You can add my name to that list. On a separate thread I went as far to say that the price deterioration will not be remedied until the sales numbers start to come in. The time of product launch might give a bump, but any sustainable escalation in share price will only be realized by the "proof in the pudding" i.e. good sales numbers.
There is another factor that might be working against us at this time. In the life of most small cap stocks there is usually a period where momentum investors seem to fill the skies. They constitute a double edge sword because they can rapidly drive the price up or down. I am not saying they are long or short because they play the momentum swings. Consequently, they play both sides. When you have rapid price escalation in a company like RMTI that has yet to generate stellar numbers, this is often the result of big time momentum investors and speculators. When the stock goes from hot (momentum) to cold, this is often accompanied by price depreciation and lower volumes as the momentum investors scatter and look for new blood. It is my opinion, that this exodus is what is now driving the stock price i.e. low volumes, which most often favor the downside. Compare recent volumes to those radiating around the trial and FDA approval of Calcitriol. I suspect you will notice a change to the down side.
So, in the end, it is my opinion that the price will languish until sales numbers start to surface. RMTI will probably get back to the $10.50-$10-80 range in short order, but I would not expect much from there until the company delivers on their promises.
Mud, I certainly hope you are correct. To date, I have just been rather unhappy with RMTIs profit on its current line of products. Maybe Calcitriol will be different, but in your post they state they are expecting "typical margins for... generics" which usually is not very much...whether it be RMTI or others. The cost savings to generic companies is in the absence of a need for RD. Some years ago, the government enacted laws indicating that for most generics, it was no longer necessary to run trials to demonstrate comparability provided certain other parameters could be met.
I also noted at the end of my previous post that maybe doubling up on manufacturing and distributing will afford some meaningful cost benefits. So, I never really debated the need for the product, I just questioned margin expectations.
I also stay firm relative to the leading post that I do not expect meaningful escalation of the stock price until RMTI can deliver. That is where tene1961 seem to differ a bit.
Oh well, it should not be long till this issue is rendered academic.
I saw that as well. But quite frankly, I did not see it as an impetus for centers willing to pay a higher price. Granted...it could be....but in the end, price is king not packaging.
The "equivalency in safety and efficacy" is a foregone conclusion and part of the FDA approval process for generics. So that, is a non-issue when it comes to advancing and increasing product sales. All Calcitriol generics can boast the same. If Calcitriol was deemed either not safe or not effective, it would never have been approved.
My statement does not necessarily contradict yours. Indeed, I think we are saying the same thing but from different points of view. You need to ask yourself, with a compound where there is such competition and so many manufacturers, why would the volumes for RMTI's Calcitriol presumably be so high (if what you say is correct)? What is it about RMTIs Calcitriol that makes it so much better and so different than the Calcitriol produced and marketed by its competitors? Clearly the products are functionally congruent! So, given that each of the generics is the same, the only logical conclusion I can come up with is that pricing differentiates RMTIs product from the masses. If I were RMTI, I would be reducing the price of Calcitriol to a bare minimum to get it into the dialysis centers and in the hands of nephrologists. I would also be packaging it with my other products needed by the centers. This however, would result in margin pressure. Is there another possibility you can come up with? Could RMTI be saving by acting as both manufacturer and distributor...I simply do not know. Also, "income producing product" and profit are not synonymous.
But as for pricing, this came from an RMTI public release, June 2014 "...Calcitriol is Rockwell's low-cost generic active vitamin D drug...Achieving this FDA approval is a significant achievement for Rockwell and it enables us to execute on our strategic initiative to begin selling Calcitriol in the renal market, where the CMS bundled-reimbursement payment system has incentivized dialysis service providers to utilize the lowest cost drugs," stated Mr. Robert L. Chioini, Founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Rockwell.
As for your other comment regarding Pfizer, this is really unrelated to Calcitriol. I am sure that there are many examples of poor drug launches of presumably block-buster products as well.
RMTI will jump 20% when it can show investors it can make a profit. I am expecting that Calcitriol will be part of package deals to end users. If I am correct, expect that the margins will suffer. Why else would a company seek out and purchase a generic product which has as many competitors as does Tylenol... and that does not even include the newer generation of vitamin D analogues. Nope, investors will sit in the wings and wait to see if RMTI can live up to the hype.
First, no post on this board or any board will ever affect the price of any stock or the ability to raise capital...long or short.
Second, I have not yet seen that such a position (short) has demonstrably hindered the ability of NWBO to raise capital since their inception in 1996. If it had, they would have been out of business a long time ago.
Third, longs are betting that the science works and shorts are betting that it doesn't. Those investment decisions are based upon what we know to date. Let me ask you, if when all the trial data is scrubbed, it demonstrates no difference between placebo and treatment groups (L and Direct), will you sell what's left or your stake or will you stay invested? If you stay invested you are an idiot because NWBO has nothing else in their pipeline, if you sell your shares how does that differentiate you from the shorts because by your definition, you will have given up on all those GBM patients. So which will it be? Pick your poison!
Finally, neither position will affect the outcome of the studies. If you do not like shorts, so be it. I hate the idea that the SEC has created stock investing into legalized gambling. At one time, a person invested in a stock because they believed in the future of the company. Today, with longs, shorts, options, selling and buying puts, selling and buying calls, covered calls, naked puts, and whatever, most savvy investors don't care which way it goes, they position themselves to make money either way or at a minimum, not to lose money.
The science is compelling and that is why I am long. I could give 2 shyts about the shorts and what they say. They are a non-issue as to whether or not the science is successful. In the end, if you plan to turn investing into something personal, then get out of the market and look for another place to put your money. Otherwise, learn to live with the fact that there is more than one way to make money in this market...including NWBO.
You need to learn the difference between investing and science. Whether someone is long or short will not change the outcome of these trials. Those who are long want the stock price to increase. Those who are short wish that the stock prices decreases. Those interested in the patients hope the science and the trials are successful. Shorts simply do not believe in the science....they have that right. They are not wishing that patients die. Like it or not, longs are not invested here because they think that their investment will magically make the trials successful. They believe in the science and more importantly, they are in it for the money...plain and simple.You say "it ain't about the money". If this is true, can we assume you are not invested in NWBO? If you are invested....ask yourself why?...because you think being long will somehow change the trial data for GBM patients???? You are in it for the money...plain and simple...just check through some of your past posts. Believe me, there are far more people out there who are not invested in NWBO but hoping and praying for a treatment/cure for GBM. These same people could give 2 shyts about whether the NWBO stock price goes up or down.
"...(desiring) that each and every (short) die a horrible slow withering death..." is simply not something that a sane person would wish on anyone regardless of which side of the fence they are on. That is just plain sick. Sounds like you are just making stupid posts in some perverse attempt to garner some "thumbs ups" from your cronies. Lean to post sense rather than nonsense.
Was there any indication that the circulating T-cells had anti-tumor effects on distal tumors?? The abstract you cited seems to indicate that the authors were able to identify circulating anti-tumor T-cells, which is expected; however, the $64,000 question is whether or not these circulating T-cells demonstrated anti-tumor activity in non-injected tumors. The data they present seems only to focus on the injected tumors i.e., intra-tumoral inflammatory.
jerry, that was the same point I was trying to raise with my comment below to abeta... i.e., "...so what's your point...". One can easily prognosticate that the highest percentage of patients would come from those states with the highest populations. So I am still amiss as to the meaning of his entire post.
As for patents, I suspect that most are methodology patents. One cannot patent the sites targeted on the cell surfaces unless the company isolated one, more or all of these and demonstrated their use in a treatment. In general, one cannot patent a natural product unless that natural product is used in a way that is beyond or outside its natural environment and the way it exists in nature. NWBO cannot patent dendritic cells, but they can patent the methodology used to change their phenotype. It will be difficult to patent the phenotypes because this is a customized treatment so these phenotypes are different for each patient.
The basis for/uniqueness of this treatment is in the preparation and sensitization of the DC. So, the methodology used to do this is what is under patent protection (or consideration). If one performs a patent search, many/most of what you will read for NWBO involves language such as " Methodology for...", "Applications for...", "Devices and Methods for...", Methods of treatment...", "Generation of cells...", etc. Because of this, these patents would not preclude someone else from developing other methodology that accomplishes the same task. Put another way, one can have two computer chips that are capable of running the same exact computer the same way and be equivalent in performance, but the two chips could be protected by different patents because they are unique in their design, the way they handle data and in energy consumption. The outcome to you and I is the same, but the paths to achieving that outcome are different.
Hence for NWBO, I don't think that "comparing patents" among different and competing companies will not garner you much insight into the ability to protect the technology.
Mud, I am not going to question your numbers per se. I just want to remind you first, that RMTI is in a market much of which ultimate pricing and reimbursement will be dictated by the feds i.e. Medicare & Medicaid (this is the population of patients they generally though not exclusively, serve). Second, RMTI has yet to generate a profitable quarter even with the handful of products they currently have on the market. Some of this is certainly due to the cost of package deals they have made to gain penetration which in turn has squeezed their profit margins, and some is due to the costs of getting Triferic and Calcitriol to market. Third, I am not expecting much form Calcitriol. It is my opinion that RMTI went this route to further gain market penetration by adding to the list of products they can "package" to dialysis centers. So I am expecting that margins will be painstakingly low. Finally, regardless of what the plan is for pricing Triferic, its adoption will be dictated in part by a balance between cost savings envisioned by insurance companies, and the cost to continue along the same path using IV iron, regardless of what the data says.
My point is that I have never seen anyone, anywhere come up with revenue projections that even remotely fall in line with the real world...either positively or negatively. Further, you and I are long the stock...I can just imagine what those revenue projections would look like from someone who is short or not too enthusiastic over RMTI, Triferic and Calcitriol. In all likelihood, the real world will fall somewhere in between.
An agreement would be nice...maybe it is in anticipation of launch. Remember "buy on the rumor sell on the news". Now would be the right time to be getting in if one believe Triferic will be a success...the stock is not far from its recent lows and it has been languishing in the $10.50 range. So a push upward is encouraging. For me, I would feel more comfortable if that volume was sitting at 1-1.5 mil.
Soft, it is nothing to sneeze at to be sure; however type in NWBO as example. This is a stock that is up 6% today (intraday high of 8%) but on volume of 1.3+ million rather than its norm which is 575K. So, something is indeed going on there. Here (RMTI), it is a good sign that the volume is at least normal, but that also tells me the spike could easily be attributable to daily fluctuations rather than any catalyst. I guess we will see in a few days how this shakes out.
All good signs, but not yet confirmed with volume which is a key factor that makes the other indicators work. We have traded above $11.00/sh 5 times since Feb 26, but like today, on mediocre volumes. In each case, they subsequently retraced. Like I said, it is a good sign that there is life in this stock and it is not afraid to go higher, but we just need a catalyst to keep it there. Not yet sure what is driving the stock today.
The 51 patient Information arm was not part of any blinded trial and their data will not be used to support the ongoing trials. This "information arm" is akin to the approval in Germany...i.e., how can it hurt??? These patients exhibited evidence of early tumor re-growth following weeks of radiotherapy and chemotherapy and therefore failed to meet the minimum qualifications for inclusion.
One has the right to question the ethics if releasing this data if that is what AF is intending in his accusations. Also, releasing this information while a trial is ongoing is probably not the best idea because it can provide a false sense of hope or failure to the patients that are on the trial. I am a cancer survivor and one thing I learned after numerous surgeries and 2 years of chemotherapy is that mental attitude has a lot to do with overall health and recovery...and who knows maybe even survival!!!??? That being said, there are absolutely and positively no security laws being broken here as he portends. He is just pi$$ed that the stock has performed well and his most recent attack did little to quench the current enthusiasm and trend in the stock price.
I tend to concur. My fear is that Direct will not reach the "perceived" endpoints. I do believe that the safety profile will be fine; however, this is a combination PI/PII trial which means response will be a key parameter as well. I think the expectations are a bit more lofty for Direct than for "L" only because the data is due first. That data will be perceived as a preface of things to come with the "L" trial. So, if I am correct and the results are equivocal, the $64000 question is, what happens to NWBO stock price between data release for the Direct trial, and the data release for the "L" trial ???
This industry has a low threshold for equivocal data. This was demonstrated by IMUC wherein the subgroups were small in size, and not powered to show statistical significance. Even though they claim that patients treated with ICT-107 generated large and clinically meaningful results, the long and short was that the trial was considered a bust. The stock has never recovered since that time (Dec 2013). The direct trial was set up to generate similar data i.e. too many tumor types and not enough patients in each arm of the trial. I understand the Direct trial was designed to determine if there are one or more tumor types for which Direct has a predilection for treating. That's fine, but I am just not sure that the small number of patients in each arm will be able to adequately answer that question given the range of responses one can expect.
I guess time will tell.