Cloaked Protector, I follow the gist of your argument but wonder about there being a lingering role for PPHM to continue to expand the list of prospective applications of the Bavi platform to serve a new Pharma partner's whim. Why? All along, I have been saying that the underlying share holder value of PPHM would be best released when pharma companies see the need to enter into competitive bidding for PPHM proprietary technology. One interested pharma in the absence of their being competition sets out a business dealing where PPHM management has no leverage from which to negotiate. No leverage means a declining pps until something changes the underlying competitiveness of PPHM products, like some outstanding trial results.
Now consider how each new indication that PPHM demonstrates that Bavi delivers improved efficacy is placing some existing Pharma's role for providing SOC under challenge with a prospectively better Bavi product. Demonstration through trials of just one indication with demonstrated trial success translates to competition between just the pharma that are going after commercial sales for treatment of that one indication. That might only be one pharma. However, ten indications demonstrated with Bavi improvements of SOC translates to multiple pharma being compelled to compete for Bavi rights, arm wrestling amongst other pharma who want to retain their sales structure without risk of competition. Add to that how patent protection is expiring for some of those SOC mainstays for cancer treatment, leaving a prospect for a pharma that wins Bavi rights to completely clean sweap sales from a competing pharma with a SOC product.
Mix this all up and you have a Pharma bidding war formula with intensity driven to the "nth" power where n is the number of successfully demonstrated cancer indications where Bavi is showing efficiacy better than standard of care. Now the Bavi bid losers are at risk of not only missing out on Bavi family platform development but the loss of market share for their current SOC treatment to the winning competitor that gains exclusive Bavi rights. It can become "Bavi winner takes all".
What tempers this financial onslaught from occurring?
For starters, if it could be shown that Bavi is just a placebo and that the "Bavi makes SOC better" mantra can be discredited as being a product of deceipt and falsehoods, pharma world continues along unaffected. However, the eight PPHM trials for multiple indications that Dr. Garnick placed under development for PPHM combined with those Investigator Sponsored Trials (ISTs) for other indications set up a broad array of prospective Bavi benefit areas. The pending (successful?) Median Overall Survival data for one major indication (NSCLC) is structured to thoroughly debunk such a discrediting effort by showing Bavi significantly raises the bar beyond what Standard of Care can do, debunking that "dew-drenched" mantra.
How about rhetoric that PPHM management is not suited to bring home a successful deal, that control on the board of directors needs to be dispersed to enable third party interests to get more consideration or accusations that the PPHM board is just self serving and willing to sell out share holder value for personal gain? Nope, no traction for pharma there. That only gives Pharma the prospect of more time to prepare for their plan B while weak handed existing share holders might be enticed to throw their holdings into premature sale (call that shake out grooming) to the interests of (???) at the expense of long share holders. The deck chairs get rearranged here and maybe the pharma gets a position from which they are able to better launch their buyout life boats.
How about talk about how PPHM has diluted the existing share holder pool's interest by incessant use of the At the Market mechanism for fund raising. This one can strike close to home for many longs, but all parties have the opportunity to expand their holdings and reduce their cost basis in proportion to outstanding shares issued. Eventually, PPHM retaining the value of their properietary rights while advancing trials can pay back with value that "raises all boats" with the tide of successful trial result news. This would involve trial results that wouldn't even exist if PPHM management had fallen into the trap of partnering on the cheap or parsing out technology rights in exchange for low price structured progress payments.
How about pounding on the poison pill that would make it highly risky for a hostile take over party to end run around management? Claiming that the PP only enables management to keep collecting their pay checks and receive cheap options really does nothing to displace the poison pill, which will remain in force despite the rhetoric. The pharma interests again don't get relief because the rhetoric only serves to weaken the hands of longs who are frustrated about how long it is taking for PPHM to run the pharma negotiation gauntlet. Who owns pps shares before any pps run up is about all that is affected unless share holders decide to do something highly unlikely like repeal the poison pill. That mechanism never even got beyond the posturing to groom share holder dissatisfaction stage.
Now that the veneer of rhetoric appears to be getting stripped off, how far will the PPHM pps go in just the anticipation of news about the MOS for the NSCLC trial? When will the existance of more >5% interest share holders require disclosure?
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
