|
|
Post by JHam on Apr 27, 2015 6:02:15 GMT
Anyone check out STEM today? Down to $ .58 and to think some on this board actually thought it was a better play than OCAT not too long ago. Has to make one feel good about OCAT especially the way the SP has steadily risen lately. icellman, What is your point though? How many times have people recommended OCAT/ACTC over other stocks over the years only to watch other stocks flourish while OCAT flounders. That is not to say there aren't brighter days ahead for OCAT and investors, but just because STEM is getting pounded right now doesn't mean that there aren't brighter days ahead for them either. STEM doesn't have to have a better scientific platform than OCAT to make money off of it. With upcoming catalysts and once dilution is out of the way, it could be a good value play. Incidentally, with OCAT we have seen this before. A small bump and then it comes right back down. If there is no news coming up that I don't see why it won't follow that same pattern. |
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Apr 27, 2015 11:03:44 GMT
Not really making sense Jeff. Of course it's understandable to compare companies from a logical perspective (looking at differences in science, management, financials, etc.). That's not what I'm referencing and very few here seem to do that. What I'm talking about are immature, merit-less statements such as these: -"to think some on this board actually thought it (STEM) was a better play than OCAT not too long ago. Has to make one feel good about OCAT especially the way the SP has steadily risen lately." -"I would invest in OCAT any day other than STEM. Look at the charts. 1yr, 3yr,and 5 yr." -"I tend to agree with you. Most of the stocks in the stem cell sector are quite awful and like a bad wine are not improving with age. IMHO we can add STEM to the list of un-investable rotting fish heads like CUR, ATHX and NBS. I think it is wise to invest in quality, which in this sector IMHO is OCAT. Even with OCAT I am not adding to my bet. Today's close puts me over break even (7.30) and I am content to let what I have ride. " I'm of the belief both are viable for trading/investing (I don't use OCAT as a benchmark for comparing other investments like tons of people here do). It's clear that many people are "stuck" in OCAT and are very defensive towards there position, hence an investment in any other company appears to threaten them. Look at Sheik, who bashes every stock mentioned on this board besides OCAT. Very revealing IMO. First of all, this message board has an Ignore feature for blocking out posters who don't fit your view of reality. Why don't you use it? "Not really making sense Jeff. Of course it's understandable to compare companies from a logical perspective (looking at differences in science, management, financials, etc.). That's not what I'm referencing and very few here seem to do that. What I'm talking about are immature, merit-less statements such as these:"I thought Jeff makes perfect sense. Comparisons, even at the gut level are as relevant as other data points. A lot of people use these boards for sentiment analysis which gives clues as to how people will be placing their bets in the market. You say you want differences in science, management, financials, etc., that can be useful, but only up to a point as we saw recently on the ATHX board (there I go comparing things again). There were countless stories floated about the science (those rats did great), management (Gil seems so excited and confident), financials (it must be good because they haven't done a raise prior to results), etc. Where did that get anyone? You then go on to slam my comments on STEM and other 2nd tier stem cell stocks. I stand by those comments. The recent performance of stem cell stocks has been awful, do you want to refute that assertion? Whether you are looking at the science (failing endpoints, dressing up the data to look better than it is), or financials (massive dilutions), many of these stocks are un-investable at the moment. You might get lucky with a quick flip, but in most cases that is what it will be, luck. I also believe that we will (are) seeing a split of this space into the top tier stocks and the also rans. Who will be in the top tier? IMO, at the moment, it seems to be Mesoblast, BTX and OCAT, though this is an ongoing race and they could all stumble. I think we are seeing big question marks over the science for some of the others, and their financials are (will) suffer as a result. I am not as jaundiced on the OCAT stock price as you. My average is 7.30. It could stumble as it has before, which would not be a total surprise. This quarter will hopefully provide insights as we get partnerships and start PII. I am continually on the lookout for other stocks and have quite a few outside this sector. Many of the stocks in this sector are worthy of skepticism, if not all of them including OCAT. I frankly would like to see more of it. Rather than coming up with feel good stories about how a stock is going to be a slam dunk, we should be looking for reasons why things might fall apart and blow a hole in peoples accounts. OCAT has been the subject of skepticism and frustration for a long time, I think we are now seeing the skepticism level rise for many of the other stocks on this forum. Sheik, Just like you closed the book to soon on NRIFF, I think you are closing the book to soon on ATHX. That's not to say that ATHX will be successful from here on out, but the final chapter has not yet been written. Again you are framing the story about the ATHX board to fit your narrative. People posted about data in similar stroke trials in rats, about financials, about institutional buying, about articles out of the trials sites making positive statements, etc...because it was true, relevant, and was all part of the DD that we did. We also posted about similar rat trials NOT being successful, about GvB being a bullshitter, and about there definitely being a chance the trial could fail. I know because I posted a lot of it. As much as you try to make it sound like we poo-pooed your contrarian views, we didn't. We welcomed it. Poo-pooing the delivery of the message, well that's a different story. I do refute your assertion that the performance of stem cell stocks has been poor. I made a 120% on BCLI a few months back and had a 90% unrealized gain with ATHX a month ago, BTX has been on an absolute tear over the past few months. BHRT had a huge rally the other day and CUR was a great play for those who knew when to get in and when to get out. It just depends on one's strategy. For anyone buying and holding from P1 of any of these stocks and never selling, then yeah it has been pretty bad. But why would anyone do that? What makes OCAT more investable than some of the "rotting fish head" stocks you mentioned in the STEM forum? I see a company that is desperate for cash, failed to raise it when they tried (in my opinion because the best they could do was get a STEM-like deal, aka no one interested), rely on a very dilutive credit line for financing, consistently miss timelines, have never done a P2 trial, have P1 data that no one seemed to care about or felt was incomplete, are using hESCs when most seem to be steering away from them for a whole slew of reasons, are now going to license iPSCs from an outside source as opposed to using Lanza's patented homegrown ones, and the list goes on. Why aren't you as critical of OCAT as you are of ATHX? Is it because you own shares? The pivotal trial in the EU is very encouraging. It doesn't make me want to rush out and buy though because a) They still have a long way to go to get data from that trial, b) I still am not convinced that the treatment is as safe as they suggest (sounded like a nightmare for people like Marcus) and think they are going to need to address that, c) I am also not convinced that the M-09 line, or any of the NED lines, or any hESC line for that matter is what they will ultimately use for commercialization, d) They have to raise money. I don't see how their fortune will change so much from the last time around before they are really desperate for it. Which means chances are it could be a highly dilutive deal. I'd love to hear you make your case as to why I should invest in OCAT at this moment over other stocks in the sector. Instead of slamming other stocks while praising OCAT with broad statements such as it is "quality" or "top tier". |
|
|
|
Post by selluwud on Apr 27, 2015 12:08:21 GMT
Anybody try the iCell website this AM. It was working earlier, now a google search shows it may have been hacked. Just wondering if anyone else has gone there to visit?
|
|
|
|
Post by vzveteran on Apr 27, 2015 12:12:39 GMT
Anybody try the iCell website this AM. It was working earlier, now a google search shows it may have been hacked. Just wondering if anyone else has gone there to visit? Yes, just the home page works for me, nothing else. I tried different browsers, same result Where are you seeing it as a possible hack? |
|
|
|
Post by selluwud on Apr 27, 2015 12:41:05 GMT
Anybody try the iCell website this AM. It was working earlier, now a google search shows it may have been hacked. Just wondering if anyone else has gone there to visit? Yes, just the home page works for me, nothing else. I tried different browsers, same result Where are you seeing it as a possible hack? Since my book mark link didn't work and actually changed, I googled "investor stem cell" and the link on the google search page showed in red "site possibly hacked". But I just tried again and the "hacked" remark is gone. Strange. I still can't connect but it may be a filter from my companies server blocking it now. Oh Well!! |
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Apr 27, 2015 12:45:05 GMT
I would invest in OCAT any day other than STEM. Look at the charts. 1yr, 3yr,and 5 yr. What is the pipeline? Who are the leaders? GERN and STEM were considered the leaders years ago. GERN sold to BTX. aST is the current winner. It is interesting to see the connections of all of the above. Best bet? Invest in BIB. I tend to agree with you. Most of the stocks in the stem cell sector are quite awful and like a bad wine are not improving with age. IMHO we can add STEM to the list of un-investable rotting fish heads like CUR, ATHX and NBS. I think it is wise to invest in quality, which in this sector IMHO is OCAT. Even with OCAT I am not adding to my bet. Today's close puts me over break even (7.30) and I am content to let what I have ride. BIB is not bad, but is focused solely on growth. I am diversifying into strong dividend plays with the goal of replacing my income within the next 5 years. I am tired of stinky small-cap over-hyped dreams exploding in peoples faces (latest example ATHX, fortunately I had none). Your rotting fish head NBS just received ATMP Classification from the EMA. That goes right along side their already granted SPA from the FDA: finance.yahoo.com/news/neostems-lead-immuno-oncology-product-113000242.htmlNeoStem's Lead Immuno-Oncology Product Candidate, NBS20, Receives ATMP Classification From the European Medicines Agency |
|
|
|
Post by sheikyabooty on Apr 27, 2015 15:35:41 GMT
First of all, this message board has an Ignore feature for blocking out posters who don't fit your view of reality. Why don't you use it? "Not really making sense Jeff. Of course it's understandable to compare companies from a logical perspective (looking at differences in science, management, financials, etc.). That's not what I'm referencing and very few here seem to do that. What I'm talking about are immature, merit-less statements such as these:"I thought Jeff makes perfect sense. Comparisons, even at the gut level are as relevant as other data points. A lot of people use these boards for sentiment analysis which gives clues as to how people will be placing their bets in the market. You say you want differences in science, management, financials, etc., that can be useful, but only up to a point as we saw recently on the ATHX board (there I go comparing things again). There were countless stories floated about the science (those rats did great), management (Gil seems so excited and confident), financials (it must be good because they haven't done a raise prior to results), etc. Where did that get anyone? You then go on to slam my comments on STEM and other 2nd tier stem cell stocks. I stand by those comments. The recent performance of stem cell stocks has been awful, do you want to refute that assertion? Whether you are looking at the science (failing endpoints, dressing up the data to look better than it is), or financials (massive dilutions), many of these stocks are un-investable at the moment. You might get lucky with a quick flip, but in most cases that is what it will be, luck. I also believe that we will (are) seeing a split of this space into the top tier stocks and the also rans. Who will be in the top tier? IMO, at the moment, it seems to be Mesoblast, BTX and OCAT, though this is an ongoing race and they could all stumble. I think we are seeing big question marks over the science for some of the others, and their financials are (will) suffer as a result. I am not as jaundiced on the OCAT stock price as you. My average is 7.30. It could stumble as it has before, which would not be a total surprise. This quarter will hopefully provide insights as we get partnerships and start PII. I am continually on the lookout for other stocks and have quite a few outside this sector. Many of the stocks in this sector are worthy of skepticism, if not all of them including OCAT. I frankly would like to see more of it. Rather than coming up with feel good stories about how a stock is going to be a slam dunk, we should be looking for reasons why things might fall apart and blow a hole in peoples accounts. OCAT has been the subject of skepticism and frustration for a long time, I think we are now seeing the skepticism level rise for many of the other stocks on this forum. Sheik, Just like you closed the book to soon on NRIFF, I think you are closing the book to soon on ATHX. That's not to say that ATHX will be successful from here on out, but the final chapter has not yet been written. Again you are framing the story about the ATHX board to fit your narrative. People posted about data in similar stroke trials in rats, about financials, about institutional buying, about articles out of the trials sites making positive statements, etc...because it was true, relevant, and was all part of the DD that we did. We also posted about similar rat trials NOT being successful, about GvB being a bullshitter, and about there definitely being a chance the trial could fail. I know because I posted a lot of it. As much as you try to make it sound like we poo-pooed your contrarian views, we didn't. We welcomed it. Poo-pooing the delivery of the message, well that's a different story. I do refute your assertion that the performance of stem cell stocks has been poor. I made a 120% on BCLI a few months back and had a 90% unrealized gain with ATHX a month ago, BTX has been on an absolute tear over the past few months. BHRT had a huge rally the other day and CUR was a great play for those who knew when to get in and when to get out. It just depends on one's strategy. For anyone buying and holding from P1 of any of these stocks and never selling, then yeah it has been pretty bad. But why would anyone do that? What makes OCAT more investable than some of the "rotting fish head" stocks you mentioned in the STEM forum? I see a company that is desperate for cash, failed to raise it when they tried (in my opinion because the best they could do was get a STEM-like deal, aka no one interested), rely on a very dilutive credit line for financing, consistently miss timelines, have never done a P2 trial, have P1 data that no one seemed to care about or felt was incomplete, are using hESCs when most seem to be steering away from them for a whole slew of reasons, are now going to license iPSCs from an outside source as opposed to using Lanza's patented homegrown ones, and the list goes on. Why aren't you as critical of OCAT as you are of ATHX? Is it because you own shares? The pivotal trial in the EU is very encouraging. It doesn't make me want to rush out and buy though because a) They still have a long way to go to get data from that trial, b) I still am not convinced that the treatment is as safe as they suggest (sounded like a nightmare for people like Marcus) and think they are going to need to address that, c) I am also not convinced that the M-09 line, or any of the NED lines, or any hESC line for that matter is what they will ultimately use for commercialization, d) They have to raise money. I don't see how their fortune will change so much from the last time around before they are really desperate for it. Which means chances are it could be a highly dilutive deal. I'd love to hear you make your case as to why I should invest in OCAT at this moment over other stocks in the sector. Instead of slamming other stocks while praising OCAT with broad statements such as it is "quality" or "top tier". The market is voting with its collective pocket book and is sorting out which companies are class vs. trash. This morning OCAT has a market cap of $263M, ATHX is $99M and STEM is $42M. The market is valuing OCATs prospects at a premium. NRIFF is still an illiquid basket case IMO, it has come back a bit but is still way below the $7+ the market assigned pre-data release. As to ATHX, the situation is bleak IMO. Two failed trials and an attempt at data dredging to save the company IMO. It is still possible that Chugai may throw them some cash for a trial in Japan, but I don't see them being in any hurry to do so. ATHX is going to need to raise some cash to stay afloat as they can't rely on Chugai coming through. This is going to be extremely hard as they will be raising cash from a position of major weakness. BTX has been a surprise to me, at $460M the market is saying its got better prospects, we will see. Things will become clearer over time, I am in no hurry to sell my OCAT stake and prefer holding it over STEM, ATHX, CUR and NBS. The published data in the Lancet, the pivotal P2 in the UK, the possibility of SPA in the US and the possibility of a non-core JV are nice, the confirmation of the market cap in comparison to the others is better. As I said in my original post, the rating of these companies by the market is real-time and as we have seen, they can all get cut in half at a moments notice. Only invest what you are prepared to lose. |
|
|
|
Post by RLC on Apr 27, 2015 17:40:12 GMT
Sheik, Just like you closed the book to soon on NRIFF, I think you are closing the book to soon on ATHX. That's not to say that ATHX will be successful from here on out, but the final chapter has not yet been written. Again you are framing the story about the ATHX board to fit your narrative. People posted about data in similar stroke trials in rats, about financials, about institutional buying, about articles out of the trials sites making positive statements, etc...because it was true, relevant, and was all part of the DD that we did. We also posted about similar rat trials NOT being successful, about GvB being a bullshitter, and about there definitely being a chance the trial could fail. I know because I posted a lot of it. As much as you try to make it sound like we poo-pooed your contrarian views, we didn't. We welcomed it. Poo-pooing the delivery of the message, well that's a different story. I do refute your assertion that the performance of stem cell stocks has been poor. I made a 120% on BCLI a few months back and had a 90% unrealized gain with ATHX a month ago, BTX has been on an absolute tear over the past few months. BHRT had a huge rally the other day and CUR was a great play for those who knew when to get in and when to get out. It just depends on one's strategy. For anyone buying and holding from P1 of any of these stocks and never selling, then yeah it has been pretty bad. But why would anyone do that? What makes OCAT more investable than some of the "rotting fish head" stocks you mentioned in the STEM forum? I see a company that is desperate for cash, failed to raise it when they tried (in my opinion because the best they could do was get a STEM-like deal, aka no one interested), rely on a very dilutive credit line for financing, consistently miss timelines, have never done a P2 trial, have P1 data that no one seemed to care about or felt was incomplete, are using hESCs when most seem to be steering away from them for a whole slew of reasons, are now going to license iPSCs from an outside source as opposed to using Lanza's patented homegrown ones, and the list goes on. Why aren't you as critical of OCAT as you are of ATHX? Is it because you own shares? The pivotal trial in the EU is very encouraging. It doesn't make me want to rush out and buy though because a) They still have a long way to go to get data from that trial, b) I still am not convinced that the treatment is as safe as they suggest (sounded like a nightmare for people like Marcus) and think they are going to need to address that, c) I am also not convinced that the M-09 line, or any of the NED lines, or any hESC line for that matter is what they will ultimately use for commercialization, d) They have to raise money. I don't see how their fortune will change so much from the last time around before they are really desperate for it. Which means chances are it could be a highly dilutive deal. I'd love to hear you make your case as to why I should invest in OCAT at this moment over other stocks in the sector. Instead of slamming other stocks while praising OCAT with broad statements such as it is "quality" or "top tier". The market is voting with its collective pocket book and is sorting out which companies are class vs. trash. This morning OCAT has a market cap of $263M, ATHX is $99M and STEM is $42M. The market is valuing OCATs prospects at a premium. NRIFF is still an illiquid basket case IMO, it has come back a bit but is still way below the $7+ the market assigned pre-data release. As to ATHX, the situation is bleak IMO. Two failed trials and an attempt at data dredging to save the company IMO. It is still possible that Chugai may throw them some cash for a trial in Japan, but I don't see them being in any hurry to do so. ATHX is going to need to raise some cash to stay afloat as they can't rely on Chugai coming through. This is going to be extremely hard as they will be raising cash from a position of major weakness. BTX has been a surprise to me, at $460M the market is saying its got better prospects, we will see. Things will become clearer over time, I am in no hurry to sell my OCAT stake and prefer holding it over STEM, ATHX, CUR and NBS. The published data in the Lancet, the pivotal P2 in the UK, the possibility of SPA in the US and the possibility of a non-core JV are nice, the confirmation of the market cap in comparison to the others is better. As I said in my original post, the rating of these companies by the market is real-time and as we have seen, they can all get cut in half at a moments notice. Only invest what you are prepared to lose. Considering how fast things change in the world of small-caps (especially biotechs), you're measure for what's "class vs trash" is literally changing on a daily basis. Not a very smart way to look for value IMO. As Warren Buffet says, look for broken stocks, not broken companies (basically implying that markets are NOT always efficient as you seem to be inferring). I think that some could argue that OCAT is both a broken stock (seems way overvalued vs. peers, especially considering their lack of ability to get funded and their trial progress) and a broken company (3 different CEO's over the past 5 years (4 if you count Ted), can't get respectable financing, markets downplay their data, no JVs after after setting guidance for them, etc.). Obviously one event can drastically change this picture, but for now this is sort of where I see things. I think something that keeps getting mixed up with these debates with Sheik is that most of us aren't investing in these companies, we are trading them. We look for times when we feel they are over/under valued and play it accordingly. Sheik seems to be implying that he's investing in the company for the long run. Huge difference. This isn't to say that I agree with him on OCAT being "best of breed" in the stem cell sector as a long-term investment, because frankly I don't. But with us having completely different investment styles (long-term investing vs. trading) it makes sense that we are picking different companies to invest in and continue the jagged debates. So to Sheik, the "best" company to invest in is the one with the highest market cap (seems like kind of an odd way to pick which company you think will be valued more in the future, but to each their own). To myself, the "best" company to invest in is the one that seems the most undervalued. Re: NRIFF, I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about (illiquid basketcase?). Unless you're playing with hundreds of thousands or more, there's plenty of liquidity in NRI/NRIFF. Also, this is the one company of the one's mentioned above that has substantial revenues and has a real chance of increasing their revenue streams in the near future (not a shot in the dark like the stem cell companies mentioned). BTW: you seem to tout how "right" you've been about many of the companies discussed on this board. I see a lot of people on Twitter do the same thing. One thing I've noticed when they post their "success" stories are that everyone was a bet against positive data. If you think about it, Phase 2/3 success rates are horrible (worse with trials dealing with these new technologies such as stem cells & gene therapy which are the one's we discuss). Just going with the numbers you could just bet against data every time and you'd be right 99 out of 100 times. I'm looking forward to you being "right" about a Phase 2/3 trial's success. Will the first trial you'll predict to be successful be OCAT's Phase 2? |
|
|
|
Post by sheikyabooty on Apr 28, 2015 1:01:14 GMT
The market is voting with its collective pocket book and is sorting out which companies are class vs. trash. This morning OCAT has a market cap of $263M, ATHX is $99M and STEM is $42M. The market is valuing OCATs prospects at a premium. NRIFF is still an illiquid basket case IMO, it has come back a bit but is still way below the $7+ the market assigned pre-data release. As to ATHX, the situation is bleak IMO. Two failed trials and an attempt at data dredging to save the company IMO. It is still possible that Chugai may throw them some cash for a trial in Japan, but I don't see them being in any hurry to do so. ATHX is going to need to raise some cash to stay afloat as they can't rely on Chugai coming through. This is going to be extremely hard as they will be raising cash from a position of major weakness. BTX has been a surprise to me, at $460M the market is saying its got better prospects, we will see. Things will become clearer over time, I am in no hurry to sell my OCAT stake and prefer holding it over STEM, ATHX, CUR and NBS. The published data in the Lancet, the pivotal P2 in the UK, the possibility of SPA in the US and the possibility of a non-core JV are nice, the confirmation of the market cap in comparison to the others is better. As I said in my original post, the rating of these companies by the market is real-time and as we have seen, they can all get cut in half at a moments notice. Only invest what you are prepared to lose. Considering how fast things change in the world of small-caps (especially biotechs), you're measure for what's "class vs trash" is literally changing on a daily basis. Not a very smart way to look for value IMO. As Warren Buffet says, look for broken stocks, not broken companies (basically implying that markets are NOT always efficient as you seem to be inferring). I think that some could argue that OCAT is both a broken stock (seems way overvalued vs. peers, especially considering their lack of ability to get funded and their trial progress) and a broken company (3 different CEO's over the past 5 years (4 if you count Ted), can't get respectable financing, markets downplay their data, no JVs after after setting guidance for them, etc.). Obviously one event can drastically change this picture, but for now this is sort of where I see things. I think something that keeps getting mixed up with these debates with Sheik is that most of us aren't investing in these companies, we are trading them. We look for times when we feel they are over/under valued and play it accordingly. Sheik seems to be implying that he's investing in the company for the long run. Huge difference. This isn't to say that I agree with him on OCAT being "best of breed" in the stem cell sector as a long-term investment, because frankly I don't. But with us having completely different investment styles (long-term investing vs. trading) it makes sense that we are picking different companies to invest in and continue the jagged debates. So to Sheik, the "best" company to invest in is the one with the highest market cap (seems like kind of an odd way to pick which company you think will be valued more in the future, but to each their own). To myself, the "best" company to invest in is the one that seems the most undervalued. Re: NRIFF, I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about (illiquid basketcase?). Unless you're playing with hundreds of thousands or more, there's plenty of liquidity in NRI/NRIFF. Also, this is the one company of the one's mentioned above that has substantial revenues and has a real chance of increasing their revenue streams in the near future (not a shot in the dark like the stem cell companies mentioned). BTW: you seem to tout how "right" you've been about many of the companies discussed on this board. I see a lot of people on Twitter do the same thing. One thing I've noticed when they post their "success" stories are that everyone was a bet against positive data. If you think about it, Phase 2/3 success rates are horrible (worse with trials dealing with these new technologies such as stem cells & gene therapy which are the one's we discuss). Just going with the numbers you could just bet against data every time and you'd be right 99 out of 100 times. I'm looking forward to you being "right" about a Phase 2/3 trial's success. Will the first trial you'll predict to be successful be OCAT's Phase 2? I think you are taking an overly simplified view of what I said. I said that the market is sorting out which companies are class vs. trash. The recent data releases have accelerated this process. Isn't that how markets work? The market is going to punish the failures and reward potential. When quoting Buffett, you need to keep in mind the types of companies he invests in. When he says buy broken companies, I think he is talking about the furniture stores, confectioners, insurance companies and jewelers he invested in, that can be turned around by an infusion of new management and a new strategy. For stem cell companies, the science can't be broken. For OCAT, the broken bits are on the financial/management side. For ATHX, at least in my opinion, the science is broken. I have a mix of bets. OCAT is long term, though I am continually reassessing and will dump it if I sense the science is broke. For action, I trade currencies with Oanda. For trading stocks, I use leveraged ETFs with technical analysis (triangles, trendlines, macd, stochastics, etc). I can't see how you can trade using fundamentals, which is what I see others trying to do with stem cell stocks. Look for signals on the charts. It's true that most trials in small cap biotech fail. The latest today was CLDN down 80%. IMO, you are better off building a trading system around this fact than holding. For the OCAT PII trials I will assess how things are going closer to the date. |
|
|
|
Post by RLC on Apr 28, 2015 19:52:09 GMT
I think you are taking an overly simplified view of what I said. I said that the market is sorting out which companies are class vs. trash. The recent data releases have accelerated this process. Isn't that how markets work? The market is going to punish the failures and reward potential. When quoting Buffett, you need to keep in mind the types of companies he invests in. When he says buy broken companies, I think he is talking about the furniture stores, confectioners, insurance companies and jewelers he invested in, that can be turned around by an infusion of new management and a new strategy. For stem cell companies, the science can't be broken. For OCAT, the broken bits are on the financial/management side. For ATHX, at least in my opinion, the science is broken. I have a mix of bets. OCAT is long term, though I am continually reassessing and will dump it if I sense the science is broke. For action, I trade currencies with Oanda. For trading stocks, I use leveraged ETFs with technical analysis (triangles, trendlines, macd, stochastics, etc). I can't see how you can trade using fundamentals, which is what I see others trying to do with stem cell stocks. Look for signals on the charts. It's true that most trials in small cap biotech fail. The latest today was CLDN down 80%. IMO, you are better off building a trading system around this fact than holding. For the OCAT PII trials I will assess how things are going closer to the date. So I guess you're implying that there's no such thing as value investing, because all current values are "fair" and "correct"? I disagree with that assertion. Some super rich dumbass could buy up endless shares of a worthless company, but because of his influence on supply/demand the MC could be sky high. I completely disagree with you on Buffet. Just because those are the types of companies he invests in doesn't mean that's what he was referring to. His quote has various applications, for example, in sports signing a player that you feel is worth well more than the $X million dollars the rest of the league seems to be valuing a player at. He's just saying that there are often disconnects between a stock price and where some might feel the actual value of the company is, and that these are situations that investors can (and should) take advantage of. Science can't be broken? I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that, and you go on to say that for ATHX, the science was broken? Of course the science can be broken. IMO, this is what clinical trials are for... to prove if the science holds up or not. The science might have backed a study in animals but didn't translate in humans, hence for our purpose it's broken. I'm not too familiar with TA. From the little I know, it seems that the best approach is to pick the companies to invest in based on fundamentals (product, management, financials, etc.) and pick your entry/exit points using TA. However, it seems obvious to me that the less liquidity in a company, the less reliable TA is. This is why I'm hesitant to trust TA for making my decisions on these small cap biotechs. I totally agree about holding through data. This is something I rarely do with large chunks on money, and ATHX was an exception. The way I like to try and play it is to find undervalued companies that have upcoming data releases and buying in with the intent of selling weeks before the planned data release. If you look back at all the companies mentioned on this board that have released data, I'd say this would have been a great strategy for 4 out of 5 of them. It might be worth looking into playing the failed data releases though (finding companies with questionable science and shorting them going into the data). I've always been terrified of shorting a company that has the possibility of going up 5x+ in value overnight (which tends to happen when companies surprise the market with a successful trial), however going by the numbers I'd think you would come out ahead. |
|
|
|
Post by sheikyabooty on Apr 30, 2015 2:10:53 GMT
I think you are taking an overly simplified view of what I said. I said that the market is sorting out which companies are class vs. trash. The recent data releases have accelerated this process. Isn't that how markets work? The market is going to punish the failures and reward potential. When quoting Buffett, you need to keep in mind the types of companies he invests in. When he says buy broken companies, I think he is talking about the furniture stores, confectioners, insurance companies and jewelers he invested in, that can be turned around by an infusion of new management and a new strategy. For stem cell companies, the science can't be broken. For OCAT, the broken bits are on the financial/management side. For ATHX, at least in my opinion, the science is broken. I have a mix of bets. OCAT is long term, though I am continually reassessing and will dump it if I sense the science is broke. For action, I trade currencies with Oanda. For trading stocks, I use leveraged ETFs with technical analysis (triangles, trendlines, macd, stochastics, etc). I can't see how you can trade using fundamentals, which is what I see others trying to do with stem cell stocks. Look for signals on the charts. It's true that most trials in small cap biotech fail. The latest today was CLDN down 80%. IMO, you are better off building a trading system around this fact than holding. For the OCAT PII trials I will assess how things are going closer to the date. So I guess you 're implying that there's no such thing as value investing, because all current values are "fair" and "correct"? I disagree with that assertion. Some super rich dumbass could buy up endless shares of a worthless company, but because of his influence on supply/demand the MC could be sky high. This is not what I said. I do believe there are value opportunities. All I said is that the market, over time is sorting out the trash from the class. I think Buffett would agree with that.I completely disagree with you on Buffet. Just because those are the types of companies he invests in doesn't mean that's what he was referring to. His quote has various applications, for example, in sports signing a player that you feel is worth well more than the $X million dollars the rest of the league seems to be valuing a player at. He's just saying that there are often disconnects between a stock price and where some might feel the actual value of the company is, and that these are situations that investors can (and should) take advantage of. I agree that there are inefficiencies and disconnects that can be taken advantage of. They usually don't last long as increasing numbers of people realize the market is incorrect and quickly take advantage of it.
Science can't be broken? I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that, and you go on to say that for ATHX, the science was broken? Of course the science can be broken. IMO, this is what clinical trials are for... to prove if the science holds up or not. The science might have backed a stanimals but didn't translate in humans, hence for our purpose it's broken. I agree that the science behind a company can be broken. I was referring to the Buffett quote you made. I was trying to say, don't buy a company that has broken science, broken business management and financials can be fixed, however. If the original hypothesis and/or mechanism of action is incorrect, then the science is broken as evidenced by failed trials, don't invest in broken science.I'm not too familiar with TA. From the little I know, it seems that the best approach is to pick the companies to invest in based on fundamentals (product, management, financials, etc.) and pick your entry/exit points using TA. However, it seems obvious to me that the less liquidity in a company, the less reliable TA is. This is why I'm hesitant to trust TA for making my decisions on these small cap biotechs. See the chart below. I posted an earlier version to the ATHX forum. I think ATHX gets enough volume to make TA work.
I totally agree about holding through data. This is something I rarely do with large chunks on money, and ATHX was an exception. The way I like to try and play it is to find undervalued companies that have upcoming data releases and buying in with the intent of selling weeks before the planned data release. If you look back at all the companies mentioned on this board that have released data, I'd say this would have been a great strategy for 4 out of 5 of them. It might be worth looking into playing the failed data releases though (finding companies with questionable science and shorting them going into the data). I've always been terrified of shorting a company that has the possibility of going up 5x+ in value overnight (which tends to happen when companies surprise the market with a successful trial), however going by the numbers I'd think you would come out ahead.  The above is a weekly chart. You can see that prior to results, MACD, CCI and Stochastics were overbought and were about to give a sell signal. This is particularly so with the Stochastics. |
|
|
|
Post by selluwud on Apr 30, 2015 19:11:33 GMT
It looks as though the old adage about getting out of the stock market in May is ringing true this year. Last year it didn't, but as they say "Sell in May and go away" then come back in after Halloween. Funny how that works.
|
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Jun 18, 2015 1:46:28 GMT
This is how you do a raise:
Amicus (FOLD) just completed their offering... $258.8 million in gross proceeds raised...19,528,302 shares added. Impressive.
ir.amicustherapeutics.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=918428
CYNAF also just completed an offering raising $63M (4.5M shares at $14 with no warrants). And they up-list to the Nasdaq tomorrow. Also very impressive.
|
|
|
|
Post by furbush87 on Jun 23, 2015 14:15:47 GMT
I guess this is the place to whine a bit. Anyone here following TPIV at all? I can't wrap my head around its massive price increase over the last couple months. All they have is a couple Phase 1 trials complete in TNBC, HER2, and Cervical, all on patients that were disease free, then treated with a vaccine that shows "robust" immune response. How is that meaningful? Yes they work with the Mayo, and something like 50% institutional ownership, I just can't understand the run for this company, anyone able to enlighten?
|
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Jun 23, 2015 15:34:45 GMT
I guess this is the place to whine a bit. Anyone here following TPIV at all? I can't wrap my head around its massive price increase over the last couple months. All they have is a couple Phase 1 trials complete in TNBC, HER2, and Cervical, all on patients that were disease free, then treated with a vaccine that shows "robust" immune response. How is that meaningful? Yes they work with the Mayo, and something like 50% institutional ownership, I just can't understand the run for this company, anyone able to enlighten? You can talk about it in the original thread. In fact I just left a response for you there. |
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Aug 10, 2015 13:02:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Aug 10, 2015 14:12:40 GMT
Holy crap, up another 333%!
|
|
|
|
Post by selluwud on Sept 30, 2015 15:25:23 GMT
New cancer fighting technique to keep your eyes on. You know how the market jumps on the "latest and the greatest" cancer therapy. Not sure who the players will be if this idea pans out. This is currently being developed in an academic setting. www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/drugs-go-under-cover-as-platelets-to-destroy-cancer/81251797/ Drugs Go Under Cover as Platelets to Destroy Cancer Scientists say they have for the first time developed a technique that coats anticancer drugs in membranes made from a patient's own platelets, allowing the drugs to last longer in the body and attack both primary cancer tumors and the circulating tumor cells that can cause a cancer to metastasize. The work reportedly was tested successfully in an animal model. "There are two key advantages to using platelet membranes to coat anticancer drugs," says Zhen Gu, Ph.D., corresponding author of a paper on the work and an assistant professor in the joint biomedical engineering program at North Carolina State University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "First, the surface of cancer cells has an affinity for platelets; they stick to each other. Second, because the platelets come from the patient's own body, the drug carriers aren't identified as foreign objects, so last longer in the bloodstream." "This combination of features means that the drugs can not only attack the main tumor site, but are more likely to find and attach themselves to tumor cells circulating in the bloodstream, essentially attacking new tumors before they start," adds Quanyin Hu, a Ph.D. student and lead author of the paper (“Anticancer Platelet-Mimicking Nanovehicles”), which appears in Advanced Materials Here's how the process works. Blood is taken from a patient (a lab mouse in the case of this research) and the platelets are collected from that blood. The isolated platelets are treated to extract the platelet membranes, which are then placed in a solution with a nanoscale gel containing the anticancer drug doxorubicin (Dox), which attacks the nucleus of a cancer cell. The solution is compressed, forcing the gel through the membranes and creating nanoscale spheres made up of platelet membranes with Dox-gel cores. These spheres are then treated so that their surfaces are coated with the anticancer drug TRAIL, which is most effective at attacking the cell membranes of cancer cells. When released into a patient's bloodstream, these pseudo-platelets can circulate for up to 30 hours as compared to approximately six hours for the nanoscale vehicles without the coating. When one of the pseudo-platelets comes into contact with a tumor, three things happen more or less at the same time. First, the P-Selectin proteins on the platelet membrane bind to the CD44 proteins on the surface of the cancer cell, locking it into place. Second, the TRAIL on the pseudo-platelet's surface attacks the cancer cell membrane. Third, the nanoscale pseudo-platelet is effectively swallowed by the larger cancer cell. The acidic environment inside the cancer cell then begins to break apart the pseudo-platelet, thus freeing the Dox to attack the cancer cell's nucleus. In a study using mice, the researchers found that using Dox and TRAIL in the pseudo-platelet drug delivery system was significantly more effective against large tumors and circulating tumor cells than using Dox and TRAIL in a nano-gel delivery system without the platelet membrane. "We'd like to do additional pre-clinical testing on this technique," notes Dr. Gu. "And we think it could be used to deliver other drugs, such as those targeting cardiovascular disease, in which the platelet membrane could help us target relevant sites in the body." |
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Nov 10, 2015 15:17:15 GMT
In biotech the two companies that I am most interested at the moment, but do not own shares in either of at the moment are NRIFF/NRI and TNXP. I owned both throughout this year and sold both for a nice profit a few more the ago, but am now looking to get back in. The reason being is that not have major catalysts upcoming. It would be difficult to summarize everything here so I'd suggest checking out those boards here. To give a quick summary, both have very good cash positions (NRIFF is actually trading below cash at the moment) and with both the risk/reward is very good in my opinion. Here is a recent article from Jason Napodano that summarizes things very nicely: bionapcfa.blogspot.jp/2015/10/nuvo-research-spin-out-should-unlock.html?m=1With TNXP, if they don't meet end points with their upcoming data then it is ballgame over. However, I think, based on those end points (the trial actually failed originally, but they given the go ahead by the FDA based on a different set of statically significant end points) there is a very good chance they will meet those end points. Both companies are extremely undervalued at this point and most importantly have cash. I also like ONCS and own shares. I just think it may be a while before we see any big appreciation. Lastly, I am looking to get back into BCLI. We should see some kind of interim P2 data for ALS soon. |
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Nov 10, 2015 15:38:22 GMT
P.S. There are countless other potentially good opportunities out there. These are just the handful that I have on my radar right now.
|
|
