Seeking Alpha

Bryce_in_TX

Bryce_in_TX
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Bryce_in_TX's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Realty Income: One Heck Of An Ark That's Prepared For The Storms Ahead [View article]
    fmhaynes11,

    Brad can explain this much better than I, but.........

    I am with Fidelity Investments and Fidelity ranks "O" as a very bearish 1.1 out of a possible 10.

    Fidelity shows EPS of $ .71 (TTM), while O pays out $2.19 in dividends a year. How can that be?

    Under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), the Investment Property that O lists on its balance sheet is carried at historical cost, not fair market value. Also, that property is depreciated annually, when, in reality, the FMV of the property generally rises in value. So, the GAAP valuing of the property at cost rather than FMV and the depreciation is a huge distortion to actual Net Income and EPS.

    Also, this distortion makes the P/E ratio unreliable on a GAAP basis.

    FASB (Financial Accounting Standards Board) is currently evaluating whether to switch to valuing property like O's at FMV rather than historical cost, but hasn't switched yet. I anticipate they will in the future, and that should help bring the GAAP financials more in line with reality. AT present, GAAP distorts the underlying economic reality of rising values of real estate, due to the property being valued at historical cost, and that property declining in value annually due to depreciation charges.

    I suspect that is a large reason for both Schwab's and Fidelity's rating of O. So, I don't think you can place much weight with their ratings. It's based on GAAP, which materially distorts the economics of REITs like "O".

    I think Brad knows what he is talking about and Schwab and Fidelity do not because the investment firms base much of their ratings on GAAP, which is not reliable for REITs.

    I am long "O" and am planning on starting a retirement account for my son in the next year or two with "O" as one of the basic foundational pillars of the account.
    Apr 4 12:18 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Behind The Scenes With Dream Team, CytRx And Galena [View article]
    "If they have to prop it up through shady practices then perhaps this suggests that management might have little, or no, confidence in the company's own products."

    Management having no confidence in the vaccine is not consistent with the science, IMO.

    At 18 months, the vaccine showed clinical efficacy (p value .04). Bears will argue that at 24 months and 60 months the vaccine "failed" and showed no clinical efficacy. However, only 58 patients, or 55% received what was eventually determined to be the optimum dosing of Nuevax, 6 consecutive monthly injections. (See "Months Vaccinated" at top right of chart on page 2596 of Phase II Study results)

    http://bit.ly/1gry7fp

    Furthermore, at the 24 month interval, though the P value was .08, the vaccine was associated with a 57% decrease in relative risk of recurrence of cancer. See page 2597 in above link.

    Adding boosters every 6 months after the initial treatment also improved results. So, bottom line, almost half the patients in the Phase II study did not receive the optimum dosing which was subsequently established. Looking at those who did receive the optimum dosing as well as boosters, there was zero (0%) disease recurrence at the 24 and 36 month intervals, and just 5.6% at the 60 months interval, versus 25.9% recurrence rate for the control group. That's a recurrence reduction of 78.4%.

    http://bit.ly/1gHuTCP

    I would not want to be a short on GALE, who shorted it based on the science.
    Mar 31 10:46 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Galena: Setting The Record Straight [View article]
    "I've used my login at clintrials, and also logged out to be a jo-shmo, and am confident all of the data is as I state. Other's are press releases, RXi filings before GALE, and ARMY docs from those that ran the ½ study."

    But you don't provide the links for us to verify it. "am confident all of the data is as I state." LOL and you expect us to just "trust" you without you providing links to the information for us to verify if what you say is accurate? Really? That is not how it works in my world.
    Mar 30 11:11 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Galena: Setting The Record Straight [View article]
    "We are working on the same for another Kriegsman Co. It should hit the NY Circuit Court soon enough. (I am not a lawyer, not actually filing, but asked to participate in advising the team of share holders involved.)"

    Working for individuals involved in a lawsuit, you above all people should understand the need to provide authoritative support and back up for all of your claims, not just for yourself, but for those you are making claims to, i.e. us on this forum.
    Mar 30 10:39 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Galena: Setting The Record Straight [View article]
    "It's sad to me that many feel the need to have anyone they disagree prove everything, while they accept anything as gospel from those with which they agree. It feels very red-state vs blue-state. "

    Mr. Ryan,

    The problem with your statements, for me anyway, are that I am not up on GALE's past like you seem to be. The delay of two years, from 2012 to 2014, of the trial actually getting underway I was not aware of. Going from 100 sites to 148 sites I also was not aware of, and where the sites are located. You spout out "stuff" without providing the links so that less informed individuals, like myself, can see where you derive your information. I find some of your claims credible, but some I don't, such as the questioning of the changing in wording from 25,000 patients to 103,500, or going from 200,000 to 230,000, or the change in dosing from an initial dose to monthly boosters.

    In Galena's most recent 10-K, I have quoted where they state 30,000 to 40,000 breast cancer patients out of 230,000 annually qualify for Nuevax. I don't find the 103,500 anywhere. That, I have to assume, is an assumption you have made based on other information. I don't find it credible.

    Going from 200,000 to 230,000 new cases of breast cancer a year I don't see any significance in, since the 230,000 is used not only by GALE but other reputable organizations, as I have shown from links.

    And going from an initial dose to monthly boosters, I have explained that I believe that is your own misinterpretation of the wording. As I have shown and proven, I believe, beyond any doubt, GALE has never changed their initial course of therapy and subsequent boosters, either in their 10-K filings or in their Present Trial wording.

    You also questioned if they had an SPA, which they do from what I have read. And you state that the earliest that Nuevax would be ready for use is 2022. I don't find either of those statements credible for obvious reasons.

    So, I find some of your claims without any credibility, mixed with others that have credibility. But, I have always given quotes along with links to back up what I am saying, always. Not wanting to provide links with your information will never fly with me. Why should anyone believe you without providing authoritative support for your claims? To me, a person is either lazy, or wants to try and present half truths or lies along with credible information, which is exactly what I am finding with you.

    When I said to pretend that I am 12 or 14 years old, I was serious. You have to make your presentations easy enough to understand, backed with authoritative links, so that it can be understood at such a level. I always attempt to do that. Otherwise, some of your material will go over some of our heads (probably me) and not be fully understood.
    Mar 30 10:12 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Galena: Setting The Record Straight [View article]
    What's funny?

    From the 2010 10-K, it states:

    "(1) U.S. insurance reimbursement assumed at $35,000 for initial course of therapy." (See bottom of Page 10 in link)

    http://1.usa.gov/1lcCTMH

    Note the word "initial course" of therapy, not "initial DOSE".

    As I showed, from the Phase II study results (see links above), the "course of therapy" was monthly injections of Neuvax. Some patients received 6 consecutive monthly injections, some received only 4 injections, in months 0, 1, 2, & 5, and some received only 3 injections, in months 0, 1, & 5. NO PATIENTS RECEIVED JUST ONE INITIAL DOSE AND THAT WAS IT. (See chart at top of page 2596, the column on the right titled, "Months Vaccinated".

    http://bit.ly/1gry7fp

    It's obvious to me that based on the Phase II results, the optimum dosing was determined to be 6 consecutive monthly injections of Nuevax, followed by a booster every 6 months, times five.

    The initial course of treatment for $35k, as described by the 2010 10-K, are the initial 6 consecutive monthly injections. The $5K bi-annual boosters are the boosters following the initial course of treatment, administered every 6 months, times five.

    There is no mystery here or change in wording. The 11-23-2011 description of the therapy to be administered is essentially identical to the 3-21-2014 description. And the wording in the 2010 10-K is consistent with these descriptions. See the links again.

    http://1.usa.gov/P1Fbmx

    "The NeuVax will be administered in intradermal injections, in four divided doses (4 sites on upper thigh) once a month, for six consecutive months.

    At the end of the six months, NeuVax™ vaccine boosters will be given the same way once every six months for the next five times (totaling 36 months)." (11-23-2011)

    http://1.usa.gov/1bfG30X

    "E75 peptide acetate (HER2/neu p366-379) in WFI (1.5 mg/mL) mixed with 250 micrograms Leukine® (sargramostim, GM-CSF), will be administered in intradermal injections, in four divided doses (4 sites on upper thigh) once a month, for six consecutive months.

    At the end of the six months, NeuVax™ vaccine boosters will be given the same way once every six months for the next five times (totaling 36 months)." (3-21-2014)

    Mr. Ryan, you don't provide quotes or links to back up your claims. I've had to bust my behind to find this information, and it isn't as you have portrayed it.

    From the 2010 10-K through all Phase III study changes, nothing material has changed in how the course of treatment is to be administered.
    Mar 29 08:32 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Galena: Setting The Record Straight [View article]
    "$35K initial dose plus $5K bi annual boosters is now Monthly boosters."

    Is the $35K for an initial "dose" (singular), or is it for the initial course of treatment? If you look at the Phase II study results, on page 2596, the chart at the top, look at the right where it says, "Months Vaccinated". Do you see that the most treated patients received 6 monthly injections of the vaccine?

    http://bit.ly/1gry7fp

    This is consistent with the description of how the dosing will occur in the Phase III Trial:

    "The NeuVax will be administered in intradermal injections, in four divided doses (4 sites on upper thigh) once a month, for six consecutive months." (11-23-2011)

    http://1.usa.gov/P1Fbmx

    "E75 peptide acetate (HER2/neu p366-379) in WFI (1.5 mg/mL) mixed with 250 micrograms Leukine® (sargramostim, GM-CSF), will be administered in intradermal injections, in four divided doses (4 sites on upper thigh) once a month, for six consecutive months." (3-21-2014)

    http://1.usa.gov/1bfG30X

    To me, what you have described is consistent with what will be administered, per the descriptions from the Phase III Trial site, both in 2011 and in 2014. The initial course of treatment will be 6 injections, in 4 divided doses, administered once a month for 6 consecutive months, and will cost $35K. One singular initial dose for $35K doesn't make sense to me.

    Then the $5K bi annual boosters would be administered every six months, just as the Phase III Trial describes:

    "At the end of the six months, NeuVax™ vaccine boosters will be given the same way once every six months for the next five times (totaling 36 months)."

    I don't see that they have changed anything here. I think you have misinterpreted the wording.

    On the other hand, I think you have some valid points with delays in getting the Phase III Trial underway, the possibility of some trial sites being shut down and the Trial delayed, and the ethics of the management.

    Whether they messed up on the protocol and design of the Phase II Trial, I don't know. Did they know what groups would benefit from the vaccine prior to Phase II, or was the different dosing of the vaccine to different groups a necessity for finding out who would most benefit?
    Mar 28 05:14 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Realty Income: Buy The Dip? [View article]
    Best Buy is good about the return policy I discovered.

    I love "O" for the long term. A steady reliable source of income with gradual anticipated increases in both the dividend and the stock price.
    Mar 28 02:15 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Realty Income: Buy The Dip? [View article]
    Thanks AA. I will patiently wait for it to dip to $38 or below before buying more. I anticipate that with rising rates, whenever that happens, it will drop to that level or lower. I love "O" for the divi, but want a better price for it.
    Mar 28 02:08 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • NW BIO REFUTES FURTHER FALSE AND MISLEADING CLAIMS BY FEUERSTEIN [View article]
    I know nothing of the company but I'd have to score the CEO a 10 and AF 0 on this one.
    Mar 28 02:01 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Galena: Setting The Record Straight [View article]
    "You can try to distort what I am saying and twist the meaning to appear out of context, but you are just not correct.

    You even cherry-pick what I say- NEVER address a question - and then attack me with a broad side question as if I attacked you. This is what an ex-wife acts like!"

    Again, accusations with no support for the accusation.
    Mar 28 01:24 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Galena: Setting The Record Straight [View article]
    "Just "Track Changes". They updated Mar 24 "

    That's not going to work for me.

    Example: "$35K initial dose plus $5K bi annual boosters is now Monthly boosters."

    I have no clue where you got this. Here is what the initial study says on 11-23-2011:

    "The NeuVax will be administered in intradermal injections, in four divided doses (4 sites on upper thigh) once a month, for six consecutive months. at the end of the six months, NeuVax vaccine boosters will be given the same way once every six months for the next five times (totaling 36 months)."

    http://1.usa.gov/P1Fbmx

    Here is what it says as of 3-21-2014:

    "E75 peptide acetate (HER2/neu p366-379) in WFI (1.5 mg/mL) mixed with 250 micrograms Leukine® (sargramostim, GM-CSF), will be administered in intradermal injections, in four divided doses (4 sites on upper thigh) once a month, for six consecutive months. At the end of the six months, NeuVax™ vaccine boosters will be given the same way once every six months for the next five times (totaling 36 months)."

    http://1.usa.gov/1bfG30X

    It's exactly the same from the get go to now. So, without you providing quotes, plus links to those quotes, I have no clue where you are getting your information.
    Mar 28 01:17 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Realty Income: Buy The Dip? [View article]

    AP,

    I wish you long life, number one.

    Having gone through the "growth" experience with my Pharmacist friend, I've seen what some creativity and ingenuity can achieve.

    Back in 1994, Medco began cutting out independent pharmacies by requiring "preferred provider networks". I assume this was to achieve some control over drug pricing. Thousands of independents went out of business. The pharmacy I worked for was cut out of the large pool of teachers and postal workers we had served for decades, a huge chunk of revenue lost.

    The pharmacist went into compounding and that helped a great deal. Still it wasn't the complete solution. He had to move locations. He's still in business today and it's a much larger business today, versus 1994. He contracted with nursing homes to provide compounded meds and solutions, as well as providing compounded meds to some of his regular customers. The new location provided new customers on a regular basis also. Between the two he survived.

    So, it appears that insurance is doing to the large chain pharmacies what they did to independents 20 years ago, trying to cut them largely out of the picture and offering less and less freedom of choice to the people who pay for their existence.

    With some creativity, a pharmacy can stay in business, IMO. I think that is what CVS is doing with their MinuteClinics, expanding their revenue sources. Maybe some who just stand around and do nothing will go out of business. I don't believe that has to be the case.

    One pharmacy in my city even has a retail line of clothing and cosmetics, plus diabetic supplies, including personnel especially trained in the care for certain diabetic needs, such as shoes. They have multiple locations.

    http://bit.ly/1hi6aoo
    Mar 28 11:12 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Galena faces the obligatory lawsuits [View news story]
    "" Neuvax material patent expires in 2015, before it will be out on market."

    Found what you are referring to, however, you failed to add (page 36 of 10-K):

    "We intend to seek data exclusivity or market exclusivity provided under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and similar laws in other countries. We believe that NeuVax will qualify for 12 years of data exclusivity under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, which was enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the Affordable Care Act or ACA) enacted in March 2010. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product cannot be submitted to the FDA until four years, or approved by the FDA until 12 years, after the original brand product identified as the reference product is approved under a BLA,"

    http://1.usa.gov/1dehUsU

    " 'mentions' that they may have broken Sarbanes-Oxley."

    You will have to provide the page number for that. All I see is boiler plate language stating that violating SO is a risk. Their safety net for this is the independent accounting firm which audits them, as well as penalties for failing to abide by SO. Per the accountants, I see no violation of SO (see page 57 of the 10-K):

    "In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Galena Biopharma, Inc. as of December 31, 2013, and the consolidated results of its operations and its cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2013, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America.

    Also in our opinion, Galena Biopharma, Inc. maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2013, based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (1992) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission."

    http://1.usa.gov/1dehUsU
    Mar 28 09:12 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Galena faces the obligatory lawsuits [View news story]
    " Neuvax material patent expires in 2015, before it will be out on market. It only targets HER-2, and is based on "open source" peptides so will be a generic at best."

    I am going through the 10-K now, since you don't provide links to your source. What I have found thus far is that the Nuevax patent is filed and pending or issued worldwide and expires 2028, not 2015. See page 7 of the 2013 10-K.

    http://1.usa.gov/1dehUsU

    That also holds true for both Europe and Australia. See pages 8 and 9 of the 10-K. Furthermore, there are several other trials in process, as well as the Abstral sales and Mills Pharma acquisition.
    Mar 28 07:40 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
2,367 Comments
2,995 Likes