Microcapman, I agree. And as I have said previously, there will be pressure on doctors to CUT THE COST OF TREATMENT. Office administered injections are a gravy train for doctors. At some point, both private insurance and our overly generous government medical system will adopt the European model which pays for OUTCOMES, not procedures. as that change takes place, should Squalamine prove efficacious, it will provide a similar outcome at a far lesser cost and will become the first line choice because of LOW COST TO THE PAYOR! Certainly there will be a segment of the population for whom it is not the right choice, but I agree with you, it will be a minority of patients.
I would suggest they were being conservative in their expectations of squalamine efficacy, both immediate and long term. It would have been overly optimistic to think subjects would not ever need an injection. Thus they would get a baseline of the patients Lucentis requirements and as the trial progressed they hoped the interval would be extended as the level of Squalamine built up in the back of the eye. Just my guess.
Also, expounding on what Stuart said, I'm not sure how many people you would get to sign up for the trial if there was the potential that your wet AMD was not going to improve. With this design, it's guarenteed by being given Lucentis at the outset.
If the PhII trial goes as well as Dr. K's comments suggest, it will be interesting how they design the PhIII trial.
Again, I 'm no technician, but if OPHT breaks the 1st day opening price of $23, that wouldn't bode well for those who got in on the IPO or bought the first day. I haven't dug into any lock up expirations, but if they are approacing that could also be a factor.
It seems to me if this was an OHRP effect we would see some percentage of the money coming out of OHPT rolling into OHRP and that is clearly not the case.
Again, I'm not aware of any news catalysts due for 18 months or more that could move OPHT. You've got a percentage of your IPO buyers who are hedge fund, etc that only have to hold for 30 days to avoid getting black listed. I think this is just a rotation from short term momo buyers to mutual funds and institutions who actually have an idea what anti-PDGF means.
Livermore & others, when should we expect full enrollment in the PhII trial?
With enrollment starting in late Sept 2012 and 50%, 60 patients, being reached in end of June 2013, should we just assume it will take another 9 months, i.e. end of March 2014? You would think enrollment would accelerate due to increased doctor interest and streamlined enrollment process.
Per the original press release announcing the trial, they have 21 participating sites. That works out to only one patient every three months per site. Seems quite slow. Granted, you need to have a treatment naive patient walk into your office who meets all other criteria, but still, seems slow.
I also noticed that they originally expected interim data by end of 2013 which implies enrollment of first 60 patients was three months longer than planned.
Maybe we are patient constrained, but it sure would be nice to see a full enrollment press release some time in January or earlier.
At the risk of stepping on StuartCreekFarms toes, (I'm not one tenth as qualified), let me try to counterbalance Livermore to give you perspective. Reading Stuarts old posts along with Livermores is a must for any investor here.
There is SIGNIFICANT skepticism in the ophthamology community as to whether an eye drop can get adequate drug to the back of the eye to treat wet AMD. OHRP has performed tests on Dutch belted rabbits that indicated it did, see their July, 10, 2012 press release. As similar as rabbit & human eyes may be, smart people say it in no way guarentees success in human eyes.
Another risk is overall efficacy of Squalamine at treating eye diseases, again history indicates it was effective via IV, but trials were abandoned when Avastin/Lucentis came along. I think Stuart is skeptical as to overall efficacy.
Now we have the wild card of Patient Bob at Florida Eye Docs. Did Squalamine eliminate his need for injections? That could be inferred from information now removed from the Eye Docs web site, but it IS NOT vetted scientific data.
The circuitous path by which OHRP and squalamine got to this point is quite fascinating and adds to the intrigue. OHRP did a reverse merger with a pink sheet insurance company and bought Squalamine for $200K when Genaera went bankupt back around 2009. That fact alone explains why this story is a relative unknown and why there are so many skeptics.
As always, do your own due diligence. I certainly have a position in OHRP, but until I see the PhII FDA trial data next year, I won't be risking any amount that I don't mind losing entirely.
Jerry, can you elaborate specifically why you think Dr. T , Dr. Hirschman, and the major holders would sell at $1B? Easy to make such a statement, tougher to provide specifics.
Shieifer, Gilman and Shooter at REGN didn't sell, REGN now worth $28B. Heck, it's the dream of every Biotech startup CEO to run a major biotech, or at least be Scientific Officer Emeritus. Assuming efficacy and approval, with the massive cash generation & stock price appreciation they'll have from squalamine, Dr's T & Hirschman can go out and buy a half dozen start ups to build a pipeline without having to go begging to a single investment bank.
Beavertail, why do you act like such a jerk? I've scrolled through your last 20 posts on Yahoo and pretty much every one of them has been a smart alec remark. Why?
Do you dislike yourself that much? Do you behave like that in person?
This is a really good stock board. Try working with people, adding something to the conversation other than negative sarcasm.
Being a decent person can be gratifying. Sure it makes you vulnerable, but so what.
If nothing else, I know what gets their juices flowing.
We're now flirting with an 8 handle on the price. I am as far from a technical trader as you get, but are we looking to break out of a 'cup & handle' formation? I think William O'Neil of Investors Business Daily fame calls that the most bullish chart formation there is. It looks like we'll hit resistance at the old 52wk high of $8.75. At that point OHRP will start hitting the screens of lots of technical and techno/fundamental traders. If it gets through $9 there is no resistance until the old highs around $16 in 2004 after that, the sky ($1200?) is the limit.
Do I sound authoritative? Ha Ha. I HATE TECHNICAL CHART TRADING!
Patient Bob just adds intrigue to the story for me.
It doesn't necessarily mean they 'know' it's efficacious, correct? Unless of course Dr. Katz somehow found out which arm of the trial Bob was in. And even if he did, and as highly improbable as it is, Bob's improvement could be unrelated to his treatment.
What I'm getting at is that for Dr. Katz to make the statements he did as FACT rather than his own personal opinion, he would have had to have know which trial arm Bob was in. And THAT would be a serious tainting of the FDA trial. And that would create a huge problem for OHRP, Right?
It seems to me Dr. Katz was inferring something and with all of the interest it was getting and the potential for it to be interpreted incorrectly, they decided that he should keep his personal conclusions to himself.
I was grinning ear to ear when I got my email alert about an hour ago that there was a new article about OHRP on the SeekingAlpha web site. It was posted by some guy named Brian L. Wilson. Could that be Livermore10's true identity????
Sadly, when I read the title of the article and it didn't include a $1200 price target (or something to that effect) it was pretty clear it wasn't Livermore.
The article is a yawner if you arleady know the OHRP story, pretty much a rehash of the last three articles about OHRP on SA. No mention of Dr. Katz, no mention of Patient Bob.
Not sure if Brian L. Wilson reads or posts on this board, but if he does, he isn't 'getting' the whole story of OHRP or what our now removed little tidbit of information could mean.
Thx Stuart. Your point of view makes sense based on your skepticism of efficacy and experience with glaucoma drop history.
From more of a trading point of view, one thing Ive learned trading 'concept' stocks is that if this story picks up traction in the popular financial press/forums our supposed efficient market can run the stock price to many multiples of any fair valuation by using some of the optimistic valuations made by Livermore. Stock price and reality can diverge for a long time (can you say Amazon?). Eventually they merge.
None of us knows how this is going to play out in the stock market or medical world, but I appreciate everyone here sharing info so we can all make better investing decisions.
SRPT down $10 premarket.
I've previously commented on SRPT here. Essentially they have been lobbying the FDA to approve Eteplirsen for Duchenne muscular dystrphy based on a tiny nine subject PhII trial that only showed statistical significance IF you stripped out two non responding outliers.
This morning my faith in the FDA is confirmed. As much as SRPT management tried to massage the data and lobby the FDA by creating a groundswell from families of DMD suffers, the FDA will require a full placebo controlled PhIII trial.
What grinds me about SRPT managment is their refusal to agressively pursue a parallel PhIII trial path while pursuing their questionable attempt for early approval. I think they have really deceived DMD patients/families.
If SRPT management weren't such jerkwadds, they could already have the PhIII trial enrolling patients. With their arrogant attitude it's now still months away. Sad day for DMD suffers.
I was away from the screens when the news hit. Wasn't able to get a short trade off at a good price. SRPT dropped another $3 as I write. Not sure where it will settle with need for a 2 year trial. Don't get me wrong, I and many think Eteplirsen probably has efficacy, but geez, you need to have some solid data to back it up!
Imagine that, the FDA wants statistical proof that eteplirsen works!
Sentiment: Strong Sell
Let us know if Bob is buying OHRP stock, THAT would be a bullish sign. If you are serious that you might call Bob, he may know other patients in the trial. It would also be interesting to get his personal viewpoint on drops versus a poke in the eye.
Its going to take something pretty bad to push this stock down and hold it down at this point.
p.s. Watching time/sales on OHRP. Somebody just gobbled up a few shares.
Is your skepticism on Squalamine's mass appeal based in experience or just gut feel? I'm struggling to see the real downside (Squalamine stains on their shirts?). Maybe Livermore can speak to the risks of OVER administration of Squalamine, if that an issue? If over administration isn't a big deal, then then couldn't docs over prescribe to ensure optimal levels were maintained if a few drops were missed?
I may have already mentioned that having watched my mother go for periodic IV infusions for multiple myeloma, it was a real joy for her and my brother who drove her to appointments when she was switched to Thalomid pills that she could take at home. They dreaded the thought of going to the infusion center (not much different than an injection center I would presume). My mother was diligent in taking her meds, even at 84 she did it herself. Old people like routines.
If a patient is capable of living on their own, chances are they are capable of doing a decent job of giving themselves drops. If not, whomever is their caregiver can administer. And as I think I have also mentioned, doctors are under pressure from the government AND insurance companies to CUT COSTS. There will be pressure for Squalamine drops on multiple fronts.
I know I'm a lay person in this regard, but personal experience tells me patients are going to want this.
I just saw the posting that Bob was gone. I had left the Bob story web page open over the weekend. I just saved a copy of it.
Other than to give me comfort that I wasn't hallucinating from smoking crack after one of my drunken stupors (a la Rob Ford, Mayor of Toronto) I'm not sure what specific value it is.
If someone has a legitimate use for the HTML file I could provide it. Maybe someone wants to hunt Bob down and see if he's real. Heck they could actually keep in touch with him and see if he has needed any injections. Now THAT would be real gumshoe work!
I only followed AVII loosely and because they had to exclude outlier patients to show statistical significance I didn't buy any ( I actually thought about shorting, that would have hurt). People familiar with Duchenne muscular dystrophy will tell you it was legit to toss the ouliers. They were the smart ones.
I could see OHRP following a similar path unless of course the story gets picked up and spreads.
I think there is more low risk money to be made under the unknown story versus OHRP getting some attention in the near term.
Of course I'm biased. I only have a modest position in OHRP and I set in front of these screens all day. I have news alerts set for OHRP and I can own every cheap share of OHRP selling in the premarket within a few seconds (unless I'm in the kitchen getting a coffee). I'm guessing most of you guys aren't in my position.
If the story remains undiscovered, I still think the stock price will give ample opportunity to allow all of us working together on this board the chance to grab a potential 20 bagger with very low downside risk.
All that said, I won't be sharing Livermore's new information on any other forums. People who do their homework will figure things out.
Each of us has our own strategy. If you guys really want this story to get some traction prior to interim data, you just need to have Livermore write a good quality article for Seeking Alpha and title it 'The Chances of OHRP being a 20 Bagger Just Got a Whole Lot Better!' Guys on SeekingAlpha lap that kind of stuff up. Especially when you post links to the eyedocs web site.
I bid good investing to all of you!
I'm curious as to the strategy of the various people who post regularly here.
It sounds as if you guys want the story of OHRP and Squalamine to gain wide spread attention at this point in an effort to see the price go up ahead of interim results. Do you guys have full positions or will you add on the way up as data release approaches?
Historically I would prefer the story remain an unknown on Wall St until the data comes out. I've seen too many hyped up biotechs get bid up to high levels ahead of data, then even if news is good the stock valuation is so high your probability of buying more stock and catching a 20 bagger is quite low.
Under my scenario the stock may rise modestly, but not outrageously ahead of data. If the data is truly exceptional I'll back up the truck (might even rent a second truck) with OHRP stock at what I think will still be a quite low valuation and a real chance of catching a 20 bagger.
I believe it will take a day or even a week for Wall St to grasp the significance of Squalamines potential. It takes some time for analysts, money managers, finanacial reporters, individual investors, and overbearing loud mouths (Jim Cramer) to see and get up to speed on this kind of story to the point where they are willing to put money into it.
A good example is Serepta, SRPT (old AVII Biopharma) and their drug eteplirsen for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. AVII had been around forever (kind of like Squalamine) everyone had forgotten about the company, only diehards and DMD sufferers cared. AVII had about a $100MM market cap and was at $3.50 when news of efficacy was announced premarket. People who knew what it meant were buying all morning in the premarket at less than $5. It opened a little above $7 and you could have bought the stock for less than $9 for a week or more. A month later the stock was $15, two months later it was $40. If-when they get FDA approval it will probably hit $100.
To be continued.......
When was the last time you were at their web site? Any idea how recently it was updated? This is why I LOVE small caps that are unfollowed or underfollowed by analysts. Few analysts do the gumshoe work you are doing. They wait for it to be handed to them.
Back in the 1990's I used to get great information by calling CFO's of small/micro caps, they loved to tell their story and no analysts were call ing them. Reg-FD buried that gold mine.
For what its worth, I recently stumbled accross an old Mail Bag response by thestreet's Adam Feurerstein when he was asked about OHRP/Squalamine back in 2011. He completely dismissed squalamine out of hand. Said there was virtually no chance of 'resurrection'. The beauty of his response was that it was obvious he hadn't done 5% of the research you have done. Just based on my readings of your posts, I could have destroyed his arguments.
I think it's great that Feurerstein is negative on Squalamine and that most analysts don't know it exists. As I've said before, if/when the story of Squalamines potential gets widespread attention, this stock will head much higher and will eliminate any chance to buy it cheap on good PhII news (which is how I prefer to play it).
Your find is just one of many instances I've seen that refute any realistic belief in the efficient market theory.
Can that be real? If it is Livermore, that is one heck of a find. Are they part of the OHRP sponsored FDA trial? From the description it sounds like it is. Or is this their own trial? Almost seems a violation of FDA trial protocol to be commenting in that way.
From the gist of that section of the eyedocs web site, it sounds like they are advertising for trial participants, in which case there is always the potential for them to embellish a bit.
And if results are that amazing, why aren't they driving the stock price up with OHRP buying? I'm just trying to play devil's advocate here to make sure we think through all the potenial angles of such a web site posting.
Regardless, a great find. Just grabbed a few more shares.
Thanks for the leg work, it is much appreciated!