Seeking Alpha

Ugly reversal for Inovio

  • After being up as much as13% in today's session, Inovio (INO -14.2%) turns tail and plummets 24% from its intraday high of $12.20 on a 10x surge in volume. On a purely technical basis, the intensity of the bearish reversal should put longs on high alert.
  • Earlier today the company announced the initiation of a Phase 1/2a clinical trial to evaluate the safety, immunogenicity and clinical responses of INO-3112, a combination immunotherapeutic candidate for HPV-associated head and neck cancer.
From other sites
Comments (28)
  • dme306
    , contributor
    Comments (50) | Send Message
     
    That's not why it reversed, on a pure technical basis! Adam F wrote another inaccurate hit piece on INO taking someone elses interview with Dr. Kim and distorting the words. Do we have to make a complaint again on you for adding your own opinion?
    10 Jun 2014, 03:58 PM Reply Like
  • Hoang6
    , contributor
    Comments (327) | Send Message
     
    Adam F certainly has his "power," but the stock in itself is not strong, don't you think? Can AF do the same thing to JNJ or MRK?
    10 Jun 2014, 04:01 PM Reply Like
  • Cassandra.says
    , contributor
    Comments (87) | Send Message
     
    Adam can not cause a stampede of professional analysts, who are hardly going to take notice of an uncredentialled and irresponsible writer who was hired to be an attention-getting device for his boss.

     

    However, stocks that are top-heavy with amateur investors are easy pickings.
    10 Jun 2014, 04:12 PM Reply Like
  • aow
    , contributor
    Comments (142) | Send Message
     
    INO runs up and down on retail speculation. Went up on a couple pumper SA articles and burst on a dumper blog post. Not a big surprise.
    10 Jun 2014, 04:17 PM Reply Like
  • dannick
    , contributor
    Comments (108) | Send Message
     
    At best the neglect to mention the major INO news cycle of the day (The Streets article) is incompetence.

     

    At worst it is intentional.

     

    Either way SA will retract and re-write their publish.
    10 Jun 2014, 04:17 PM Reply Like
  • Stephen Tips
    , contributor
    Comments (411) | Send Message
     
    I also read the interview in the June 9, 2014, SA article by Trevor Lowenthal: (http://bit.ly/1l5LI7J), and AF’s analysis: (http://bit.ly/1l4K9qI).

     

    Apparently, AF (and, perhaps others?) may be attempting to decipher the words spoken by Dr. Kim, because the SP was up significantly until the AF article appeared – then dropped precipitously.

     

    I really do not understand that concept (reading tea leaves) – I am not a professional investigator - maybe a lie detector test would prove effective? INO has had its share of nonbelievers over the years and continues to do so. AF certainly can be included in that group – I never have read anything from him to the contrary.

     

    As investors, we gamble and sometimes win; sometimes lose.

     

    I hope INO is a winner, not only for the investors (of whom Dr. Kim is the largest shareholder), but for the many who would benefit from the science, if (or when?) proven correct. I have a large position in INO and it would hurt to be disappointed, but I would survive and continue to battle another day. Those in need of the positive results offered by INO may not be as fortunate.

     

    Disclosure: Long INO. I have written this comment myself, and I am NOT receiving any compensation whatsoever.
    10 Jun 2014, 05:33 PM Reply Like
  • sinha0713
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Are you really comparing this <20 employee co. with its small market cap to JNJ or Merck? Of course he cannot. Biotechs are speculatives and nothing more. He can say what he wants but his "power" is over people who use social trending to make money...
    10 Jun 2014, 06:02 PM Reply Like
  • soifranc
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
     
    I'm long INO but I've been wondering why the split. The excuse given was that institutions buy at $5+.
    Since the Phase 2 results are imminent, if they were very positive, the stock would have risen above that on its own.
    I agree the article from Adam was a downer but we'll know soon enough if he's right. Something smells fishy.
    10 Jun 2014, 06:02 PM Reply Like
  • Warrn
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    I have the same feeling like you . I don't see the necessity it should reverse - split .

     

    But on that contrary, if the company don't have confidence , why it initiated
    another INO-3112 trial?
    11 Jun 2014, 10:37 PM Reply Like
  • smg677
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    the company has more than 20 employees :(
    12 Jun 2014, 02:52 AM Reply Like
  • WHO73
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    Dme306 IMO hit the nail on the head! For INO shareholders/investors take a look at NWBO's (pharma) 29 May 2014 msg from Mr. A. F. . NWBO's stock fell on emotion ( A. F.'s msg) then recovered with investing by logic & reason not b/c of panic b/c of someone's opinion who may have been "short" on NWBO & INO. WHO73
    12 Jun 2014, 07:02 PM Reply Like
  • WHO73
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    dme306: IMO you hit the nail on the head. This Alan F. has written articles on NWBO with nearly identical impact. Read his OPINION of 29 May on NWBO. The stock had a drastic selloff b/c of panic by those who invest on emotion verses reason and logic. Check how well NWBO has done once the immature/emotional investors left. I wonder if Mr. A. F. was "short" on NWBO and now "short" on INO????
    12 Jun 2014, 08:28 PM Reply Like
  • sph0308
    , contributor
    Comments (67) | Send Message
     
    Exactly...were you unaware of AF's article ! Do some journalism....
    10 Jun 2014, 04:02 PM Reply Like
  • lbashaw
    , contributor
    Comments (28) | Send Message
     
    Here is the thing:

     

    Feuerstein is right. Be thankful that he warned holders. Selling at 11 10 or 9 much better than selling at 6 5 4
    10 Jun 2014, 04:32 PM Reply Like
  • 320399
    , contributor
    Comments (158) | Send Message
     
    You are just speculating the the author of todays write up...unless you know something that is not public...or can truly read between the lines...

     

    Me I have no F'n clue
    10 Jun 2014, 05:24 PM Reply Like
  • bufnyfan1
    , contributor
    Comments (147) | Send Message
     
    This cervical vaccine trial is "double blind" the executives at INO nor anyone else knows what the result is. Adam Feuerstein is just trying to manipulate the stock price like he has in his useless criticism of NWBO and most recently MNKD (in fact he predicted that the recent ADCOM meeting in April concerning MNKD's Afrezza product would be a resounding rejection---as it turned out it was a 14-1 vote urging approval) But I'm grateful to Feurestein--thanks to him I can add to my INO position at a cheaper price!!!
    10 Jun 2014, 08:44 PM Reply Like
  • rondressler0
    , contributor
    Comments (15) | Send Message
     
    Please explain to me why u think AF is right? I'm curious. Are u only talking about protecting ur investment which never hurts I guess? If not, perhaps u overlooked or are unfamiliar with some things. If so, check my comment a couple of spots after urs and some others for some further info.

     

    Best of luck.
    10 Jun 2014, 11:55 PM Reply Like
  • rondressler0
    , contributor
    Comments (15) | Send Message
     
    Precisely. Additionally, AF's article is pure conjecture based on Dr. Kim's interview remarks AF has taken entirely out of context, on comparisons with other biotech experience that fail requisite scientific similarity, and on an incredulous notion re the timing of reverse splits. This is not to say that a positive phase II outcome can be definitely predicted. BUT, as it is a double-blind study, Dr. Kim cannot possibly have any notion one way or the other as to the direction the study is taking.
    10 Jun 2014, 04:48 PM Reply Like
  • RHMASSING
    , contributor
    Comments (430) | Send Message
     
    The timing of AF's article is suspect at best. The good thing is that we all soon learn if he is right/wrong in short order. Unlike other rant he put out to attack companies, this one will come out with PII data in a month or so. Also he made definitive statement to even go so far to say the CEO already has (negative) data at hand to make the move the co had made (r/s). If he proves to be right, more power to him. If the trial result is contrary to his assertion, SEC should look into this matter. This is clearly beyond "free speech" kind of statement he had made and in fact it amounts to accusation AF has made in the article. I am looking forward to finding out the result in short order.
    10 Jun 2014, 04:49 PM Reply Like
  • dannick
    , contributor
    Comments (108) | Send Message
     
    I just want to know when the results are coming out already.

     

    Surely if the results are coming out in June end / early July the results would need to be un-blinded to be analyzed soon. Why the hell are they not setting a date?
    10 Jun 2014, 05:04 PM Reply Like
  • 320399
    , contributor
    Comments (158) | Send Message
     
    I agree....when is the date?....to show if they are making real progress...or just hyping themselves....

     

    If you listen to Kim..it sounds like this is in the bag....if i was a CEO....I would be more tight lip and let the results speak for themselves....

     

    I have such mixed feelings on this company....
    10 Jun 2014, 05:22 PM Reply Like
  • Hibernating_Bear
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    There may be a lot of manipulation on both sides here; regarding AF's TheStreet.com article today - I'm am leaning towards doubting AF's accusation that Inovio already knows the results of the VGX-3100 study and is prepping retail investors for study drug failure. Yesterday's SA article by Tevor Lowenthal was an email interview - where Dr. Kim could have crafted any answer that he wanted. If he knew the results of the VGX-3100 study - and it was negative - why would he even draw attention to this binary event? Why would he want to prep retail investors before and not cater to institutional investors? I have always wondered why this particular company draws so much negative coverage compared to other biotechs? All of AF's points seem circular in logic and does not make any sense. Was this an attempt to allow some shorts out of their position without taking a bath? The stock is back to pre-reverse-split levels.
    10 Jun 2014, 06:03 PM Reply Like
  • jeepman58
    , contributor
    Comments (219) | Send Message
     
    If AF were such a good analyst, he would be a very rich investor. As a Cramer disciple, one can only look at the admitted media manipulator himself - the YouTube interview tells enough about how it's done. INO will show through science, but it will take more time to be an overnight success.

     

    Meanwhile, AF helped all who shorted in the belief that RS always results in a stock dropping substantially after the split. What a shock when INO pps went up the 2.5 days after the split! Can't be allowed, let out a negative speculative article at lunchtime on the 3rd day and give sellers a reason to dump the stock and get out.

     

    Now that Gale is coming back, maybe it's time for AF and Cramer to set their sights on them again. Great to have a bully-pulpit from which to speak. When Cramer says "we're just here to help you make a LITTLE money," he means little. His words, my interpretation. Valid as an AF proclamation.
    10 Jun 2014, 06:21 PM Reply Like
  • rowlin
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    The main just of AF's article was that Kim already has the results and they are negative. He has no idea if INO has the results, this is all speculation on his part and clearly a hit piece. If they do have the results, they will have to release them this week.
    10 Jun 2014, 07:07 PM Reply Like
  • holydawn
    , contributor
    Comments (139) | Send Message
     
    technical basis, really? no, this was mostly emotional. stocks like this aren't technically traded anymore.
    10 Jun 2014, 08:56 PM Reply Like
  • mdmkck28@kc.rr.com
    , contributor
    Comments (21) | Send Message
     
    That guy at the Street should be looked at by the SEC; they, however, seem to care a whit about possible violations or rumors to take a stock in the tank. Is the whole purpose of the SEC and other agencies to assure stocks don't rise too much on a possibly 'shady' buying pattern and expressing positive opinions? This is why shorts get away with anything; the O Marxists despise ALL private entities except for the green scams.
    10 Jun 2014, 09:53 PM Reply Like
  • dme306
    , contributor
    Comments (50) | Send Message
     
    Within the last nine months, from September of 2013 to June 2014, INO has taken extraordinary steps in preparation for expanding their operations. They added two new top-flight scientists to their team, opened a brand new mega-research facility in San Diego last month, inked a deal with Roche in a multi-million dollar partnership deal and reduced their outstanding shares from 240 million to 60 million. Can’t say this is in preparation for PII failure, can you?
    11 Jun 2014, 07:15 AM Reply Like
  • cinquecentonero
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    The stock is weak.
    11 Jun 2014, 01:09 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs