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.
I was thinking that given the number of shares each preferred might be worth two to five common and be non callable. They are, at least in my memory, always sold at a discount. In this case I would think non callable.
The PPS this AM says the financing was expected, pretty much by all of us. Now for the P3 announcement and a move up.
Would you be thinking convertible preferred?? I am.
The PPS has been anticipating dilution associated with the P3 for some time. Glad to see we now know the parameters we will have to deal with.
In the final analysis it will all come down to the P3 results.
All else is prelude.
GBM: Is this a legitimate threat to Cotara?
Citation: Abstract and poster presentation at Fourth Quadrennial Meeting of the
World Federation of Neuro-Oncology, hosted by the Society for Neuro-Oncology, in
San Francisco Nov. 21-24. Poster session from 5 to 7 p.m. PST Saturday, Nov.
23:
"Long Term Remission Over 5 Years in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma
(GBM) Treated with ICT-107 Vaccine: A Follow Up Study."
Contact:
For ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd.
Jane Green.
Investor Relations
Update: 50 Percent of Patients in Cedars-Sinai Brain Cancer Study Alive After
Five
Years
With Standard Care, Median Length of Survival is 15 Months After Diagnosis of
Glioblastoma
Multiforme - and Only 10 Percent Survive More Than 5 Years
November 24, 2013
CEDARS-SINAI; LOS ANGELES (NOV. 24, 2013) - Eight of 16 patients participating
in
a study of an experimental immune system therapy directed against the most
aggressive
malignant brain tumors - glioblastoma multiforme - survived longer than five
years
after diagnosis, according to Cedars-Sinai researchers, who presented findings
Nov.
23 at the Fourth Quadrennial Meeting of the World Federation of Neuro-Oncology.
Seven of the 16 participants still are living, with length of survival ranging
from
60.7 to 82.7 months after diagnosis. Six of the patients also were "progression
free" for more than five years, meaning the tumors did not return or require
more
treatment during that time. Four participants still remain free of disease with
good quality of life at lengths ranging from 65.1 to 82.7 months following
diagnosis.
One patient who remained free of brain cancer for five years died of leukemia.
The original clinical trial - a Phase I study designed to evaluate safety -
included
16 patients with glioblastoma multiforme enrolled between May 2007 and January
2010
by researchers at Cedars-Sinai's Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr. Brain Tumor Center.
Results published in January at the end of the study showed median overall
survival
of 38.4 months.
Is this company's vaccine a threat to, assuming it works in humans, or could it be used in conjunction with, Bavi?
"4:47AM Inovio Pharmaceuticals' potent hTERT DNA Cancer vaccine shows potential to reduce tumors and prevent tumor recurrence (INO) 1.27 : Co announces that in a preclinical study with two animal models, Inovio's hTERT DNA cancer vaccine administered with Inovio's CELLECTRA adaptive electroporation delivery technology generated robust and broad immune responses, broke the immune system's tolerance to its self-antigens, induced T-cells with a tumor-killing function, and increased the rate of survival. Because high levels of hTERT expression are found in 85% of human cancers, regardless of type, Inovio's cancer candidate holds the potential to perform as a "universal" cancer therapeutic based on these early but unprecedented results. Following this strong preclinical data, Inovio plans to advance its synthetic hTERT cancer vaccine, INO-1400, into clinical trials in 2014."
What does the MB think of the breast cancer results?
http://ir.peregrineinc.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=776569
Every Billion is capitalization is a PPS of $6 approximately. The ultimate question is what will INO be worth down the road?
Agree, but that is a "cup too far". It is however above the 50 day MA which is at $1.53 and that is very positive if we close above it. Also looks like we are going to have a Golden Cross in the near future.
Look at the weekly chart, it is predictive. If we add Bollinger Bands to the daily it looks like the PPS is running along the upper band. However there is no resistance on the daily to explain what happened yesterday unless you want to use the upper Bollinger. The weekly for whatever reason is showing where the resistance is.
PSARs remain positive.
I know it is unusual but that is what the chart is showing.
We shall see what we shall see..............
Short term investors, those who have owned the stock for 50 days, MA is 1.47, or 200 days, MA is 1.65 are profitable and neither of those are showing up as resistance, so on average those holders are not selling. On the other hand the 200 week, MA is 1.92, looked like it was met with selling. So those would be people who have been around a while and then some.
No doubt there is a mix, one can not really know these things for certain, but the resistance right now is on the weekly charts, not on the daily.
We get above $1.92 decisively and we will make a run having cleared out what looks like major selling.
All IMHO.
GLTA
Just looking at the chart, part of the problem is simply supply and demand with number of long time Longs who just want to get out near $2. Say what you want about their reasoning but that is what it looks like to me.
The PPS hit just above the weekly 200 MA and retreated as long time holders got out even or with a bit of a profit. We will probably have another go at the 200 MA. Once above we should see a run up.
The PPHM weekly chart seems to be a better indicator than the daily. The weekly 50 MA is $1.61 which is approximately where we came down to and found support.
Both weekly and daily PSARs remain bullish.
PPHM is neither undersold nor overbought so no help for prognosticators there.
The P&F chart is still calling for higher, $6.88. However actuals have been known to take their sweet time getting to P&F targets.
GLTA
IMHO
I owned CLDX, bought below $3. I recently sold it in the $12+ range. It had aspects of being pumped here of late and I thought it best to take my profits. They put a target of $13 to $15 on it if I recall correctly. Good company but the PPS increase seemed manipulated to me.
Caveat Emptor.
Nope. You have four business days to file Form 8k.
http://www.sec.gov/answers/form8k.htm
The P&F chart says look for higher prices with a target of $6.98 (keep in mind the P&F can be very slow getting there.) PSARs for both the weekly and daily are positive. Soooo if TA counts for anything it says we are going up.
Also keep an eye out for a Golden Cross down the road a bit.
The FDA approval for a Phase III was a material event. As such it must be reported. You can not sit on that sort of information pretty much other than to give yourself enough time to write up the PR.
Granted the timing could have been better, but the FDA does not care one whit about share price.
SAR looking very good for the daily and weekly. The PPS is very close to breaking over the MAs. With some luck we could have a run up next week.
Speaking of facts: OJ was acquitted in the murder trial but found guilty in the civil trial. So he has been proven guilty.
Thanks. It is always a pleasure to have altruistic posters who spend hours looking out for those of us who are fair game for the unscrupulous, but certainly not anyone here.
As Casey Stengel once said, "You could look it up." in this case just wiki Phase II FDA. To sum up; Phase IIs are by design smaller populations and while some achieve statistical significance they are not designed to do so per se. At times it is worth the effort and expense to increase the cohort to achieve statistical significance in a PII especially if you are sure of the results. A Phase II has fewer patients therefore statistical significance is more difficult to achieve, especially when you understand that "stasig" is used by the FDA to determine efficacy across a diverse population which by definition has more variation. That is why Phase IIIs usually involve enrolling many times more patients than Phase IIs, they can be as as high as thousands of patients where IIs are usually hundreds or less. Nice if a Phase II has significance but not necessary. What is necessary is that it shows efficacy.
To sum up, as far as Phase IIs being designed for statistical significance that is simply in error, they may be but are usually not.
Keep the faith, it is not unusual to see a number of attempts before getting through a critical, in this case $1.48, level. The short side traders know this and hammer the PPS when it pokes its head above $1.48.
I agree, $1.63 is the next target and then $2.01.
SmallCap Network Report-Bryan Murphy:
The chart did not copy for I-Hub, it did on IV.
The Peregrine Pharmaceuticals (PPHM) Tide Turns for the Better
By Bryan Murphy
Apr 18, 2013 5:00:27 AM PDT | 299 View(s) | No Comment(s) - Post a Comment Rating
inShare
1
Print Email
StockHQ:
PPHM
$1.47 -$0.04 -2.33%
Bryan Murphy
Home
Analysis (4)
Articles (1,138)
Blogs (7)
Files (1,970)
Picks (4)
Send Message Add to Contacts Follow
In perfect world, biopharma stocks would (at least approximately) reflect the progress and value of that company's underlying drug(s). We don't live or trade in a perfect world though. Indeed, for small cap biopharma names like Peregrine Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:PPHM), trading is more like a poker match - you have to be able to gauge how far the other players/traders are willing to go with their hand. If you look closely at a chart, however, you can gain an edge on most of the other players in the game. PPHM has just dropped such a hint.
If the name and ticker ring a bell, PPHM is the company developing bavatuximab - a monoclonal antibody that can be used to weaken cancerous cells and tumors. It's being tested as a therapy for NSCLC (non-small cell lung cancer), pancreatic cancer, liver cancer, and breast cancer, but it's the NSCLC trials that are of the most interest right now. That may be because that's the trial that's furthest along of all the trials Peregrine Pharmaceuticals has underway. It's at the end of Phase 2, awaiting the green light to proceed to Phase 3.
The results of the bavatuximab trials have been..... the word 'confusing' may best describe it. After Phase 2 trials were all but completed, it was discovered - by Peregrine - that some of the doses weren't always the right size for some of the patients. Normally that would require a complete re-do of the whole trial, but as it turns out, PPHM was able to salvage some of the data from the testing - enough to proceed without a do-over, in the company's opinion. Whether or not the FDA also agrees that Phase 2 doesn't need be done again remains to be seen. That's the tug of war going on with the stock right now, which will end one way or another when the company meets with the FDA in Q2 to talk about going into Phase 3.
Fast-forward to today, and to today's chart of PPHM in particular. It looks like the bulls are more convinced that bavatuximab can proceed to Phase 3 NSCLC trials than the bears are convinced that it won't.
The big clue to that end is how Peregrine Pharmaceuticals shares have once again pushed up and off a key rising support line (red). That's the second higher low since the mid-2012 move to a new multi-year low of $0.39. This longer-term weekly chart puts things into a bigger perspective. The bulls ARE forging ahead again, despite what are a lot of question marks surrounding the company. That conviction may ultimately be errant, but until it's proven wrong, that conviction is apt to make for a very bullish trade.
Some fans and followers of PPHM will see enough bullishness in the current chart to go ahead and take the plunge, while others may want to wait and see shares move above the 50-day moving average line (purple) to confirm the new uptrend is well underway. Either way, the odds and upside look favorable.
If you're looking for more trading perspective on other pharmaceutical stocks, then sign up for the free SmallCap Network e-newsletter today.
Bryan Murphy is a paid contributor of the SmallCap Network. Bryan Murphy's personal holdings should be disclosed above. You can also view SmallCap Network's complete disclaimer and disclosure.
I still think if we hold above $1.48 we will be in good shape for a rally IMHO. Meanwhile, stay calm guys and do not get carried away.
I am thinking more like over $1.48 for a breakout upwards. Take a look at the weekly MAs and let me know what you think.
Thanks cj and others, I appreciate your responses.
But its not like they could not have partnered Bavi with a company that does not have a breast cancer drug. Also there are a number of companies with a NSCLC drug in the race so we are really saying in effect that Garnick felt Bavi would trump the others. that no drug was better than Bavi?
I understand the logic of going with the unmet need theory but it seems as though there was an additonal card to be played that was folded unnecesarily.
It just hit me funny, no apparent other reason to question him as he is one of the reasons I bought in heavily.
Still adding as I think we are closing in on resolution of what happened in the NSCLC P2 and have concluded regardless that it will not affect the approval to go ahead with a P3.
Any ideas as to why Garnick went with NSCLC instead of Breast Cancer for the trial? Did he feel that there was less competiton or what? I don't seem to be able to come up with a logical explanation other than that.
Sabotage is sabotage and how it is prosecuted is a separate issue. You need to study the case. Lilly's Chairman was on record of saying they were doing one thing but they were in fact doing another, this was not about a misinterpretation of a contract. The disagreement was not a judgement call on establishing incentives where one drug produces more commission than another, it was about not doing what you were saying you were doing, that is deception and sabotage. They went to civil court to break the partnership contract, the fact that criminal activity was not prosecuted is another issue and does not prove there was no criminal activity. Since you appear to have some legal training you must know that.
Who sabotaged the NSCLC trial and why will tell us much if we ever get to learn the details and the case is not sealed. All else is FUD and a distraction.
No we are not getting overly broad, though you are getting overly legalistic, nor do you understand what the word sabotage means:
sab·o·tage (sb-täzh)
n.
1. Destruction of property or obstruction of normal operations, as by civilians or enemy agents in time of war.
2. Treacherous action to defeat or hinder a cause or an endeavor; deliberate subversion.
tr.v. sab·o·taged, sab·o·tag·ing, sab·o·tag·es
To commit sabotage against
All parts of this definition fit what Lilly purposefully did with regard to AMLN did and also fit the outcome of what was purposefully done to the NSCLC trial.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
The issue was sabotage. Lilly sabotaged the sale of Byetta, also committed other fraud. We are talking about the end result, the deliberate attempt to thwart a competitive product from reaching market as in telling sales people not to sell a product and deliberately structuring the compensation package to make sure if anyone did not get the word they did not earn. Splitting hairs does not make you correct especially since you are assuming away motive and also the potential involvement of a BP. Geez yourself.
What don't you understand about anticompetitive activity? You think that if in the case of PPHM a BP was involved they were attempting to enhance competiton between cancer drug manufacturers? If they were involved it was to diminsh competiton. If Bavi is approved you don't see it as a competitive threat to BP?
Think through the implications of breaching a strategic alliance agreement. Why does a Lilly, BP does not come much bigger, do such a thing? Follow the money.
We do not know who was behind the sabotage be it a common operational screwup, adding Bavi where it should not have been added because of a human or s/w error, or was it prompted by compensation from a third party.
One thing is for sure in all this the trial manager failed in its responsibilites and you can bet the insurance company(ies) will get to the bottom of it and involve the Feds if it is called for.
If we had this conversation ten years ago I would be in the frontline of sceptics. But a couple of years ago I and others saw Lilly purposefully sabotage the sales of Byetta to protect its own GLP-1 drug and its insulin franchise. Taken to court for their nefarious actions they were forced to break their partnership agreement with AMLN which allowed the company to be sold to others. One would hope that there is a simple one person explanation for what went wrong, but logically one can not also exclude a BP from being involved either. We shall see.
Greed does strange things to people to include the FUDsters here.
The MB is using placebo arm and control arm interchangeably, they are not. The control arm received SOC which was medically effective, no placebo arm, medically ineffective, was used in the NSCLC trial. Easy to confuse the two, but control arm is correct in this instance IMHO.
"A placebo (pron.: /pl?'sibo?/ pl?-SEE-boh; Latin placebo, "I shall please"[2] from placeo, "I please") is a simulated or otherwise medically ineffectual treatment for a disease or other medical condition intended to deceive the recipient."
Happy Holidays to All.
Exactly, this is a quiet week where we should hope no news is released. You have Passover and Good Friday being celebrated and consequently a four day trading week. No one is around to trade as many schools are closed and people are going or have gone on vacation.
The PPS is most probably going nowhere on no volume due to the above.
All IMHO.
It appears at this point post the NSCLC P2 trial that any results which are material events are not going to be released until they are thoroughly reviewed and then reviewed again. File the current silence under, "Once burnt, twice warned".
Apologies for the delay in responding, snowstorm and life intruded. IMHO this is a good entry point.
I have a large position so you know my bias.
I have nothing to do whatsoever with PPHM management. I do dollar cost average until I reach a desired quantity of shares, be the PPS up or down. I bought PPHM shares on 4/23/2012 @ $0.41, and again on 4/24/2012 @ $0.44 and up from their until around $0.81 adding to my position substantially. Subsequently I am profitable over all. After many decades of investing the hardest things to do it seems are buying a good company you think you understand which is under pressure possibly for reasons which contradict what is publicly known and selling shares when you feel they are undervalued even after precipitous increases in PPS. As far as not selling at tops, as I was once told by Charlie McGolrick after complaining to him that I missed a few points, "No one ever went broke taking a profit."
One must find what investing strategy is best suited for themselves, empirically test it, and then stick to it IMHO. If PPHM drops again I will be buying more in larger quantities.
Worrying about management's options that are awarded cheaply and will probably make them some money is a waste of time IMHO. There should be no more cause for concern for those awarded at lower price than for those awarded at higher prices that will expire worthless.
Got this part wrong too, "Following the debacle in late September, Peregrine defaulted on their $30 million loan they had just taken out weeks prior." Does anyone who edits these articles ever check for accuracy, or at the very least a knowledge of financial terminology used by the writers? Guess not.
Yes we all hope that Bavi and Cotara are major steps to a cure or at least controlling cancer. Moreover we are all Long investors here, or Short, because we see doing so as in our best financial interests. If we were to assume that any action in one's self interest is corrupt than a post by a Long or a Short advocating for their stake in the company would be corrupt, it is not.
As far as Halliburton is concerned I believe you meant KBR, their subsidiary, which they divested. You might also want to do some research on Blackrock.
You are talking about the Pareto Principle, which he misapplied as I understood his post. In the case of message boards it would be applied thusly, 80% of the posts are supplied by 20% of the posters. In the case of a market, 20% of the customers supply 80% of the revenues, or for a day's trading in PPHM 20% of the traders trade 80% of the shares:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle