does not look so wise anymore. A secondary would have ensured that the company could proceed to complete its other trials and explore other opportunities.
Oh the benefit of hindsight.
Not an earnings report :-). Phase 3 results. Again, shorts may argue, till tomorrow morning, that management hired to O&M to sell their cherry picking of dud data to the media. But yes, by any reasonable take, this just about settles the question.
Margin call but if the cost to cover exceeds a certain % of account value, many brokerages brokerage will automatically cover by liquidating other positions. They would not usually allow the short to remain open when the cost to cover to exceeds the account value. AF, Brean Murray and others will do the needful to make sure that the pool is kept muddled while the shorts cover before it fully takes off. And dont forget some of the more disciplined shorts are probably hedged with calls.
Changed a lot? Going back 2 years till Feb 2011, it was always Argot Partners and before that it was the trout group - might have changed often prior to that. So they changed their media contact of 2 year old to internationally reputed O&M just before the phase 3 results. Does not look like the move of a company that is planning to down shutters. Why is that not a significant 'tell'?
People doomed to live without any convictions will be the first ones to throw stones at those who live with well founded ones. Good luck to you.
You would be insane to not do something that you are 100% comfortable with. Your models are genuine effort, your contest and give aways are in good spirit, and losing your nerve when getting dubious explanations like conference cancellations because of some board meeting many weeks out are honest reactions given the amount of money involved.
You dont owe us anything more than sharing your valued opinion. Dont let unfair criticism bother you and make you withdraw from sharing your thoughts. I hope to know about your next investment choice and I believe you will leave a trail from here.
IF results are -ve, company is going down bigtime, they are losing their jobs and cancelling the conference is not even a minor embarrassment in that context. It is nothing. Delaying results so that someone can chair a conference - what is the upaide for the company? That is the major hole I see in your devil's take.
What makes you think waiting for the PH 3 results will result in a 100M upfront deal? I believe both Celsion and Hisun know the outcome (kinda, sorta, study is blinded, they are not) and the publishing of ph 3 does not change the economics or the dynamics of the drug play in the Chinese market. For investors and stock holders, its a big deal, not for Hisun. I don't believe Celsion gave up 75M of upfront money to strike a deal and get 5M a few days before ph 3.If it fails, that 5M makes no difference for Celsion or Hisun. They are just not waiting for FDA and the pieces are moving to get it commercialized fast in China. Nothing more, nothing less.
Poor innocent Chinese and Hisun have already lost their 5M $$ now... Because they did not listen to Ascoff the clown, sorry Ascoff the Anal yst that said there will be no OS advantage. And AF's hedge fund buddy, who knows that science does not work here for Liver HCC. They could have asked Biotechsage from seeking alpha.. Or atleast 'paid by the post' shorts here who know that Thermodox is time released.
If the shorts spout a few more 'time released' posts here, maybe Hisun will get scared and may yet back out. Come on shorts, don't give up now. You are almost there!!
The explanation for the market action last week was that the deep ITM call buying, conversion, subsequent selling of huge block of shares resulting in stop losses being taken out as also the clown's degrade the next day was all to help short covering at lower prices. That theory would make sense only if the short interest actually goes down. If brokerages are not finding shares to borrow, it goes against that thesis.
Or are the smarter hedge fund shorts covering and the retail shorts jumping in at the same time, whose knowledge of thermodox tells them that it is a time released capsule?
Mick's take on the cascade - it can be posted here, so a lot of us can be benefitted rather than individual emails to a select few. Longs are in this together so any perspective sharing can help.
So much for the dreaded Friday AH theory. FDA just approved Botox for overactive bladder. Pre-announcement a matter of few days.
There is no shortage of nervous retail longs, so I doubt if we will see 40 in Jan. A stall at 18 or 20, and given SRPT / DNDN's retracement memories, a lot of folks are going to cash out. Those patient or disciplined enough to hold out till March or later can probably realize the benefits of the market cap catching up to the company with a 500m - 1B $$ revenue potential. Also dont foget that the shorts are laying the ground for post succesful PFS strategy with Ascoff's comments. I hope the company does not do a stupid secondary with warrants at beaten down prices like EXEL (which strangely did it before the approval of Cabo for MTC and punished the shareholders). But everything I have seen, Tardugno is several notches above MM in the way he handled things so far.
That said, for all the money that was being spent in buying up deep ITM calls, converting and selling them in one big block, buying off that clown's downgrade etc. shorts must be cursing Siavoche like hell. His timely updates from mgmt, which I am suprised they did, reinforcing the bull case, rallying of longs helped put a floor that even at 30% down at times, I doubt would have been where shorts really wanted to cover, given these games cost a lot of money. Every management will wish that when they go into silent mode and are clobbered by hacks like Ascoff, they have a good proxy (not literally), that is free of SEC restrictions and can give back quickly with facts.
CFO / CEO should not have responded, not in an email, SIA could have generally twittered his message without alluding to CFO / CEO etc.
But things being where they are, they can always say we communicated the same info to anyone who called and we released the same info as PR with legal vetting and none of them are material but just reiterating the staus quo. Again, I dont think anything that Sia posted had any material info so they may be just fine anyways. Unless Sia now twitters that "CEO told me that Phase 3 results are a lock and there is nothing to worry". :-)
I dont believe the company has communicated anything 'material' to Sia or other long time investors. To say there has been a leak is material. To say things went off track is material. To say we know why the shares plunged is material. To say there is no leak, things are on track and we dont know what's wrong and are working with Nasdaq etc. are not material info. They are how it should be.
That said, it is safe for management to come out with a PR that has everything that they communicated to Sia, Phil Kobi etc, to reassure things are on track. This will cover their back bigtime later on. Imagine an investor that sold in panic and files saying 'if management had publicly communicated everything is on track, I would not have sold. Certain class of investors were selectively reassured etc.', its going to be a problem. Sia updating his blog or posting twitter is not considered public information. Company has to release a PR. Both the company and the good samaritan will be punished in the legal maze, if any information that impacts share price in any way (even help protect it against rumors) is not disseminated via a PR.
Again, what CLSN communicated to Sia can 'probably' be argued as 'immaterial' but I believe they will do themselves a world of good by issuing a PR with everything that they communicated to SIA (or selectively to people who called them ). I hope they are talking to their legal advisors right NOW on how to handle this.
All my opinion ofcourse, and I can be wrong.
Pardon the OT, but wish to reach out to Ernie, Oncodocs, hbomb and the other knowledgeable posters here on this topic.
Given CNSL's phase 3 PFS results for ThermoDox treatment of Liver HCC will be read out sometime next month, what is your take on the PFS advantage of T-dox over RFA, especially w.r.t distant mets. It seems logical that there are some PFS advantages on local recurrence but distant recurrence seems to be a crapshoot. The bear take is that DRs occur on segments that are untouched by doxorubicin and hence there will be no significant difference between the treatment and control arms. Bulls argue that some of the distant recurrences are actually due to intrahepatic mets and blasting the tumor zone and the expanded perimeter with heat and high concentrations of doxorubicin destroys these perimeter tumorous cells and hence will show up as a significant DR benefit.
Especially with respect to DR, do you believe that the science is there to show DR PFS benefits by this T-dox approach? Thanks much for your thoughts.
It is difficult to see FDA saying no to a treatment that shows huge efficacy delta in preventing LR but fares the same or not huge statistical difference in DR. As there will always be patients that may not have DR or get DR after many years, yielding significant survival benefits. That said, IF DR is not impacted by the Thermodox treatment, the SPA will likely read out as primary endpoint not met, a not so insignificant consideration for longs.
All the more perplexing, why management did significant insider buying, conversion of warrants, no secondary decision before results etc.? Do they have a different take on Thermodox impact on DR that we are not aware of? Afterall we are betting some of our investment money, while they have bet their jobs and the very survival of the company on this outcome, and it would be unwise to think that they are looking at the same odds as we do, unless they are reckless gamblers.
This could be problematic if a similar response occurs in the treatment and control arms of the HEAT study. Let's assume 192 patients in treatments and control arms. Let's say that the 58 local and same segment recurrences are completely resolved and did not recur in the treatment arm and recurred within 12 months in the control arm, that gives a huge PFS benefit for Thermodox. So far so good.
Now if the results of Poon study were to replicate exactly the same in our HEAT study, 78 DRs would happen at similar intervals in both treatment and control arms, say 15 months. We may or may not still get a 23% overall PFS advantage bcos of an overwhelming benefit from LR / same segment occurrence but the 33% benefit that needs to occur 80% of the times will not be achieved due to the lack of any advantage in the DR category.
Now as west pointed out, there 'maybe' some DR benefit due to doxirubin concentrations around the tumour area but this is where science starts becoming a bit shaky? Rosesny1 in an older post had mentioned that 90% of DRs occur within the heat ablation area and I was confused by that statement. If the ratio of DRs to LRs (1.5:1) were to hold good, and Thermodox is a slam dunk in LR but gets to 'maybe' and 'we have to see' odds in DR, then AF and his hedge fund short friend and Siavoche's 'IF the study fails' clause (though he is overall optimistic) merits some consideration.
I am long and my hold into the HEAT results release depends on what sort of answers I could unearth from Siavoche's blog, twitters and any nuggets of info from old posts of some knowledgeable longtime posters on this MB. Any clarifications appreciated.