AF did own up on mannkind so i wouldnt get your panties in a bunch just yet. all the longs shouldnt fret over AF (assuming they are actually long and not pump and dumpers) because hard data - positive that is - cannot be twisted by AF, and he wouldnt anyways.
AF was right on vical, gtxi, and a few others. he isnt all bad.
vicl didnt die because of an offering, nor did dndn. oncs did not do an offering because it was a last resort. this isn a sign for the end times. most micro cap biotechs go through offerings and dillution. plenty have done very well - eltp diluted all the way t 500 million oustanding shares and went from .07 a share to .90+!
the thing is p2 is more efficacy-oriented. the application process, sustainability, right now it is science only. INO is not selling a plan, but a science so far that has been unproven.
the possibility of a fast track is HIGHLY unlikely given what we know now. i wouldnt count on it.
ino is notorious for its slowness, focus on PR and heavy administrative salaries. ino gains nothing by fast tracking, it is in their interest (but not yours) to take things slow. speeding up studies can mess up sample collections and data analysis. plenty of great drugs that should have been manufactured never got the chance because of how the studies were carried out.
the only incentive ino would have to agree to fast tracking is if they lacked money...which they dont.
well it totally depends on good. the chances that the study achieves all endpoints 100% is unlikely, more likely is it performs well in efficacy (already demonstrated) and positive therapeutic results...but the stakes are high.
vgx binary is more weighted towards bearish. meaning if it is negative, ino will suffer immensely, while if it is positive (generally) it will experience a rise but nothing sustainable. i expect 50-60% gain at most, and not the day of. there will be plenty of profit sharing.
200% gain on friday's close? ridiculous! you clearly have no experience investing.
no, it's at least 7 years, likely longer, with these kind of treatment. especially considering how ino takes it time on everything.
i dont know where you get 95% probability of success. how do you define success? meeting all endpoints, some? i dont think worst case scenario p2 fails, but it could very likely miss some key endpoints.
safety isnt a terrible hurdle to overcome, plenty of trials breeze through safety.
ino has a large pipeline but most are in p1 or precliical, and a lot rides on vgx right now.
this is why some people may be hesitant to enter. ino is still 7-10 years away from delivering something to market assuming everything goes as planned and that is plenty time to open a position. even if you miss out on good p2 data that is what, maybe 30-40% gain? if youre long that is nothing. and it will probably correct itself as people start taking profits.
this is meaningless. ino's earliest drug wouldnt be in the market for at least 10 years. they are 7 years away from the FDA based on current progress for vgx.
how can INO justify a market cap of 21 billion with no drugs on the market???? that's 350 pps.
positive p2 isnt going to make INO worth 3+ billion dollars. acad is farther along in its trials and is only 2.2 billion. INO is still 6-9 years away from the FDA if p2 is positive.
oncs outstanding shares isnt terrible. eltp has what 500 million and it went from .07 to .98 in a year.
outstanding shares isnt holding oncs back. an RS would decimate th stock thoug
most of my portfolio is oncs, and spec biotech generally because the upside is so great and im only interested in significant gains.
this is the cost of playing biotech. it is hard to say what oncs is truly valued since its trials are on-going. i think at 150 million it is fairly valued, but could hit 250ish if data is good, maybe even 300 million who knows. my average is below .50 so im not terribly worried, but i am bummed i didnt sell at .97 that would hve been smart. im ignoring yahoo MB since the advice they give is weak and shallow
institutions can buy shares on the open market. oncs volume is volatile enough that it would be quite easy for big firms to purchase large blocks of shares. maybe not all at once, but over a short period of time.
on one hand it is nice institutions are at least convinced oncs is a good bet, but remember plenty of othr biotechs have been in similar situations and tanked.
an institution can afford to lose 16 milion, big deal that investment is hedged against blue chips and big cap stocks.
the upside with speculative biotechs is huge. right now there are more 1-5 companies out of the HUNDREDS of small cap biotechs that will become huge, multi billion dollar.
the biggest most recently was ACAD. but for every acad there are 100 zlcs.
ino may have peaked, already provided 500% gains for many early investors who still want more. i think oncs has a lot of juice to go higher, but will it be a billion dollar company in the next few years? probably not.
reverse splits are awful fo rinvestors. comparing ino to to sp 500 stocks is lame. compare ino to BIOTECH industry. virtually all RS in small cap biotechs with no revenue (or little) cause a nose dive in PPS. the market panics after an RS.
so more likely, ino will drop a bit after the RS.
so JD says ambs fundamentals make the stock worth .25. well it's been more than a month and the pps remains below .10. my average is around .10, and i failed to sell when it hit .12 because JD's article convinced me to hold. in fact, i almost bought at .8, but bought oncs instead and that has done well.
so when can we expect ambs to deliver some hard news? i feel like a bagholder.
i think shorts are responding to market forces. let's be honest, the religiousity of longs borders on insane. longs take this so personally. shorts are laughing at you guys to the bank. shorts may have to cover when ino goes up 50%, but they have still made loads of money.
we are here to make money, not to be a piggy bank for ino and dr. kim.