It should be noted that when somebody buys, say, 5 million shares of stock at .40 per share (as with the recent RXII secondary) and, as a bonus, receives 5 million options at the same price or higher (as with the recent RXII secondary), it does NOT mean that the average overall price was .20. That is, the options do not give the person another 5 million shares for no further outlay. To exercise the options' the person would have to put up another .40 for each option he/she exercises.
In the case of Broadfin, if they bought 2.5 million shares and, thereby, also received 2.5 million .40 options, it would cost Broadfin $1 million dollars for the initial stock and another $1 million to exercise the attached options.
In sum, if you bought the stock recently (as I did yesterday), you bought it below the price Broadfin paid for their recent addition of 5 million shares.
That makes no sense at all to me. There is no mention anywhere, on any of the 10Q's or 10K'S of any warrants or options at 17-20 cents exercise price.. The warrants/options that were attached to the recent secondary were at .40 and .45 exercise price.. There was not a capital raise prior to that with warrants or options below that mark. Tang's convertibles preferreds were obtained by him for about .19 but Broadfin had no part in those.
Without some further clarification and explanation, I think we can assume that the cost to Broadfin of the recent 5 million shares they added to their stake was about what the market price currently is.
I'm with Kevin Kotler. Also, he"s a very good actor. I liked "Dances With Wolves" and "McFarland" among his many films.
1. It's not that Wainwright said what we have all said. It's that a very prestigious broker did the saying. That makes me think maybe other biggies out there are thinking along those lines.,You and I don't matter, Wainwright does.
2. The market cap hasn't changed and, it appears to me, is way too low. This company could be bought out for ten or twenty times the current cap if things panned out. That makes it a very, very sweet speculative buy. Risky? Maybe. Good risk/reward ratio? You bet!
3. If Geert were a "P. T. Barnum" he would not have achieved what he has. He does not have a whole lot to gain by being a suede shoe salesman (his financial stake is small for somebody of his means) but he has a lifetime of respect and dignity to lose by selling snake oil. I don't think he would do it.
4. I am a bit surprised that the IND didn't light more of an immediate fire. I do think that the Wainwright note suggests that it is getting noticed and will be reflected in the price.
I am not a fool and do not appreciate you calling me such. I expect to make money on today's buy.
1. Wainwright positive note.
2. Chart looks like it has bottomed.
3. Geert has given no cautionary guidance. He appears confident.
4. IND has been accepted. Many expected and still expect that to gain market attention.
The above along with the intellectual property and somewhat hopeful clinical indications with RX-109 to date, makes me think that the stock is safe here (well, nothing is totally safe, but pretty safe.) Upside is good and downside is pretty well contained, imo.
H.C. Wainwright is an old and very well respect company. If they are taking positive notice of RXII, it is likely that other good firms are too. The following from Wainwright is intriguing: "...the potential to partner one or more programs, and a pro forma cash position of $12M (that we estimate is sufficient to fund operations until late 2016), [causes us to] believe RXi Pharmaceuticals represents an underappreciated innovator with upside for the long-term investor."
Wainwright believes that there is potential for a deal with other bios. I think there is too, and that Geert is working on it.
The crack spreads were much better than last year. This is why the margins and earnings surged. The earnings were accompanied by similar cash increases. Revenues were lower because of drop in oil. As revenues increase from rise in oil price, crack spreads might (or might not) increase but net earnings will almost surely not suffer:
"NTI's change in operating cash flow of 91.56% compared to the same period last year is about the same as its change in earnings this period. Additionally, this change in operating cash flow is about average among its peer group. This suggests that the company did not use accruals or reserves to manage earnings this period, and that, all else being equal, the earnings number is sustainable.'
That deal does sell Penn"s oil and gas and coal industries down the tubes. It also sells Israel and the United States down the tubes.
Only if oil stays in the basement. It won't. The only impact this very temporary oil situation will have on XOM is to enable it to gobble up weak companies.Watch, XOM's revenues and margins--and earnings--will turn up enormously in 2016 and beyond.
From H.C. Wainwright web site:
"Mark Breidenbach, Ph.D.
Managing Director, Senior Healthcare Analyst
Dr. Mark Breidenbach is a Managing Director and Equity Research Analyst at HCW. Mark’s research focus includes biotechnology companies in regenerative medicine and oncology sectors. Mark joined HCW in March 2014.
Mark holds a Ph.D. in Molecular & Cellular Physiology from Stanford University and an M.Phil. in Molecular Biophysics & Biochemistry from Yale University where he studied the structural biochemistry of clostridial neurotoxins. Additionally, Mark conducted postdoctoral studies in chemical glycobiology at the University of California Berkeley’s Department of Chemistry, and holds a B.A. in Biochemistry from Cornell University.
With nearly 20 years of experience as a scientist straddling the fields of biology and chemistry, Mark has authored several high-profile scientific publications and his work has contributed to multiple patents."
No dividend cut in sight. Earnings beat last quarter and dividend payout is only 51%. Earnings growth might be a bit slow for awhile but dividend is way safe.
Our resident basher was dismissive of the large jump up at the end of today as "tape painting," implying that it was a gimmick and not based on fundamentals or investor conviction. But when the price falls a lot at the very end of the day, he doesn't dismiss it as a gimmick not based on fundamentals or investor conviction; rather, he always says those show something significant and fundamental about the company.
What a weasel and hypocrite our resident basher is.
Well, participant, it jumped way up--way above the asked--at the last second. Any objections to that?
Longs always complain (often justifiably) when the market moves against them in a seemingly contrived way. I have never heard a long complain when the market moves for them in a seemingly contrived way.
I tend to agree that the company should not have gone public. It was not adequately capitalized from the beginning and that's why the Tang toxic financing was necessary.
As for the public relations to "project company value," I think they have done pretty well. Some faux pas to be sure, but the web site is good, press releases have been informative without looking panicky and like pump pieces, and it does appear that Geert has been meeting with important folks behind the scenes.
Big money (whether investors or other biotech firms) is simply waiting for more clinical confirmation. It will not be rushed to judgment nor will it be impressed by pumping.
The company needs to be very careful about the wording of its press releases. Not only is there potential legal issues involved with misleading investors through too rosy of headlines and body, there is also the danger of looking like a pumper.
I believe that any potential investor who saw the headline and read the copy would understand exactly what the company was reporting.
Every single time this stock seems ready to breakout of the basement, it falls back, usually at the very end of the first day of the apparent rally. That is very abnormal, especially since the failure and the fallback is usually on very few, end of the session, shares.
News of pending events succeeds only in enticing buyers for a short time and it turns out to be a bear trap. It appears to me that we are not going to go anywhere until and unless either there are clearly superior clinical results or there is a substantial deal with a substantial biotech. Until then the bear trap will remain in place, imo.
How is this bear trap set and accomplished each and every time a rally is attempted? I just don't know.
"...if they can buy time to loftier commodity prices, sell some assets, and get a decent balance sheet, then it would well be worth Icahns time."
True but they have $20 billion in debt. I imagine that the interest rate on the debt is at least 7%--and probably a lot more than that. That's $1.4 billion dollars a year just for debt service. It is doubtful that fcx can manage that. The creditors know full well the value of the ore in the ground. Therefore, they are just waiting for a missed interest payment to come after the company. The creditors don't have to, and will not, give fcx any slack at all.
It is a contest to see which wins: Ore in the ground or creditors. I bet on creditors.
It is probably true that copper prices will rise sometime in the future. In the meantime, Freeport-McMoran has a huge debt and is experiencing huge quarterly losses. When (and, of course, if) Freeport can no longer make its payments on the debt, the creditors will take over the company.
Current shareholders, in such an eventuality, would not enjoy the fruits of the enormous copper deposits that Freeport has, the new owners (i.e. the former creditors who took over the assets) would.
Icahn might be a genius but other billionaire investors have made losing bets on risky investments.
P.S. A buy of fcx stock three days ago (and a sell at the open yesterday, Friday) would have been a great move; however, it might be too late now. At least now it is much riskier, since there was a dumping and an ominous dark candle created on Friday.