So much pumping going on in the IV board its scary. I think ZIOP has a great story, but one begins to wonder why so many posters on the IV board need to pump so hard. When I first began to read the IV thread I was impressed, but their lead pied piper tries too hard and I think it hurts the stock because it creates false expectations. This person has quite a following. I hope they straighten out because there is some really good information that can be gleaned off their ZIOP board. I know they monitor this board so I hope they take my advice.
How does it make it easier to attract a buyer when there is no difference whether Intrexon votes the shares, or individual investors? A shareholder is a shareholder.
Only if you are here for short term gains and losses, it does not matter what PPS does on a daily basis. ZIOP is well funded into 2017 even without milestone payments, so without the need for a stock offering give your fingers a rest. Your posts serve no purpose.
For a development stage biotech company such as ZIOP, my concerns are drug trials - number, phases and progression, cash and the ability to raise more and the management team and its strategic plan (including partnering).
I am aware that in Q2, ZIOP will be collecting $57.5 million of cash (see footnote 6 of ZIOP 10Q - Q1 2015 for details) and will push total cash to approximately $187 million. This will fund operations through Q2 2017.
I am not aware of the $17.8 million of revenue, nor am I concerned since this number is a function of deferred revenue, collaboration revenue, etc. While following the rules of revenue recognition for a biotech is interesting, it is not as interesting to me as cash which is the lifeblood of a development stage biotech such as ZIOP.
RJ Kirk has set the stage for a blockbuster company through its deals with XON, MDA, NCI and Merck Sereno plus the replacing of the CEO with Cooper. Of course, we will have to see how this plays out over the next several YEARS, but I have no concern over the revenue drop. Follow the money!
Good luck to you.
With all do respect, you need to do your own due diligence, or else your investing is nothing more than a crap shoot. I am not trying to be mean, but you have to do some work on your own.
ZIOP is a development stage biotech company and its revenue currently is not due to sale of product, but rather collaboration agreements, licensing, milestone payments, etc so you cannot expect a regular pattern. I suggest that you concentrate on drug trials instead. RJ is Randal J. Kirk.
I hope this helps.
Don't get me wrong, I like the strategy for ZIOP with XON, Merck Sereno, MDA and bringing in Cooper as CEO, but he told you the purpose of the dividend. He said that with the financial arrangement with ZIOP there was little reason to hold onto the ZIOP shares compared to the other ECC's. It is my opinion distributing the 17 million shares does not make it easier for a suitor to buy ZIOP and certainly makes no sense for XON to buy ZIOP at a later date at a higher share price and re-buy the already owned 17 million shares. He is a very good strategist, but he is also a showman and also does not want to rule anything out. I think you can be pro-Kirk, but not be just a follower who cannot think for himself. He is an investor, too. Don't kid yourself.
XON owns 17,830,305 ZIOP shares and there is 108,522,561 shares of XON shares at March 31, 2015, so for every XON share a shareholder would receive .16430044 of a ZIOP share, or for every 6.1 XON shares a shareholder would receive approximately 1 ZIOP share. Of course, the number of XON shares could change, so these numbers are all estimates.
This is my opinion based upon XON Q1 earnings call:
The XON distribution of its ZIOP shares to its shareholders is not a strategic move to benefit XON the company, but instead it's shareholder as a personal tax strategy and in particular its largest shareholder - RJ.
Certainly RJ believes that ZIOP shares in the future will be worth much more than today and therefore dividending the shares will result in being taxed at the personal capital gains rates, instead of the corporate rate if and when a buyout occurs. It is my opinion this action does not mean a buyout is imminent. One only has to look at history to see that a willing company to sell its investment has not impeded a buyout from another. Therefore, I do not buy the rationale that this will make ZIOP more attractive to a suitor. The fact that XON had consultants come to this conclusion does not impress me when I know consultants feel our their client and arrive at conclusions that are amiable to the client.
If you do not agree that's your right and does not mean you do not know about investing, as some posters post.
Also, Cooper has a double incentive to ensure that ZIOP is successful: as CEO of ZIOP and his pre-existing agreement below (from ZIOP's Proxy Statement):
MD Anderson had a pre-existing policy of splitting the net proceeds of certain transactions involving the transfer of intellectual property of MD Anderson with the creators of such intellectual property. In accordance with such policy, if MD Anderson sells all or any portion of the License Shares or the Incentive Shares, a portion of the proceeds of such sale will be first used to pay third party contractual commitments and expenses of MD Anderson, and the remainder of such proceeds shall be allocated 50% to MD Anderson and 50% to the creators of the intellectual property underlying the MD Anderson License, which we refer to as the Creators, one of whom is Dr. Cooper. Pursuant to a memorandum among MD Anderson and the Creators dated March 13, 2015, Dr. Cooper is entitled to approximately 64.8% of such aggregate proceeds allocated to the Creators. The approximate dollar value of this interest depends on a number of factors outside of Dr. Cooper’s control and is not known at this time. Pursuant to an Investment Management Services Agreement with MD Anderson, the University of Texas Investment Management Co., or UTIMCO, an institutional investment advisor, holds the License Shares and the Incentive Shares on behalf of MD Anderson and is authorized to exercise investment discretion and voting power with respect to such shares on behalf of MD Anderson. Accordingly, Dr. Cooper has no voting power, investment power or control over if or when the License Shares or the Incentive Shares will be sold, if ever, or the timing of the receipt of the proceeds, if any, from the sale of such shares.
Personally, I am skeptical when I read posters telling others to buy with both fists, buy on the dips and Kirk told you everything you need to know. I am a buyer of Kirk invested companies, but I am smart enough to know that not all negotiations result in agreements anyway. I also think that the XON dividend of the ZIOP shares does not signal a sale of ZIOP, but rather a strategy to lower tax liabilities for XON shareholders of which Kirk is the largest one. XON did not need the ZIOP shares to have an influence on the company because of all the agreements in place. Therefore, it made perfect sense to put the shares in the hands of XON shareholders (i.e. Kirk), since the chances of higher PPS of ZIOP are great due to its agreements with MDA and Merck Sereno, and, of course, XON. If and when ZIOP is sold, individual shareholders will pay at the capital gains rate, instead of XON paying at a corporate tax rate. Kirk's own rationale stated on XON Q1 CC.
I am invested in ZIOP for the long term due to the validation of the ZIOP and XON technologies by MDA and Merck Sereno. Moreover, the deal with Merck Sereno ensures no need for future share dilution. Good luck to all the long term investors willing to wait till ZIOP is a 100+ PPS company.
Thanks! It's everyone's hope on this board. Not much of a stretch.
This is one of the times where being wrong is a blessing. However, you're not far off, so kudos to you. We should hopefully continue to see PPS appreciation. We've been waiting a long time for meaningful appreciation and it's finally coming to fruition.
It should not be long before we are in the $20 neighborhood. GLTA!
Higher than any estimate on this board that I recall. The good news is management's dividend distributions are typically conservative, so they do not have to pullback in the future. GLTA!
Overall survival will be presented at the time of the meeting.
I am taking that literally and hope that is not just through December 2014. Am I expecting too much?
HALO is expecting to present follow up 202 data at ASCO.We will know today. Good luck to all longs!
Thank you. Our next question comes from Arlinda Lee from MLV.
Arlinda Lee - MLV & Company
Hi, Guys. Thanks for taking my question. Could you may be provide an update on what the follow-up is for the 202 addition that are still on trail from the data that you presented in January. And then separate on after the immuno-oncology part, can you maybe help us understand what kind of data have you seen in the past, and why are you encouraging about this particular combination of the first starting point. Thank you.
Helen Torley - President, Chief Executive Officer and member of the Board of Directors
I’m going to ask Athena to address the question on 202 follow-up.
Athena Countouriotis - Senior Vice President & Chief Medical Officer
Arlinda Lee - MLV & Company
Athena Countouriotis - Senior Vice President & Chief Medical Officer
So as you may remember in January in our Analyst Day presentation for – we had two different data cuts as reminder, the April data cut, predominantly driving the overall response rate, which was a median three month, a follow-up and the progression free survival announces that was a data card of December of last year with approximately a seven month follow-up. We can’t provide more guidance obviously the ASCO abstracts will come live on Wednesday and then will more details to follow.
I do not agree with your conclusion. I think management would welcome a partner to any of their programs. If they had more cash, management could be more aggressive with launching trials. They always seem to be in survival mode. The last stock offering was pathetic and embarrassing.