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.
so i have 20,000 shares with a average in the mid .50s. honestly i did not expect the pps to get this bad. i understand long-term it is more than likely pps will recover, but the more it drops the harder it will be to retrace. i would like to see a return to .80-.90, im not going to be thrilled when the pps is .60
i guess the question is how long will we have to wait before we see some meaningful changes.
Can we expect any meaningful datw announced this year? Oncs website hasnt been updated. On one hand the lack of news is frustrating but on the other it is nice oncs isnt cheapening their rep by releasing daily pr.
because insiders are in it for the long haul. if p2 does not meet endpoints ino will experience a major loss in MC and pps, but long term it will recover. retailers will likely not hold on for that long. retailers move the pps, not insiders.
insiders already make lots of money and can afford unrealized losses, retailers do not have that safety. this isnt indicative on confidence in p2 but rather confidence in ino as a company.
oncs value is not based on current holdings but fundamentals. the belief that oncs has the capacity to develop successful technology supports whatever the MC is. there are biotechs with billion+ $$ MC that haven't actually approached the FDA yet.
if youre idea of thick skin is investing in a biotech and losing 50% of your investment then ur in the wrong field. there is nothing righteous about holding oncs at this point. smart money sold at .90. dont you wish u were smart?
now im holding at my average is .50, but man this hurts. and im curious why oncs isnt doing anything to stop this bleeding.
at least with ino the management has an interested in purpose as they own so many shares. last i checked punit as less than 40k worth.
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.