There is a simple explanation. Vical was removed from the Russell 2000 and Russell 3000 indices at the end of June. There were between 4 and 5 million shares in the hands of index funds that had to be sold. The shorts knew this would happen several months in advance given Vical's market cap. They gradually increased the short position to almost 6 million shares. At the end of June and first few days of July they covered 4.5 million shares with from the sales of index funds in arranged trades returning Vical to a more normal short interest.
They addressed the low LDH based on their own past experience. Looking at clinical trials in the past decade I thought they were a little low in their adjustment for this issue but it is not twice as long. I had done a lot of statistical work on it at the time and the correct adjustment was the company's 12 month estimate being raised to 14 or 15 months. The difference between 15 months and the approximate 25 months in final results was because of the poor distribution of lung cancer patients in a small part and the crossover to advanced treatments in a larger part. Really A7 got compared to patients not on DTIC but Yervoy, Zelboraf. TVEC and PD-1 plus other experimental drugs. Most patients dropped DTIC a month into the trial.
Vijay's refusal to sell to BMY before the trial ruined us all. Somehow even though Yervoy was not approved during much of the trial time, almost every control patient was allowed to drop DTIC and get access to free Yervoy or other experimental trials by BMY. How Vical's management remained oblivious to this occurring right up till a few weeks before results were unlocked is truly amazing. Talk about the blind leading the blind.
Yes. Median survival of control was higher than A7 though 3 year survival about the same. A7 had less AE's. Problem is control was supposed to be DTIC which had expected survival time about half of final result. Two problems doomed trial. One, most of the lung cancer patients (which were expected to die first) got placed into the A7 arm. Second, approximately 80% of control arm crossed over to more advanced treatments( Yervoy, plus several experimental drugs) while mgt had expected less than 25% cross over. Totally mismanaged trial. All employees connected with trial were fired except CEO.
Man, you are 100% correct. I also spoke with management before the raise and was told that they believed the stock price was ridiculously low and that fortunately they had enough money for 2 or 3 years. It was also strongly hinted that they were serious about a major partnership with a large pharma that would finance all phase 3 trials and commercialization. The capital raise had nothing to do with getting a partner.
My belief is that the capital raise which insanely diluted existing shareholders was done for other reasons which are contrary to the fiduciary responsibility to shareholders but I will not discuss further in this forum.
It is shareholder complacency that has allowed management to continue to plod along destroying shareholder value and neglecting their fiduciary duty to shareholders. You and I know this company has significant value to big pharma. Yet the stock price is at cash levels with no value to the science.
At least trying to shake the tree which may be different from actually shaking the tree.
My prediction is that before the end of 2014, one of 3 events will occur.
1. A major partnership agreement will be signed with big pharma.
2. Some company will buy OXGN.
3. Every member of management and the BOD will be defending a lawsuit for breech of fiduciary duty.
I have no idea who you are or any address for you. If you are on an institutional ownership list, 5% filer or in any of the company SEC filings you should have or will be getting a letter from me. The difficulty with this stock is finding real long term investors with which to communicate. It is not like most companies that have dozens of listed institutional investors and a number of real security analysts following it.
Betteroffsleeping, reading your various posts indicates that you might have been one of the buyers in either the recent offering or the one earlier in the year. Is that true? If so, I would like to communicate with you directly. I have sent letters to several of the largest shareholders and would like to work together to force this company's BOD to realize shareholder value. If the various interests can work for a common good I believe we can all see multiples of the current stock price. If things continue where management disregards potential offers from big pharma while continually giving a small group of shareholders low cost shares and warrants at the expense of all shareholders, this is going to turn real bad and end up in the lawyers hands. Then no one will profit significantly.
Why it is where it is, is not a mystery at all. 1. The stock price has a long history of declines with reverse splits. That causes most investors to not even consider buying no matter what the value. 2. Management has a long history of promising partnerships but never concluding any. 3. In the past year alone there has been 4 dilutive stock offerings, the last one after management stated they have enough money for 2 or 3 years. 5. The offerings were done to #$%$ offshore funds who have no interest in being real long term investors but simply want free warrants and slam the shares into the market. 6.The few real investors buying shares in the market because of the value were excluded from the offerings so they were turned off to the company.
So it is management fault that the company is selling at a small percentage of its true value.
Until management either 1. concludes a partnership with large pharma; 2. pledges not to do anymore of these dilutive offerings; or 3. openly seeks strategic options such as a sale of the company the shares will sell substantially below true value. We need a shareholder revolt that forces management and the BOD to do one or more of these 3 things before serious investors will buy shares and materially increase share price.
You do not understand my point. Over the years, senior management and directors did not buy large amount of shares with their own money. The only interest they have is their salaries and the stock options they vote themselves. The longer they keep the company independent, the more time they have to collect salary and vote more options. If they had real ownership, then they might care about unlocking shareholder value. Hell, I personally have more shares than all the executives combined and I am an old retired recluse with no income and little wealth left.
When I was an analyst on the Street most of the companies I followed were small growth companies with lots of future potential. In those days, management bought shares with their savings and usually held most of their wealth in the company shares. It was not rare to see 20 to 40 percent of outstanding shares (not options) held by senior managers. Their interest and shareholders interest were the same. One saw a lot better strategic decisions and shareholders benefited. Now public company management and directors tend to be little more than parasites.
You are correct. The last offering was done on ridiculous terms to the company after management said they had enough money for 2 to 3 years. A legitimate fund that was buying hundreds of thousands of shares above 3, had $billions of buying power, and could have been an ideal large shareholder to assist the company in attaining its goals was denied shares in the offering.
1. Avastin revenues $7 billion/yr. Franchise value is over $20 billion. Zybrestat increases Avastin efficacy by 30% with little or no side effects. Zybrestat valuation practically zero.
2. Votrient a major cancer therapy. Zybrestat may improve it. Zybrestat valuation practically zero.
3. Lucentis worth billions for eye disease. Zybrestat may be a worthwhile eye therapy. Zybrestat value practically zero.
4. Oxi4503 promising candidate for leukemia. Supposedly many times more potent than Zybrestat. Oxi4503 valuation practically zero.
OXGN is selling a few million above cash value. Similar situated biotechs have market caps several hundred million dollars above market cap.
Mortman, we shareholders have no idea whether Roche and Novartis have stepped up to the plate. In my opinion, they probably have but our management team is slow to run with the ball and does not give a damn about informing shareholders. Truth is the management and directors own little stock themselves so what they get out of Oxigene is salary and stock options. The longer they delay the inevitable the more they get. What is needed here is pressure from a few large shareholders to get management to do their fiduciary duty to shareholders. If it ever comes out that Roche, Novartis or someone else has been making fair offers for Oxigene but management has kept the company running independently and continued diluting shareholder value, I will lead the charge to sue every one of the Oxigene directors for breech of fiduciary duty. I say tell the shareholders the truth. Tell them if there are offers and let shareholders decide.
Pharma, don't forget Novartis as a potential candidate. They are buying GSK's cancer line which includes Votrient. A pending trial of Votrient and Zybrestat is awaiting contract signing. Perhaps the hold up is broader talks than just the one trial.
8.35 x 28 million fully diluted shares is a market cap of $234 million. Less $68 million in cash on a fully diluted basis equals an enterprise value of only $166 million. For a company with a drug that can be safely used in multiple cancer indications and improves the efficacy of Avastin ($ 7 billion annual revenues) that is not a high premium to pay.
wrong. 8mm warrants bring in almost 24mm dollars. So would have $64mm cash if all warrants exercised and 28mm shares.
Unfortunately I do not know Newby and do not have a way of communicating with him. I have reached out a few times to try to open a channel but it has not worked. So I do not know if he is one of Wainwright's favored few or an outsider like myself and the large long term investor that I was bringing into this company.
I would like to know how Newby feels about recent events. I would love to know where Langecker stood and how he was forced out. I would definitely love to know who is really running this company and who really owns the many millions of cheap shares and warrants placed in offshore funds in secret banking havens. As was said in Watergate, follow the money trail.
CPA, you are right. Unfortunately this management team, Wainwright and their secret offshore hedge fund friends act like they own a shoe warehouse.
None of us on this message board know who are the real owners of the offshore funds that keep receiving cheap shares and free warrants diluting existing shareholders even when the company does not need the money.
The funds banged out all their shares into the market in the 4-5 range. Shorted shares there and converted some warrants to cover those shares and remained short some shares and holding part of their 5 year warrant position. Now they have reloaded on this gift financing. They knew this financing was coming, I and others didn't. We ended up buying their shares in the 3's. We are not happy with that at all.