There's a lot of tired shareholder base in this name that was looking at the seriously likelihood of getting zero'd for a long time. This same shareholder base has seen flashes of hope followed by likelihood of zero multiple times. I think some of those folks are simply cashing in on this new found money while fresher more excited folks are slowly collecting. The fresh money will win or the story will unfold to push the stock higher. This looks like a cheap call option (collection of call options) to me.
There's actually some discussion on MYMX on the Ticker MIL message board. MYMX was a spin-off from MIL going back about 10 years.
These guys are very low key. Too low key from a communication standpoint. Not in an MJS way, there just hasn't been much to say I guess until it was known they actually had a future. Now that the Company has bought itself yet another life, hopefully management will begin to communicate and articulate a game plan.
I have been following MYMX since the MFC spin-off. It is a surprising real company. Most noteworthy to me at this stage are the presence of two institutional investors who have been consistently keeping the Company afloat (see p. 12 of their 9/30/13 10-Q for detailed financing history). Since 2006, they have provided EUR$29MM in the form of convertible notes which are collectively convertible at prices far greater than today's $0.05/shr price. Another noteworthy signpost came in April 2012 when MYMX announced they had named Christopher Henney as Chairman - Henney was Chairman and CEO of Dendreon, and Co-founder and CSO at both Immunex and ICOS. Henney's Dendreon protege, Grant Pickering (at the time an executive at Kleiner Perkins) was also named as CEO. While Henney and Pickering have since moved on, there is clearly something real afoot at MYMX. The recent announcement focused on their RSV program they have an entire suite of products and a world renown HIV vaccine program. Yet another signpost can be found in the "Our Company" section of the MYMX website - click on the "Scientific Advisory Board" where you will find some of the world's most notable minds.
deft2daft, taken at face value, Kellogg's STATED actual motives seem EXTREMELY plausible:
1. The guy owns 33% of MFC and had been reasonably seeking a seat on the Board
2. He's a passive, well respected, long-term billionaire investor to boot and was rebuffed
3. In the face of this, MFC is a bad corp. governance poster-child by any measure
4. So Kellogg takes the only alternative available to public company shareholders
Makes perfect sense.
I struggle to find rationale to understand you characterizing Kellogg's actions and methods as "absurd" or "nonsense." I further struggle with your assessments that "MIL's board has acted properly" and "MIL seems to have taken the more sensible approach." ...And your criticism of Kellogg's "takeover without paying a control premium" forgets that there is no "takeover" nor any other financial transaction involved here at all? Pay a premium on what over what price? He's not proposing to buy anything here - he has clearly stated that he's NOT interested in buying out MFC.
Gman, your post echos a driving theme of my earlier posts: "I am concerned that Smith is hiding something..." I think to myself, why on earth would Smith be picking a fight or be resisting in any way a very long-time (15+ years), faithful, passive, well respected billionaire investor like Peter Kellogg (who owns 33%!)? All Kellogg initially wanted was 1 seat and he was rebuffed?! Who wouldn't want someone like Kellogg on their board offering advice, counsel and direction? Smith is not dumb - he had very strong reason to not want Kellogg inside - hopefully, we'll find out why soon. I think you are very wise to sit on the sidelines until Kellogg gets in and MFC gets a truly independent retro-active forensic audit. I am also flat but would choose to be short if forced to be in the game.
Nope. 100% = ownership. All this talk that Kellogg is underhandedly doing a buy-out is misguided for the simple reason that a shareholder vote would be required for anyone to purchase MFC. Kellogg states clearly that a take-out is not his intention. It reads that he understandably, as a large holder, sought a board seat and was inexplicably rebuffed. Couple that with the Company's historic transparency issues, one man executive suite #$%$ - who's ever heard of that with a public co?), incestuous board, a revolving door of accountants, etc. - Kellogg decided to take the only action available. Shareholders should be thanking their lucky stars that the Kellogg slate is on the table. Here's the issue that concerns me regardless of how many Kellogg guys make it on the board: What is Smith hiding? Why is he behaving the way he is? Think about it...why on earth would Smith initially rebuff Kellogg? Why is he always changing accountants? Why is he the only executive and the chairman of the board? Why is there no independence on the board? Why is the company notorious for its lack of transparency? Shareholder meeting in HK on 12/27...really?! Something just doesn't smell right.
The many people who know and know of Peter Kellogg know him to be a very shrewd investor and an extremely high integrity and friendly person - he is held in very high regard on Wall St. Anyone should seemingly feel lucky and grateful to have him as a partner and welcome him with open arms if he were willing to lend his personal time to help as he initially offered to MFC and Smith. The question nobody seems to be focusing on is why would he snub Kellogg? And rebuff him to the point he has to reluctantly enter the activist world for the first time in his life? Why on earth would Smith pick a fight with this guy? Kellogg has 1. zero activist history, 2. has a career track record as a very-longterm ("forever") passive investor, 3. he has no interest in buying out MFC, 4. he does not want to oust Smith. I predict that in due course we will learn why Smith so tenaciously does not want anyone to look under the MFC hood. We'll learn why he's alone in the executive suite and why MFC is always changing accountants.