The last round of delutive financing was done very poorly; timing and price. This little bio has an obvious need to fund. The preferred route is partnership but if not, here is a great real time blueprint for Nic.
Xoma; market cap, shares outstanding, and poor history of funding in a shareholder friendly fashion; all similar to PYMX. So on march 6 they announce stock and warrant deal for around 40 million at price of 1.32. Two days later they announce postive trial results. And most importantly, a few days after that, sec forms come out showing 1/2 of deal bought by a firm, Baker Bros. That firm has a great track record of being a long term holder and winner in the biotech space. On march 19, stock hits 2.49.
That is how a deal should be done. Find an accredited investor to take down a big portion of deal, and have results ready to go. No more crap deals by Cowen without a real sponser. Nic is always talking about being the next amgen and having lots of big time investors. Well, place the stock with a real white knight, like Baker Bros, and company will get on everyone's investment radar: sans rs.
Can you walk the walk, NIC?
Not sure what you mean by "suspicious" - please enlighten me. I still await the answer to my previous post, but I guess it's a lot more "fun" to totally avoid the question or any facts about the last financng, which I kinda thought was the issue here.
Interesting that "I" did the raise at 75 cents. Fact is, I had nothing to do with the financing,and, by the way, it was done at 80 cents. I still await a reply to my previous post by anyone.
I'm curious. How is it that none of your recent posts show up when I click the "View Messages" link under your username? You have only one page of posts ranging from mid-August of 2010 to June 22, 2011 and nothing else. Seems suspicious to me...
Give it up Hans. Elementary 101......YOU did the raise with the 2 share for 1 warrant at the SAME price as the .75 discount price. Warrants are always priced higher in this situation and is why the price cratered to .50 as well.
Err, what "company line?" I'm just commenting on how things went down as I see them, as did apparently the market. I've yet to hear any challenges to my post to you "Alternative scenario" made on 3/25. Until such time it's pretty much a waste of mine responding to gratuitous zingers.
Hans, you continue to spout the company line. And to what purpose? Why does nic have you defending his funding actions so aggressively? You come across as such a lackey of management. Give it a rest.
You, like nic, have little credibility is this area.
Folly: "Could have", "should have" and other hypotheticals might open mighty vistas of alternatives but don't get the job done. As for price trends between various periods in either 2010 or 2011, anyone can attribute any reason they want for the stock going sideways, up, or down, but nobody knows. (What, as a for instance, was the overall market doing during these periods?) It seems to be a singular belief of all those who think all past financings by the company were "to the detrement of the shareholders" that there had to be some magic silver bullet way of financing the company. Such as? Going forward the company should have more options open to it, such as a BP deal. The only reason this avenue may shortly be open to the company - assuming the up coming '63 data is good - is because the trials were done; the trials took a lot of cash to do, and this cash didn't drop from heaven. The company has only progressed this far with pretty decent looking data because it had the funds to do what it had to do, a process that dilutes old shareholders, the way virtually all start ups work. Finally, we continue to go round and round on the SUCKing nature of the April financing, i.e., the contention it would have been much more advantageous to do it post interim results. Don't think I'll beat this dead cat to death again; the facts show the latter would have been a much worse idea.
Hans all you have to do is look at the average monthly PPS between January 2010 and December 2011. You will notice two trends as follows: One the monthly price between November 2010 to March 2011 and you will see that the PPS was on average not far short of $1. The other is the price being suppressed from July 2010 to October 2010. Although I stand to be corrected, by some of our fellow posters, I recall that both occasions were due to extra finance being raised to the determent of us the shareholders.
Our argument is that the raise in April 2011 should have been at $1 and not 75 cents as the PPS prior to the raise being published was holding up well. If you look back at my posts at that time, I was the one who reported this to our Message Board and at the time I was chastised by a number of posters including Bo.
What we don’t want is history repeating itself again, if financing becomes necessary, which I don’t believe will be the case. As for raising additional funds now please see my other post today, which Tim started under the heading, “How about some “Old Time” predictions”:- If you take the time I have given my views on how Polly could move forward over the ensuing months.
Not that long ago, I seam to recall, someone asking why British Petroleum would be interested in Poly whereas BP stands for “Big Pharmaceutical Company”. Another question asked in the past was about a company with the ticker GTLA which means “Good Luck To All”. With the greatest of respect, I recall that at least one of those questions came from you so I don’t know why we are going over all this old ground as most of us on this board feel that the April 2011 raise “SUCKS” and we hope that the Boffins at Radnor don’t make the same mistake again.
Inspector Clouseau also known as “Folly”