i remember when INO was 1.8 before the Roche deal. That was more than one year ago. What has INO accomplished since then? I only have 3500 worth of shares (not valued at half that today) but this is pretty annoying. Who wants to wait 5-6 years for INO to recover?
yeah, kim has equity in the stock, but he also gets a salary
I won't lie I hold 300 shares post-RS. I'm super bummed about the PPS and not looking forward to holding this stock another year.
ino better no dilute before repairing what they've lost. and no more BS hires.
ONCS has enough cash to sustain itself for fiscal year 2015 without dilution? i know they wont exhaust every dollar, normally they dilute after blowing through 50-60%. So what is their burn rate, specifically?
Milestones, any serious ones?
I have 30,000 shares at .55 average. I'm thinking about buying more but ONCS hasn't been on the ball as far as PR goes. And punit is kind of a weak CEO and should go back to INO where he belongs.
few scientists on this board. repeating ONCS press releases is not science. and science doesnt sell a stock. oncs is still in development stages, its worth is based on fundamentals, not its science. plenty of companies with good science fail to deliver and dilute themselves to death.
does anyone here want to sit on dead money for 2 years? if oncs dilutes again without rewarding retailers i am out. and if oncs is so great how come punit dont put their own salaries on the line? at least with ino kim has millions of his own money in the company. i own more shares than punit!
ok but when is interim data expected to be published? will this stock recover before delusion? the farther it goes down the more it has to retrace. new retailers may score but the rest of us will lose out. i didnt sell when i had 10,000 unrealized profit because i believed given the milestones it would top a dollar no problem. now what?
i agree oncs really blew it in explaining the results. words like promising are seen as a negative. its all PR but PR can control the pps.
here are my concerns and im being completed sincere. i own about 30,000 shares at .55 average. honestly i struggle to see how oncs will manage to deliver a product to the market in 3-5 years. less than 10% of all biotechs manage to deliver a real product and even less end up truly blockbuster. in 3-5 years we might have another more novel technology that trumps oncs. who knows.
right now how are the fundamentals doing? if oncs is so great where is a partnership? given their burn-rate and enormous salaries there should be some results by now or in the near future. if they delude again before delivering a serious milestone it's going to kill retail investment.
and if they do an RS before a product is close to being submitted to the fda and the gears are in motion we could see even greater losses. how many can bear to lose 70-80% of their investment while oncs management enriches themselves with our money?
LOL. San diego isnt manhatten. He is a ceo of an otc company without revenue. His salary is bloated given oncs cash supply and the influence he has over the company. He got the job because of his family.
600 million if the partnership is truly meaningful. as in the partnership is committed to manufacturing a drug, not just a small investment to hedge bets. i could see 300-400 million. 2.50 maybe in 2-3 years
i think it is obvious the SA was most responsible for the recent increase in pps. oncs remains speculative and easily manipulated. appointing doctors does nothing for hamas' pps. otc is a sketchy place when one SA article can move a pps 20-25% overnight, crazy.
my average is .50....so im very butthurt about the recent price action. i feel like oncs has contempt for its investors. at least with ino, the ceo and BOD have invested much of their own worth into the company. with punit and his pals, they collect large bloated salaries, but their material investment is little. i think punit only owns like 40,000 shares lol.
the thing is most of ino's float is retail so MM influence is limited at best, retailers are scared.
this is suspect because ino has a back-history of allowing positive rumors to gone (such as the alleged buy out from merk, never even existed) that drove the pps.
the least ino could do is reiterate the conclusions of the trial and emphasize the positive aspects.