I just say the SEC filing in its entirety and it gives the reasons for the voting; all mundane. What a disappointment!
What I don't understand is why all this secrecy and no public notice saying X thing is being put to vote in our GM meeting. Like you I am optimistic but one never knows with this company. I guess we will find out whenever we get his mail.
If we were to handicap the probability of different events IMO dilution is off the table as he has never diluted and he has LG if he needs them, similarly makes no sense to dissolve the company as all he has is invested in the company including two decades of his life. Acquisition is off the table no need and no money; merger does not make sense either. I think the most likely event is acquisition of the company by BP. On the other hand it could be something completely trivial which is required by Bahamas law and has no impact on the business of the company.
Do you think there is a reason for no public anouncement about the voting issues at the stockholder meeting or just Dr A being his usual self
Please don't post FUD. My Schwab Accts show the value of my Nymx shares. Yes things are definitely abnormal but I think things should clear up in a couple of days.
All good points. IMHO Dr. A and LG want to cash out and for the acquiring co. this could be a bargain, without the headache of dealing with Dr. A. I think all the stars are aligning here.
And now (from the street) exactly what I have been saying statistical significance is meaningless without clinical significance. IMHO this is a scam that SPHS is pulling on investors. I predict heavy insider selling, no deal and a fresh set of bagholders.
I asked Dr. Ben Davies, a professor of urology at University of Pittsburgh, to assess the Sophiris PRX302 study results.
"This drug has the same effect as a sugar pill wrapped up in a secret-sauce of caramel flavored organic tea. Stated another way, it simply doesn't work and gives you painful urination 20% of the time," said Davies. [Those who know Davies from his Twitter feed @daviesbj are not surprised by his outspoken views.]
The biotech investing lesson here: Meeting the primary endpoint of a clinical trial with statistical significance doesn't always translate into a clinically meaningful result. In Sophiris' case, PRX302 falls short, says Davies.
Fair enough, point conceded; although longer term benefits are favored by the FDA. The problem with SPHS is that the p value is not significant enough for FDA approval. the p value was 0.043 and in the history of the FDA no drug to my knowledge (which is for an elective problem) has been approved with this kind of p value. they also had an interim look which causes what is called alpha spend so they need a p value significantly less that what it is now.
The tell will be what kind of a deal SPHS gets for the second phase three from BP.
Q max is a hard target to achieve in older men. The thing most men are looking for is improvement in nocturia ie getting up in the middle of night to pee and as far as I remember NYMX showed 75 % of men showed an improvement in this with a value of 0.02 or 0.03. SPHS did not talk about nocturia but had only a 1.6 improvement in QOL (Quality of Life) scale suggesting it did not improve nocturia significantly.
First of all let me begin by stating that I did not think the SPHS drug would achieve both clinical and statistical significance as I have documented in several posts. In spite of the hype today, I still believe it has not met the criteria for a successful trial. For a trial to be succeed the drug has to be statistically significant over placebo (p value less than .05) and have a clinically meaningful difference; in the case of BPH scores its a two point difference at least. So lets compare results.
SPHS at I year improvement of 1.02.(non clinically significant) with p value of 0.043. NYMX at 3.5 years an improvement of 2.6 (clinically significant) with a p value of 0.025.
LOL a 1 point improvement with a p value greater than 0.04. Golden chance for company insiders to get out while suckers run it up. Research the history of FDA and find one drug approval where the p value was greater than 0.04.
I hate to dissapoint you but a 1 point improvement with a p value of over .04. Really. Can you name one drug in the history of FDA which has been approved with these kind of p values.
From Smith on Stocks
"I think that one takeaway message from this acquisition is that there is an enormous appetite on the part of big biopharma for companies with novel products that have gotten into the proof of concept stage or have completed phase 3 trials with positive results."