InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp. Message Board

envy_vo 54 posts  |  Last Activity: Jun 22, 2016 1:25 PM Member since: Jul 13, 2012
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • If, two years ago, I offered you a chance to buy warrants to exercise at $1.50 (pre split price), and said I would refund all of your money if by June of 2016 the conversion rate was not at least 50% and the company needed more than one additional conversion to meet FDA OPC, how much would you have paid for the RIGHT to buy at $1.50 - which just happens to be today's price?

    You were probably buying stock at more than $2/share. So, what would you have paid for the no risk opportunity I just described? If you were paying $2, then $.50 would be a STEAL, $1 would have been a TERRIFIC deal, $1.50 would have been a GOOD deal, and $2 not all that bad.

    Yet here we sit, with the opportunity to buy at $1.50 pre split, conversions at 67%, and only one of the next 14 patients who get a six month evaluation needs to convert to meet the FDA OPC. Add to that the fact that we are awaiting ex-US sites that should speed up enrollment/expand the market, and it must be looking like a deal of a lifetime.

    Nevertheless, there are people here who just cannot see the forest for the trees. Anyone complaining about the current state of affairs is NOT a good investor. It really is that simple. I like to buy at the end/beginning of the month, and this month will be a great buy!

    Conversions: 67%
    Safety: 100%

    Nobody owns enough NVIV

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    Annual Meeting

    by richs375 May 26, 2016 3:44 PM
    envy_vo envy_vo May 26, 2016 7:08 PM Flag

    Rich,

    Thanks for going, asking questions, and reporting what was said to us. Great job!

    INSPIRE:
    Safety: 100%
    Conversions: 67%

    Nobody owns enough NVIV

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    Costs of SCI

    by envy_vo May 2, 2016 12:55 PM
    envy_vo envy_vo May 26, 2016 9:50 AM Flag

    Bump for those who do not understand the costs of not converting to AIS-B (sensory recovery).

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    Regarding standard of care...

    by envy_vo May 5, 2016 12:16 AM
    envy_vo envy_vo May 26, 2016 9:48 AM Flag

    Bump for those who do not understand...

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • First, they are not Schwann cells, but Oligodendrocytes. Perrin should never make that mistake, given NVIV deals exclusively with the Central Nervous System. OTOH, maybe the company is looking to use the Scaffold in the peripheral nervous system, where Schwann cells are responsible for remyelination.

    As for the rest of the article, there was very little insight that has not already been discussed on this board.

    An important point:

    The fact that NVIV has no plans to treat acute SCI with Scaffold plus stem cells reflects the success of the Scaffold vs stem cells. That is, the Scaffold appears to be working - stem cells, not so much. So, the onus is on the stem cell companies to license the Scaffold from NVIV for a trial involving stem cells and Scaffold. As soon as the FDA approves the Scaffold, I would not be surprised to see a stem cell company trying to license the Scaffold from NVIV for a Scaffold plus stem cell clinical trial - PAID FOR by the stem cell company.

    One of the problems with stem cells in acute SCI is knowing when to inject the cells. If it is done too soon, they will simply be destroyed. It should be that the Scaffold would allow for quicker, more effective treatment. For example, maybe an oligodendrocyte company would benefit significantly from use of the Scaffold, given remyelination is one of the benefits of the scaffold. Of course, any stem cell company should benefit from use of the scaffold. That is, stop all of the destruction associated with secondary problems and stem cells of any type would have a much safer environment to accomplish what they have been attempting to accomplish all along.

    In that vein, the NSS should easily become not just the standard of care, but also the holy grail for future stem cell studies on acute SCI.

    All in all, NVIV is a very exciting story.

    INSPIRE:
    Safety: 100%
    Conversions: 67%

    Nobody owns enough NVIV

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    Questiosn for the meeting

    by envy_vo May 24, 2016 12:06 PM
    envy_vo envy_vo May 25, 2016 12:10 PM Flag

    1. A traumatic brain injury is any brain injury that results from trauma, as opposed to an aneurysm, embolism, thrombosis, drug overdose, or heavy drinking. Clearly, all of NVIV's patients experience trauma.

    2. "Associated" means they co-occur as a result of the same traumatic accident. Here is an article on the problems of associated TBI, you can search on the following:

    Traumatic Brain Injury Associated with Acute Spinal Cord Injury: Risk Factors, Evaluation, and Outcomes

    The authors make the same claim I have made:

    "It is easy to understand that the forces required to cause a SCI are often sufficient enough to result in a concomitant TBI"

    3. A quick search on TBI should show there are Mild, Moderate, and Severe levels.

    Hence my questions: Are PI's and IRB's excluding Mild TBI patients? If so, that could account for extremely low enrollment rates - perhaps they might want to open enrollment to Mild and Moderate TBI patients?

    Thanks for asking for me. I suppose someone who speaks with IR could get a clarification of this issue, but I think the meeting would provide a more comprehensive response.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • I have two issues I believe we would all like explained:

    1. How are the exclusionary criteria spelled out for IRBs/PIs? Specifically, what does TBI entail? Does it include Minor as well as Moderate and Severe? If there is no directive other than excluding TBI in general, does management believe (due to lack of enrollments) the criteria should be more specific and only severe TBI excluded?

    2. In the HUD application did the company list a specific price for the scaffold upon commerciaization? If so, how much and can that price change, based on the extended length of time for enrollments?

    If someone has the opportunity to be at the meeting, I would greatly appreciate the TBI issue being clarified.

    TIA

    INSPIRE:
    Safety: 100%
    Conversions: 67%

    Nobody owns enough NVIV

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    Can anyone confirm Baker Brothers took

    by stvmsn9088 May 16, 2016 7:15 PM
    envy_vo envy_vo May 17, 2016 11:54 AM Flag

    Yes.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    Current price activity

    by envy_vo May 16, 2016 12:25 PM
    envy_vo envy_vo May 16, 2016 3:47 PM Flag

    "Playing the Russell rebalance in regards to short interest isn't that attractive of a play."

    Not only did I not say it was, I do not see how one could "play" an after the fact data point.

    My point was simply that the bets were made in February - March, and then taken off the table by the end of April.

    Once again, I never argue for single cause explanations. For example, the cover could be the result of the typical biotech short into FDA approval. There is a school of short sellers who believe FDA approval is never as straightforward as it looks. When companies get close to approval success/failure, these investors short the stock hoping for outright failure or at least a delay, both of which drive the price lower.

    I would imagine anyone thinking about NVIV not being approved would eventually have to realize that just by chance, two of the next 14 patients evaluated should convert (actually it is even higher than that). As that light goes on, that short position becomes reckless, if not outright foolish. (Note, the conversion of the fourth patient happened in April.) The ensuing run up may have had more to do with a short squeeze than understanding the writing is on the wall. Or it could have easily been a combination of the two.

    All I was pointing out, was that there probably are no smart shorts betting against NVIV and the Russell, because the short interest is back down to pre bet levels.

    As for whether NVIV remains listed, Institutions added 1.5 million shares last quarter and who knows how many this quarter. I doubt they are going to let their shares tumble for lack of support going into the the Russell Reconstitution. Even still, I see no "play," because I am just long the stock, adding quarter after quarter after quarter, you know, like the Institutions do.

    INSPIRE:
    Safety: 100%
    Conversions: 67%

    Nobody owns enough NVIV

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    Current price activity

    by envy_vo May 16, 2016 12:25 PM
    envy_vo envy_vo May 16, 2016 2:41 PM Flag

    Short interest for the end of March was 3,796,431. This represents those investors who mistakenly thought NVIV would be de-listed from the Russell (IMO).

    Short interest for the end of April was 3,372,595. That means 423,836 shares have already covered. I expect the short interest for May will be even less, as the last poor fools cover going into the Russell Reconstitution.

    INSPIRE:
    Safety: 100%
    Conversions: 67%

    Nobody owns enough NVIV

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Vanguard added 80,483 shares for a total of 981,951 shares.

    Sabby Management added 542,500 shares for a total of 542.500 shares. (I had posted months ago that Sabby did not own any NVIV. It appears that was correct.)

    Goldman Sachs added 254,255 for a total of 349,308 shares.

    NVIV's top 7 Institutional Investors added a total of 1,153,589 shares during the first quarter of this year.

    During that time, I said nobody owns enough NVIV. Apparently, the smart money people agreed with me, as they did the quarter before that and the quarter before that. Were you adding, or just complaining about a management team that has instilled so much confidence in the minds of investors who actually KNOW what they are doing?

    I should point out Institutional Investors currently own 21.4% of the company. I believe that is a new high, even with the recent dilution to 32 million shares.

    INSPIRE:
    Safety: 100%
    Conversions: 67%

    Nobody owns enough NVIV

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    Current price activity

    by envy_vo May 16, 2016 12:25 PM
    envy_vo envy_vo May 16, 2016 1:17 PM Flag

    No.

  • It could be there will be an announcement on Alex's Tuesday, the current activity does seem vaguely reminiscent of previous run-ups to Tuesday's PR. I certainly hope that is what we are witnessing.

    More probably, it is a result of the Russell Reconstitution. There are many amateurs who, after learning about the "new-listing-effect," think they can short the stock the next year and play the "delisting-effect." Foolish.

    Those people who are savvy about the Reconstitution let the amateurs short the stock and drive the price lower and lower. Then, when shares are cheap enough, the smart buyers jump in and drive the price right back up.

    INSPIRE:
    Safety:100%
    Conversions: 67%

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    Somebody knows something

    by attilathehunt1 May 13, 2016 9:20 AM
    envy_vo envy_vo May 13, 2016 12:27 PM Flag

    I figured as much - Thanks!

    INSPIRE:
    Safety: 100%
    Conversions: 67%

    Nobody owns enough NVIV

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    Somebody knows something

    by attilathehunt1 May 13, 2016 9:20 AM
    envy_vo envy_vo May 13, 2016 12:21 PM Flag

    "could" be not "would" be

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    Somebody knows something

    by attilathehunt1 May 13, 2016 9:20 AM
    envy_vo envy_vo May 13, 2016 12:20 PM Flag

    attila,

    Very insightful. Buying 10 shares premarket seems like someone is sending a signal. Maybe a new enrollment, maybe a new conversion, maybe something to do with a stem cell partnership, who knows? I do know that one way to communicate inside info is to buy an odd lot of shares.

    Of course, it would just be someone who truly only owns 10 shares?

    INSPIRE:
    Safety: 100%
    Conversions: 67%

    Nobody owns enough NVIV

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • jmorell80 posted a great comment on those things outside of management's control that affect the rate of enrollment. Here is a little math to demonstrate the problem:

    The two most limiting factors, IMO:

    1. Number of patients who meet criteria (I have posted elsewhere on the problem of TBI exclusion).
    2. Will the PI actually gets the patient?

    Just because an IRB has approved a PI's participation in a clinical trial, does not mean that every SCI patient that comes through that hospital goes to that PI.

    There are many neurosurgeons at these trauma centers, many of them are engaged in their own clinical trials (maybe something to do with length of stay, start of rehab, length of rehab, type of rehab, etc., that needs patients to all receive the same care, i.e., no scaffold), and there is no guarantee the PI will even be on call when a patient arrives at the hospital.

    What if only one in twenty patients meets the criteria, and the PI through luck of the draw only gets one in five patients (four other neurosurgeons at that hospital)? Out of 100 patients, on average, the PI would only get 1 qualified patient. If only one in two patients/families would decide to go with an "experimental" procedure, the frequency is reset to 1 patient out of 200.

    If there were only 20 trauma centers, that would not be too bad (4000 patients divided by 20 centers = 200 patients per center). Unfortunately, there are 200 centers, although 80% of patients supposedly go to 75 centers.

    Any way you look at it, the numbers are staggering.

    As for Dom Coric, he is the Chief of Neurosurgery at Carolinas Medical Center. Perhaps he has more say about who gets which patients than other PIs?

    INSPIRE:
    Safety: 100%
    Conversions: 67%

    Nobody owns enough NVIV

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    A false notion afloat here

    by cynicoptimist May 7, 2016 10:13 AM
    envy_vo envy_vo May 12, 2016 4:30 PM Flag

    Nicely stated, cynic! Thanks.

    The only thing I would add is that the exclusionary criterion, TBI, does not appear to be open to interpretation.

    For example, there are mild, moderate, and sever levels of TBI. An IRB might want this exclusion spelled out in spades, so as to not be liable for any problem, in case a patient did suffer some TBI during the accident and there were complications. If, a strict definition of TBI is used, this exclusionary criterion would be severely limiting and could easily account for the delay in enrollments.

    For example, according to the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine:

    "Definition of mild traumatic brain injury

    A patient with mild traumatic brain injury is a person who has had a
    traumatically induced physiological disruption of brain function, as
    manifested by at least one of the following:

    1. any period of loss of consciousness;
    2. any loss of memory for events immediately before or after the
    accident;"

    There are more than the two signs/symptoms I have posted here, but I think anyone can see from these two just how limiting this exclusionary criterion can be. As I have said before, it is hard to have a non-puncture type of spinal cord injury without experiencing some sort of head trauma. That is, one would need to sustain a forceful impact to the chest that did not cause the head to move violently causing it to hit something (airbag, steering wheel, ground, etc., causing direct injury or some form of contrecoup injury from rebounding as a result of being violently thrust in some direction.

    Perhaps the company needs to be more specific in its definition of TBI.

    This issue, TBI, would be an interesting question to bring up at the shareholders' meeting, if only to get a clear understanding for shareholders. Maybe one of those here who speaks to IR could ask to have this clarified?

    INSPIRE:
    Safety: 100%
    Conversions: 67%

    Nobody owns enough NVIV

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Some companies have already reported:

    1. Welch Forbes added 40,518 shares for a total of 942,804 shares (they own more than 3%).
    2. Blackrock Fund Advisors added 105,903 for a total of 821,956 shares (they own more than 2.5%).
    3. Blackrock Institutional Trust added 70,195 for a total of 733,230 shares (they own more than 2.2%).

    Vanguard has not yet reported; however, adding their previous shares 901,468 to the rest, the total held by these four companies is 3,399,458 The entire short interest as of 4/15 was only 3,677,186.

    So, if you added to your shares during the last quarter, you were doing the same thing these Institutional investors were doing.

    Investing isn't really all that difficult is it?

    INSPIRE:
    Safety: 100%
    Conversions: 67%

    Nobody owns enough NVIV (at least Welch & Forbes and Blackrock didn't - glad they took my advice).

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • envy_vo by envy_vo May 6, 2016 11:22 AM Flag

    In a response to one of my posts on Voting "YES," I found one by richard12546. He thinks I am short and if the vote passes the stock will be $.50.

    So, I looked at his brief history and found this post:

    richard.12546 • Feb 10, 2016 6:55 PM Flag

    "I pulled the cord on my stake, and took a big hit.. I figure i could jump back-in in a month or two when stock is stable or finds the real bottom. Given market conditions I suspect somewhere around $2.00 per share will be a safe re-entry. Just my humble assessment."

    I then went to "historical quotes" on NASDAQ and found that on Feb 10,2016 the stock had its lowest close in over a year. ROTFLMAO Just another trader with no personal responsibility, who doesn't know what he is doing, and wants to blame management for his failures. Using the close as our metric, he sold at the actual bottom for the entire last year, and this person believes he knows better than management? No credibility, NONE, whatsoever!

    Another poster provided this analysis in support of a NO vote:

    "1. 31 million shares out now.
    2. 50 million authorized
    3. 19 million remain to increase working capital."

    In reality, the company has less than 10 million remaining shares to increase working capital. Not even close! Yet, once again, this poster believes he knows more than management?

    If you want to separate the wheat from the chaff on this board, look no further than those who support voting "yes" and those who support voting "no."

    It's a DEVELOPMENTAL PHASE biotech.

    INSPIRE:
    Safety: 100%
    Conversions: 67%

    Nobody owns enough NVIV

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

NVIV
5.54-0.52(-8.58%)Jun 27 4:00 PMEDT