I don't think any normal person would expect the price would drop after the recent abstract made public last week. The market had basically factored in the total failure of START trial early this year when topline data failed to meet primary end point by dropping more than 50%. Now another 20% drop on an apparent good news (i.e., now it is likely that Merck KGaA will continually pursue the development of L-BLP25 and it is also like that Merck KGaA would be successful to negotiate an approval path with FDA.
Normally, for a single trial, a p value of 0.025 is significant while a p value of 0.05 is significant for two parallele trial. Now we have achieved a p value more less than 0.025 for a significant large group of patients for living more than 10 months longer.
So why the drop. As of 30 April 2013 there were still 7,720,250 shares short, and I think this number has been significantly increased by the shorts last week trying to drop the price "as if the START trial had failed the second time big time"
Since the shorts also recognized after the abstract information made public that the true value of ONTY share should be well above $5 excluding ONT-10 and PX866, both a billion dollar potential if successful, they don't wan to be forced to cover, and they think they are mighty (yes, they are).
So they wanted to show the recent news was a disaster, the PX866 is zero in value and onty share was overvalued. They manipulated the share price and they succeeded.
Next, they will cover in stealth hoping everyshare short would be covered at price low than the recent high of $2.6 (and I think they probably will succeed too as people sell their shares), and they will hype the share price.
There is also no true value for a stock. All you are buying is a piece of paper and then you are hoping another sucker will come along and pay you more for your piece of paper. When you people realize that this is a game, you will start making money. Dont fall in love with no stock.
"Normally, for a single trial, a p value of 0.025 is significant while a p value of 0.05 is significant for two parallele trial. Now we have achieved a p value more less than 0.025 for a significant large group of patients for living more than 10 months longer."
Here's how it works, for a single trial FDA (and EMA) require that the total probability of type 1 error (false positive) not exceed 5%. For a trial with a single tested dose and a single analysis, this requires attaining a p value of .05 or less. In situations with interim analyses, multiple doses, or multiple potential indications (ie subgroups) the regulatory agencies require that the p value be split among all these different analyses so that again, the total type 1 error does not exceed 5%. In order for an analysis to be considered statistically significant, it has to attain a prospectively defined p value, not a theoretic p value that would have been set if the original trial had been restricted to the subgroup in question.