after a bit of a bounce up from about 50 cents a share on last Wednesday). It looks to me that the lows of April 19 and 20 of 2021 will be retested soon, probably next week. I think the stock will eventually drop below those levels, despite the progress the company is making in its business plans and despite the what the company says it will soon be doing. I think that largely because of the heavy weight of the falling market of green energy OTC stocks in general (and of small EV companies on the NASDAQ) - whether they be solar stocks (like HYSR and ASTI), EV stocks (like AYRO, FUV, and SOLO), or stocks of companies which intend to mine and recycle lithium (such as ABML and BRLL). I think that part of the reason the green energy stocks have fallen greatly since last February is due to concerns that the USA infrastructure might pass, or that if it passes many of it pro green energy provisions will be greatly reduced in size. I think that when the green energy stocks went up tremendously from October 30, 2020 through early February 2021 it was due to anticipation that the Biden administration would manage to get major green energy legislation passed through the USA Senate, but now many investors have major doubts about that.
Consider that during the dot.com crash of 2000 - 2003, even AMZN stock fell tremendously percentage wise - despite many years later proving to have an excellent business plan and the despite the stock eventually later recovering and soaring to new highs (with most of the sustained recovery starting after the market crash of the great recession of late 2007 through early 2009).
Regarding the idea of 'you don't loose unless you sell', in my early years of investing I held onto a stock (which I had bought at $1/share) that I thought was making a turn around, but its stock eventually ended up on the OTC pink sheets and maybe later on the OTC grey sheets. The company eventually went bankrupt with the liabilities and accumulated deficits exceeding the assets. As a result their was no money left to distribute to investors. I held the stock till after the company went completely out of business (if I had tried selling it somewhat earlier the commission charge would have exceeded my proceeds from the sale, as I only had 100 shares) and I ended up telling my discount broker to "sell the shares to worthless" get them off my account (and without having to pay a commission fee to do so). Fortunately I had only invested $100 into it stock. Other people have also held stocks all the way down to zero, thus people can loose money value even if they don't sell.
I notice that ASTI's most recent 10-Q (the one for the quarter ended September 30, 2020) on page 31 says "We believe the significant trends, uncertainties and challenges that directly or indirectly affect our financial performance and results of operations include: ... Our ability to maintain the listing of our common stock on the OTCBB Market; ...." Nowhere does that 10-Q use the word "Pink". That puzzled me and made me wonder when did ASTI loose their OTBB status and become OTC:Pink. Soon I learned what took place (namely that the trading now takes place on OTC Link instead on the OTCBB) when I learned at https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/otc-pink.asp that "the Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB)" has been replaced (at least mostly) by OTC Link which "... allows broker-dealers not only to post and disseminate their quotes but also to negotiate trades through the system’s electronic messaging capability." "The OTC Pink, as well as its companion tiers, OTCQX and OTCQB, is run by OTC Link. The link is an electronic inter-dealer quotation and trading system developed by OTC Markets Group. Registered with the SEC as a broker-dealer, OTC Link is also an alternative trading system (ATS)."
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/otcbb.asp says "In 2020, FINRA announced it would be winding down the OTCBB, as the bulk of OTC stock trading now occurs on OTC Markets Group's platforms." It has a link to https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/finra/2020/34-90067.pdf . The document at that link is dated October 1, 2020 - the day after the ending day of ASTI's most recently filed 10-Q. That SEC document says in part "FINRA is proposing to delete the rules related to the OTC Bulletin Board® Service (“OTCBB”) and cease its operation, and to enhance the regulation of quotations in OTC Equity Securities by adopting new requirements for member inter-dealer quotation systems."
Correction: In my prior post where I said "... run up from 1999 through October 21, 2002" I should have said "... run up from 1999 through September 25, 2000". Where I said "... the stock had am intraday high of $2.99/share ..." I should have said "... the stock had an intraday high of $2.99/share ...".
FCEL's chart pattern on the way down looks very symmetrical with its earlier chart pattern on the way up. If the trend continues (and I think it will for a number of weeks) then not only will the stock drop to $7/share but it will later drop to $5/share, and later even go all the way down to where was just before its rapid upward surge began on November 16, 2020. In other words, if the symmetry on the stock price holds then on the way down the stock will eventually drop to about $3/share (on November 13, 2020 the stock had am intraday high of $2.99/share). A similar percentage drop is also very possible for a number of other green energy stocks (such as a solar stocks on the OTC and lithium recycling/mining stocks on the OTC and EV stocks).
FCEL's chart on the way down also resembles its chart of September 25, 2000 through October 21, 2002 in mirroring (in the opposite direction) its prior run up from 1999 through October 21, 2002.
The answer to your question of "... why did they force the pps all the way back down to 7 where they now have NO PROFIT?..." is that they likely sold all of their shares before selling short shares. And, if that happened they later made unrealized ("paper") profits from the short selling and if they later cover the shorts (at current prices of lower) they will then realize huge profits when they close their short sell positions.
That might be a good call; we will know soon enough if the call is correct.
Yes it is the solar sector stocks that are in a huge downtrend (at least those on the OTC) but I was keeping the details specific (such as specific stock prices) to the stock of this board.
I notice that Barrel Energy has made major updates to their website! Perhaps many of you folks already noticed the updates, but they are new to me since I hadn't visited their website in over a month.
Many companies include their stock price on their web site.
Yep. I think $FCEL will soon be (probably within 2 weeks) at $7/share - if not lower.
$SIRC stock is heading back down to a RSI of 30 and is now close to it. It looks like an RSI of 30 won't provide any significant support for the stock price like it did around April 19th - at least not for the next 60 days. It looks like SIRC stock will be below the price of 46 cents/share by the end of end next week - if not by the end of tomorrow. I currently think it is too risky to buy SIRC at price higher than 25 cents/share - at least for me. That is partly because it looks like some hedge funds are determined to drive down to the ground SIRC's stock price and that of a number of other OTC stocks over the next several months - erasing all of the phenomenal percentage gains $SIRC and some other stocks made since early January 2021 (if not even since October 30, 2020). If so, then sadly there is nothing we retail investors/traders can do, in a long lasting way, to effectively counteract their efforts. It looks like those particular hedge funds don't want to buy SIRC shares (other than maybe to cover short sell positions) but rather simply want to make a huge amount of money (from short selling) by driving down the stock as far as they can; that is sad. I think SIRC will continue to release great news press reports over the upcoming months, but I think such won't stop the downward trending slide in SIRC's stock price over the next several weeks (and possibly over the next several months).
I hope that those who bought SIRC at 25 cents/share (or higher, or even at a mere 6 cents/share) and who are currently holding them (such as for long term plans) don't loose all of their profits. I am learning the hard way how dangerous it is own OTC penny stocks. I remember what happened to the dot.com (internet stocks) from the years 2000 - 2003 and I wonder if something similar (but more steadily) is now happening to OTC green energy stocks.
Legal Disclaimer: The above are my personal opinions (at the moment); they are not intended as investment/trading advice. I am not a broker and I am not a professional stock trader. I do not work for a trading company and I am not a representative of any.
Your folks are welcome regarding the DD.
I like the way the https://www.ascentsolar.com/ir-stock-information.html page looks. I notice it shows the stock price out to 4 decimal places, that is better than sites which show stock quotes.
I recommend you read the message board posts about that one, including regarding the stop sign status. But yes, SIRC is much further along in its transformation than the other one and thus SIRC stock might currently be safer.
Ascent Solar has a patent for bifacial solar modules, thus they and Crowdex can benefit from the tariffs that the USA has on such solar modules made outside of the USA. For example see page 8 of Ascent Solar's 10-K "For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018". [See https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/asti/SecArticle?countryCode=US&guid=13362240&type=1 .] Item number 4 on that page says "US Patent No. 8,124,870 entitled “Systems and Processes for Bifacial Collection and Tandem Junctions Using a Thin film Photovoltaic Device” (issued February 28, 2012)".
Thanks. You are welcome. That is a great idea you have about Penumbra Solar possibly becoming the corporate entity for selling the tube systems in the USA.
If the systems are made in the USA that would be an excellent advantage for Crowdex. Here is why. President Biden says he wants the USA federal government to buy products made in the USA (including, and maybe especially for, solar and other green energy products) and Biden wants to promote "Made in the USA". Biden also has tariffs (a continuation of the tariffs placed by former President Trump) on solar products made outside of the USA (at least ones from certain countries); by having the systems made in the USA there wouldn't be any tariffs to pay on those systems sold in the USA. Regarding the tariffs see https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-01/biden-doj-says-trump-lawfully-killed-solar-tariff-loophole and see https://www.seia.org/news/americas-clean-energy-leaders-urge-president-biden-repeal-trump-solar-tariff-proclamation . The latter article says that Trump's declaration (at least one of them) on solar tariffs was made in October 2020 - the same month that Bernd (through Crowdex) became the approximately 90% owner of Ascent Solar! Hello! That tariff, or a only a portion of it, appears however to only pertain to Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells (see https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-facilitate-positive-adjustment-competition-imports-certain-crystalline-silicon-photovoltaic-cells/ ).
I don't yet know what to make of it.
Thanks but I don't see it mentioned on that page. Does one have to log into the FB site in order to see it? I don't have a FB account.
I know TubeSolar had a supplier for their product before they got involved with Ascent Solar. But Penumbra Solar, Inc. is selling product that includes the solar modules in the tubes (like TubeSolar), not just selling the solar modules. In fact it appears that Penumbra Solar, Inc. is not making the solar modules that they integrate into their product, for their website says "Penumbra Solar, Inc. is the leading fabricator of agrivoltaic tubes ...". Notice they claim to be a maker of the tubes but they don't seem to claim to be a maker of the solar (photovoltaic) modules that they use in their finished system of "... photovoltaic systems designed for agricultural installations - Agrivoltaic Tubes". (See https://penumbrasolar.com/ ).
Penumbra Solar's website appears to have only 3 web pages. https://www.bizapedia.com/ca/penumbra-solar-inc.html says:
"Penumbra Solar, Inc. is a California Foreign Corporation filed On March 20, 2020. The company's filing status is listed as Active and its File Number is C4580061.
The Registered Agent on file for this company is David Theodore Peterson JR and is located at 16640 Bienveneda Pl, Los Angeles, CA 90272. The company's mailing address is 16640 Bienveneda Pl, Los Angeles, CA 90272.
The company has 1 principal on record. The principal is David Theodore Peterson from Los Angeles CA." It also says "Company Age: 1 Year 2 Months". For confirmation see also https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/ .
http://www.ascentsolar.com/leadership.html lists a person named "David Peterson" whom the website says "has served on our Board of Directors since December 2020." That Peterson "is currently the Manager of Crowdex Investment, LLC, an investor in Ascent Solar Technologies, Inc." A Form 3 filed by Ascent Solar on December 21, 2020 is for one of their board members named Peterson David Theodore JR - the exact same name (except that Peterson is listed as the first name instead of as the last name) as the registered agent on file for Penumbra Solar, Inc. - I think they are the exact same person, despite that one has Peterson as the last name and the other as the first name. Sometimes people will list their last name first, followed by a comma. Furthermore the website of Ascent Solar lists Peterson as the last name instead of the first name.] That same form is signed in the name of "David Peterson" - notice there it has "Peterson" as the last name instead of the first name. That confirms that the director named Peterson at Ascent Solar is the same person listed as the Registered Agent of Penumbra Solar! A remark on the Form 3 says "The reporting person is currently the Manager of Crowdex Investment, LLC ("Crowdex"). Crowdex is a newly formed limited liability company whose 100% indirect beneficial owner is Bernd Fortsch. Through its ownership of Common Stock and Series 1A Convertible Preferred Stock of the Company, Crowdex currently holds majority voting control of the Company. Mr. Peterson disclaims beneficial ownership of any Company securities owned by Crowdex." That probably explains why the product shown on Penumbra Solar's website looks virtually identical with the product shown on TubeSolar's website (since TubeSolar is owned by Crowdex).
A moment ago I sent the following email to Ascent Solar's Investor Relations department.
"https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001835487/000107997320001089/xslF345X02/ownership.xml shows that the Form 3 signed/filed on December 21, 2020 for your director named David Peterson has the name "Peterson" listed as the first name in box number 1 of the form - without a comma separating the name "Peterson" and the name "David". Is that an error? If there is an error please correct the error.
Furthermore is the Director whose full name (in Box 1) is listed as "Peterson David Theodore JR" the same person named "David Theodore Peterson JR" that is the Registered Agent on file for Penumbra Solar, Inc. (the same Penumbra Solar, Inc. that Ascent Solar had issued a convertible note to which was later reassigned to Crowdex)?
Furthermore I notice that the website of Penumbra Solar, Inc. (https://penumbrasolar.com/ ) is labeled as insecure according to two web browsers, due to an invalid (and/or expired) site certificate."
A moment ago I sent the following email to David Peterson of Penumbra Solar, Inc.
"Your web site of https://penumbrasolar.com/ is labeled as insecure according to two web browsers, due to an invalid (and/or expired) site certificate. Please fix that problem.
Are you the same David Peterson who is also a director of Ascent Solar? If so, there might a problem with the Form 3 filed for you on December 21, 2020.
"https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001835487/000107997320001089/xslF345X02/ownership.xml shows that the Form 3 signed/filed on December 21, 2020 for Ascent Solar's director named David Peterson has the name "Peterson" listed as the first name (instead of the last name) in box number 1 of the form - without a comma separating the name "Peterson" and the name "David". Is that an error? If there is an error please correct the error.
Furthermore I notice that the Director of Ascent Solar named Peterson is listed (in Box 1 of the Form 3) as having the full name of "Peterson David Theodore JR" and I notice that a person (presumably you) named "David Theodore Peterson JR" is the Registered Agent on file for your company named Penumbra Solar, Inc.
It is like Penumbra Solar, Inc. and TubeSolar are the same companies or that one is DBA of the other (or copying the business plan of the other). Even the rack (in the photos) holding the tubes of solar modules appear to be the exact same brand of rack.
Hey folks do you remember Penumbra Solar, the company which was issued a convertible promissory note by ASTI in June 9, 2020? A few days ago I tried to find info about Penumbra Solar, but I didn't find much - except that according to Google's search engine they have a solar product for agriculture using thin film solar cells (possibly similar to that of TubeSolar). Google says "Penumbra Solar, Inc. is the leading fabricator of agrivoltaic tubes - the most effective technology available for combining solar power and agriculture." However when I try to go to Penumbra Solar website two different browsers I tried say that the website is insecure and not private and they warn me that "Attackers might be trying to steal your information from penumbrasolar.com ...". But the warning can be ignored (and I went to the site today) and look at what it shows at https://penumbrasolar.com/About/ . Their product looks very much like that of TubeSolar's! [See https://tubesolar.de/en/the-future-of-photovoltaics/ for comparison.]
In ASTI's filing that was issued on April 9, 2021 page 24 says:
"The note is convertible, at the holder’s option, into shares of the Company’s Common Stock at a conversion price equal to $0.0001 per share.
Subsequent to the date of this report, this debt with Penumbra was assigned to Crowdex Investment, LLC (“Crowdex”)."
Notice that enabled Penumbra Solar to obtain common stock at $0.0001 per share and notice the convertible note now belongs to Crowdex (the company owned by the billionaire). That is very interesting.
Earlier today when I looked for the filings I saw them (except maybe the April 9th one), but when I tried to load them the website gave me an error message and the filings didn't load. But now the filing load for me (including the one from April 9th).
Indeed. Maybe the bulk of the buyers have moved on to other sectors (ones that have upwards momentum) or maybe to crypto currencies. An OTC:Pink (not SIRC) solar stock (one in which a billionaire owns about 90% of its shares) I bought back over a week ago is currently hurting, and I am not sure how far it will fall before the company gets caught up with their SEC filings.
I appreciate your enthusiasm for SIRC but I question the accuracy of some of your comments. For example, I notice you say that SIRC is a profitable company, but the company has been reporting net less losses for a long time. It does have positive gross margins however so maybe you meant profitability by that measure.
What is your source that SIRC will have an earnings/investor call on this Wednesday? Was it in a podcast? [I don't keep up with their numerous podcasts.] I do not see a press release on the SIRC website about an upcoming earnings/investor call.
That is a very informative article. I had no idea that charging an EV car would take that long on Level 1 and level 2 chargers. Maybe I should buy a street legal electric scooter (though I have one already but its old sealed lead batteries no longer hold a charge) for use in my neighborhood before I buy an EV car.
That is true, since they largely went up together and then they largely went down together.
If it got down that low, I would probably buy it back (unless my funds were already in something else at that time).
It sounds like VXRT's vaccine might also have some effectiveness in protecting from some cold viruses. I say that because a PR posted at Briefing.com at 5:10 PM ET (see also the one on Yahoo) said "The Vaxart vaccine candidate elicited a T cell response against SARS-Cov-2, as well as showed cross-reactivity against diverse endemic coronaviruses such as 229E, NL63, HKU1, and OC43[.] Vaxart's vaccine candidate triggered specific IgA antibodies in the mucosa. These mucosal IgA responses appeared to be cross-reactive against other coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV-1, MERS, and the endemic common cold viruses 229E, NL63, HKU1, and OC43."
I was surprised by the move up during after hours since the stock trended down during the first hour of the webinar (and stayed down during the rest of the regular session of trading). I was thinking that if great data had been reported during the webinar, then the stock should have moved up considerably during that time.
Because it went up so very much up through early February 2021 I wonder if it will (over a number of weeks) drop back down to around 25 cents to 30 cents per share (or possibly even lower), since below the 40 cents/share support level that one appears to be the next one on the way down.
I do believe that is a big factor, but currently I don't think it is the only factor.
That is a good question. I don't currently have a good idea of how high it will get by year's end, though I do think that when major good news/events are reported by the company it will be quickly followed by a substantial percentage price gain for $SIRC stock. But for now the green energy stocks are still on a downtrend (or have resumed such a trend), so at the moment I am waiting for substantially lower prices before buying share of any of them. Ones on the OTC are especially hurting. I wonder why they are falling so much. Maybe it is partly due to rising interest rates and huge USA federal government spending plans; I don't know why.
I don't plan to leave the board. Others make negative comments here regarding the stock when they feel they are correct and I will likely do the same. Likewise when I feel positively regarding the stock I will likely make positive posts here again. I post both my negative and positive views about various stocks.
I haven't rebought it since selling it at about $0.46/share (I bought other stocks instead). I am now even more certain that $SIRC stock entered a bull trap from the closing time of April 20th through the closing time of April 23rd. On about Aril 20tj I thought that even if the stock bounced up from the low 40 cents region it had a strong chance of falling back down within a week or so like it did during the two most recent other bull traps (the ones in March 2021), which is part of the reason why I sold on about April 20th.
See the Motley Fool article of April 30th: https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/04/30/why-vaxart-stock-is-soaring-today/ . Besides mentioning the info in the press release it says "Additionally, Vaxart has become increasingly popular among traders on Reddit and other social media platforms in recent weeks. This is no doubt amplifying the moves in its stock price, which is likely to remain volatile."
See also https://scrip.pharmaintelligence.informa.com/SC144270/Your-Annual-COVID-19-Vaccine-Booster-Could-Be-A-Pill-Or-A-Spray which says in part the following:
'In addition to convenience, oral and nasal vaccine candidates have other potential advantages in that they elicit immune response in a different way to subcutaneous or intramuscular vaccines.
In subcutaneous or intramuscular vaccines, the primary immune response is systemic humoral immunity, in which B-cells generate antibodies (IgG) against the pathogen in the blood. They tend to produce limited cellular immunity from T-cells, and only weak protection at the mucosal surfaces, which include the nasal cavity and the stomach.
The reverse is true with oral and nasal vaccines – delivering a vaccine via mucosal surfaces generates mucosal antibodies (IgA) as well as a T-cell response, while systemic antibody response (IgG) can be limited.
A vaccine that could provide a mucosal immune response in the nose and mouth is likely to be preferable against an airborne respiratory virus like SARS-CoV2, as it would provide a barrier at the infection site.
Vaxart and Altimmune have both made progress in the last 12 months for their respective oral and nasal drug delivery platforms, and they see applications for their products across a range of infectious diseases.
A Phase II head-to-head challenge study of Vaxart’s oral flu vaccine candidate versus Sanofi’s Fluzone shot and a placebo showed superior efficacy to Sanofi’s established product. Illness rates were 39% lower in those given Vaxart’s oral vaccine compared with unvaccinated subjects, and 27% lower than in those vaccinated with Fluzone.
The trial was funded by the US Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) and was published in the Lancet Infectious Diseases in January 2020.
The results also showed that Vaxart’s vaccine generated less than one tenth of the serum neutralizing antibodies of the injectable product, yet it protected as well. This illustrated the importance of the T cell immunity, as well as the small but significant levels of mucosal antibodies generated.
Explaining the mechanism on a HC Wainwright & Co investor call in March, Vaxart’s founder and chief scientific officer Sean Tucker said: “A little bit of mucosal B-cells goes a long way”.
...
Vaxart believes its approach of targeting two of the virus’ proteins could be another key differentiator for its vaccine as the N protein is more conserved than the S protein, and therefore could hold out against new SARS-CoV2 variants.
This theory has yet to be clinically tested, but the candidate has passed the first hurdle, with preliminary Phase I trial data meeting its primary and secondary endpoints, with no reports of severe adverse indications.
As in the flu trial, the vaccine generated CD8+ cytotoxic T-cell responses in a majority of patients that may provide long lasting memory, proinflammatory Th1 cytokines and IgA responses, and elevated mucosal homing receptors for B-cell immune response.
The company is now gearing up for Phase IIa immunogenicity and dose-ranging study in Q2, which once complete, will immediately be followed by a Phase IIb efficacy study.
Vaxart’s founder and chief scientific officer Sean Tucker said the world could be stuck on a ‘hamster wheel’ trying to constantly update injected vaccines that target a mutating S protein.
He believes its approach of targeting the N and S proteins with an oral vaccine could tackle emerging variants of concern.
“The best way to do that is essentially hand out tablets because then you don't have to line up and wait for the syringes to go into people's arms.”
Highlighting the benefits of targeting the N protein he said: “The South African strain that everybody's concerned about has only one amino acid difference in the N protein compared to the original Wuhan, so it's again a very well conserved target…for T-cells.” '
It is not listed on an exchange; it trades on the OTC Marketplace (which is not an exchange). If it later gets up listed to the NASDAQ then it will be listed on the NASDAQ exchange. After they get current with their SEC filings they will probably soon apply for up listing within the OTC.