Easymoneyman00... easy, big fella!
First, you imply I've said, "...there is no such thing [short trading] going on!" I've never said such a thing.
I'm a serious long investor in ADXS, but just find the "ADXS should be $1B/ $2B" talk not very sensible. Now, if you're saying "ADXS WILL BE" worth $1B/ $2B in time, I totally agree.
I agree that there is a significant "short" trade in ADXS, the numbers are obvious. If you're saying short investors/ traders are keeping ADXS from being worth $1B/ $2B right now, that's fantasy IMHO. Does the short trade keep ADXS pps from being lower than it would otherwise be? Yes, for sure. But... and here's where we can have differing views... I would be surprised, were shorting not allowed, if ADXS price would be much above, say, $12/ share. But, above $25/sh (~$1B market cap)? No, not likely.
Are shorts "trapped"? Hardly. Most short volume is from professional short traders. They have very sophisticated options trading strategies (computerized with HFT algorithms) that allow them to bracket their loss potential so that anything short of a buyout that isn't leaked will not cause them much damage. Most professional shorts (there are amateurs in that game, but they have little real impact on pps over time) are not shorting ADXS per se, they are shorting an entire basket of small, pre-revenue biotechs. Even a substantial loss in any one (which itself is hedged) would not have a huge impact on their overall bet that the vast majority of pre-revenue biotechs are net capital consumptive (i.e., they will ultimately not be worth more than what was invested in them). This is an easy game for them to play and win at.
You say, "Most analysts have had our share price above 1 billion now and for a year and a half." That's true, but those are price TARGETS with an indefinite expiration date. Analysts are not saying ADXS "should be" those prices except for the short interest. If there were enough "believers" in ADXS technology, then ADXS share price would be higher, yes. But, that's the issue: there aren't enough believers among those with the money to move the pps. Those analysts are the few believers (along with us).
I've described why I think there are so few "believers" among professional investors. I, like you, think Lm may well be a powerful immunotherapy platform. That's why I am invested in it. However, I am not among those who complain that somehow ADXS pps is not what it "should be." I don't CARE what the ADXS pps is now. I care what it will be when ADXS's Ph3 cervical cancer trial is completed and results announced. I care what ADXS's new Ph1 and Ph2 trials will be, especially combo trials, and when they will be initiated. I care whether or not we get European approval. I care if we get well-considered partnerships with the right terms and conditions.
So, why do you think there are so few believers in the Lm technology? There are a LOT of really smart PhD/ MD people out there working for serious professional investors. There are lots of smart PhD/ MD scientists in academia and industry. And, guess what, DAMN FEW are working on Lm or similar bacteria-based constructs. That should give anyone invested in ADXS pause. Still, I'm convinced the bias against bacteria-based (and Lm, specifically) is wrong-headed. That's why I am invested in ADXS (I looked at ADRO, but became convinced their specific listeria technology is not as strong as ADXS's).
One last thing you need to reconsider. You say, "...our vaccine is significantly better [than Avastin]" -- I assume you say that based on the Ph2 results, which is the most definitive data we have. AXAL does have better results than Avastin looking at our Ph2, but those results are not significantly better. Look at the mortality curves. Avastin has 30% 12 month survival. We had 38% survival (19/50). Statistically, there's a 6% chance that AXAL could show 19/50 when its true underlying effect is only 30%. Thus, we are not really "significantly" better based on this data (typically, 0.05 -- i.e., 5% -- is used as the cut-off for statistical significance).
Still, despite this result, I am willing to roll the dice that our Ph3, with a larger "N", will show statistically better results than Avastin, with better safety and at a lower price.
I am not a "soft basher." I am a realistic investor who does not get caught up in the emotion of the current pps or short manipulation. I look at the fundamentals and the likelihood a company will be successful commercially. I think ADXS is a good bet, but we will not know for at least 12-24 months. PPS between now and then is not *that* important -- trial results and trial initiation are important, European approval is important, partnerships are important. Those things are indicators of the likelihood of the ultimate success (commercial products) needed to make ADXS pps 5x-10x+ higher than what it is now.
