well to agree to disagree, again. RGRX did not work to "save" retail investors from BK. they worked to save themselves. In a BK situation where TB 4 assets are auctioned off, they woudl have fetched VERY little...because of 20 years of delay, flopped trials and bad design. It was only about 6 MONTHS ago that RGRX's WHOLE MARKET CAP was about $11 million. And that wasn't in a BK situation. So you try to hoist what an approved drug DNDN got in a bankupt auction? RGRX has pretty good patents and eye area alone is a billion $ market. So why is RGRX only at a $50 million market cap? With all these great trials? Simple, no one believes. Had RGRX gone BK, they woudl have ben LUCKY to get a handful of million for TB 4 assets. Basically no one is paying that now for RGRX.
Depak Srivastava is not a Board member at all! We know who he is and what reserach he has done. We like it.. But all he is, is a doc...that also does heart research. he is on a scientific advisory board of RGRX..which means very little really. RGRX puts it up mostly for show. I highly doubt that there are quarterly meetings of the advisory science board folks...and I bet thaty have no input intop almost all other things RGRX...
Disagree. YEs, RGRX was close to BK. Yes they pulled off a creative deal, which surprised me. But you talk up how great mgmt is because they could have let it go BK and screwed us retail??? Think. Had RGRX gone BK, ALL THEIR stock, warrants and options would be worth ZERO. They lose all $$. next step is in bankruptcy is your assts are AUCTIONED OFF to the highest bidder. Since every trial over 20 years was messed up by mgmt, poorly designed, badly executed (EB) or just plain bad luck in choosing endpoints (Ora dry eye trial).....then the assets auctioned woudl get little or no money. Further, on an auction of BK assets NO company would want to bring the totally underperforming Finkel on board with them, wiith a cushy set up. Goldstein they may need. But Finkel is GONE. On an court ordered auction of RGRX TB 4 assets, there is NO control who woudl take them, or how much they woulfd pay. So Finkel and Goldstein had no choice but to protect their LARGE equity holding by doing whatever it takes to keep RGRX out of BK. Greed. On BK they lose ALL, and Finkel certainly his job, equity and security. RGRX cared a whit about retail investlrs and bankruptcy. they cared about themselves only and retail... are along for the ride. But the G tree deal was good. Kudos. But RGRX is HIDING just how much of the JV we really own, in the longer run. Not right.
Okay Bo and B7.......Finkel Tinkel supporters.....MODEL THIS and EXPLAIN THIS....RGRX stake in the JV starts to GO DOWN, the second G Tree just files for a trial. Then if the trial wins.......RGRX says it vaguely..... RGRX % stake can go down further. THEN? RGRX states that if G Tree puts more money into the JV...RGRX can can AGAIN be reduced.. So neither of you...Bo or B7......have anty real clue just what RGRX will OWN in the critcal joint venture - if all things go well and TB 4 approved to sell.. ALL RGRX's stake does is go down, and down and down.... at each step of the way. WHERE DOES IT END? WHERE DOES IT STOP? How on earth do you think you will ever get a respected biotech analyst(s) to write up RGRX....when the analyst is refused the most basic info of what RGRX even OWNS.in the JV stake........or how FAST RGRX's stake in the JV - can be reduced into G Tree's favor!! Don't get me wrong....I have been surprised at every step how well, and creative, G Tree has been. Job well done!. but there is always a "rub"..always a "back end".....and RGRX, in typical fashion.is not telling shareholders..WHAT THEY REALLY OWN! Bull1863 is 100% correct. Ownership stakes are mandated by SEC to be disclosed. Royalties do not... and sometimes even other finnancial consideration can be confidential. But OWNERSHIP has to be spelled out. LAck of transparency gives opportunity for cheats and insde deals. That is why SEC wants all fairly disclosed. RGRX hides.
For all you silly people who swallow whatever finkel Tinkel says and does as "Trust me". he hides stuff all the time.
Bull1863 is 100% RIGHT! RGRX is not allowed to hide what their true, long term ownership is for the JV ReGenTree. As of NOW? RGRX owns 49% and G Tree 51%.....but those figures CHANGE....if things go well and TB 4 get's approved and starts selling $$$$$. There is the rub. Royalty percent figure regularly wre not disclosed, due to confidential and competitive things between companies..but they do give you a rough idea. In RGRX case, it is a high single digits% or just over into low double digit%. fine. We know that. BUT WE DO NOT KNOW what RGRX wil ultimately OWN % in the JV......and that affetcs just how much someone can "model" what RGRX itself is worth if TB 4 get's approved....because RGRX hides what happens in the JV. See for yourself. QIOTE form 10-Q:
"G-treeBNT is solely responsible for funding all the product development and commercialization efforts of the Joint Venture. G-treeBNT made an initial contribution of $3 million in cash and received an initial equity stake of 51%. G-treeBNT’s equity stake may increase upon the Joint Venture achieving certain product development milestones (including receipt of a new drug application by the U.S. FDA) and the additional funding by G-treeBNT...... and (RGRX) received an initial equity stake in the Joint Venture of 49% which may be diluted as G-treeBNT’s ownership increases. ......."G-treeBNT’s equity stake may increase upon the Joint Venture achieving certain product development milestones (including receipt of a new drug application (NDA) by the U.S. FDA) and the additional funding by G-treeBNT."
SEE? RGRX tells us OUTR STAKE CAN BE REDUCED.but never by "how much". The last quote is astounding. G Tree's stake in teh JV goes UP, just when the file the drug trial application with the FDA! SEE THAT? RGRX get's DILUTED long beroie a trial even STARTS! So what is the DEAL
JJ and RGRX hasn't said #$%$. All you have from them is a vague statement that RGRX now will have a 49% stake in the ReGenTree joint venture. But CLEARLY after that RGRX stated that that interest can diminish. but RGRX neither states how, when or why that percentage interest can diminish. So in essence, you have no concrete idea of WHAT RGRX owns in the ReGenTree joint venture -.over the longer haul.DO YOU? SHOW ME ANYWHERE IN THE SEC FILINGS where it is all spelled out - in 100% clear, legalese, boilerplate...signed on the dotted line......contractual, un-moveable LANGUAGE/ YOU DO NOT HAVE THAT, DO YOU? Answer is no you don't. All you have is vagarities that RGRX owns 49% NOW, but the may NOT OWN 49% after at some point. So why is RGRX afraid to SPELL OUT THE LEGAL DEAL? Hmm??? WHAT DO WE OWN in the JV long term? 49% - or not 49%...what can cause our ownership to CHANGE from 49% to something else lower. CAN YOU TRELL ME? no you can't..becaue RGRX is not disclosing it.
You all should get on hands and kness that bull1863.... as not just a lawyer, but an SEC ex employee lawyer, is watching OUT FOR YOUR BUTTS. Finklel Tinkel has hidden TONS of stuff from us over the years.....much of which I found later, and THEN he discloses?? Just like I did with the Korean burn abstract recently . Hidden - until I posted it before him.
I would suggest that all of you pay attention to bull1863.. He disclosed it, not me. He is a lawyer. he stil is. He worked at the SEC for many years. he knows personally where 2-4% of RGRX shares are, and that is after all the dilution last few years. What Bull aks is RIGHT! There is no disclosure by RGRX of what RGRX owns in the JV. All it states is that we get a milestone now and when the trial starts. If successful, RGRX get's royalty high single digits or just into double digits. RGRX puts up no money for trial. but HERE IS THE RUB. RGRX initially get's a 49% stake in the JV. BUt RGRX said that % stake can be LESS over time..depending. THAT is the crux. RGRX is not spelling out exactly what we own!! Try this. Say TB 4 works and becomes a $1 billion drug in eyes eventually. RGRX owns 49% of eheJV and gets low % royalty as well. But RGRX 49% can BE DECREASED in favor of G Tree. What id the JV deal says something like.....after the royalty payments reach $100 million to RGRX, RGRX's 49% stake automatically is reduced to a 10% stake. SEE WHAT I SAY? NO ONE KNOWS WHAT RGRX stake is! It is 49% now, but why is RGRX hiding the figures of how that stake vcan be reduced to G Tree favor? IT CAN BE REDUCED. WE DO NOT KNOW! So how can you MODEL what RGRX owns or will get $$$, if TB 4 ever approved in eyes. RGRX can keep royalty % a confidential, but they can't hide OWNERSHIP stakes. That is all bull wants...clarification of what RGRX owns in JV and HOW OR IF THAT STAKE GOES DOWN!
I know, bo........I was responding to geez.not you. I am fully aware that a cash account prevents lending shares. buit hopw many peopel REALLy have cash accounts? Most all have margin ones.even if you don't use margin, brokers want that acount so they lend shares. You still are spitting in teh ocean to do a swicth to cash account. 101 million shares.....and geez is worried about37,00 being borrowed?
Geez's post below.....lending your shares. I thought, 'What?" ....because short interest in RGRX, as reportd by SEC, last I checked was 1,100 shares. But geez says he is being paid to LOAN OUT 37,700 shares Weird. So I checked short interest and low and behold........short interest spiked.....well, relatively
Apr 30, 2015 80,204 short
Apr 15, 2015 1,152 short
Lookeeee here! Some short is BEING HONEST and they are BORROWING the shares! That's a first for RGRX!
Geez.........don't even worry of putting in a GTC order which may stop your broker from lending out your shares to shorts. Most all accounts have it set up where it is allowed to do so with your shares. Not a big deal. trust me........RGRX has 101,000,000 share outstanding. A shorts firm will have no problem fimnding another 37,00 shares to borrow out of 101 million outstanding. At least they give you teh money from 'stock loan". Most all brokers keep it themselves.
Someone else exercised warrants in May 2015:
"In addition, in May 2015 the Company has issued 249,671 shares of common st ock pursuant to the “cashless” exercise of warrants issued in 2011."
interesting tidbit, 10-Q. RGRX hired a PR firm in April at $5,000 a month, for only 6 months. And they GAVE the PR firm 30,00 shares! Read:
"In April 2015 we entered into a contract with an investor relations firm to provide services for six months. Under the agreement the Company will pay $5,000 per month and has issued 30,000 shares of common stock as compensation. "
So I guess there will be some PR push, but probably not till after teh warrants go away.too many games.Also interesting that the deal is only for 6 months...which means they will probably push hard on a PR once Lee's China trial starts )soon?).......deal goes thru end of OCTOBER..which may be enough time for the EYE NK trial to get filed w. FDA.
Some very strange numbers for Q1 trading and holdings. For the first Q 24,442 shares of SEB traded. I went to the SEC 13-F filings. I added up all the buys, and sells..and sold out positions. The figure is that with all that.institutional holdings incresed by a mere 444 shares Q1....but 24,442 shares traded. That leaves 24,000 shares traded and un acounted for. I highly doubt that 24,000 shares traded on a daily market maker buy, sell, buy sell action.SEB is too volatile. In the fourth quarter 2014...there was a similar number. Add up all the institutional buys, sells and sold out positions.....and there was another 20,000 shares traded and unaccounted for. That adds up to Q4 and Q1.....44,000 shares traded and no real increase in institutional ownershop to account for that 44,000 shares. Retail did not buy it.I doubt MM's traded 44,000 shares like daily buy and sells....and SEB did not buy back a single share in Q4 and Q1..so where are those 44,000 shares? Short interest is similar at 4,,800 shares. Institutions ADDED 444 shares in Q1, but SEB declined about 500 points or so. ALSO? 16,611 additional SEB shares traded between April 1 and May 15. It would take about a 58,500 share position to own 5% of SEB. Q4 and Q1 have 44,000 traded & unaccunted for....April 1 to MAy 15 another 16,611......that comes up to 60,611 possible unaccounted for (in institutional filing holdings) unaccounted for. And again..SEB did not buy back a single share and retail does not play much in SEB. SO WHERE has that stock gone to? just a question.
From Jan 1 till right now....12,449,700 RGRX has traded.. Today is the last day to file 13-F holdings with SEC for Q1. As of now, no other institution shows up owning RGRX, except Dumont Investments..62,000 shares..and they have owned those shares as long as many of us.. I would have thought with almost 12.5 million shars traded, at least one institution would file owning something.......but nothing. It could change. they have till end of day tio file.and some places don't seem to file for a couple days after (Buffet and Fidelity seem late.not that they'd own RGRX).
So WHERE did 12.5 million shares go? Some here for sure. No institutions.....maybe a lot did go to Korean investors realizing G Tree was valued at MULTIPLE times that of RGRX....but RGRX owns the whole cow.... G tree a slice.
No, what we need is not more retail investors. What we need is INSTITUTIONAL investors. The MM's will game and scam the retail investor here all day long, and have for YEARS....because they CAN.in the kind of smaller size that retail buys. but the MM's are in much bigger trouble if any INSTITUTIOANL investors want in RGRX...because for any institution to make a dent , they need a lot of stock. If the MM's just see a FEW good investment firm names owning and buying RGRX, the MM's will be far more scared to "short and scam" RGRX as they do to us retail investors now...because if some good institutions climb on board.......the games are over for the MM's...any good fund buying a million or two shares.....adds up to only a $500,000 or $1 million play....needless to say? that is CHUMP CHANGE to them......and many funds have a retail following....if they see a good manager buying RGRX.they will pile in after.
MM's shorted 20,000 warrants yesterday. Kind of an indication that if they short them, they will use their trade power to see that RGRX is below 56 cents on MAy 21. They thus think it is free money to them.because who woudl exercise a warrant at 56 cents if the stock closes BELOW 56 cents? It is just a scenario, but if someone out there wants SIZE in RGRX and they don';t mind paying 57-58 cents net net for RGRX common...the MM's will probably shortt you all kinds of size near the end of expiration. They think it free money. You couild not go in and buy 1-4 million shares easily in common But if RGRX common is 50 to 54 cents on MAy 21...the warrants exerciseable at 56 cents will trade for fractions of a penny.. if I wanted a couple million RGRX shares..a few pennies above whhere we are now.I woudl do so thru the warrants. No rule stops you from exercising even if the common is BELOW the exercise price on close day. I just don't know if any big buyer is out there thinking this way. hope so.
The news we need is that Lee's has final Chinese Gov't approval to start signing patients for the China Dry Eye trial. And we hope that a portion of the trial (hopefully ALL) will be done with Beijing patients....because as I posted, 21% of people in Beijing have a dry eye problem.massive pollution. This is the best shot for a trial win. If done in Hong Kong.far less pollution because there isn't ant dirty polluting industry.and HK is on the water......better breeze and air quality. Once China trial starts, we have about 5 months till trial report. If TB 4 works, it will be the FIRST human clinical trial, with porotocol endpoints, showing healing efficacy of TB 4. At that point, all the investors who panned and trashed TB 4 because of mgmt's 20 year record of trial errors and mishaps...will have to wonder."Maybe it does work." Then RGRX is no longer a $50 million market cap.with a US Phase 3 in Eye NK, and a Phase 2/3 dry eye starting very soon after. China is the key to unlock value. We need it to start and we need a trial win there. if it works (?), the fireworks really start.
To give an example of how SEB front loads CAPEX and most likely unsderstates book value.......SEB says they have a total of $849 millionj of "assets" in Pork division. Struck me odd. So I checked SEC filings for 2013, 2014 and 2015.. In just those THREE years, SEB has lowed $203,000,000 into Pork, almost all into Guymon OK plant..finishing barns, feed mills, etc...But SEB built that facility about 15 years ago?..or so? There is only so long they can keep plowing in $203 million for finishing barns and feed mills...save regular maintainence and ususal expenses. You cannnot expand "finishing" barns forever. So now SEB goes 50-50 JV with Triumph Foods for a huge processing facility. And the release today clearly said that the hogs for this facility will come both from Triumph members and from SEB's GUYMON OK facility. See? Has SEB front loaded so much hog capacity....they need to shift to new JV plant? And for the shortts who will "negate, trash and short" that SEB is on the hook for their 1/2 of a $200 million facility......that works out to a tiny $33 million a year for 2015, 2016 and completion 2017 July. That $100 million is small compared to the $203 million SEB pumped into Guymon 2013-2015. AND WHY HASN'T SEB upped the ASSET VALUATION for that? The $849 million the "value" it at....from teh VERY START of doing it about 15 years ago....has only crept up slowly......but where is the $203 million?. An interstimg project woudl be to go back to year 2000 and ADD UP from SEC reports how much SEB spent on Guymon.. My guess is it is a LOT more than what SEB tells investors it is worth on "asset" basis.....$849 million.....if in just three years 2013-1015 they plowed $203 million to it. Undervalued! and Bresky know it too well. He shoudl buy back stock on the idiot sell downs....and takle SEB all but private private over a few years..... Contrary to what the shorts and our seller think, SEB is FAR from bankrupt..because of a lousy Q1..and Bresky has a 2-5 year plan.
From what I read, Butterball got hit some.....but a big hit was to Jennie O turkey in the upper midwest.........Hormel owns them. If Butterball not hit that badly...........it is $$$ to them.because Turkey prices go up... with less supply.........and there was too much corn already...so if they killed 30 million chickens and turkey's........that makes an even larger oversupply. 30 million dead birds don't need corn. I expect a good Q2 for turkey and a FAR FAR better one in pork.which June hogs 84 cents - UP FROM 60 cents in Q1. And Corn is down about 30 cents a bushel in from this flu. Lag time to hit pork is in Q2. Q2 will be better. Also, SEB alluded to some hedges in heh trading divison that you may see come back in Q2, but they made Q1 numbers look bad in that division.
The sellers are nutts. The shorts here are VERY aggressive w/ the one share whack down prints. SEB announced this new JV for a big new pork plant with Triumph. They mentioned it for EXPORTS. Timing is there. CHINA is relaxing PORK import in 2016. It is why JBS bought a big pork outfit in Australia. Set up for China. The new plant coming is RIGHT NEXT to the airport. SEB MArine continuing to expand .....and Cuba may open...........and oil still down 40% off highs. I hope the shorts get f'''d. And I hope that Bresky announces another Dutch Tender...just like he did when Q1 numbers for 2014 were bad. I hope he repeats.
FYI....here is the title of the abstract just out on neuroblastoma and TB 4:
"Thymosin B 4 is a determinant of drug sensitivity for Fenretinide and Vorinostat combination therapy in neuroblastoma."
those are the two combo drugs they use in neuroblastoma. What their work found was that low levels of TB 4 made it harder for the combo drug.......you'll have to read the abstract. But it would seem to me that idf these combo drugs are approved and basically safe....if they get less effective w/ patients w/ low TB 4......then a very simple trial woudl be to add TB 4 to the combo and see what happens. TB 4 is safe and side effect free..and the combo drugs are approved already. Wonder if Dr. Chopp at Henry ford knows of this.....
still cut off, sorry...
"Conclusions The dry eye symptoms as evaluated subjectively in a questionnaire occurred in about 21% of the adult population in China, with associations to age, female gender, urban region, and undercorrection of a refractive error. Measurement of the tear-film break-up time, assessment of the corneal fluorescein staining, slit-lamp-based examination..."