Oh, the transaction was 4/11, reported 4/14. So, 4 days after he buys the stock tanks some more... but still, it is more than Engel ever did...
I think my last post was filtered because I tried to put in the site...
Dodd bought 87000 shares at $1.15 on 4/14 for $100k.
First time in a long time that an inside has bought on the open market, and a non-trivial sum as well.
Doesn't mean much yet, but at least Dodd is putting his money where his mouth is...
How do you get to $6-$10 as fair value?
I think that would be great, but $6 is 5x the current market cap. There is really no good news in the near future for AEZS (earliest good news is November with a positive NDA review). Maybe Ozarelix results before then (but that is only a P2 with a partnered drug).
All I see is more dilution for the next 2 years... possibly the rate slows down if 130 can offset it a bit.
Then, if 108 succeeds, the stock could take off, but, that is a huge if!
What I would really like to hear from Dodd is how, exactly does he see a partnership with a revenue producing drug? It just doesn't make any sense to me.
AEZS could license a drug. But who is going to license them a drug for much less than they can earn on it? After all, it isn't like AEZS has a sales or marketing network built up. Sometimes small companies would license a drug to a big player to avoid the upfront cost, but why license to AEZS?
As far as buying... who is going to sell it anything that produces any significant revenues for the money AEZS has? It would, at the least, require massive dilution.
I have not heard a single realistic scenario for how Dodd's plan will work. Maybe I am missing something and he is a genius, but I just don't see it. AEZS has nothing to offer a company that has an established product.
The best I could see is a merger if a company is currently generating revenues and wants AEZS's pipeline for future growth because they feel perhaps one of their compounds has a future... that is the best I can come up with...
What are your thoughts, Palinc?
I appreciate that the Dodd CC seemed to have less BS than previous CCs. But, still, I can't get over the whole "my plan is to make money" element. It is obviously every business person's plan to make money, so the statement rings hollow without specifics to back it up (yes, he obviously cannot discuss ongoing talks, but what on earth can AEZS bring to the table when negotiating with potential partners).
Oh.. and I WILL give Dodd credit for firing Blake and Pelli... those guys were completely incompetent. Why on earth did it take 8x as long to file the NDA as originally stated?
I know people here like to rip on Turpin, but honestly, aside from his bonuses, I don't really see what he is doing wrong. He is diluting the #$%$ out of shareholders, but the reality is that AEZS has very little money and no revenues. Dilution is the only way they can stay in business. My only complaint agains Turpin is the slow bleed. Had he raised $100m right after perifosine failed, and the stock was trading at $5/share (pre rs), then they would have a ton more money now. They could have easily justified it saying that without perifosine they will be a development company much longer... instead, they have been raising a couple million here and there, and always at a lower valuation....
(The fact that all of management kept collecting insane bonuses despite poor performance is more a sad statement on the board...)
Ultimately, though, if the NDA is approved, they will need even more money to market it and that will mean further dilution. A huge, "home run" possibility is limited to 108 and that is still years away. The dilution will continue until then.
Perhaps Dodd can pull off a miracle and make a profitable partnership before then. If he can, then hats off to him, because AEZS has so little to offer a potential partner and it would be a true business success to pull that off. If he does it, I will be the first to congratulate, but I won't get excited until I see the evidence.
I don't really have much to say. The company has been saying the same thing for the last year, and there is no good way to verify most of it.
1. They are moving forward with the 108 P3 trial. It was "good" news that they have enrolled over a hundred patients. That is the number that I was expecting, but with this company, I have grown accustomed to not meeting expectations. That being said, the interim look won't be for another year, and even that won't give us much information (unless it is very negative and the study is stopped for futility.) With perifosine, Keryx gave monthly updates on enrollment numbers and we knew roughly the number of deaths at the interim analysis dates. That allowed for an easy curve fit that would give us survival benefit given the control's median OS. Obviously, that still allowed for different outcomes as control median OS could only be guessed. In the case of 108, we don't even be able to construct such a model since precise enrollment breakdown is unknown.
2. Dodd keeps saying they are making progress on talks towards partnering with a commercial drug. OK. For obvious reasons the talks are confidential so we don't really know their state. He has been saying the same thing for the last year, so it doesn't mean much to me until we see some actual verifiable progress.
3. 130 is moving along waiting for the NDA PFUFA date. Hopefully it will be approved, but the last CC didn't add any information along those lines. I am still skeptical about revenues from this project. I think it will ultimately be approved, but the fact that they tried and failed on four different occasions to partner this drug leads me to believe the profits won't be large. Also, the fact that they spent two years to file the NDA indicates that the company doesn't think this will be a huge boon or they would have moved quicker.
Ultimately, I think there is the potential for a run up in Sep/Oct as the NDA date approaches. Perhaps a spike if it is approved.
Yes.. that was my first thought. The last three offerings were preceded by a jump up in price on huge volume, only to announce an offering and crash back down.
There is no way it is due to FDA approval. The date for FDA response is November... they could move it up, but they don't just announce out of the blue.
The only short term positives I can see is Dodd's plan actually coming to fruition and AEZS buying a drug or company or merging with a company with a product on the market.
The other possible positive is someone taking a large position (ideally with the goal of a takeover due to seeing early, positive results in the 108 study, which is not a blind study, and has about 100 centers recruiting now... so definitely a possibility that some early indication of success or failure could start happening...)
Wait, so someone saying being down a penny isn't good makes them an idiot, but screaming "yehawww" when it is up a penny isn't stupid?
You do realize your posts makes this message board look like a pump and dump scam, right? They lack any substance, yet keep claiming amazing results are just up ahead...
Even back in the day when morons like ving ("hi hi" guy, who made ridiculously uninformed claims), were posting, they at least knew something about this company.
I certainly don't agree with all of dscobash's posts, but you have to give him credit... he may have a messed up obsession with a company he claims not to have a vested interest in, but at least he knows the facts (even if he choses to present a very one-sided view of them...)
In order to short sell, the would have to dump their long holdings first (ie, all the shares they got from the offering.. ~25m). It is possible, but that would pretty much mean every sale since the offering has been by the new investors, which seems unlikely... could a small percent be doing what you say? Sure... but so far it is only 1m shares short.
Between 1/15 and 1/31 the short interest increased by about 50%... Still not huge, but an interesting development. (The optimists can say that the shorts covering will cause buying pressure and the pessimists will say that there is little faith in the company so people are shorting it...) But the fact is that short interest has increased.
It isn't that AEZS made a decision. It is more the trend. The bladder cancer study was being run by Miami. Both the bladder cancer and the triple negative breast were halted due to slow recruitment... now the prostate study is being delayed a year for the second time, also presumably due to slow recruitment.
It is just a bit concerning that they cannot find recruits for any of these studies if 108 is so hopeful.
Granted, they were all small studies with minimal funding and only running in one or two centers... but still. At least endometrial is in over 80 centers already...
I agree that if endo fails it is over. But... if the prostate cancer study completed in November (ie 9 months from now) and had positive results, it would have been a good boost and perhaps allowed for dilution at higher prices.
They presented a paper late last year on the bladder cancer study and then halted it... I'm not sure I would attach much significance to them presenting papers/conferences. (I believe the paper was just a case study of Chambers, but it was odd to present years after the fact and not have any other data...)
82 sites are now open for the endometrial trial. If they have 80+ patients (averaging just one per site... I assume some that have been open for a while might have more, while some of the newer ones might not have any), then in a few months they should have a decent idea. It is open label...
If there isn't any serious upwards price movement by the end of the summer, I would get worried (of course, there could be upward movement in the summer in anticipation of the FDA's response to the NDA in November...)
LOL. The Jan 16 post was by me, and it was about the Phase 2 108 study for Triple Negative Breast Cancer and also the study on Bladder Cancer being terminated.
This is the P2 study for prostate cancer (the third, and only remaining one still running) for 108.
The date was updated on the site TODAY. If you don't care, that is fine, but at least read the posts you are referencing...
clinicaltrials dot gov was updated today. The 108 p2 trial for prostate cancer which used to have a preliminary data date of 11/2014 has been changed to 11/2015.
Another year of delay and slow enrollment...
I would say the bigger question is at what point does lack of stock price movement indicate a likely failure? The first interim look for the trial is planned in 2015. However, since it is open label, those running the study should have a good idea of how it is going before then (perhaps by the second half of this year). Obviously, any individual doctor treating only a couple of patients does not have a statistically significant pool to look at... but at some point, other companies/investors will figure it out. Then the price should start going up if it looks like a likely success... and failure for the price to go up could mean bad news.
It will be interesting to see if your prediction of low enrollment will be proven accurate at the next CC. As of January, they had opened up 71 locations for recruiting patients into their P3 trial. Obviously some have been recruiting longer than other (the news ones likely don't have any patients yet). But if they haven't recruited a significant number of patients yet it will be disappointing.
Your arguments against the market cap are a bid odd. Lots of low market cap biotechs with early stage drugs are valued at least as high if not higher... and none of them have had successful drugs, or they wouldn't be small market cap biotechs. I assume some hope has been generated by them finally filing the NDA for 130.
Obviously, if none of their drugs succeed (and the odds are against them as most drugs don't succeed), they will continue to dilute and burn off cash until they are either bankrupt or shares are worthless... but that is the gamble with every small biotech.
You can (and certainly have) argue that AEZS is a worse bet than others due to dishonest and overpaid management... but to say that you cannot understand that people speculate on small biotechs in hopes of a payoff seems a bit disingenuous.
I also don't buy your "they are shorting it like crazy, but covering right before the 15th and 31st so they don't have to report" argument. The short position is small, and aside from right after the last two financing deals, the volume hasn't been high. (I'm certainly not saying that some of the warrant holders aren't shorting, but it doesn't seem very large scale if that is the case...)
You say that AEZS has $40m in cash at the start of February, which I believe is approximately correct based on their historic burn rate and recent financing. However, they also have $11.4m in "Trade and other receivables and other current assets." You can say that that value should be discounted, but discounted to zero?
Also, you talk about the warrants (13.1m + 0.8* 11m = 21.9m)
Those are priced either at 1.25 (for the 8.8m of the second offering, and those from the first offering who bought shares in the second) and 1.2 (for those who did not buy shares in the second.)
Worst case pricing scenario is if no one from the first offering bought any shares in the second. 8.8m*$1.25 + 13.1m * $ 1.2 = $26.7m
So, if the warrants get exercised, the company would receive an additional $26.7m, which would finance it for another 10 months. If they do not get exercised, they are a non-factor. The theory you have they they are used as a hedge to short doesn't make sense. There are 21.9m warrants, yet the short interest is just over 2m shares (only up about 1m since the offerings).
I agree the company has loads of problems. They are burning cash and will need more money before any of their drugs can possibly make it to market, and they don't have many options. That being said, there is no need to try to make it sound worse than it is...
I think the surprising thing is the huge volume over the last few weeks. Despite multiple offerings, the price has held above $1.
The quarter ending in December is the end of their fiscal year. For the end of the year report they have more time to file. They have historically waited until about the third week of March to report. (No date has been announced, but I would expect a similar timeframe.)