I disagree...He does this because CVM needs the cash now and there aren't any long term institutional holders because the trial is ongoing and more dilution is likely....why hold and wait when you assume more dilution is coming....but CVM gets it survival cash and can continue the trial....and the buyer gets his money back pretty quickly...
You do know that that any rise in stock price doesn't bring a penny to the company, right. It has to issue more stock to raise cash or sell its rights away correct? Any other ways to raise cash?
It's zero revenue because it doesn't have a product--DUH. It doesn't have big pharma partners because it won't licence away its potential product. Dilution is the only way left to it in order to raise cash--DUH. I've read the filings, thank you.
I wouldn't count on any recoveries from the arb. CVM will need to have a secondary offering. they should offer 40 mil shares at 50 cents...netting them some 18 to 20 mil. added to 6 mil buys them another year. the pps dips to 45 - 50 cents a share.
dilution is the way to go. To raise 20 mil dollars would require 40 mil shares at 50 cents a share bringing the pps to 45 cents. It was at 45 cents just a little while ago.
Interesting close today....let's see what if anything the pre-market brings us...I suspect some activity....possibly significant.
Is not the trial a rolling total? Haven't some of these patients been treated more than three years ago? If so then the results should already be showing a trend. I mean some one knows how many tx patients are still alive and how long some other patients lived. Every month that goes by brings more and more patient stats to the fore. It seems to me that if doctors are still recommending this protocol then they have noted some success.
Being this late into the trial, increasing treatments is a good sign. It seems to state that doctors are interested in applying it which speaks to its success. Also, if it were not achieving its goals would not the FDA stop the tx. After all, it is injections even if it doesn't have sideeffects and the FDA would not continue to allow the trial to go forward possibly endangering patients unnecessarily.
same ole same ole....nothing really new but I am impressed at Geert's assumption that the doctors participating are positive about MK based on continued new patients month after month.
a policy defence has to be before one offers a defence to its client so I would expect this to delay the case rather than speedit up.
Can I ask 'what is your purpose on this board..is it to make a profit on the downside? why do you come across as obsessed with extoling the problems CVM presents. What is it you are attempting to accomplish? Can you give a coherent answer? '