Sat, Dec 20, 2014, 8:33 PM EST - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

CombiMatrix Corporation Message Board

bitesr 34 posts  |  Last Activity: Dec 16, 2014 1:12 PM Member since: Apr 22, 2010
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • bitesr@ymail.com bitesr Dec 16, 2014 1:12 PM Flag

    Management/BOD are insiders. They cannot trade (buy or sell) at this time as insiders, when aware of material information before it is released to the public. The issue is really one will the insiders buy starting in January or whenever the insider trading window is open. Also don't forget that insiders have a short swing rule.

  • Reply to

    Tbio 8-K

    by herbieherbstreet Dec 11, 2014 2:27 PM
    bitesr@ymail.com bitesr Dec 16, 2014 11:57 AM Flag

    Yo Herbie, the old saying in grad school is that if you cannot bowl them over with brilliance, baffle them with male bovine excrement (cannot use the exact word). ICP-MX, say what? Let's break that down into plain scientific terminology and not marketing hype, shall we. The P stands for PCR, invented in 1984 and Mullis won a Nobel Prize for it. The C stands for cold which was not invented by the Dana Farber guy as shown in the reexams, which I read. All that means is that the melting temperature is lower for mutant sequences over wild type sequences, Duh. The I is marketing male bovine excrement for ice hiding the well-known (for at least 20 years) use of blocking sequences, again well explained in the reexams. So what's the new twist? Oh yes, its "MX" which I think means multiplexing. This is another well known PCR technique that came out of MD Anderson about 20 years ago. But there's no patent on adding this known twist to the other known steps, so no reexams have been filed, yet. That's your claim to fame that we don't have a patent so no one can shoot a patent down yet? Can you spell H Y P E? I spell it F R A U D.

    The proof of the pudding Herbie is if some fool licenses this junk. Don't see any takers so far.

  • Reply to

    Tbio 8-K

    by herbieherbstreet Dec 11, 2014 2:27 PM
    bitesr@ymail.com bitesr Dec 15, 2014 5:32 PM Flag

    Yo factually-challenged Herbie:
    False statements:
    1. I'm a lawyer, irrespective of which kind. False, not a lawyer.
    2. Unsubstantiated claims. Read the Patent Office website and read the reexams, I did, You clearly did not. I do my own due diligence and don't rely on company fluff pieces.
    3. The innuendo claims "have no merit? A statement generally made by the guilty or by a company that has been sued. As an investor, when I read such a statement, I sell shares.
    4. "cast doubt on the company?" All I pointed out were the facts already in the public record that, in my opinion, are highly material, were not disclosed by the Company. Does it "cast doubt" on the Company. No it proves they are liars by failing to disclose material information. That is called fraud on the shareholders, not casting doubt.
    5. "everytime good news comes out?" Huh, what good news? Or what news for that matter? All that happened was a puff piece written by the company, devoid of news, that fraudulently failed to disclose material information that could be construed as bad news. This is how those of us who do our own diligence make money.

    So Herbie, how much does the company pay your PR firm to do this?

  • Reply to

    Tbio 8-K

    by herbieherbstreet Dec 11, 2014 2:27 PM
    bitesr@ymail.com bitesr Dec 12, 2014 2:15 PM Flag

    Yes it is bullish. But bullish for whom? It is bullish for plaintiffs securities lawyers who now have all the evidence they need to show fraud on the shareholders. Can you say "slam dunk?"

  • Reply to

    conference tomorrow for analysts in NY

    by fedrally001 Dec 11, 2014 5:57 PM
    bitesr@ymail.com bitesr Dec 11, 2014 8:18 PM Flag

    Rule FD does not allow preferential news treatment for analysts, If there is material news, it must be released to the public, including retail riff raff like me. But volume precedes price and it seems like this entire sector spiked up today on higher (than average) volumes. I think the recent spike in volume and increase in price is because there are very few sectors in the market that look attractive at this time. The small pharma sector seems to be hot right now, certainly relative to oil stocks.

  • bitesr@ymail.com by bitesr Dec 11, 2014 3:33 PM Flag

    There's a quiet rally happening. I like it. But please keep it quiet so it stays out of the media noise. Lower oil prices are a good thing for this company. Buying up the distressed assets of OW is a good thing for this company. All are good for the longer term, so the traders will keep away and this is build up of positions from investors/institutions. And those institutions who have ADD and only read headlines see "Greek" and stay away, good.

  • bitesr@ymail.com bitesr Dec 9, 2014 3:16 PM Flag

    Each response looks at the "science" but that is not how pharma valuation is based. It is based on value being inverse to risk. The issue with CTIX is not that its products are different or based allegedly on good "science" (which is impossible to quantify or put a valuation on) but that there is still a very high risk of clinical failure because of the stage of clinical development of the products. Durata and Trius (the closest precedent buy-out valuations) had reduced risk of their clinical asset much more that CTIX has (at this point in time). My comment about concern about upside valuation looks at a lead clinical asset going into phase 3. The other poster messages I've read assumes a superior product on the market over the other drugs (well ahead in clinical development) for the same MRSA indication, even with the marketing muscle of Merck behind them. That, in my opinion, is naïve.

    Again, I'm thrilled at this run in the share price but my goal is the make money in my investment accounts, not to be "right" on an investment message board. And my concern about valuation now, in light of the risk of the assets, remains. As the market seems to always over-shoot valuation numbers (both on the upside and the low side), I'll be happy to ride some pendulum over-swings for a while. But don't get too greedy. We're already getting close to my 3X and sell rule (like a VC). And in the shorter term, phase 3 clinical trials cost big bucks, more than CTIX has. And the costs for launching a drug is off the charts (hint: I work in pharma).

  • Reply to

    Third Party Validated Phase 2b Brilacidin

    by bonnylynn Dec 8, 2014 5:36 PM
    bitesr@ymail.com bitesr Dec 8, 2014 8:08 PM Flag

    If I only rated the quality of management and not the quality of the assets in deciding which stocks to go long, there would be a very small universe of choices. I object to the hype PR nonsense coming from this company. Press releases are supposed to be used sparingly for "material" events. But the companies that listen to too much investment banker nonsense and don't show leadership often do poorly. But sometimes if the asset is an anti-infective, I'll buy the stock despite over-hyped management. Like the boy who kept crying "wolf" sometime a wolf actually shows up.

  • Reply to

    Third Party Validated Phase 2b Brilacidin

    by bonnylynn Dec 8, 2014 5:36 PM
    bitesr@ymail.com bitesr Dec 8, 2014 6:10 PM Flag

    While I'm thrilled to be long this stock and now have about a 2.5X gain, I still think management is poor quality. Today's announcement was expected, no surprise. The timing was fortunate for the stock price in view of the Merck deal. I bought this stock because I've been buying small pharma/bios that emphasize anti-infectives. I've owned Trius, Durata and TTPH. I've done 3X on each one. I sold TTPH too early at 24 (my bad) but my basis was 8. So what's left? CEMP and CTIX. I'm concerned about CTIX in view of weak management and now the valuation is starting to flash yellow warning lights. Look at the buyout prices/market caps of Durata and Trius. CTIX is just about to start phase 3 so one has to look at how much upside is left. The buyouts have come when phase 3 was completed successfully or even FDA approval. But then again I sold TTPH too early when I thought it was fully priced for the risk of the asset.

    I don't know what to do with CTIX but first I'll check if I've held for a year yet. So like Shakespeare suggested, neither a buyer nor a seller am I.

  • Reply to

    60 minutes. patrick-soon-shiong

    by rwe_1992 Dec 7, 2014 9:32 PM
    bitesr@ymail.com bitesr Dec 8, 2014 2:04 PM Flag

    I'm afraid the emperor (Kinnon) has no clothes. I also saw the 60 min segment last night on what Soon is doing. While what he is doing is all over the cancer map, he is clearly not doing PCR. He is focusing on sequencing to look for cancer mutations to determine appropriate treatment choices. The alleged TBIO technology is a PCR type of amplification, not a sequencing process. Soon is trying to ID mutations and not monitor the presence of mutant sequences. TBIO meanwhile doesn't have a pot to P in because no one will pay TBIO money while their patents are being reexamined for validity. The process described in the invalid patents is for selectively amplifying lower abundance mutant sequences in the presence of more abundant wild type sequences. This has been done for years before the Dana Farber patents and that is explained in the patent challenges. This is all public except TBIO is improperly (in my opinion) hiding this material information from its shareholders. This is why you have not seen and will not see any monetization of ice cold PCR.

    That means the patents are not enforceable. Even worse is that the patents were licensed from Dana Farber, so TBIO is a licensee. And since insolvency will hit likely in Q1 according to the financials, a licensor (Dana Farber) can cancel the license of a bankrupt/insolvent licensee. HAPPY NEW YEARS!

  • bitesr@ymail.com by bitesr Dec 3, 2014 2:43 PM Flag

    It's not as if you were not warned about this. The paid PR firm who sends in the brainless borg posters (herbie) to attack the bashers of the stock personally (rather than addressing the substance of the message) seem to have run out of lame excuses. But the proof is in the pudding, which is the stock price, hitting new lows each day. And yet this insolvent company has still not fessed up to the fact that its patents are under attack for its allegedly next big thing in Cold PCR. Is this a going concern in 2015? I think not. And check your calendars, we're in December.

  • My male bovine excrement meter keeps going well into the red zone with the idiotic press release nonsense from the management of CTIX. Why can't they just shut up and do their jobs? Results, not talk. I'm almost a double from my basis with my shares but having to read the stomach-ache-inducing press releases is tiresome. After just hitting the tax-key one year mark on my shares, stupid press releases don't inspire confidence to hold. Management credibility is a terrible thing to waste then the press release fluff is no where near substantive. A routine material transfer agreement is material? Sheesh, give me a break. They are a dime a dozen in the pharma world. Having a pharma kick the tires does not a deal make. Is this some idiot PR firm pretending they are actually adding value? Shame on management!

    Memo to CTIX management: WE, THE SHAREHOLDERS, ARE NOT IDIOTS!!! If you're looking for idiots, look in the mirror.

  • Watching this slow and painful death spiral is difficult, particularly when management is lying about their condition in a pathetic attempt to deny fact and postpone the inevitable death. The canary in the coal mine already died (CFO left). While puffery is not illegal, such as talking about the alleged next big thing of Cold PCR, not saying the Cold PCR patents have been challenged is material fraud, in my opinion. Any company that management indicates will pay big buck for the rights to Cold PCR will do due diligence before paying anything. Simple due diligence will find the patent challenges. So where are all the deals? Failure to disclose material information in public filings (such as the last 10Q) is illegal according to SEC rules. The fact of the patent challenges is public information available for anyone to see and read. It's even been posted on this message board.

    Yet management didn't even mention this (patent challenges) in their last 10Q. That is fraud in my book.

  • Reply to

    the truth about purdue's hysingla lol!!

    by twosmallgems1 Nov 20, 2014 1:16 PM
    bitesr@ymail.com bitesr Nov 20, 2014 4:03 PM Flag

    Safer for whom? Creating the addiction in the first place or providing a fix for existing addicts? The FDA understands that long acting opoids do not create the addicts in the first place. The key to addiction is a short term bolus of drug to the brain. The FDA also understand that to so-called "abuse deterrent" formulations are male bovine excrement (I can't use the real word). If an addict needs a fix, he/she simply buys heroin and injects it. The whole "abuse deterrent" nonsense is a straw man and irrelevant to sales. I still think Purdue should be sued for false advertising, including their misleading PR campaign earlier this year.

  • Reply to

    Genomeweb Article on Syntrix Litigation

    by bitesr Nov 11, 2014 7:02 PM
    bitesr@ymail.com bitesr Nov 17, 2014 12:36 PM Flag

    And with the 8K, we now know the settlement amount, $70Mil.

  • Looks like ILMN has settled this case that their last 10K indicated they would never settle. The article doesn't indicate the amount of the settlement. Reading the article, it appears that the info came from ILMN.

  • Reply to

    Can You Monetize a PCR Technology?

    by bitesr Nov 6, 2014 3:18 PM
    bitesr@ymail.com bitesr Nov 10, 2014 4:40 PM Flag

    While not trying to engage in a semantic discussion over the definition of "monetize," you've repeated the fatal flaw that Ice Cold PCR "is the future of the company, where significant revenue will be forthcoming." This is the part where you missed the significance of the reexaminations. Waiting for "the future of the company" and the alleged significant revenues that will allegedly be forthcoming is akin to waiting for Godot. You should read the Samuel Beckett play. But here's a spoiler alert, Godot never shows. Neither will any revenues for Ice Cold PCR. And that again is the point of my posts. That point and the fact that the Company knew of the material reexaminations and chose not to disclose them. That goes to credibility of management.

  • Reply to

    Can You Monetize a PCR Technology?

    by bitesr Nov 6, 2014 3:18 PM
    bitesr@ymail.com bitesr Nov 9, 2014 3:43 PM Flag

    If "they" are not monetizing ICE COLD PCR, why is TBIO even in business? A business is supposed to earn revenues in excess of costs/expenses to make a profit for its owners. If the patents will not be monetized, why mention this "technology" at all during the conference calls? But now we know that the patents are not enforceable due to the reexaminations, so even if "they" wanted to monetize the patents, "they" will be unable to do so. Therefore, this company is not a sustainable business and will be worthless soon. Perhaps TBIO can become a non-profit charity to help be a way for Kirk to make charitable deductions, like his last $2+ Mil "contribution." That's enough money in the kitty to keep the doors open through the end of the year, without having to cover a CFO salary. Can you say "Going Concern?"

  • Reply to

    transgenomic patent re-examination

    by halochief007 Nov 7, 2014 2:59 PM
    bitesr@ymail.com bitesr Nov 7, 2014 9:32 PM Flag

    Why didn't the Company tell us about these in the Q3 conference call and earnings release? These have got to be material because Kinnon based the entire future of the company on this "technology" where the patent protection is being challenged. Sounds material to me, Ya think? If you Google this Troll Busters outfit, the track record invalidating PCR patents is strong. They went after Roche PCR patents, Life Tech PCR patents.

  • Again, are these guys smoking some substance now legal in Colorado? Granted Nebraska does come close to the Colorado border. The District Court in Delaware just slapped down another PCR "technology" patent as subject matter ineligible due to trying to claim a law of nature. Starting this past summer, courts have been invalidating patents left and right due to some recent Supreme Court decisions narrowly interpreting what is patent eligible subject matter. How is this so-called "new" PCR technology not a law of nature? Something just doesn't smell right here. Particularly when the Q3 conference call seems to think that it is going to be widely adopted and bring in boatloads of money? How can TBIO so completely ignore how much patent law has changed and has weakened patent rights? You don't have to answer that, it was rhetorical.

CBMX
1.17-0.06(-4.88%)Dec 19 4:00 PMEST

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.
Under Armour, Inc.
NYSEFri, Dec 19, 2014 4:04 PM EST
3M Company
NYSEFri, Dec 19, 2014 4:04 PM EST
8x8 Inc.
NASDAQFri, Dec 19, 2014 4:00 PM EST