. . . in Talley's story:
He said that the reason the prelim deal fell through had NOTHING to do with ceplene, its marketability, reimbursement, or anything fundamentally related to the drug itself.
YET, he states that they then had to go out and "expand its licensing efforts" which STRONGLY implies that they had to go out and re-initiate the search for NEW prospects, hence a return to a very preliminary partnering step.
Does anyone else see the problem here?
IF there were no issues with ceplene inherent to its costs, marketability etc, then once that first deal fell apart, THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEVERAL additional suitors already waiting in the wings!
In other words, they should have been able to quickly and easily tap the next shoulder, certainly no need to "expand the effort."
Anyone get this too?
In fact, if ceplene were truly desirable and potentially lucrative as he says, then we would have never heard about the failed prelim deal, they would have moved on quickly and sealed it with another.
It stinks, plain and simple, he is not telling the whole story.
The beer is on my side, I lost some 100 trips t/r yesterday, but there comes another day her doesn't it...:-)
As for the application to the FDA I think there are two (at least) paths to consider: the correct report and the correct names doing it. I do not know if the results is depending on the time in the observed group, now when summer is closing in. (The longer time the more significant LFS the more significant it equals OS.) But remember that this Q4 have been the timetable all the time for the application.
But, do not misunderstand me, if you have another good investment out there: grab it! My point is not one of compairing all other possibilities, just laying out my view on Epicept becoming a cash flow CO. I find it nice having this 40% up a year as a bottom line, given the possibility to leave at other figures.
I lectured my nephew on the same story and he nodded all the time. Later, when I have lost all my air, he told me he had put his money in Lundin Mining at 1 CAD. No, he hadn't sold - not, yet. You do not behave like that to older people!
Your expectations as an investor are certainly more than reasonable, especially given the glowing prognostications that Talley has been bantering about for nearly a year.
Which brings me to the second glaring inconsistency in Talley's story:
He stated that the IDIS sales were not yet appreciable and would not be so for six months.
This struck me as strange because of two things:
1 - Talley has been talking constantly of the enthusiastic reception that ceplene has garnered amongst doctors, "thought leaders', researchers etc etc.
2 - The IDIS program began a full eight months or so after approval.
See where I'm going with this?
The inconsistency is that eight months of high enthusiasm SHOULD HAVE led to some pent up demand, right?!
Hence, if all that he says is accurate then there should have been AT LEAST some modest sales right out of the gate. At least 100, 50 patients the first month, even 25!?
So again, by his own words, his story doesn't pass the smell test.
In my opinion, he gave the 6 months timeframe purely as a stall tactic.
His hopes are that he can sign a deal within that six months before the restless natives finally get fed up.
The problem is that if six months transpire without a partner, they'll be diluted another 25-30% and delisted to the pink sheet slag heap.
I have to agree with you that something is not right: I clearly remember Talley stating during the web cast 3 month ago (the one with the ahas and humms) that he was in discussions with several potential partners all at different stages of negotiations. If one decided to take a pass there should have been others willing to step up to the plate. We know Ceplene is not lucrative, whatever share of 150 million a year in peak gross sales the marketing partner would get barely makes a dent in the big pharma financials and small pharma is (most likely) not going to have the infrastructure that Talley is requiring the marketing partner to have. Jack's idea of a "fair deal" might just not make it worth it for a large marketing partner... and I believe Jack wanted an up-front payment too...
Also, Talley would not comment on sales through IDIS (and I take that to mean no sales to report) and that really concerns me: if there really is demand for Ceplene and no partner wants to sign up on terms acceptable to Talley then Epicept could just sell it by themselves. Volume would be less but with revenue coming in the company can prove Ceplene's business qualities in addition to the medicinal qualities. But Talley stated today that selling by themselves is not an option. So, if they can't get any sales through IDIS then the company is in really deep shit because it would show that despite the "statistical benefits" of Ceplene doctors and patients don't really see any value in it. I was hoping to see proof today that Ceplene has value, and I did not get that proof.
But on the other side, looks like in Ceplene's history things have to be done twice to come out all right:
- Maxim tried to get Ceplene approved and failed, Epicept managed to do in on the second try.
- The fist CHMP meetings yielded a negative outcome, the positive recommendation came on the second try.
So, the good news:
- The first marketing partner did not work out, the next prospect should (if the do-things-twice-because-EPCT-cant-get-things-right-the-first-time is the success formula for Epicept).
The bad news:
- The Canadian filing should fail, and we will know within 45 days.
- The FDA filing will fail, unless we count Maxim's filing as the first FDA try, if so the upcoming FDA filing should work out fine!
I can see that for somebody getting into EPCT this year things could look promising and the delays understandable, but for those of us here for 2 years and counting this story is starting to get tiring.
What is sociology, psycology and hard subjectmatter here?
We have "statistics" and "graphs" showing the efficacy of Ceplene. But, is it possible to reduce the last year to that?
We have the approval of our medicine in Europe, we have several parties that wants to sell Ceplene. For their own benefit. Using their own business plan.
At the end of a negotiation steel talks, and, at times, you get tired of the whole crap, a psycological reaction.
At the end you should be the most awake.
If you believe the writing of Jonaustin (No efficacy of Ceplene, simple chemistry (!) given a low price in the market, make a "reasonable" 15% deal - and so on.) you should definitly sell. I really mean it.
If you believe in the EMEA given the drug orphan status and an approval as a medicine saving lives you should take a step back and give the second sentens above a thought.
Do we have positive signs?
+ Two investors went in over the average share price at .8$ in the CO in June.
+ There acctually was a preliminary agreement, so some interest seems to be around... :-)
+ Epicept have, of course, a way forward of their own in Europe, not just in the US. This is always an option. An alternative cost-benefit perspective. Use your own figures. Stay rational.
+ We now see some deals in the sector.
There is an analysis showing, I suppose, the net gain effect of Ceplene for the helth care sector given the price 45 000$ per whole treatment, or 75 Euro / vial. (Jonaustin, hmm)
Make your own simple calculation her: Half of the patient group will go through the whole treatment the other half will be reduced over the time of cycles as can be seen in the graphs. How many patients is needed? :-)
That economic analysis will be presented later this fall on a scientific conference. A step taken if Epicept sells on their own? Maybe.
"Hundreds" of physicians on the Berlin meeting were positive to Ceplene.
"...Nontheless we have been informed by IDIS that we should be pleased with the reception in to date of this program."
The new study on Ceplene and the upcoming study on combination with Revlimid is conducted in corparation with the leading hematologs in Europe.
Celgene says in a post that there will be news in the Q3 report, Talley says will see if we start the study in q3. He uses ten fingers while playing the piano.
Reality speaks. Epicept is inside the flow of events and hostile writers like Jonaustin is trying to use the mutual agreements of silence that Epicept have with their prospective negotiation partners, is offside.
Acctually it's enough to phone the nearest 30-40 friends in the network to get the sales where I want them. If you ask me. See my earlier posts.
Test this statement of mine against Jonaustins upcoming "predictions", excuse me, which ever they might be.
Can Epicept surprise the market through the IDIS program? I think it would be nice hiring an internet expert to optimize that part of the option here. In the framwork of the rules for the program. This is a cost effective move in the negotiations. Selling themselfs later on, or not.
No figures from IDIS, that might disappoints shorters. That I do understand - if the glas is half empty, but not if it is half full. My own experience from negotiations is that silence talks. We have a contradiction here between two interests.
Is the fact that there was no figures, but a price given enough for me to sell? No. I am always, saying always, revaluating my positions, but not now. The vehicle is drifting by it's own weight towards the goals of mine, cash flow valuation of Ceplene.
- Selling have started, that was the acctual message! You know the price.
What I don't understand Jon, as intelligent as you are, articulate, and well informed, though mistaking in your opinion about EPCT, IMO, what incentive could you possible have to continue to trash EPCT.
I have taken a lot of nonsense from people in here about being an illeged "paid poster", and my stuff hasn't been overwelmingly positive. You posts are consistently negative. What is your incentive, it is likely not altruism, warning future investors of the illeged sharks that lurk. Is this revenge? Is it possible that you are a paid poster by a potential suitor? I doubt that as well, but am very curious about your intentions. I don't care that you do not like Epct and disagree with me. I'm just curious why someone of your investing acumen would spend so much time on what they perceive as a loser, it seems like there is plenty of money to make elsewhere, why spend so much time during trading hours on a stock you perceive to be a loser. For you to spend so much time doing so certainly implicates some underlying incentive, or motive.
Good luck all longs, you have everything to be optomistic about.
Keep up the good work JT!
Thanks for those compliments, let me try to answer your question, because it is a fair one.
In essence, you asked: 'why would anyone post information and/or opinion on a company that they themselves don't like?'
That implies that posting is the strict domain of the supporters of a company. To me, that would defeat the primary purpose of having a message board, which is to exchange information and opinions on investments, because if the only ideas being exchanged are between like-minded individuals, who each is long the stock, then the most important component of one's DD would be missing - and that is dissenting opinions and what are the negatives on a given company.
I am here expressly because I am not a supporter of this company or its management (though I hold a miniscule number of old shares). As a long time follower and long who was once an ardent supporter, I have a breadth of insight on EPCT few can lay claim to, thus that experience is indeed helpful to the objective investor who is astute enough to know that it is precisely the negatives on a company that one should examine most.
I do resent your statement that my posts are "trashing" EPCT. "Trashing" implies the dissemination of false or misleading information, whereas I challenge you to find a single false bit of information I have posted.
Quite to the contrary, my track record of opinion and prediction with respect to EPCT events is consistently accurate, in fact, I have yet to be wrong on a single prediction. Not one. Such a record is hardly "trashing" but rather profitable for those open minded enough to have followed my advice.
Just this week alone I predicted that there presented an opportunity to profit from a very short term spike in price followed by a once again disappointing cc. That is exactly what has occurred and had you or anyone followed the advice, you would be in the black.
So, I hope that you can finally see that the posting of negative info and opinion is not "trash" but rather should be seen as an important and potentially profitable part of any objective investor's analysis.
Objectivity, for me, is the number one trait to have in investing, especially in biotech. Stock investing is not like raising children, which is foolishly the attitude of many an investor, you are not forced to love these "children" come hell or high water and through thick and thin. Unlike your children, you should have a keen eye for negative aspects to your investment and be prepared to throw them out the door with cold-hearted detachment if need be.
If one is truly loyal to a company then you should not fear, but rather invite with great alacrity negative opinion. It can only help you.
KFC - there's only two types of investors. Longs and shorts. I'm long, you're long and anyone that is continuously negative is short. Otherwise, as you said why hang around?
Oh, the third type of investor - those that slag a company to buy in cheap.
BTW - I was inpressed with the CC and company developments. We move higher from here - much higher!!
What he was saying was "we put all of our eggs in one basket" with a single suitor that did not work out, so this time around we have expanded the search and they have multiple potential partners. Listen to the CC and read the press release again. Loooking great at this point. IMHO