With no REAL catalysts for the remainder of this year, this stock won't see $10 until EOY and perhaps into 2015.
They will want to pump it up some to make effective use of the shelf and to minimize dilution.
At $10/share, INO will be adding about 10M shares to the float sometime next year. That's a minimum 15% dilution from the current float, maybe a bit more. Not terrible, but still a dilution.
Long-term, still a great speculative company. When we get our first P3 trial approved by the FDA, there will be much celebration in the Street!
I'm in agreement with fourms_2000 on this. The tone of Dr. Kim was decidedly defensive today.
I want more transparency about the "need" for a peer-reviewed article about the P2 results. Did the FDA order this? Did potential partners request this? Did INO choose this on their own, so that sub-group data could be better vetted? Why won't it be published until 2015, further delaying talks with the FDA about a P3 trial, now scheduled for 2016? Lots of questions, and very few answers.
Markets don't like questions and uncertainty. Hence, the sell-off today.
I do agree, Sac, that the shelf could have been raised as a bargaining chip with big pharma. But that's sheer conjecture. The facts currently speak differently, as Dr. Kim indicated explicitly that at least $100M would need to be raised to fund a P3 trial.
And with all of that in mind, the market is not acting irrationally.
It's acting as most markets would do, given this CC.
For one, I expected a MUCH longer call. A lot of it was boilerplate.
Why no mention of the h-TERT trial (and yes, I know it was given "lip service" in the PR). To me and many others, this is the most important trial INO might undertake. Will it too be delayed into 2015 instead of 2014?
I'm OK with being enthusiastic about a stock, and there is a lot still be be enthusiastic about with INO. However, the timeline has now been pushed out, and the CEO indicates that at least $100M in dilution will need to occur to fund a P3. Not what many of us were expecting on today's call.
But if the pumpers want to continue to delude themselves, I won't stop them...
Also, if you want to "take me on" objectively on ANY of my posts, have at it.
Warning--it won't end well for you as a debater.
Nope, you haven't been on this board long enough to know me.
I respond to facts, not conjecture.
I'm listed on the certified "list of longs" and I've not sold a single share. In fact, I'm sure that I own more than you.
If you can't stand reality, go back to class.
I couldn't agree more with these statements. Great science, great company.
It's just going to take a bit more time and some additional dilution to "go it alone." That's all.
It's not the shorts.
If you listened to the conference call you would understand why "investors" were disappointed in today's call.
Near ZERO possibility of a marketing partner until 2015. P2 results need to be peer reviewed first. Either by order of the FDA or by request of such partner.
At least not until 2015 at the earliest.
No partnership until P2 results are peer reviewed. Throw any chance of partnership away for 2014. Anyone care to debate? Bring it on.
NO mention of the h-TERT trial for 2014 in the CC (yes, it received "lip service" in the PR). Will it be delayed, too? That's the trial many of us are MOST interested in.
Long-term, a fantastic company with fantastic science. But it depends on one's definition of "long-term."
Not sure now. We've others say mid-2015. Would need to raise the money before then.
You didn't listen to the CC? Blasphemy! :)
That explains why you said there was ZERO bad news. You didn't hear any news at all! LOL! (But I know you must be kidding. You certainly listened, right?)
I agree, and yes, but they say they must raise at least $100M for the P3 trial.
Good points, fourms. The 49.5% vs. 52% discrepancy COULD very well be what the lawsuit is about. I know it caught my eye IMMEDIATELY. A "miss" on a primary endpoint is usually devastating to a biotech stock price, and INO may have subverted this with their own "spin."
Having said that, it's still way better than anyone else has done. I do ultimately believe we will get a FDA approved P3 protocol and that we will ultimately be successful. It's just going to take about a year longer than many people thought, including me.
I believe you are correct here. I just wish INO would be more transparent about the peer review.
I must have missed it as originally thought... bathroom break.
I'm feeling better now... from both! LOL.
You have to understand the differences between the two trials.
One is for pre-cancerous lesions. The other is for full-blown cancer, which is tougher to treat. This also leads to product differentiation down the road.
No, you get real. Just because I'm disappointed doesn't mean I don't know how things work.
That's an improper generalization if I've ever seen one. Get real, dude.
How easy people forget. While statistically significant, the primary endpoint (52%) was NOT met (49.5%). Somehow, the company "spun" that it was met. I'm not sure how they got away with that.
My guess is that they are looking for P2 sub-group cohort data which will maximize their probability of a successful P3 trial, and hence a protocol design based on it and other parameters.
Yep, the "peer review" is somewhat dubious. Was it requested by the FDA? Was it something that INO wanted so that the sub-group data could be vetted further? It's unclear. However, it's disturbing that the company has not been more transparent about the "peer review," and why it will apparently take so long (possibly into next year). That's my disappointment.