Robert Morris is helming a biotech-focused stock newsletter that’s called Biotech Supertrader (modesty has no place in the world of newsletter promotions, of course), and I’ve never covered this letter before so I thought I ought to have a look at the latest teaser we’ve been asked about.
Morris, incidentally, has been featured in our pages before — but that was back when he was editor of China Stock Insider at the same publisher. That letter, like almost all China-focused investment newsletters, seems to have disappeared quietly into that good night … which probably tells you that it’s time to invest in China again, since the newsletter publishers are ignoring the Middle Kingdom and rushing out their pitches about biotech and tech stocks. At the time, Morris was teasing NQ Mobile (NQ), which has turned out to be pretty good if you bought it down there in the $6-8 neighborhood (though it’s been a wild ride).
So now what’s he pitching for his Biotech Supertrader?
Well, the destruction of “Man’s deadliest disease”, of course. Here’s how the teaser gets our attention:
“This Tiny, Unknown Biotech is About to Unleash Its ‘Holy Grail’ Drug on Man’s Deadliest Disease
“Their ‘Guided Missile Approach’ Could Save Thousands of Lives Each Year
“It’s about to become the most talked about advancement in cancer treatment in our lifetimes and you can lock in a life-transforming fortune if you act quickly….
“I’m urging my subscribers to load up on this stock NOW….
“I’ve just uncovered a tiny, unknown biotechnology company with a new cancer drug in phase 3 clinical trials which is showing remarkable success at treating several types of cancer.
“Their scientists have found an innovative approach to cancer care which involves a breakthrough in treatment. It goes deep inside the inner workings of our cells.
“Plus, this medicine looks to be many times more effective and with fewer side effects than the chemo, radiation, and drug therapies currently available.”
If there’s one thing that investors know can make them rich and make them feel good about themselves and the world, it’s a cure for cancer — we’ve seen that effective cancer treatments can and do (occasionally) turn little biotech stocks into gigantic successes, so the dream lives on that you’re going to catch one of these lottery tickets and own the next Genentech. Will we be so lucky? Well, let’s see which one he’s pitching:
“When this drug wins FDA approval – which I believe it will – this small company’s $4.16 stock price will go straight to the moon.
“And the market for this drug is absolutely huge!
“You see, this small biotech is targeting its new drug, let’s call it ‘drug S’, at cancers of the blood and bone marrow. And it is already in very promising phase 3 trials for these two types of cancer.
“But here’s where it gets really interesting. It looks like the drug this company is developing will also work on other types of cancer!
“There are positive signs it works on Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) too. There are 1.1 million people with this type of malignancy. Just in the United States alone there are over 300,000 patients with this disease according to The American Cancer Society. Each desperate for a cure.
“Plus it looks like ‘drug S’ may turn out to be an effective treatment for ovarian Cancer. There are more than 204,000 new cases of ovarian cancer diagnosed worldwide each year with 22,280 of these in the United States according to the National Cancer Institute estimates.”
So … who is it? Thinkolator sez this is Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals (CYCC)
Cyclacel is indeed a little biotech around $4 (it closed at $4.35 yesterday), with a market capitalization of only about $80 million — so be careful, we’re a big enough group here that if just a small percentage of Stock Gumshoe readers got enthused about this stock it could drive the shares up, less than a million dollars worth of shares trade each day (Biotech Supertrader says they limited their readership to 750 people — I don’t know if that’s still their cap or if they’ve hit it, but we’ll have more folks than that reading this free article).
And like many biotech stocks, it’s got some impressive scientists and it’s been losing money for a long time as they’ve been searching for a viable drug (their current lead drug also was a big focus of theirs back when it was in Phase 1 trials five or more years ago, so that’s a good reminder of the time these things take, it’s just starting Phase 3 trials now). It looks like they must have gone public in 2004, when they were about eight years old, and a quick scan of ten years of their financials over at Morningstar indicates that they’ve never generated more than a token amount of revenue (meaning, they’ve probably had some research collaboration payments or partnership funding, but never got a product to market), and have accumulated more than $250 million in losses to date. And had two reverse splits to keep the price from sinking far into penny territory.
So that’s not unusual, but it means that — as with all developmental-stage biotechs — it’s not about the financials or the fundamentals, it’s about what’s going to happen in their clinical trials and whether things are going well enough that they can continue to finance the trials … which get much more expensive as you progress through Phase 2 and Phase 3.
All I know about them so far is that they say they’ve got enough cash to get through enrollment in their key Phase 3 study for “drug S” (which is sapacitabine) as of September when they last updated their investor presentation, but I know nothing about the science or the competing cancer drugs that are out there or how fabulous this particular one might be, so I asked our favorite medical writer, Doc Gumshoe (who, yes, is not a doctor) to check them out quickly and chime in. Here’s what he could share after looking into them for a few minutes (he’s just looking at the medical stuff, not so much the “investor presentations”):
- Cyclacel’s Prospects
Cyclacel has three drugs in development at this time, and is involved in eight clinical trials with these drugs, not including two clinical trials that have been terminated. Their top contender is sapacitabine which targets the division of cancer cells. If you can prevent cancer cells from dividing and reproducing, you have the cancer whipped, so targeting cancer cell division (or mitosis, which is the technical term) is a highly promising avenue for treating cancer. However, we need to take note of the fact that sapacitabine is one of a large number of drugs that propose to fight cancer by this method.
At present, all eight of Cyclacel’s clinical trials involve sapacitabine. Of these, at least one has been completed – a Phase 1 study of the safety and pharmacology of the drug. Four others are current, with no information about results. These are likely Phase 1 or small Phase 2 studies, to assess safety, determine what a correct dose might be, and evaluate whether the drug does what it’s supposed to do in human subjects with the target diseases, which in this case include acute myeloid leukemia (AML), cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, and some advanced solid tumors. Prior to the clinical trials, sapacitabine has demonstrated impressive results in delaying the spread of metastatic liver cancers in mice.
From what I can gather from public sources (i.e., the NIH Clinical Trials Registry), there is one Phase 3 trial, which started recruiting patients in February of 2013 and is expected to be completed in late 2015. The trial is in elderly patients with AML, and compares alternating cycles of sapacitabine and decitabine with decitabine alone. Decitabine (Dacogen) is FDA-approved for treating AML and also targets cancer cells’ replication by attacking their DNA.
It is possible that the Phase 3 trial by itself could lead to FDA approval for sapacitabine, depending on the strength of the results. However, that trial would not get the drug approved for use as monotherapy, since it is not being investigated as monotherapy. My guess is that Cyclacel is planning more trials of sapacitabine as monotherapy, perhaps in younger patients. And my further guess is that FDA approval is still quite a long way off.
Sapacitabine is also in a Phase 3 trial with cyclophosphamide and rituximab for the treatment of relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Cyclophosphamide (marketed under several trade names) is a well-established chemotherapy agent used in a number of cancers, and has led to remission in many cases; however, it is associated with truly harrowing adverse effects. Rituximab (Rituxan, Genentech) is used not only in cancers but in some autoimmune diseases. And sapacitabine is also being studied in patients with previously-treated non-small-cell lung cancers.
Although the piece from Biotech Supertrader said that the drug – identified as “drug S” –is also a promising treatment for ovarian cancer, I find no clue that it is being studied in such patients. [ed note: that’s because that “promise” is in the lab still, not in people — they had a press release about this in the Fall, “75% of Ovarian Cancer Patient Samples Highly Sensitive to Sapacitabine”, not studied in patients but on patient samples]
Cyclacel has two other drugs in development: selicilib and a drug designated as CYC116. One selicilib study has been terminated, and in a second Phase 1 study, selicilib is used with sapacitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors. Remember, however, that Phase 1 studies are many rungs of the ladder below what’s needed to gain FDA approval.
CYC116 is an aurora kinase inhibitor, meaning that it blocks the action of an intracellular enzyme that facilitates cancer cell mitosis. This is a promising avenue of cancer treatment, however, the traffic on this avenue is fairly heavy, and includes several other classes of drugs including tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and taxol based agents such as paclitaxel (Taxol, Bristol Myers Squibb); docetaxel (Taxotere, Sanofi-Aventis), Abraxane (a newer formulation of paclitaxel from Celgene) and others.
CYC116 supposedly also inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which induces the growth of blood vessels that nourish cancer cells. Inhibiting VEGF is a well-established means of combating cancer, and CYC116 could hardly be characterized as a radically new departure in cancer treatment.
The one trial involving this agent has been terminated. That, of course, does not mean that development of CYC116 stops dead in its tracks – there are many reasons why a trial can be terminated, and ours is not to speculate without more information.
Beyond those three drugs, it’s hard to guess what Cyclacel may have up its corporate sleeve. It is certainly true that a successful cancer drug – even if only moderately successful– can be transformational for the biotech that develops the drug. But the drugs that Cyclacel has under development do not appear to this skeptical observer to be radically new departures in cancer treatment.
It’s important to remember, when trying to estimate the likelihood of a single drug demonstrating sufficient efficacy and safety to gain FDA approval and market share, that the competitive field is vast. As I mentioned earlier, Cyclacel has a total of 8 clinical trials in process at this time.
For the sake of perspective, it’s worth knowing that at present there are 41,445 cancer trials being conducted. So those are the odds.
So there you have it — it’s almost impossible to find a development-stage biotech whose financials look great or that makes your heart go pit-a-pat over their valuation, especially in a biotech bull market like we’ve seen over the past year or so, and Cyclacel doesn’t jump out as spectacular on that front either, not unless you’re a big believer in the promise of their specific drug. They’re a small stock and they don’t get much attention, other than from the analysts who probably helped them sell shares in secondary offerings in recent years, and there aren’t any major “skin in the game” insiders as far as I can tell (the CEO owns $1 million worth of shares, but he gets paid more than that every year), and there’s only one really focused owner on the institutional side that seems to have any kind of biotech focus (Eastern Capital owns about 7% of the shares, roughly $5 million worth … don’t know much about them).
So I don’t see a lot to make them stand out other than Robert Morris’ apparent enthusiasm for the shares (which certainly goes over the top, he calls his special report “The End of Cancer Worries Forever“), and I don’t know enough about the science to be a believer (though, to be fair, I almost never speculate on developmental biotechs because they’re so hit-driven and I’m not smart enough to be a hit-picker in the sector). It is at least encouraging that they are enrolling patients for Phase 3, and that they probably won’t have to raise more money before they have some indication of how the trial is going, but sometime in the next year or two they’re probably going to have to either get good results from this trial that let them raise cash at a good price, or have promising enough results that some big pharma company wants to jump in and help fund development of “drug S” (or just buy up the whole company, as happens with some regularity when a little biotech gets promising results).
Oh, and they are presenting at an investor conference next week, so maybe they’ll have something interesting to share then. As you can tell, this one doesn’t jump into my cup of tea … but these kinds of stocks almost never do. Sound interesting to you? Interested in the science or the lottery-ticket possibilities of $80-million developmental biotechs? Have any experience with Robert Morris or know whether or not we should consider him a biotech savant? Let us know with a comment below.
I’m holding out for BNIKF’s one treatment – period.
The following from today’s FDA Drug Bulletin:
AbbVie Trumpets Positive Phase III Data for Hepatitis C Candidate
AbbVie hopes to shake up the red-hot hepatitis C space with initial results from a Phase III study of its investigational candidate that showed encouraging results.
The Pearl-III study evaluated the Abbott subsidiary’s treatment with and without ribavirin in non-cirrhotic, adult patients with chronic genotype 1b (GT1b) hepatitis C virus new to treatment. AbbVie’s regimen consists of the fixed-dose combination of ABT-450 and the HIV drug ritonavir co-formulated with ABT-267, dosed once daily, and ABT-333, dosed twice daily.
Results from the global, multi-center, randomized, placebo-controlled and double-blind study showed that 99.5 percent of patients achieved virologic response rates with ribavirin, while 99 percent showed response rates without ribavirin, AbbVie said.
There were no relapses during the 12-week treatment period, the drugmaker added.
The drugmaker plans to submit an application for U.S. regulatory approval in the second quarter of this year, advancing a potential new competitor to hepatitis C treatments under development targeting various forms of the deadly virus
AbbVie Inc. (ABBV)’s combination hepatitis C therapy cured almost all patients in a late-stage study, moving the company closer to marketing a treatment that will compete with Gilead Sciences Inc. (GILD) and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (BMY)
In a trial in 419 patients, AbbVie’s as-yet-unnamed drug cocktail cured 99 percent of those given it after 12 weeks, regardless of whether they added the older booster medicine ribavirin, the North Chicago-based company said today at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections in Boston. AbbVie said it will seek U.S. approval this quarter.
Team Benitec, Is there reason for concern here?
Bradley take a look at Doctor Kss post 274 on thread.I think this will answer your question.Cheers,Glenn
ACRX one discussed earlier in thread a good trade through PDUFA approval date in July for their drug Zalvisio.Data very strong and safe with strong management team.Lots of room to run.Cheers,Glenn
PPHM screaming. People have asked the Swam about it (ctrl F) but he hasnt had a chance as of yet to comment on that one unfort….
Second Baby Gets Early AIDS ‘Cure’
BY MAGGIE FOX
A second newborn baby born infected with the AIDS virus has been given a promising but controversial treatment that researchers hope, but don’t dare to say, may provide a working “cure” for the virus.
Last year, AIDS researchers made headlines with the news that a baby born in Mississippi had gone for more than a year without treatment after getting an experimental high-dose cocktail of HIV medicines right after she was born. They called it a “functional cure” but said it would be years before anyone knew for sure that the child would escape infection.
They’ve been looking for more newborns since then to try the approach on. Last spring, a child was born in Long Beach, Calif. to a woman who doctors knew was not taking her HIV medication. The infant was treated immediately and the virus is now barely detectable.
The first child is now more than 3½ and still healthy, Dr. Hannah Gay of the University of Mississippi Medical Center, who has been treating the infant, said in a statement.
“She has not taken any medicines for almost two years and her virus has not returned,” Gay said. “We are thrilled that she continues to do so well.”
Dr. Deborah Persaud of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore told a meeting of AIDS experts Wednesday that the second child, now 9 months old, is also healthy.
It’s far too soon to declare a cure for either, Persaud said. The second child has stayed on a regimen of HIV drugs, which act to control any virus that might still be in her body. But she has done extensive tests on both children and can find no sign of the virus. “We used the same rigorous lab testing the Mississippi child underwent,” Persaud told NBC News.
The human immunodeficiency virus is incurable, and it will kill people who don’t get treated. But cocktails of strong drugs can control it.
The Mississippi child, who is not being identified, was born to a mother who did not know she was infected. Usually, if a woman knows she has HIV doctors give her HIV drugs before delivery and they dose the baby right after birth. If done right, this treatment around birth can prevent 95 percent of infections.
That didn’t happen in this case, and when the baby came back for treatment, doctors discovered the infection and gave her a cocktail of three drugs at a dose normally reserved for more advanced cases. It worked really well – pushing her virus down to what’s called undetectable levels.
First published March 5th 2014, 9:18 am
I wanted to rectify some facts on ECTE.
I stated before that ECTE is not entering a virgin market (hospital critical care – HCC). It is only partially true. I was also not entirely correct about the current players in the market.
In Europe, the the players are Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, Optiscan Biomedical Corp., Maquet Critical Care AB, Medtronic, Inc. and A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. These companies have
continous to near continous GMs and are invasive to minimally invasive systems. As you see this market is relatively crowded
In USA, there are no products that are no CGMs in hospital care that are FDA approved.
In 2012, the FDA hosted a public workshop on “Clinical Study Design and Performance of Hospital Glucose
Sensors” as the agency sought outside input on clinical study design and metrics for hospital-based glucose sensors,
specifically point of care continuous glucose monitoring. The meeting focused on (1) The clinical studies and data needed
to adequately validate the performance of these devices in the intended use population and (2) discussion of metrics that
may be used to evaluate results to demonstrate a safe and effective device. The meeting details can be found at:
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/ucm304483.htm
There was also a presentation done by Jeff I. Joseph D.O. of Thomas Jefferson University Hospital
and an Echo Therapeutics Principal Investigator for the ongoing Symphony study in critical care patients. The full transcript can be seen here at:
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/UCM311926.pdf
I read that the FDA is concerned that current self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) devices are not accurate enough as error rates
up to 20% are allowed under existing approval standards (ISO 15197) developed 7 years ago.
The CDRH believes the high incidence of hypoglycemia seen in the NICE-SUGAR trial was probably caused by hospitals using inaccurate glucose monitors in attempting tight glycemic control for
hospital patients which resulted in too much insulin being delivered to the patient
In response to the NICE-SUGAR results, FDA Commissioner, Dr. Margaret Hamburg June 24, 2009 letter (including
CDRH analysis) to the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists stated:
“Nevertheless, many hospitals continue to use SMBG devices, cleared only as aids in the management of diabetic
patients, in these settings, even though they are not FDA cleared to diagnose disease or to maintain tight glycemic control
of diabetic and non-diabetic patients in the hospital environment. This practice can be problematic. Where hospitalized
patients are sicker (such as those in the ICU), any inaccuracies in the meters would pose different risks of greater
magnitude than expected in the population and use for which the SMBG devices are cleared.”
The FDA now wants to restrict the use of self-monitoring glucose monitors in hospitals in favor of more accurate methods
including the development of continuous glucose monitors for intensive insulin therapy in the management of diabetic
patients, in these settings, even though they are not FDA cleared to diagnose disease or to maintain tight glycemic control
of diabetic and non-diabetic patients in the hospital environment. This practice can be problematic. Where hospitalized
patients are sicker (such as those in the ICU), any inaccuracies in the meters would pose different risks of greater
magnitude than expected in the population and use for which the SMBG devices are cleared.”
Something tells me that rules are stringent when it comes to CGMs in hospital setting and FDA likes a needless device that is accurate.
The fact that the intravenous blood glucose monitor, GlucoClear (developed jointly by Edwards LifeSciences and DexCom Inc.) and
Medtronic’s Sentrino haven’t gotten anywhere in USA tells me that FDA’s expectation is higher in this setting.
Echo has a great chance of pulling this off as many issues noted with invasive monitor don’t exist with Symphony.
One minute Demo of Symphony at HCC : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f5wWRz4Uvo
Doc, Back in Post 274 you asked about insider buying. I copied this from the HC message board for BLT:
In OZ, Directors must state any changes in their shareholdings within 3 days – subject to higher minds. Similar for Substantial shareholders – ones holding over 5%. However, I’m not sure about naming names if they take up options. I’m assmning employee options are anonymous. I’m not aware of any movements for quite a while. Once a year Companies publish a list of top 20 shareholders. Is that similar to US?
Cheers
As best as I can tell Kevin Buchi was the last insider to buy on Nov. 18, 2013.
On HC next to market cap is “Announcements” and that is where we can find insider buying.
As well it can be found on ASX under ticker symbol….any announcements that are titled “Change of Directors’ Interest Notice” would relate to insider buying.
To Ken and David:
This is what i have from FDA Tracker for INO:
INO Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2014-04-01 Phase 2 WT1 Immunity Via DNA Fusion Gene Vaccination in Haematological Malignancies by Intramuscular Injection Followed by Intramuscular Electroporation
Leukemia
Hematologic Neoplasms
p.DOM-WT1-37 DNA Vaccine and p.DOM-WT1-126 DNA Vaccine
Date above indicates Phase 2 completion date.
Nothing on any Phase 3 trials at this time. Will keep digging.
Brian
What are the Best RNAi stocks. Except BNKIF.
It was BNIKF, Sorry
There has been some chatter about various companies starting or in the midst of oncology Phase III trials. I want to give some context for the purposes of risk assessment.
For some therapeutic areas (TAs), if you get a good efficacy signal in phase 2 (ph2), you will likely have good efficacy in phase 3 (Ph3) (ex anti-infectives). For these TAs, it is mostly safety that hurts the Ph3.
For some TAs, a good Ph2 efficacy signal is only moderately predictive of efficacy in Phase 3. Oncology is one of these TA’s (Neuro is another). You will see many drugs that did will in Phase 2 fail to meet endpoints in Phase 3. Pfizer is an example with many recent Ph3 oncology failures, and they do Ph3 better than most. This is due to a wide variety of factors, one being the need to recruit a much larger patient population which diversifies that population.
When discussing and evaluating risk for oncology companies with late stage trials, remember to use the oncology specific failure rate or, at least, a failure rate worse than the average rate. Specific mechanism based cancers which test for that biomarker during enrollment (ex Pfizers recent Alk mutation agent) will have higher success rate.
Personally, i think the probability for efficacy for Inovio’s cancer vaccine won’t be great… cancer vaccines are best tested to avoid recurrance but are almost always tested in later stage patients with high tumor burden.
That puts a lot into context…thanks
A company called MediWound is getting set for an IPO as MDWD. I looked into this one. As biotech goes, it is rather lowtech, actually. This is an Israeli company that has a bromelain preparation, made from pineapple, that can be used to enzymically debride wounds, by digesting their proteins.
Proteolytic enzymes come in 4 varieties: cysteine, aspartic, metallo-, and serine. In evolutionary terms, the serine proteinase are the youngest and most vigorous, but also the ones that the body is most armed against. On a molar basis, 10 per cent of your blood protein is proteinase inhibitor because proteinases pose such a threat to safety. They can digest your structural tissue quickly if unchecked. Most of the blood clotting factors are serine proteinases. The body is less well-armed against the cysteine proteinases, which is what bromelain contains. This is why MDWD’s prep works….the serous oozing at burns and wounds does not contain high levels of cysteine proteinase inhibitors.
I have to say that although this one may flourish at the opening, it is among the least interesting biotechs I have ever come across. They’re just marketing pineapple juice that has a college education.
Damn…must have some of that stuff !!
I have what is possibly a dumb question regarding our Beni. I see that they have 7 employees in the company. There are 5 “Key Executives”. Does that imply there are only 2 employees doing all the research, studies, etc?
that is the beauty of the outsourcing based ‘virtual’ biotechs these days. It is likely the other 2 are for clinical, admin or shareholder/stock management.
Tekmira up 400% from Jan as is trading $27.15 AM. (400m MC)
Arrowhead up 300% from Jan as is trading at $26.70 AM. (1.2b MC)
There is so much bullishness surrounding these RNAi stocks apart from ALNY, ISIS.
Let’s wait for Benitec to prove ddRNAi technology and sky is the limit.
KSS. I spent 45minutes on the phone this evening with an analyst and advisor who is fairly well known (CNBC appearances). He wants to know more about Benitec and I am going to cobble together a report for him. He went from zero interest to being very interested. KSS if you want to contact me nsemuta@yahoo.com….I will not share your email with anyone.
Also, there is a lot of short interest in Gilead.
Nice work Nick, that would be huge for exposure.Cheers,Glenn
We’ll see Glenn, but thanks. I have led him to the trough for sure. I think he wants to combine it with some other all stars as a speculative play for those who want to take a swing at some multi -baggers with a small portion of portfolio. He’s not going to be going on tv chatting about it though….LOL…but he has a following and advisory business.
Dr KSS ET AL. There was a site I came across a couple years ago, I think it was for people who were willing to sign up for various trials ( for brain transplants and such) just kidding it was for serious trials, but it had quite a list of Biotechs that I found use for identifying & following usefull BTechs. Now if only I could remember the name? IT WAS A GOV SITE I BELIEVE FOR MEDICAL TRIALS. I WILL LOOK FOR IT AND SEE IF IT IS ANY GOOD. THAT’S MY CAPITAL IDEA. Idid want your input on a co I traded a couple of times a couple of years ago at $6 and I am interested again. I thought it wood skyrocket because the product was a cheaper machine than than ITSG Intelligent surgical, AND I thought it would be very popular because it used a computer guidance system to lock on to a tumor, and if it moved the computer followed it and then ZAP right on target. Please anybody’s knowledge on this co. MY THREAD ENDS AT 1174 BUT I HEARD GUMSHOE SAY IT PASSED 2000. don’t leave me now!! please advise. Use your tricorder or the THINKALATOR TO FIND ME. I forgot the stock it is ARAY.
Are you talking about clinicaltrials.gov ?
I was actually on their today looking at trials for pancreatic cancer. My mom may be diagnosed with it :(. Just patiently waiting for the results. Anyone know of any bio-tech companies that are doing clinical trials for pancreatic cancer? Would love to invest in them or maybe find one for my mom. Thanks.
Joseph sorry about that but hopefully not the case.Two in Phase 3 trials for pancreatic cancer that come in mind are IMMUNOMEDICS(IMMU) and NUVILEX(NVLS).CELGENE(CELG) also just passed a drug also in January of this year for treatment of pancreatic cancer.Good luck and God Bless.Glenn
Joseph sorry stock symbol for NUVILEX is (NVLX).Glenn
check HALO too. they might be between trials though
Much thanks to both Glenn and George. Will check out HALO, NVLX, and CELG. Still waiting for the results. Should have them by this weekend. Thanks for the support.
Joseph do not forget (IMMU) as well.Thoughts and prayers with you.Glenn
You havent missed anything….Travis was saying that while there were 1k numbered posts, if you count the un numbered replies, there are >2k.
Benitec might test $1.65 support tomorrow and if it breaks then $1.45 level. We might have some buying opportunity soon!
Subra, the selling seems to be a combo effect after the BIT.ASX news regarding their Hep success and some in Oz maybe misreading the filing by one of the major shareholders as them selling when they were just removed from major status due to dillution. Would a $1.50 or $2.00 level be better for next springboard on good benny news?
BLT.AX straight down today-ist support area of 1.65 may be seen in the am-may bounce but personally I have not sold or bought any addl. shares from the ist week-think some folks get impatient after the huge move & flip- then folks that planned to add on weakness get gun shy. a number of folks in here purchased in the 60-70 cent range. I remain patient & await further corporate developments. I find technical analysis more helpful when dealing with cos. that trade on bigger exchanges
It is MEDICALTRIALS.GOV- they quite a few trials listed Another site believe it or not is sec.gov they allow some biotechs in there own little space right next to the SEC.GOV, so it gives it legitimacy. I looked at some cos on the site, in fact that was were I it confirmed there that Tekmira would be a good co. (a few years back), it was trading at about 1.15 at that time and it was doing something with the gov to develop a treatment for ebola. This was after I read about in Bloomberg businessweek. I am glad I investigated further
You sure you don’t mean clinicaltrials.gov? My DNS doesn’t know about medicaltrials.gov.
Benitec ticker BLT on the Australian stock market was down yesterday 8% in reaction to a press release showing an individual ceasing to be a substantial holder. People assumed the individual liquidated shares. In reality, new shares from the recent offering caused the individual’s percentage of overall ownership to decline – it was simply an accounting procedure. In fact, the individual in question did not sell any shares. If I were in Australia trading on the ASX, I would see this misread as a buying opportunity.
Erv M: I can see how there was some confusion as to the “decline” in that shareholders ownership in BNIKF. After reading the announcement I have to admit that I am still confused. For instance, the shareholder, MJGD Nominees Party Ltd, held 4,769,091 shares as of 15 Jan 2014. According to the announcement, the number of shares affected by their action was 4,379,686 shares. Thats almost 92% of initial holding. The new recent private placement offering did not dilute current shareholders equity by 92%. So I too am confused by how to interpret what actually happened by MJGD’s action. I also read the news that they sold stock. Am I wrong?
Point taken. The more one looks, the more confusing it is.
And to add to my confusion:
These were the largest shareholders in that 15 Jan 2014 filing
1..NATIONAL NOMINEES LIMITED 7,728,252
2. MJGD NOMINEES PTY LTD 4,769,091
3. IRWIN BIOTECH NOMINEES 4,649,091
4. DALIT PTY LTD 4,545,455
If the reduction in MJGD’s holding was merely the result of dilution due to new offering, why weren’t the other shareholders above also required to submit a Form 605 as MJGD did to report change in ownership?
I am not familiar with how the Australian Exchange operates so I can be all wet here, and hopefully I am, but I wish someone can explain these apparent discrepancies.
Enough said: still long BNIKF and will continue to be!
Irwin Biotech also filed a form 605 for the dilution of 4,379,686 shares. It states on form under Nature of change “New Issue Dilution” so I am guessing that it does have to do with the new offering and we should not be concerned. Is this a safe assumption?
Linda: Don’t know what to make of this. Irwin Biotechs holding of BNIKF is down 94% from pre-offering levels. Similar to the 92% of MJGD’s. Summing up both their “reduction” in holdings is about 9M shares and surely 9M shares haven’t traded on AX past several days. So maybe there is no concern and this is merely a bookkeeping thing. However I am still bothered for an explanation as to this 90%+ dilution in these two major stockholders when the new stock placement didn’t double the amount of stock outstanding. According to the ASX announcement of the offering:
“The shares issued pursuant to Listing Rule 7.1A diluted existing holders of ordinary securities pre”issue holdings by 9.1% (a 1.0 % holding immediately prior to the issue
being equivalent to a 0.9% holding immediately after the issue). The dilution of pre”
issue holdings by shares issued under Listing Rule 7.1 (6,181,398) is 6.8%, and by the
overall issue (all shares issued today under Listing Rules 7.1 and 7.1A, being a total of
14,717,995 shares) is 14.7% (a 1% holding immediately prior to the issue being a 0.85%
holding after the issue).”
Being that other larger stakeholders here are not expressing a concern it is perhaps my erroneous reading of events. My background is an engineer and I often look into things too intensely and perhaps drawing a false conclusion. I will go off this topic now …..
Perhaps someone from Hot Copper can throw some light on the Oz system and offer an explanation.
Wow, Benitec shares plunge 8% in Australia due to a statistical misinterpretation regarding insider ownership. I guess that this confirms that we are shareholders of a very small stock in a volatile sector. The good news is that it fell based on misinformation so the drop should only be temporary.