That is how I am reading it. If true, pretty impressive! Anybody following this company and have a feel for its market potential and competition?
Summary & Conclusion: Athersys' Phase 2 on ulcerative colitis (750 million cells) appears similarly powered on a cell dosage basis to the Phase 2 study by Osiris on Crohn's disease (175 M to 700 M cells). Osiris' Ph 2 showed statistically significant efficacy, while Athersys' study did not. This suggests to me 1) MultiStem is not as powerful as Prochymal or 2) effective treatment of ulcerative colitis with stem cells may be different than the effective treatment of Crohn's disease, or 3) the Phase 2 of Osiris may be so small (9 patients) and insufficient (e.g. no placebo) to not be a reliable indication for effectiveness. I am hopeful, but not optimistic, Athersys' 16-week data & other data not yet reported will show at least some signs of efficacy. At 4 weeks, the proportion of responders on MultiStem was significantly greater than placebo but the benefit was offset by declines in a minority of MultiStem-treated patients such that overall benefit at all time points measured was not significant. If there is at least some show of effectiveness in Phase 2, Pfizer might do another Phase 2 or a 3 using a higher dosage.
Osiris' Phase 2 study on Crohn's disease (9 patients, placebo- no) used one dose (8 million cells/kg or 2 M cells /kg) of Prochymal on day 1 and another dose in 1 week. All patients showed improvement at week 4, the study's major efficacy endpoint. Effectiveness appeared dosage strength related. Assuming an average body weight of 190 lbs, a high dose of Prochymal comprised about 700 million cells and a low dose 175 million cells. Osiris' Phase 3, Part 1 (Protocol 603), study on Crohn's disease (270 patients, placebo- yes) used a high dose of 1,200 million cells (two initial 400 M cell injections followed by two 200 M cell injections within 2 weeks) and a low dose of 600 million cells (two initial 200 M cell injections followed by two 100 M cell injections within 2 weeks). Results of Phase 3 expected by the end of the year.
Athersys' Phase 2, Cohort 3, study on ulcerative colitis (88 patients, placebo- yes) used one dose of Mulitstem on day 1 and another dose in 8 weeks. Patients getting MultiStem did not show any significant clinical remission or response in comparison to the placebo group at 4 and 8 weeks. The study's primary efficacy endpoint was at 4 & 8 weeks. Of the 88 patients, 48 patients received a high dosage of 750 million cells (1st qtr CC, 48 min) & 40 patients received a placebo. Prior to dosing of the 88 patients in Cohort 3, 5 patients in Cohort 1 (an initial small & safety portion of Phase 3 & not powered for efficacy) received a low dose (# of MultiStem cells not known) on day 1, 1 week, and 2 weeks. Cohort 1, 2, and any sixteen-week data of Phase 2 have not yet been reported.
Does anyone know the number of stem cells in each dosage used by Osiris and ATHX in their Phase 2 studies? That might be just as relevant as frequency of dosages.
I looked at the latest 10k and am arriving at a similar conclusion. Appreciate you pointing out the large future dilution that will eventually take place.
Yeah, it does not look so good anymore. I was considering buying some common, but this deal was made in heaven for the preferred holders as they can buy about 22 million common at about $.41/sh. We can buy and then next day lose 66% of share price if decide to covert.
I think the positive SA article on LPR was generally well written and researched (at least much better than what I could likely produce) and the author is probably long. However, the comments made by SA readers suggesting a good possibility the company's equity could be wiped out because of its financial problems and a depressed market for its oil/gas assets also seemed valid. I was disappointed the author did not respond to any of the comments as it would have been interesting to hear his view. After reading the article and comments , I decided to bail and take a significant loss as I felt the probability of a total loss of its current equity might be 50%. LPR may work through its difficulties and double, triple, or more in the future, but my perceived risk of a total loss of its equity was greater than what I wanted to take. I may redirect its sales proceeds into its debt, as its assets no doubt have substantial value overt the debt if they are not sold at fire sale prices. Good luck to longs.
My buys with this company are around $1.00/sh & $.50/sh. One reason I bought was because several large hedge funds (Owl Creek Asset, Corvex, etc.) were major holders and appeared to have some influence in selecting the board members. The current capitalization of LPR ($28 M) should be almost pennies to them. I would have thought they would have been actively buying at and below $1/sh and their action would help stabilize the price. It has not happened. Have they bailed? Any thoughts? Hoping for positive news, but not very optimistic.
That sounds too good to be true. I am long, but have been suckered before. They do, however, have some impressive people in their company. Time will tell.
Yes, it is bad!! Management and the office market rebound have been much worse than I imagined. I have been long for several years, but sold everything in CWH this morning Mgt's current common share offering is extremely diluting and harmful to shareholders. It goes against all their recent statements and is unnecessary. Their present and some of their past actions should be criminal, but probably are not due to safe harbor statements. Better opportunities are out there and time for me to move on.
Thanks for the analysis. It has been helpful. I like TCPC's shareholder friendly stances such as waiving its incentive fees for one year. Their current $.35/qtr ($1.40/yr) dividend is covered by their projected NII ($1.56) for 2013. I am somewhat concerned they may have trouble maintaining or increasing their current dividend if they have to start borrowing at a more typical market rate. From their 3rd qtr 10-Q, it appears they are borrowing $182 +/- Million at about 1.5% (Libor + .44% to .85%) . $48M is on a revolver that matures in July 2014 and $134M on a special Preferred Equity Fund that matures in July 2016. If they presently had to borrow at a more typical market rate, say 5.5%; their interest expense would increase by about $.34/sh ($7.28 M/21.5 M sh) and their dividend would not be covered. That said, I guess their interest rate is likely to stay lower than average for several years and there are numerous ways they could increase NII. I am contemplating taking a small position.
SAR reported for their 3rd Qtr. ending Nov. 2012 a NII (Net Investment Income) of $.63/sh , a debt to equity ratio of about 18%, and a NAV of $21.75/sh (Total-$102.9 M). For December they made an additional $29 M of net loans to their portfolio companies and increased their debt/equity ratio to about 45%. They can borrow $30 M +/- more from SBA without putting in more capital and are seeing attractive investment opportunities and improving credit quality. About 20% of their assets are in a CDO that is performing fine. Yahoo reports inside ownership of 42%.
The company is little covered by analysts. The only analyst estimate I could find showed $1.90/sh for its year ending Feb 2013. At current prices, this would equate to a Price/NII of 8.2 ($15.50/$1.90). Annualizing its 3rd qtr NII, it has a a Price/NII ratio of 6.2 ($15.50/$2.52). What is a good estimate of its future NII? I am uncertain as their portfolio is in transformation and I found their financial statements somewhat confusing; particularly their management incentive fees that vary substantially from negative to positive. However, as conditions seem to be improving, I am speculating a NII of $2.00+/sh might be reasonable for the upcoming year. If so, it seems to be on sale at a bargain price.
Negative features include it is fairly illiquid due to its small size and the company is not paying a regular dividend. Management is trying to grow its asset base and is apparently only declaring the minimum amount of dividends they need to avoid corp. taxation and only giving any needed dividends once a year. Their dividend for 2012, however, was quite substantial at $4.25/sh (20% cash, 80% stock). A stock offering below book value to bring in extra equity is always possible, but management seems to be sensitive to this. Anybody see anything important I am missing?
My biggest concerns about owning the company are 1) it is in China and difficult to understand how reliable and meaningful the limited information I have about it is and 2) if the price continues to decline, it might go private and get bought out for a few pennies per dollar of its $8.27/sh book value. I have been hit several times over the last few years from major dilutions and/or private buy-outs of “solid looking” companies that occurred way below their book value. That said, I still plan to hold SORL for awhile and hope for the best.
That is an interesting comparison and your conclusion seems plausible. Appreciate your thoughts and hope something turns Sorl's price around soon. I bought it as a long-term hold several years ago. It still seems like a solid company at a bargain price, but I am a novice China investor and could easily be wrong.
I am no expert on this subject, but I thought I read a couple of years ago that it was a one-time option and that it could not subsequently be changed. If someone actually knows (particularly regarding new debt), please comment.
Wow! People are pessimistic! What happens if the economy keeps slowly growing (2.5%+/-) or accelerates faster than most economists are now projecting? If the economy continues with slow to moderate growth, I think there is a 50% chance or greater that the price/sh will reach $25 to $30/sh within next six months and a dividend increase is possible within the next 2 to 3 years. Management is not very shareholder oriented, but is financially conservative (low leverage) and is not stupid. CWH's book value of about $43/sh (per 2nd Qtr Fin., does not include recent share dilution) is reasonable (see my comments on this on 12-31-10, “Is CWH's Book Value too High?, Part 1 & 2 ”) and its $2.00/sh dividend should be sustainable unless economy tanks.