I am trying my best, but the market forces (Washington Post, Sept. 2014) are still controlling the "channel". I expect the "channel" to vaporize, with a FDA approval. So far, you have been right, and I have been wrong, but I think we are still in the1st inning of a 9 inning game.
This stock is a 100 carat diamond of high quality, that, at this moment in time, is covered with mud. Unless there is some awful hoax (don't think so), the full potential of Mayo's research and JNJ's partnership is about to be felt, with an FDA (washing off of the mud) breakthrough, fast track approval.
It is amazing to me that this stock is still in the low $3 range. The channel, as I see it, is $2.90 to $3.90 (hedge fund trading) with a wall at $3.40 (middle of range). No one seriously questions the honesty and results of Mayo's MF trials, or JNJ's financial strength, oncology expertise, and influence with the FDA. The PPS should be much higher, but, at this moment in time, it is not. That has to change very soon, with a release of the "coiled-spring".
That is exactly why it going to happen (for IMET) in the near future. Mayo Clinic has proclaimed IMET safe, effective and unique for MF. It also has great potential in other cancers alone or in combination.
I don't believe that Tefferi will bring us new news at this conference. All he has to do is reinforce the old news, and all the pervious positives; that is that Imetelstat is safe, unique and effective without any rivals in treating certain blood cancers, especially MF.
The question has always been: How long do you have to wait to have a Complete MF Remission for it to be considered a cure? That is why Mayo Clinic has hedged a bit, saying that Imetelstat (IMET) treatment is "Tantamount to a Cure" in some cases. IMET is a great medicine, with a Nobel Prize in its development. Some people believe that IMET has not been used for a long enough time to call it a cure (3 years, 5 years ???)
I don't believe Scarlett can effect these phenomena, that seem to be a function of controlled, channeled markets that are making money for the hedge funds and others. Imetelestat's continuing successes and JNJ's understanding of FDA politics, science and medicine should be enough to turn the trend-line very much in Geron's favor.
Tomorrow will be very interesting to see if Geron can pass the $3.40 barrier, which seems to be a target for some.
Geron seems to have caught-on with institutional investors. Geron is up significantly today, while the market is crashing. Perhaps the hedge funds have been overpowered.
We are at the "wall" again ($3.40) which is also the middle of the $2.90 to $3.90 channel. It is encouraging to see Geron moving up when the markets are under so much downward pressure. We will see is the PPS can close above $3.40.
143 Institutional Holders
71,304,940 Total Shares Held
1. 23,540,743 shares-- FMR LLC
2. 9,249,493 shares-- State Street
3. 5,663,201 shares-- Blackrock
4. 5,092,557 shares--Barclays
5. 4,848,611 shares--Vanguard
Blackm****---We again agree. However, Scarlett knew a good thing when he say it, and had the flexibility to change, and bring JNJ on as a partner, leaving much for the Geron investors. We have a chance for appreciation, plus JNJ's financial stability.
Summary: The "channel" currently appears to have boundaries slightly under $3 and slightly under $4 (about $2.90 to $3.90). We are now in the lower part, with a "wall" defined by some as $3.40 (also the middle of the range). Others have talked about a tug of war, with the "Giant" (JNJ/Janssen) and Mayo Clinic, on the side of "Science & Medicine" which, considering Imetestat's (IMET) good properties, will be the winning side.
To escape this "hedge-fund channel" Geron has to close over $4 with a trend line pointing to $5. We don't know exactly what the FDA is thinking, but the good properties of IMET (uniqueness, remissions, safety) point to breakthrough, fast track approval. JNJ/Janssen knows how to connect with the FDA (politically & medically) with many decades of experience doing so. Mayo Clinic keeps good medicine and updates coming (next: Jan. 31, 3rd Virginia Hematology Conference--Dr. Tefferi).
From the evidence that is available to us, fast track should happened around the time of ASH (Dec. 2014). It is clear that the Mayo's MF data is honest and remarkable. The FDA have been overly cautious.
Blackm*****----You are correct about, "the common conjecture", but as time pasted Scarlett realized that IMET performed much better (Mayo, MF) than anyone believed possible. As you said, Scarlett became very secretive (too much so from your point of view) and was working on a deal with JNJ (and perhaps others) for most of 2014. I believe that was the proper deal, since Geron can still appreciate, and JNJ can move IMET along plus work with the FDA for a realistic approval. All of this depends on IMET's continuing safety and successes, which, from my perspective, are very likely. Many believe that Janssen will eventually absorb Geron, which is basically the IMET francize.
The good news keeps coming. The FDA is listening. JNJ/Janssen understands the ins and outs of the process (politically & medically).
We have always agreed that, "--GERN needed to partner with a successful Big Pharm because GERN just doesn't have the requisite expertise or facilities to bring a drug to market". As far as I am concerned that was always Scarlett's primary job, that he completed with high marks (JNJ/Janssen Biotech). He also tied Dr, Tefferi. the primary researcher at Mayo, to Geron with a secondary position. Scarlett's most important job has been done, but he can still contribute by promoting IMET at conferences. JNJ, with the deep pockets and oncology expertise, will make the important decisions.
The "Geron Story" is worthy of a book, and perhaps a movie. So much has happened to this company that is not transparent: great science, a "cure" for cancer, immortal cells, telomeres, controlled markets, deep pocketed partners, etc.
The hedge funds are interested in making money, and form the bulk of the shorts that keep GERN's shares in a narrow channel. They are aided by sophisticated computer programs. GERN has been perfect in their world. IMO, IMET is too good, and JNJ is too well connected for this to go on much longer. This is truly a tug of war that is yet to be resolved, but, I believe, Science & Medicine will win.
I would like to see all of the MF data summarized, and an evaluation of "how-good" IMET appears to be (his evaluation), and his insight into to its potential applications based upon other studies that he knows about.