Didn't you read why I indicated this is important? It's not SEC enforcement, it is behavior to get uplisted to Nasdaq. Some folks think that is important.
By the way, whoever recommended CFRX, it is an interesting one. Has more professional management, a real independent Board (not a fake one like CTIX) and sports one third of CTIX's market cap. Their last 10K was an interesting read. It seems that their founder (Nowinski) got booted out with a $3.6Mil severance package the end of 2013. He is a notorious character, was fired from BMS (due to a drug problem/addiction), got hit with a federal lawsuit for nonpayment of child support, and was known in Seattle for his affairs with local art gallery owners. There are some stories with him and his former side-kick (and co-founder. Todaro) where they split season courtside tickets to the Sonics (before OK City stole them) but their assistants had to divide them because they would up never speaking to each other. Once sat in Nowinski's courtside seat for one game (about 17 years ago).
"Fair Disclosure, Regulation FD
Regulation FD addresses the selective disclosure of information by publicly traded companies and other issuers. Regulation FD provides that when an issuer discloses material nonpublic information to certain individuals or entities—generally, securities market professionals, such as stock analysts, or holders of the issuer's securities who may well trade on the basis of the information—the issuer must make public disclosure of that information. In this way, Regulation FD aims to promote the full and fair disclosure."
From the SEC website.
Given Leo's hype-like standards for material information (very low), anything he discloses can be considered material. I stand by my comments.
I'll explain it. Leo is an out-of-control non-compliant (SEC regs) fool. That letter violated SEC Rule FD. The press release is supposed to be for "material" news, according to SEC regs and the Securities Act of 1934. Now ask yourselves, is an IRB meeting (routine) really a material event? This illustrates the point I've been making in every post, that Leo is nothing but a hypster, trying to manage the stock price based on hope, not fact or data. And hope is not a strategy. If CTIX gets hit with federal penalties due to its non-compliant actions, who suffers for this? The shareholders. Unfortunately Leo doesn't go to jail. Even worse, we don't have an independent Board member who is not under the control of Leo. That amps up the risk for owning this stock. All of this has nothing to do with the quality (or lack thereof) of the assets. It is only unnecessary risk due to bozo management.
Good point esque! It was an email to a select few, not a press release or an 8K filed with the SEC. I also just checked the website and it's not posted there either. Was it tweeted to the public? Do you understand what that means esque? It means it is a clear violation of Rule FD and the SEC can investigate and also delay the uplisting.
Brilliant Leo, a Rule FD violation. Now this is more actual factual evidence of my contention of bozo management. Leo once again shoots himself in the foot. It doesn't matter that the content of the email is idiotic (in my opinion) and looking for a scapegoat for poor performance, but he also violates SEC Rules in doing so. Must be difficult to sleep at night knowing this fool Leo is steering the ship with so much of your assets on board.
So what hype is next, a rearrangement of the deck chairs while ignoring the icebergs?
Actually not doc. Firstly, there is only one drug in advanced clinical trials, B. K is still in phase 1 safety. If you'd like another example, look at SRNE that went the 505(b)(2) route for a paclitaxel formulation. It's much easier to gain approval for a marketed compound in a new formulation than a new chemical entity. So let's get our facts straight. While you're certainly entitled to your opinion, you're not entitled to your own facts.
Brings back memories frank. The two big sepsis players were Centocor with an anti-TNF monoclonal antibody that was humanized and Immunex with Embrel which was composed of two extra-cellular domains of the TNF receptor. They were in competition with each other around the early 90's and both went after sepsis indications because the dogma at the time was that by shutting down TNF (tumor necrosis factor) one could treat the cytokine storm of sepsis. Both failed sepsis trials. Both later were revived by gaining an RA indication. Later Abbott (now Abbvie) bought a German co (forgot which one) which had a fully human anti-TNF antibody that became Humira, that still does about $10Bil in annual sales.
Have worked in pharma my entire career, first in clinical trials/regulatory (as a scientist) and later in licensing/intellectual property (lawyer). Was counsel for Immunex (west coast) and Embrel was my project. Work for a private anti-infective company today and a public oncology company now. No names will be provided.
No lee I only have one of those red and blue "P" t-shirts, no sweaters, that's sooo east coast. Was never in Polymedix. Only bought CTIX starting just over a year ago because I thought the ""B" asset is good, but hadn't realizes how idiotic was/is management. And I'm focused on B because I'm focused on anti-infectives, not oncology products (too unpredictable in clinical trials). CTIX was part of my portfolio for anti-infectives that also included CEMP, TTPH, Trius and Durata. All have done well with at least a triple before selling them. Still hold ARDM an inhaled cipro formulation for CF and one third of the market cap of CTIX. Similar lower market cap company with better management is BLRX and one with a higher market cap but far superior management is EVT.DE.
Pretty stupid post. I'm not a basher as I'm long. And I've posted that I don't want to add because I'm too concerned about bozo management here. I'll wait for institutions who do actual due diligence to add. But we haven't seen the kinds of volume that come with institutional purchases. No I don't want your shares. But I want better management. In the meantime, since my current portfolio mix has too much cash now (around 40%) I'm looking at going long other stocks and short the over-valued immunotherapy players after ASCO dies down.
Negative post?? Huh?? I'm long the stock and would like nothing more than for it to go up. But what's holding back that rise is bozo management, exemplified by today's letter and press release. Perhaps you like the cheap thrill of a 12% or so rise in price without much volume (meaning a lack of institutional support). But lest see where the price is next Friday, without more hot air hype from Leo. It's like a sugar high for a kid. It will wear off quickly. Leo's new excuse for his own incompetence is shorts. But excuse-making is not leadership. Leo has yet to walk the talk. That's the last refuge for scoundrel management. When you use scapegoats instead of looking at yourself, it is classic poor management. That letter makes any long, like me, extremely angry (hence my posts) because it shows that management will not improve or learn anything. And all the apologists and ditto-heads on the board can only insult the messenger rather than addressing the message. As for my other positions, look at them and see the contrasts between their management and the Leo tragic comedy.
Yes whoa, CTIX is relatively undervalued (in terms of market cap) in view of the value of its assets (in terms of risk profile). But I disagree why this is the case. It isn't from short sellers. It is because institutional investors don't trust Bozo management (such as Leo). I also disagree with your unsupported pronouncement that K is worth $1 per share. On what basis? You made it up. How do you know what is the effective dose when there's no efficacy data? Your crystal ball? Taro cards?
CTIX has a relatively small short position (contrast that with ZIOP with a big short position (including me), sporting a $1Bil+ market cap and weak to non-existent assets). Or look at SRNE (I'm long here) with strong assets and a relatively low market cap (compared to its immunotherapy peers, such as ZIOP). Why is SRNE's market cap so much lower than ZIOP when SRNE has much stronger assets? I think it's because SRNE's management is held in low regard by institutions while ZIOP is a Kirk-controlled company that brings in much more institutional support.
So sorry to shoot down the fantasy dogma on this board. No one has refuted the substance of what I've posted, only childish insults. And then there's the biggest idiot here, Leo, and today's shareholder letter proving what a #$%$ leader/manager he is. Instead of looking to the shorts, he needs to look in the mirror for the real reason why CTIX's price is where it is. Leo leaves and is replaced with competent management and CTIX doubles at least. But by naming a bunch of yes men practicing docs to the Board as allegedly independent directors, only confirms that CTIX is doomed until Leo is gone. Institutions will not invest in the village idiot, irrespective of uplisting.
Read your history frank. Those of us who work in the pharma industry know this. Embrel failed in sepsis trials for a company called Immunex in the mid 1990's. Before abandoning this drug in its entirety, Immunex tried an RA trial. This first TNF antagonist worked there and that led to Immunex being acquired by Amgen. Perhaps you should keep your yap shut rather than confirm your ignorance. The old saying is that those who don't learn the lessons of history are bound to repeat the same mistakes.
Sorry whoa, I'm throwing the bull shift penalty flag on your post. K's data shows that the maximum tolerated dose is very high, wherever it is. There is no efficacy data, only safety data. Clinical trials are unpredictable, and many a fool has lost a fortune thinking they know the outcome of an unpredictable clinical trial. There is animal efficacy data only. But as someone who lived through the sepsis clinical trials, such as with Embrel (remember Embrel was a failed sepsis drug with great animal efficacy data before it was rescued in an RA trial) we know that the risk with K is off the charts high.
In my experience investing, management concerned about short positions often fail. Currently, in my portfolio, I'm mostly in long positions (including CTIX as a smaller long position) but have a few short positions of stocks where I think the valuation is out of whack with the value of the assets (e.g., some of the immunotherapy companies, like Juno where it's largest shareholder (Alaska Trust Fund) needs to sell to cover its reduced oil revenue). I generally hold short positions for a relatively short period of time (versus long positions). In my opinion, Leo's letter focusing on the short position shows poor leadership and management. It shows Leo is trying to control the stock price (usually a path to failure) rather than leading the company and managing the assets. Leo's job is to build value by managing the assets, not to participate in Wall St games. Today's press release is absurd hype. It's no big deal for an IRB to approve protocol revisions. And (my bias from the work I do) I don't think Harvard's Cancer centers are very good compared to some others like MD Anderson, Hopkins. Moore/UCSD, SKMCC, etc. Look at where Juno licensed its immunotherapy rights (hint, not Harvard). Look at where Novartis is doing its large immunotherapy program (Penn, my alma mater).
Unfortunately, today's short pop only reinforces Leo's approach. But the acid test is where CTIX sits next week during ASCO when other companies with better management (and perhaps not as good assets) will rise while CTIX falls. And this is why CTIX is a small position (long) in my portfolio while I focus on building bigger positions in other stocks (like uber-quiet BLRX or EVT.DE and enjoyed a sustained rise in SRNE). The foregoing is my opinion only.
How do you know this? Where's the evidence? Are there SEC filings that disclose this? Where's the link?
Sounds like we agree gizmo. The message to Leo is to just shut up and do your job. As for Aspire, the lesson to Leo is that if you sleep with mangy dogs like Aspire, you're going to get fleas. Look at the CTIX price. That what fleas look like. Does this mean the drug candidates, or rather assets, are "good" or "bad?" No we still don't know the answer to those questions. All we're seeing is the result of poor quality management, not the result of the quality of the assets. May I suggest we ignore Leo's credibility-destroying hype (designed to pump up the stock price while mangy dogs like Aspire dump it) and let the drug development process chug along in its normal slow pace.
Wow. Did you buy those rose-coloured glasses from Amazon? Now uplisting leads to acquisition. Incredible fantasy-land here. Even my girl-friend, Kate Upton, is LOL.
Comedy moves forward with the times.
What??? "Uplisting allows institutions to purchase shares whereas they by law could not do so before ... just a fact !!!! " While you're certainly entitled to your own opinions, you're not entitled to your own "facts" that you make up randomly. Please cite the legal statutes for your statement. I'm not aware of one.
Further, in the pharma world, any idiot can put together a pipeline of drug candidates. The issue that separates the wheat from the chaff is whether one can validate the value of each drug candidate by both mitigating the risk of failure and by validating the value of the candidate by partnering/licensing rights either worldwide or in selective market territories.
The bottom line is that Leo hasn't done shift. He hasn't added much value and he hasn't partnered/licensed anything. Buying products in pharma is easy, selling them is where leadership and value is done. So far (and I'm long and still one month away from a long term cap gain) Leo has proven to be a failure and the value of the assets remains unknown. We don't know if the current market cap of CTIX is undervalued or overvalued at this point in time, given that the only "information" we have is hyped up male bovine excrement from Leo.
Nasdaq will cure all??? How? Investors aren't stupid and buy a stock because of the exchange it's listed on. Institutions have to trust management. And Leo blew it by naming a bunch of yes man buddies to the Board. Apparently Leo is more interested in control than in seeking help to actually try and be collaborative with pharma. The big hole in the story is the lack of pharma deals and partners. This is called validation and there's none here, just a bunch of hyped up press releases from Leo. That carries zero credibility among large investors. Adding some practicing docs to the Board will not help fill the big hole.
I've been posting this same thing for a long time. Look at the stock price now. The "story" here has too much gray hair on it. It's grown old because of a lack of execution and a lack of partner validation. When will that problem be resolved? Repeating the same story does not make it true.
The point I was making is that we don't have a clue, at this point in time, whether K "works" or not. We only know that is seems to be safe at high doses, and that is indeed good news. But value in pharma is increased by mitigating risk, by over-coming a series of barriers in the form of clinical trials. Most drugs fail for safety reasons or if the therapeutic window is too narrow. But a therapeutic window has a top and a bottom. All we know now is that the top is high and undefined at this point in time and we don't know where is the bottom of the window. As an investor we should not count our chickens before they hatch, and that was my point.