Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Novadaq Technologies Inc. Message Board

sethbru2 11 posts  |  Last Activity: Apr 7, 2016 2:26 AM Member since: Feb 16, 2008
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    How to interpret this

    by suejenseth Mar 29, 2016 12:54 PM
    sethbru2 sethbru2 Apr 7, 2016 2:26 AM Flag

    Looks like some of those "dots" I mentioned a week ago (Dr. Pardoll etc.) became connected today. Many more such dots to be connected in the future.

  • Reply to

    How to interpret this

    by suejenseth Mar 29, 2016 12:54 PM
    sethbru2 sethbru2 Mar 30, 2016 3:39 AM Flag

    With keywords familiar to CGEN investors like "collaboration","novel", and "Drew Pardoll" (who said CGEN has the best immunoncology pipeline in the industry), how is the investment community failing to connect the dots here?

    BTW, I watched "The Big Short" last night. We're just early, not wrong.

  • Reply to

    CGEN and Merck Germany -toxicity markers

    by johnnador Mar 10, 2016 8:31 AM
    sethbru2 sethbru2 Mar 11, 2016 11:30 PM Flag

    "most" could also be 99%. You sure are a skeptic.

  • Reply to

    Discovery platforms

    by bauersteven12 Feb 5, 2016 6:40 PM
    sethbru2 sethbru2 Feb 9, 2016 1:24 AM Flag

    I see FPRX as similar in many ways other than Market Cap. For example, similar amounts of immune checkpoint discoveries, similar advisory board, etc.. But, the Market places much more value on FPRX vs. CGEN. I hope CGEN will close the gap over the next year ("short-term"). Long-term, I look at PCYC as a model to strive for.

  • Reply to

    Discovery platforms

    by bauersteven12 Feb 5, 2016 6:40 PM
    sethbru2 sethbru2 Feb 6, 2016 4:26 AM Flag

    Another perspective is that the market values FPRX at 4 times the market cap as CGEN despite them being similar. So, CGEN is relatively undervalued.

  • Reply to

    Value Drivers!!!

    by gilliesman2002 Jan 27, 2016 4:18 PM
    sethbru2 sethbru2 Jan 28, 2016 12:58 AM Flag

    Correction: He said "in the short-term" rather than "soon".

  • Reply to

    Value Drivers!!!

    by gilliesman2002 Jan 27, 2016 4:18 PM
    sethbru2 sethbru2 Jan 27, 2016 11:31 PM Flag

    Another quote from Martin from a recent CC hints at how close they are to a collaboration:

    "However, it is important to note that, in general, reaching agreement on the basic terms and conditions insofar as they relate to this specific monoclonal antibody product or products of primary current interest to our potential partners, has not been a problem and therefore we are confident that these additional complexities will prove to only be a timing issue"

  • Reply to

    Value Drivers!!!

    by gilliesman2002 Jan 27, 2016 4:18 PM
    sethbru2 sethbru2 Jan 27, 2016 11:25 PM Flag

    A more recent quote from Martin at the last CC:

    "I’d like to comment, Anat. The statement was made that market is really frustrated by the lack of progress or achievements or whatever. I don’t recall exactly the wording that we chose, but the frustration since the Bayer agreement was signed. First, I understand the frustration. The frustration is because we haven’t announced any collaboration since that time.

    If you look at the approximate two years since we signed the Bayer agreement, I would make the following statements. One, these two years have by far been the most significant years in the history of the company with respect to the achievements that we’ve made on the research side, on the development side, on almost any aspects of the science or the pipeline.

    These two years, we have been absolutely phenomenal. Internally, we understand that that’s doesn’t help. It doesn’t deal with the frustration because we just talk about it in generalities. The other comments that I will make is that with respect to collaborations in general, I don’t mean just the signing.

    I know that your collaboration strategy involves having people who know what they are doing in business development, involves having packages of material ready to be reviewed. It involves having good validation, information, et cetera. It involves a relationship with multiple companies in the industry and a respect of those companies -- the company’s potential collaborators has to build a respect and confidence in your capabilities, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

    Therefore, I would make a similar statement with respect to our collaboration activity. I would say that in the last two years, we have done more with respect to moving forward our collaboration activity than we did probably in all of the years up until that -- I wouldn’t say probably. We’ve done more since the Bayer agreement with respect to moving forward our collaboration activity than we did in the entire history of the company

  • Reply to

    Value Drivers!!!

    by gilliesman2002 Jan 27, 2016 4:18 PM
    sethbru2 sethbru2 Jan 27, 2016 11:00 PM Flag

    Martin said very clearly 8 months ago that the investing community would "soon" see the type of news it has been waiting for. I took "soon" to be within 6-9 months, so he really needs to deliver on that promise "very soon".

  • Reply to

    Raging Capital are buying shares

    by cohen00949 Dec 28, 2015 9:04 AM
    sethbru2 sethbru2 Dec 30, 2015 12:53 AM Flag

    If Raging Capital (RC) supports the merger, it will likely pass this time around since others (i.e. Gabelli fund) will also change to a YES vote to profit from the arb spread now that it is apparent there is no other interested buyer. RC may be buying more shares, not for votes (too late), but to profit from the arb spread and offset the loss they will take on those Puts. BTW, that was an amazing maneuver on the part of MLNX to push out the re-vote past RC's options expiration - it boxed in RC and punished them for their opposition as RC is likely losing $$ on those Put options.

  • Reply to

    Raging Capital is SHORT!

    by investmentguru2001 Oct 29, 2015 5:47 PM
    sethbru2 sethbru2 Oct 30, 2015 2:11 AM Flag

    You are mistaken. Raging Capital has purchased put options as a hedge against their huge long position. They have invested 50 times as much capital in their long position compared to the put options. If the stock tanks, their losses will be mostly offset, but they will certainly not profit.

NVDQ
11.68-0.81(-6.49%)Apr 28 4:00 PMEDT