Yes, we're talking about REAL and long-term SUSTAINABLE shareholder value based on MATERIAL positive events of significant and sufficient magnitude.
Not a company where the stock price can apparently instead be controlled by a band of criminals in the OTC marketplace?
I'm holding for now, as I expect it to trade upwards to 0.50 in the short-term, Sal. Like everyone else on this forum, I reserve the right to change my mind at any time (as others have done countless times). But those are my thoughts now, based on what is known in the public domain. And by the way, I'm not stupid. Want to debate that?
Everyone's time horizon for investing is different. Look at what ADXS and ZIOP have both done in the last 6 weeks.
The thing that worries me the most is the TINY size of the upcoming "pilot" trials. Those typically don't lead to partnerships. That's my biggest concern, especially when it's almost certain the FDA won't fast-track a device or protocol with only a 10 patient trial. And for those who believe otherwise, I invite you to "show us the money," by showing us previous results which led to such an decision by the FDA.
I will add to this that the ONLY thing that will lead to a SUSTAINABLE higher PPS for ONCS is a true PARTNERSHIP with big pharma, where money is paid UP FRONT with milestones for additional money.
Interim P2B data results likely won't be available until Q3. That's the only data release which could materially move the stock with any sustaining power.
Until then, we will likely be range bound between 0.35 and 0.50. There are simply are no significant catalysts on the near-term horizon.
Sal, I'm not sure I understand you.
You indicate that the only reason to own this stock is to wait on when the criminals want to move it higher? Is that the investment thesis to follow? And not the real data?
Sorry to hear this.
It sounds like you bought at very inopportune times, as there were plenty of occasions to get the stock cheaper than it is today during the last two years.
If I were you, I would have waited to hear the guidance for 2015 company out next week. I wouldn't have sold near the yearly low. But, to each his own.
Depending on macro conditions, we still could see the upper 30s before next Tuesday.
Where we go from there will be driven by 2015 milestone announcements next week.
ONCS is not in any trouble at all. They have cash to last into 2016 and won't have a need to dilute if their P2b results are good.
But yes, you're right, I was expecting a partnership instead of a collaboration in December. Many others were too; hence the cheap shares now.
The P2b trial results will be a truly pivotal point for the company, both interim and final. IF good, ONCS will be able to write their own ticket.
I have no relationship to xcell and the stock that he pumps. We are posting for different reasons. He speaks of a competitor to INO.
I'm simply a former INO holder who has been disappointed by Dr. Kim's leadership of late. I'm looking for a better entry point, once the stock gets cheap enough. I admit, I may miss that point, but there are plenty of other opportunities in biotech, too. ONCS is very cheap right now, for example.
I'm sick and tired of Dr. Kim's sports analogies. The fact that they lied about meeting the primary endpoint for P2 irked me as well. (49.5% vs. 51%) And the fact that P2 was mediocre when compared to the placebo: 31%. Wall Street was expecting much more, as was I. That's all.
Many of them work from overseas.
There is an article somewhere in the WSJ about that. Some from India. Others from Israel.
That's because they know nothing about the science.
They are too lazy to learn, don't have the ability to comprehend it, or are simply paid to categorically dismiss it.
Definitely a conflict of interest over there, IMHO.
He has the ability to delete posts for any reason that he believes runs counter to his arguments (which, by the way, are mostly flawed in some subtle ways).