CP, all good points, but dilution since the dose switching fiasco coupled with the loss of the (non-dilutive) bank loan, and the uncertainty regarding future dilutive financings surely have an impact on the current PPS. Long term, in theory, some of the dilution should find its way back into owner equity as ROI on the working capital raised, but for now the PPS languishes at $1.68, when it could be as high as $4.66 (my WAG) with more clarity on future financing...even without a partner "officially" on board. All IMO. I welcome the comments of you and others on my "rosy scenario" potential present valuation.
coporal, I don't know about the others but you can count me amongst those that, with hindsight because i didn't know it at the time, find that not partnering of PPHM in 2012 with Abbot Labs (AbbVie) or whoever else for that matter, is a good thing.
NOT because the reason of that was the "dose switching" incident. I find that also an unfortunate event I would have preferred not to happen, although AGAIN with hindsight, knowing today what/who the "dose switching" exactly occurred and that it was DISADVANTAGE to Bavituximab, and intentional, and not HELPING Bavituximab, I am AGAIN glad that we didn't partner on those Sept 7th results.
Last but not least, and again with hindsight, the fact that we only AFTER the dose switching (and the potential partnering point in time) did get BETTER understanding of Bavituximab's MOA, based on PII results amongst others, is also a reason I am glad we didn't partner at the time.
It is UNDENIABLE that whatever partnership would have come out of it, it would have been based on a disadvantage situation compared to today.
- Wrong and lower then SOC beating scores then due because of the dose switching (=higer risk) on which we would not have cashed.
- A understanding of the MOA with reduced potential outlook then today on which we would not have cashed.
- The, for sure, terms and price based on the risk of not getting PIII design approval, which we have in our pocket today.
- No FDA granted Fast Track that we have today and which we can leverage.
- Vulnerable because at a moment our poison pill was disabled by a loan and its terms.
- Unflexible in negotiation because partial assets were encumbered by the loan.
- Vulnerable for unforeseen events because alternative emergency financing such as ATM, forbidden by loan terms, putting us completely at the mercy of a BP and a proven (on 26th Sept 2012) greedy financing company that couldn't care less about PPHM, Science or patients as long as it makes it fat profits. They didn't even wait for the results of the dose switching investigation who with hindsight were in Bavi's and PPHM favour.
I pass for such to early breadcrumb-grade partnership. BP's hunt for them. Every BP that has a minimum of educated scientists, and they all have, understand that the data we presented on Sept 2012 proves today to be correct and even BETTER. So if no renewed partnership continuation talks came from it it is because BP now stands before a new and much more expensive situation.
The FAT is of the SOUP for them because PPHM now has 80Milj$ cash, no creditors and so no risk on bankruptcy, 100% unencumbered control over its IP and pipeline and hand free negotiations. No longer going concern, Top Notch KOLs (Key Opinion Leaders in Oncology), 1500+ publications and peer review, Bavi PIII up and recruiting with at the key TWO early look-ins, a data monitoring committee watching for early trial stop, granted FDA Fast Track and super results for Breast, pre-clinical Bavi+Yervoy, Bavi+radio Therapy, etc.
So YES I am glad they didn't partner, and if we would have we could have had a better pps today (I used 50$ and you took me on that even thought you knew it was an example based on prices others named and I wrote to be glad we were not a 50$ stock because it would have meant we would have partnered to early and you wronged it into something completely different).
YES, we will be MUCH better off with how things go now and evolve every day. PPHM is in its strongest position EVER and all that is thanks to the fact they had the NERVE NOT to PARTNER. The pps is irrelevant because it is a snap-shot! Not the intended/expected end result when the work is done.
I am an investor, I think long term. I am in a small cap Biotech because: A) I understood what they do and what potential this had (now has)
B) Knowing the results were not to be expected in 5/10 years (it's actually from J Kramer I had that because he looked at TCLN/PPHM in a VERY early stage).
C) because if I have/wanted to put some money in risk this was the one with the highest Risk/Reward ratio.
D) because I was looking for a stock that had that Microsoft/Volkswagen/Qualcom BOOM potential and assessed PPHM was that stock for me (and today I don't even doubt that I was right about that choice).
YES, I am EXTREMELY HAPPY they didn't partner with AbbVie or any other BP in Sept 2012.
YES, I am EXTREMELY HAPPY they didn't partner all these years SK was talking about partnership because it would have been for breadcrumbs or at least severely under valued and not BOOM.
YES, I am EXTREMELY HAPPY it takes time now too to partner because because currently we get almost new insights and potential of the Bavi pipeline now that the workings of phosphatidylserine (PS) serine are understood in viral, oncology, inflammations, etc and that we hold all the PS targeting rights via patents.
YES, I would still be HAPPY if they would have the nerves to go it alone, although I fear this may not happen and we will indeed see some deals with PPHM this year, but NON of them will involve a change of control of the company (IMO), and that makes me EXTREMELY HAPPY.
