No I'm going for a long term cap gain in TROV. And by substance I mean product assets. That is what one measures with development stage companies, not revenue and profit type metrics. Rea the medical literature, read the scientific literature and read the published patent applications. By going to the original source material, not the musings of pundits and wags with an agenda, you'll see unvarnished information that you can use to make your own decisions. My positions are based entirely on my research and you should all due your own due diligence and not rely on the pundits and wags, or what I did. Remember, the first post on this thread asked for what folks can do together and my contribution is to suggest that each person ignore those with a agenda (like the PR folks who post the hype) and go to better and unbiased information sources, such as medical literature and patents.
Perhaps what you could do is some due diligence. What assets does TBIO have? In my opinion and according to my due diligence, there are no assets. Yes you should compare TBIO to TROV and see what is the difference, like products supported with published (peer-reviewed) scientific and medical journal articles. Get away from the puffery and male bovine excrement of press releases and look at substance. You'll see why I'm long TROV and I was formerly short (since covered at a significant profit) TBIO.
I agree. I think CEMP has a good product but I also think the valuation is worrysome. And the sector is highly correlated. I'm concerned about a big time correction in the sector and CEMP will go down in a correlated fashion. A significant chunk of my meager portfolio is in this sector, including CEMP.
Instead of selling my shares I sold June 35 covered calls. I thought I would be selling it at 35 and keeping the option premium (in excess of $2 per share). But it closed below 35 today. Yikes. I still have my shares. Perhaps I'll play it again, sam and see if it closes above 35 with July options expiration. I'm thinking about doing the same thing with other stocks in the life sciences/anti-infectives sector. However, I'm holding onto stocks (long positions) in the life sciences/oncology/immunotherapy sector, like SRNE, but selling covered calls in ZIOP.
This risk with the covered call strategy is that if the stock craters, you keep the option premium but still have a long position that gets whacked. You also cap your upside if the stock takes a run up. I think this is a good strategy when a stock looks fully valued, like CEMP or ZIOP, in view of where its products are in the development cycle. But with SRNE, it still looks undervalued in comparison with its immunotherapy peers, in my opinion. Remember, the time horizon is 4 weeks, not the dreams of a huge score of long term investors who seem emotionally attached to a particular stock. I've already learned that lesson (the hard way) not to fall in love with a stock because it will not love you back.
Yes the exchange a stock is traded on does not impact the legal rights of the shareholders. CTIX is a public stock and any idiot, like me, can buy the shares. CTIX is subject to the same SEC requirements as GOOG, MSFT, etc. There is some relief for smaller companies but as shareholders, our rights are that we must receive material information at the same level (such as 8K's or press releases) as those fools who are in email communication with Leo. By the way, where was this FDA meeting first announced and where was it announced that it is postponed? Leo seems to be playing fast and loose with Reg FD requirements that apply to CTIX.
Hey gpls, dummy. There is a major difference between and IPO and an uplisting. By the way, I've done both. CTIX is already traded on a public market, so you can buy as much as you want. An IPO, let's see that is an INITIAL PUBLIC Offering. Do you understand what the word "initial" means?
This was not an uplisting, it was a brand new IPO into a market bubble. Good timing for AXON. But any sch-muck like me could buy CTIX right now. No one has. Why is that? I'd love to short AXON but it cannot be done, just like Schwab wouldn't let me short Juno. No shares available to short. Just because we're in the stupid phase of a biotech bubble doesn't mean that even the dregs rise with the tide, like CTIX. But the dregs will fall with the tide when the bubble bursts. CTIX is uncorrelated with the rest of biotech.
No. All it means is that you're seriously diluted in the shares you'll continue to own. In other words, you now own less of the company (percentage basis) and a tinier fraction of the company on a fully diluted basis when accounting for all of the warrants and options outstanding (called "fully diluted basis"). But don't worry, management will be seriously rewarding themselves for this by granting themselves more options and stock. The common share retail folk are at the bottom of the trough where there will be perhaps a crumb left. The greed of this management/board team is among the most egregious of companies in this sector. Next time, read the details of the 10K, including the footnotes. While the drug assets are certainly interesting and perhaps valuable, it was the financials that turned me off and I did not go long (or short) but it's on my watch list. At least Nowinski is no longer there (that's a good thing). Let's see how this fares after the biotech bubble bursts.
I think you should follow your nom-du-plum and not post this nonsense about the FDA. As someone who works with the Agency, this post is comedy fodder by more grassy knoll conspiracy guys. The FDA has an important regulatory function. It is not influenced by political lobbyists who control Congress where there is extreme corporate inequality with the larger companies using political influence to protect markets from smaller innovative companies. But the FDA does not play that game. In my 3 plus decades of FDA experience, the Agency applies its regulations in an even-handed manner. If CTIX is again over-promising and under-delivering, it is not the "fault" of the agency. It is the fault of bozo CTIX management. And that is the theme I've been posting over-and-over-again. Leo should not be pointing the finger at others for his problems. He should be looking in the mirror.
Here's the sentence I agree with ("We will get there if the science is good and the trials' data back up."). But the word "IF" should be emphasized. You could also eliminate the science being "good" or "bad" as irrelevant and a meaningless judgment. All that matters is what data are generated in the clinical trials. Remember in the pharma world, what matters is risk mitigation. Fantasy dreams of giant markets are irrelevant for value creation. Fantasy dreams of targets where there in binding generated with in vitro data are irrelevant. Leo's press releases that do not show clinical trial results achieved are irrelevant. Uplisting, or not, is irrelevant. Reverse splits, or not, are irrelevant. Alleged "confidence in the science" whatever that is supposed to mean, is completely irrelevant. This is investing based on value (inverse of risk) not a class in religion that breeds intolerance to other with different (or no) beliefs. And Leo feeds this complete idiocy with his male bovine excrement press releases devoid of material information. Until we replace the driver of the CTIX bus, we are heading off the cliff, irregardless of the clinical trial outcome. Years ago, I was persuaded to join a company by a VC what had backed the Series A round and the company had a phase 2 trial in process. The VC's comment to me was "the drug is so good, even a monkey could run the company." I'll never let that Sand Hill Rd VC ever forget that. The monkey took failed phase 2 data and tried to rework it by segmenting patients and poured hundreds of millions into a phase 3 trial. The phase 3 was a spectacular failure. The company is known now for an extraordinary amount of shareholder money wasted and multiple reverse splits. Yes management does matter. Most drugs fail in phase 2. No one ever bats 1.0000 with clinical candidate drugs, except George "believes" that CTIX will defy the odds and bat 1.000. Is that "confidence" in the science or utter stupidity?
So who appointed you the final arbitrator of what is "the truth?" Sorry if I don't live in your fantasy world. All I did was point out scientific facts. But those facts seem to be at odds with your fantasy world. While you are certainly entitled to your opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts or those set of fantasies that make up your fantasy world. When you're ready to come back to the real world, the world where CTIX remains mired in the 2's, and leave your fantasy world where suddenly institutions "see the light" and bid up CTIX price to double digits and then triple digits, you can apologize. Until then CTIX stock price is stuck in the 2's and Leo keeps putting out press releases devoid of information. Life goes on and nothing changes so long as Leo is still driving the broken-down CTIX bus.
Sorry George, hope is not a strategy. Humira and Embrel are TNF antagonists, wherein TNF is a validated target for various auto-immune diseases. IL-20 is not, just a bit player in the cytokine cascade. Drugs are approved with actual data, not a hope and a prayer.
Seriously??? Prurisol is being tested for psoriasis. Humira (anti-TNF antibody) is a biologic approved primarily for rheumatoid arthritis. Moreover, there are multiple biosimilars coming onto the market. P is a small molecule. If you think P is a $9Bil drug you are smoking some illegal substance even in Colorado and Washington.
Say what?? Leo violating Regulation FD again with "material" information in emails rather than the drivel (that is supposed to be "material" in Wednesday's press release. Does the email say that we're going to do our jobs and follow up with a meeting request? I'm glad Leo figured out how to pick up the phone. But do you have to broadcast to the world that you made a phone call? I don't waste my time on Twitter or folks personal blogs because I have my own life to live and not follow what others are doing in their day at the office. Does Leo also write what he got and for whom for Valentine's Day? Perhaps Leo could take a page from the FIFA soccer guys playbook and grease some palms so people will check their voice mails (does anyone still use voicemail?)?
Let's paraphrase the new "material" information told this morning. I could save much verbosity because it said: "We showed the poster we indicated would be presented at ASCO and a bunch of people stopped by to look at it." That's it. BFD. Yet another credibility-destroying effort from Leo, who treats the investing public like we're complete idiots. Fool me once, shame on me; fool me weekly, shame on you.
Suggest reading the annual report, but skip over the letters from Peter G and the others as the usual feel-good hype blather. Instead, look at the breach of contract lawsuit with Hess. This appears to be an allegation that Hess lied (misrepresented in lawyer-speak) a representation and warranty in the sales contract for the east coast operations that ANW purchased. This is serious and has an impact. Anyone with some knowledge in this area (don't bother outpissed because all you seem to care about is hating and discrediting Peter G) care to try to shed some light on what's going on here?
I'm glad CTIX is doing its basic job and getting more than one clinical site into a clinical trial. This is basic clinical trial management 101 and shows assumed competence. But Oregon and S Dakota is off in the hinterlands and doesn't provide the hype-speak opportunity for Leo to name drop Harvard, like he usually does. So while Leo is once again playing the boy who cries "wolf" too often, the real stomach-ache-inducing part of the press release is the lottery-ticket-like speculation of more big market opportunities where there isn't a shred of evidence showing efficacy there. While we all can dream, we don't put our fantasy dreams in press releases under the guise of material information. It's like me issuing a press release that my new girl friend is Kate Upton. Believe that and perhaps you can buy a bridge in San Francisco from me. This is yet another example of why Leo needs to go, CTIX needs to grow up and CTIX needs to learn how to play in the Big Leagues if it is going to be taken seriously as a Nasdaq-listed company with credible management that will attract institutional investors. Until then, it's all male bovine excrement hype because Leo's credibility has been lost.
Franz, I'm no fan of PFE either, although I was working on the Lipitor project there on the regulatory side of things. I felt PFE treated their science folks like dirt, and that is why I applied to law school. PFE blew it and I didn't have to sign anything to get the money for a night program while I was full time days. Moreover, I left PFE right before the bar exam and got a severance package from PFE without telling them I was about to join a law firm (first project: Biogen, second project: DuPont, then Polaroid v. Kodak a famous case at the time), where the guy who trained me is now a CTIX advisor (he's one of the advisors who is still alive, as opposed to Dr. Freii who passed away and somehow still advises CTIX from the grave) and one reason why I first went long CTIX.
Really now? I didn't predict anything. All I did was handicap the risk according to the data and based on published probability statistics. But since I'm approaching Frank's age, Penn did cover p53 as a target. How about the only c-myc inhibitors of SRNE? Those are considered the most elusive targets in oncology?