Seeking Alpha

Alan Robert Ross

View as an RSS Feed
View Alan Robert Ross' Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Why The FDA Would Be Foolish Not To Award PV-10 Breakthrough Therapy Designation  [View instapost]
    That's a very comprehensive and well documented argument you have crafted.

    We can see in the recent Ebola and PV-10 experience that FDA orthodoxy and pre-conceived notions may put saving lives and reducing suffering at a lower priority level than they should be.

    For all their requirements of understanding mode of action and requiring scientific proof, they apparently do not really understand the idea of risk versus reward. If not using an effective treatment means death, what benefit is there to withhold approval from a drug that they concede "works" and has a 100 year exemplary safety record in human use, like the basic ingredient in PV-10?
    In the case of withholding BTD approval for PV-10, the risk was not that people would be treated and not helped, losing money for no reason and possibly being deterred from seeking other treatment, because BTD is not approval.
    Nobody would have been put at risk by treatment with PV-10 if BTD status had been approved. PV-10 would still have had to be shown to be effective as well as being safe. Nothing would have been lost to speed development in hopes of saving lives that would be lost because of FDA dithering. 
    Aug 12 02:06 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • CF To 2017: Why PVCT Can Afford To Complete Phase III Trials Without Further Dilution. [View instapost]

    Yes, they did reincorporate in DE at least partly because of the Corporate Law regime there that makes it easier to resist hostile takeovers. If some entity tries to buy a lot of shares and run a coup against the Directors, DE regulations make it more difficult for the insurgents to succeed.

    The company is looking at all the possibilities that may be available to enhance shareholder value in the eventual acquisition/sale they have been planning. Besides that being their fiduciary duty, it also directly affects the 4 managers as the company's largest individual shareholders. Management has been publicly talking about the buyout for quite a while and has an active data room with multiple major companies with access, after having signed Confidentiality Agreements.
    Aug 6 12:49 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • CF To 2017: Why PVCT Can Afford To Complete Phase III Trials Without Further Dilution. [View instapost]
    Ex, they are not relocating their offices. The closest thing to what you are asking is that Management is doing it fiduciary duty and considering moving the domicile of the company if/when it would enhance shareholder value when the buyout comes.

    I know of no corporate changes recently, nor any reason to believe that PVCT will agree to a buyout at anything near the current price.

    If some clever Pharma makes a bid, putting the company "in play", if there are no other companies that come in to bid the price to at least ~$4 Billion + CVR, I'd expect the company to use the poison pill. Provectus has remained small all these years, rather than selling a piece to Majors, even though it would have provided lots of working capital. It is not logical to expect them to buckle under and accept an inadequate deal NOW, just when PV-10 has been established as a Systemic Immune System Booster and to be going in a Phase III trial where the results (beating traditional Chemo) is a safe bet.

    The different lawsuit filings are really just kockeying for position in one class action suit. Multiple and repeetitive PRs have been issued by the various different law firms vying to be the Lead because they have the shareholders with the largest loss in the class. Once the deadline is passed a judge decides who to award the title to as "lead plaintiff" and that person's lawyers tend to be the lawyers who pursue the case, hoping for a settlement that pays their hefty fees. Shareholders often get little to nothing, even if they win or settle out of court. The lawyers are in it for their fees (although some of them may be tied to short funds that find lawsuit press releases stampede naive investors).

    Provectus is insured and plans on fighting the claims of the ambulance chasers, but it may be up to the insurance company.

    You can sue anyone you want, regardless of whether or not you have a case. If a company settles and pays off plaintiff lawyers, they are likely to be sued again so the lawyers can be paid to go away.

    The current suit is not material for PVCT, IMO.
    Aug 6 12:23 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • CF To 2017: Why PVCT Can Afford To Complete Phase III Trials Without Further Dilution. [View instapost]
    You are welcome Joel.
    Your expectation about shorts being toasted, given that Major Pharma is going to buy PVCT at some point, makes sense.

    The upside potential is about 20 to 50 times the current price, which is even more than that when compared with the margin requirements on the short. Who in their right mind wants to hope to make 80 cents if a company collapses when the upside potential is $20 or more?

    Note that the shorts have never been able to deny the data, so they try misquote or attach the researchers or the management. While investors may be fooled, Major Pharma looks at data, not Seeking Alpha articles by bashing shorts trying to stampede those who have not done their due diligence.

    Here is a presentation that is completely explicit that PV-10 kill tumors directly and is a Systemic treatment because it enhances patients immunity.

    Note the statement on two of the slides:
    "IL PV-10 Leads to Systemic Immunity in Melanoma Patients"

    What that says is clear. If you inject PV-10 into melanoma tumors (IL= Intralesional) it causes immunity to similar melanoma cells is throughout the body in addition to killing the tumor injected and other tumors that may not have been injected. The proof is in the research and some very clear data are summarized in the charts and pictures of cancer cells and patients' cancers in the presentation.
    Aug 4 08:35 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Product Development Story Of Provectus Biopharmaceuticals [View article]
    Here is the page with almost all the 2011 News releases from Provectus. Announcing that a Phase III trial is starting is a major milestone and would be the title of a PR that "announced" this.

    Of course, despite the new basher's assertions, Provectus did not announce what s/he said it did.

    In fact, during this period and into 2012 Provectus was meeting with the FDA and trying to get the FDA to approve an SPA for the kind of study that Provectus wanted to do.

    Are shareholders happy it took as long as it did to get to the current point where a Phase III trial will soon start?

    Of course not.
    And management was not happy about the delay either.

    Did the management overpay themselves?
    Is it that out of the ordinary that this happens in this sector?
    Not according to my study of pay levels of comparable companies. Does the basher present data to illustrate that compared to other comparables that pay was "bordering on the absurd"?
    Is the management giving a considerable amount back?

    Perhaps if WallCPA dislikes the company so much and can't understand why Major Pharma has representatives on the Advisory Board, a logical inference might be that Major Pharma doesn't agree with him/her about Provectus.

    As usual, we see no dispute about the efficacy or safety of PV-10, which is very likely the main interest of major Pharma.

    The critics who say they have no skin in the game either have not done the due diligence on the fundamentals or they know that they won't stampede anyone talking about the data, because it is public and not amenable to spin.

    Save us from self-described altruists that don't do due diligence.
    Aug 1 12:52 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Product Development Story Of Provectus Biopharmaceuticals [View article]
    Typical basher, having nothing to argue that is factual, attacks the messenger with the data.

    Your lack of reasoned, fact-based evidence to support your position is notable, as usual, by its absence.
    Jul 31 11:56 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Product Development Story Of Provectus Biopharmaceuticals [View article]
    Glad to help, Nick.
    It will help you to wonder "how could they know that?" And ask questions about facts underlying opinions.

    And I am not referring to just Provectus, but with any investment.
    Jul 31 06:39 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Product Development Story Of Provectus Biopharmaceuticals [View article]
    Nick, as an investor that is learning, you need to ask questions to find the factual basis of assertions before you make up your own mind. If you do that you will learn how other decide upon valuation, which can be useful, and when you ask many different people, you may find a method that seems to make sense to you.

    Agreeing with a bashers (defined as someone who makes negative assertions without factual backing and turns what few facts they have into something negative based upon an uninformed value judgment) teaches you nothing and makes other inexperienced investors think the basher's point makes sense to someone who is clearly long.

    Note that the basher has not dealt with the actual Phase II data nor what PV-10 would be worth if/when approved for melanoma, much less for liver, breast and other solid tumors.

    Good luck.
    Jul 31 04:35 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Product Development Story Of Provectus Biopharmaceuticals [View article]
    Nick, I am wondering where you have gotten your idea of valuation, or how you have calculated it, given that you have been discussing this with the "retail Investor".

    Does market price indicate value for you?
    Have you run the numbers like I have?

    I can see why a shortie will not consider the research results, the market size, the likely market penetration and revenue and decide that the company is worthless or worth little, but I am wondering why you are even partly agreeing with the basher.

    So, please tell us why the company's fundamentals makes it not worth $5 or more. Or just tell us how you figure what the share price should be.

    I look forward to reading about the facts and process you have used to come to your valuation decision. I can already see that Mr. RI doesn't use facts or math and relies on market price and basher articles.
    Jul 31 12:40 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Product Development Story Of Provectus Biopharmaceuticals [View article]
    Retail, do you know what Proof is?
    It isn't why YOU think, on the basis of NO evidence.

    If there was a pump and dump scheme, why is it not most likely to have been engineered by the shorts, who first bought shares to push the share price higher so they could short from a better level?

    What PUMP on BTD? You mean the discussion about what a BTD award would do to the timeline until approval? You may have hear that "time is money" somewhere. Just because you don't understand fundamentals and see no need to discuss them doesn't mean thatthe discussion that you don't think is necessary is a PUMP.

    You have yet to mention facts that are important, like the data on PV-10 and how it works to kill tumors....

    But you think that not selling an interest in a promising drug to major pharma, for too little money is dumb. That is a typical small investor "weak hands" argument.

    And you presume that no sale means there has been no offers... when an even-handed factual approach would be to have no opinion when you have no factual evidence.

    You making stuff up, is more self-delusion (assuming you believe any of it) as opposed to reflecting due diligence... and isn't fooling many readers.

    Jul 31 12:28 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Product Development Story Of Provectus Biopharmaceuticals [View article]
    Richard, if you actually did some due diligence (besides reading basher articles) your might see that there is ample opportunity for good news. You might want to start with the efficacy of the drug.

    But since you see not even a chance of positive developments, and you obviously are not being factually honest (such as saying that management is "as shady as they come", which at the very least indicates you have very little experience in the market) perhaps you just will never be convinced.

    Interesting article, M. Plaut.
    Thanks for your hard work!
    Jul 28 02:51 PM | 12 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple Might Not Use Sapphire, Short GT Advanced Technologies [View article]
    The author wrote:
    "However, Apple hasn't confirmed it will be using GT Advanced Technologies' sapphire in the iPhone 6, and there are many factors that point toward the fact it may not happen."

    "Facts" don't happen.
    Presentation of some actual facts would be interesting.

    How about this one for a "fact"(?):

    "First, with the smartphone market saturating, Apple will be looking to maximize its profit on the iPhone 6, and given that sapphire displays are expensive, Apple may decide to stick to Corning's (NYSE:GLW) Gorilla Glass."

    So where is the factual basis that Apple is "looking to maximize profits on iPhone 6"?

    Are they going to do that, at the expense of the brand?
    Are they going to put out a model without enough of an upgrade to encourage people to buy the phone?
    Are they perhaps going to just increase the price to maximize profits?

    Then, a rumor (not a fact) is presented that the lack of supply of sapphire will make Apple reserve it for one model:

    "This rumor corresponds with an earlier report from analyst Ming-Chi Kuo, who suggested that supply constraints may force Apple to reserve the sapphire display for premium iPhone models such as the 64GB version of the 5.5-inch iPhone 6."

    The author then writes about yet another rumor about there being too much sapphire glass:

    "In addition, rumors suggest that GT Advanced Technologies is already producing large amounts of sapphire, and under this deal, it's highly unlikely that GT Advanced Technologies will be allowed to supply the sapphire to Samsung or other smartphone making companies. This means that GT Advanced Technologies will be left with huge amounts of sapphire if Apple decides to stick with Gorilla Glass for the 5.5-inched iPhone."

    Which is it?
    Is there too much of it or too little of it, or is it just too expensive:

    "As of now, the estimated price of sapphire display for an iPhone-sized phone lies in the $9-$12 range. In comparison, Gorilla Glass will cost Apple less than $3 for the same."

    And why would $6 to $9 extra on a $400 phone make a difference when consumers save $40 to $100 by not having to buy clear plastic to protect it from scratches and not have to buy buffering cases?

    I have no idea of what Apple is going to do because I have no facts.... so I am only arguing about consistency and for Seeking Alpha to require Short Articles to provide a comprehensive rundown of what could happen to make the opposite thesis (in this case being long) come true, as they tend to do with Long Articles.
    Jul 18 01:49 PM | 14 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • AutoCanada: An Easy Short [View article]
    I hope you are a better investor than a mind reader, Owen, or is that how you value ACQ?

    I am not a chartist.
    It is the shorts that see a high RSI and a chart going "asymptotic" as reason to short. While it is normal for the chart pattern to prompt profit-taking and a temporary pullback (as has happened repeatedly with this stock... on the way up) the reason why this stock has been one of the best growth stories on the TSX, for more than 1 year, is the company's fundamental growth and profits, not its chart.

    % Growth in
    same store sales Q after Q
    overall revenue

    And Canadians LOVE dividend payers, especially those that grow those dividends over time.

    Another American who thinks the people, investors, markets, are the same in both places?
    When AutoCanada's business in Canada's fragmented unconsolidated auto market gets to be as slow as that of AutoNation, its valuation will decline. If people from a foreign country are shorting it now, while growth is high, because they anticipate a Canadian recession because of a housing crash, I have been nice enough to warn them.
    Jun 16 05:04 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • AutoCanada: An Easy Short [View article]
    Very nice of you to give me anonymous advice accumulated in a whole 10 years of experience.

    Seeing as how I have owned ACQ since it was under $30 I may not need your help.

    ACQ does not generate tremendous fees for huge entities like RBC or Scotiabank, so your dismissal of their price target is a matter of talking your book. If their target was $70, I would not be surprised if you'd be touting it everywhere you could be.

    Jun 16 04:52 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • AutoCanada: An Easy Short [View article]
    Let's see what others say about VALUATION.

    How about this?
    Andrew Hamlin's top picks: AutoCanada, Scotiabank, Eaton Corp.

    Or these on June 6th:
    RBC Capital Increases AutoCanada Price Target to C$91.00 (ACQ) at Sector Perform

    AutoCanada Price Target Increased to C$93.00 by Analysts at Scotiabank rated Outperform

    Do you think the Royal Bank of Canada and Bank of Nova Scotia analysts have price targets in the $90s because they don't understand the Canadian economy, the Canadian automobile market, and the Canadian housing market (Canadian Banks retain the mortgages they grant so they are careful about making loans that will fail, unlike the banks in the USA, who sell their loans)? I bet they also know that moribund US dealership groups have a lower valuation, too.

    Add the recent addition to all of these S&P Indexes after the close of trading on Friday, June 20, 2014, as announced by S&P on June 13th:


    Jun 16 11:18 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment