How was my comment deleted, and why? What is this? Lol no disagreement at all with what you said but I have no idea what's happening with Marissa's (Yahoo! CEO) little message board here...
Nope. They have about $2 million on hand, which is plenty for the time being. In June they were down to $130,000 I believe, yet they got a $.70 financing deal. They had been at $.45 months prior. But it's irrelevant, if you have to value biotech based on cash on hand, the company has product problems. This company needs the funding to take through the final stage of development and I believe they're going to get it.
I apologize for twice calling you "Carmen." Long day! Haha. Hey I would point out that the decline does not rival common sense. Doc has conducted smaller financings in hopes of lessening dilution. Unfortunately, that funding strategy has actually exacerbated dilution (in terms of what COULD have been fewer shares), because investors have always had just far enough visibility to see that another financing is just around the corner, so why buy/bid up the stock beforehand. Rinse, repeat. I think the decline is one of the least mysterious occurrences. That's why 1) a larger financing to accelerate development should lead to Wall Street assigning fair value or 2) a partnership/Merger would obviously lead to the same.
I meant to say that the distance to completion is short enough that future dilution would have to be in fathomable to ruin the upside. $30-$40 million in funding won't ruin the upside.
Thanks for the response, Carmen. I don't know if it's enough time because I've never been involved in such a process, so I don't feel qualified to use an arbitrary December 31 deadline as reasonable for the definition of "soon" or "enough time." I've been waiting almost 4 years, so if it were March (for example) that's still soon to me. The quotes you attributed to Doc aren't disproven just because the stock is at $.35. The stock IS undervalued. 2015 was a tipping point, in the form of achieving the most solid phase 2 results for HCC and GBM that I've seen in my comparison to other companies. I regret that execution on funding was done in a piecemeal approach until now, but we can't change that. We can encourage the right thing going forward though- to be well-capitalized for the next stage of development as the partnership talks continue. Value creation occurs in pharma by creating a product that works while keeping an eye on costs. We have a long way to go (longer than the funds required to get to approval) before dilution ruins the upside, which keeps me in this thing in a big way.
I usually agree with you and Carmen but I really disagree here. "Performance targets?" I see, you mean timelines. That's a fair criticism, but that had nothing to do with the fantastic data on liver and brain cancer. This "end of the year is make or break" talk is getting really annoying though. Do you think that a partnership is completely in Docs hands? What about the other side of the table? The arbitrary timelines and black and white measurements of "the only options on the table" that some of you are assigning is flat out ridiculous. Consider this: maybe there is significant interest, but they need more time. Maybe they want to see the full brain cancer results and buy the whole thing instead of partnership for one indication, which is a more detailed and lengthy process. Maybe they're just taking time. Have you seen the Chinese market lately? Perhaps Chinese biotech companies have seen their share prices punished and they want to let the dust settle. Perhaps we have to raise $10-$15 million instead of the smaller raises that have been done and take the money concern off the table for the foreseeable future. If you use math, you'd see that even 150 million shares outstanding could still lead to a $15-$20 stock price down the road. Why is that not an option? Expand your minds!
Ok I just read it- October 2014. Before complete phase 2 data was even available, let alone interim GBM. That factually makes that guys opinion a joke.
I haven't found his comments yet, but I find his opinion to be entirely contradictory to the results we've seen so far. Let alone the fact that a decade was spent arriving at the proper activating agent. Don't take my word for it, look at gensperas drug results (even half of 60% of brain cancer patients would still be 30% of the total population doing really well on the drug) and here's a recent quote from PGNX Progenics, basically proving the above statement to be a bunch of hooey: "PSMA-targeted imaging agents have the potential to change how prostate cancer is diagnosed, monitored and treated..." Um ok, so PSMA is great for imaging agents targeting prostate cancer but not for activating drugs to treat it? Explain that one. Dig, I've appreciated your long time involvement here, but I've noticed a tendency to get negative at the bottom and euphoric at the top. I guess that's natural human tendency, but it must be conquered to be successful here.
They've never had an annual meeting for the 4 years that I've owned the stock. My guess is that a reverse is being done for a bigger reason, possibly an uplisting. That's the only thing that makes sense here, I think the company recognizes that a reverse for any other reason would be perceived as a big negative. I hope. If we end up with a year or two of capital and a NASDAQ/NYSE listing, maybe that will allow the market to finally price the shares relative to the drug data and not the knowledge that money has to be raised every 3-6 months. My only complaint is that this should have happened 18 months ago (accounting for the fiasco at the time of FB going public, which wasn't gensperas fault).
Craig "Bail"ey, if you're listening- I TOLD YOU SO.
Still bullish, but what happened over the last two weeks was unnecessary and comical.
Yes. That's why we're here to begin with. Doc has leaned heavily on self-serving bankers who always guaranteed a lower price, sometimes 20-30% discounted. In the end, it hasn't made a huge difference in overall shares outstanding (perhaps 5-10% more than it "could have" been), but it has sent the share price down. A partnership and Nasdaq listing should cure all ills though. As I've said before- if G202 gets to the point of ASKING for approval and it's not at $500 million, it'll be the first company I've seen to not hit that mark. So I think we're guaranteed a higher price whether more dilution or not (barring the same risks that have always been there like the drug somehow hurting someone etc). It's not if, but when.
How did he raise expectations too high for liver cancer? The results were great and they went as expected. That's what I'm talking about. So when people expect to see objective response for GBM and it's not announced right now, will you blame him for that? I remain consistently bullish on this company and I won't even get into my support for the stock in many ways over the last 4 years.
I should have explained myself better- the volume in conjunction with the dozens of new "spammy" sounding message board posters who came out of the woodwork, touting some penny stock picker and how his picks have worked in the past. I've been one of the longest term, consistently bullish investors involved, defending the long term opportunity through some posters "round trip" selling and buying in again, so it's ridiculous to sound as obnoxious as you sound, emphasizing my intentionally comical username as if you've found my weakness. I was backing you up a few days ago but now you sound like the worst form of Internet message board pumpsters. Even though you forcefully attack my balanced view of what's happening, I hope you're around at the end, when we celebrate becoming bigger than Medivation.
Where do you think the bar is set? If it's objective response at this stage, I think the market will be selling the news. Not that that's justified, but expectations can get in front of reality. I hope you're right though!
I want to be as optimistic as everyone else, and I'm more so over the long term. But let's be realistic guys- there are what- 6-8 million warrants at $.80? This stock is going to be collared at $.80-$1.00 at the most until a partnership occurs. And that's not. Terrible thing, I want the warrants out of the way because that means money flowing into the company's bank account. But I just don't see sustained higher prices until a partnership. I also believe the volume has the hallmarks of a promotion. But once again- if an investor hired someone to stimulate demand, it still hastens what would have to happen anyway. So all in all this has been a positive.
Volume alone is reason to be excited, because it means a shorter clock on working through the newly registered shares for sale. This is nothing to be discouraged about, if you accept the same premise as me, that this is the very thing that will end with a meaningful partnership (and uplisting/trading volume). It shouldn't be surprising when one understands the dynamics of biotech.
I guess you could say that I'm even MORE bullish, because I believe that "objective response" will not be the measurement of success for this drug. Stable disease for patients that are late stage/failed everything available would be good enough for a home run. But no-we have actually seen prolonged stability (possibly objective response, but we can't tell because of scarring of the liver) to the tune of 24 months, and a few people over or around a year. That's unheard of, and it was a percentage of the patient population that other companies would brag about for a lot lower response (15-20% of the population). If you're bullish, consider me Toro.
I feel your pain! I've held since Fall 2011 with an average cost of around $1.50. At least we know why- the latest capital raise was registered for sale, so whoever has been waiting can now sell common stock and hold the warrant risk free. I just hold out hope that the (hopefully) probabilistic partnership that could emerge will settle the funding question once and for all and let this thing fly. I think the change will be night and day, and it could occur rapidly with the announcement of whatever conclusion is reached behind the scenes. The drug data (and thus we investors) will win at the end of the day.