Seeking Alpha

Bryce_in_TX

Bryce_in_TX
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Bryce_in_TX's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest comments  |  Highest rated
  • Did Galena Biopharma Mislead Investors And Patients About NeuVax? [View article]
    "In this article, I will use a series of axioms to prove a single point:
    Galena Biopharma has materially misled investors and potential clinical trial participants about its experimental breast cancer vaccine NeuVax."


    My response: I don't believe this is true at all.
    "The evidence
    Results of the combined Phase1/2 study for NeuVax: "The 24-month landmark analysis for disease free survival, or DFS (primary endpoint), was 94.3% in the vaccinated group and 86.8% in the control group (P = .08)."


    My response: this is factual. However, what you fail to bring out is from the trial results published in the print version of "Cancer", May 15, 2012:
    "RESULTS: Of 195 enrolled patients, 182 were evaluable: 106 (58.2%) in the vaccinated group and 76 (41.8%) in the control group. The 24-month landmark analysis DFS was 94.3% in the vaccinated group and 86.8% in the control group (P=.08). Importantly, because of trial design, 65% of patients received a lower than optimal vaccine dose. In subset analyses, patients who benefited most from vaccination (vaccinated group vs control group) had lymph node-positive
    (DFS, 90.2% vs 79.1%; P=.13), HER2 IHC 1+ -2+ (DFS, 94.0% vs 79.4%;P=.04), or grade 1 or 2 (DFS, 98.4% vs 86.0%;P=.01) tumors and were optimally dosed (DFS, 97.3% vs 86.8%;P=.08). A booster program has been initiated; no patients receiving booster inoculations have recurred. CONCLUSIONS: The E75 vaccine has clinical efficacy that is
    more prominent in certain patients. A phase 3 trial enrolling lymph node-positive patients with HER2 low-expressing
    tumors is warranted."


    http://bit.ly/1gry7fp


    As stated, 65% of patients received a lower than optimal vaccine dose, BY TRIAL DESIGN. Subsets of the trial population showed clinical efficacy, as noted above. A booster program was initiated for reasons which will be obvious from the study's results, disclosed in the paragraphs below. NONE of the patients having received boosters had recurred at the 24 month mark.


    At the 18 month mark of the trial, the P value was .04 and the vaccine had achieved clinical efficacy:


    "We previously reported a primary analysis of these trials initiated at a median follow-up of 18 months per protocol design.2 The vaccine was demonstrated to be safe and effective in stimulating HER2-specific immunity. Importantly, at the time of that planned analysis, the vaccine had clinical efficacy, with the vaccinated group having a breast cancer recurrence rate of only 5.6% compared with 14.2% for the observation (control) group (P=.04). Trial follow-up was extended to 5 years, and patients provided consent for the additional
    participation period."


    However, after 18 months there was some recurrence of disease in the vaccinated group (VG). The reason for the recurrence is suggested to have been due to waning effectiveness of the vaccine. That's when the booster program was initiated. Some vaccines require boosters to maintain effectiveness.


    "Later, it was observed that late recurrences in the vaccinated group corresponded to waning immunity, as demonstrated by decreased levels of E75-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes CTLs). This finding suggested that a booster inoculation may be necessary to maintain significant immunity. Toward that end, we instituted a booster program and recently reported
    the booster to be safe and effective in restimulating E75-specific immunity in patients who had failed to maintain significant residual immunity after initial vaccination.3"


    "Results of the combined Phase 1/2 study at 24 months for what Galena/Apthera deem the Intent-to-Treat population: "p = 0.11.
    Neither result is significant based on the widely accepted p ≤ 0.05 criteria established by Sir Ronald Fisher.
    Conclusion: The Phase 2 trial failed to meet its primary endpoint of improving DFS."


    My response: at 24 months, a P value of .05 or less was not achieved. However, your conclusion that Phase II failed to improve DFS I don't agree with. Six (6) patients from the VG of 106 had disease recurrence (5.6%), while ten (10) patients from the CG had disease recurrence (13.1%). The study states: " At 24 months, the vaccine was associ-
    ated with a 57% reduction in relative risk of recurrence." That proves the vaccine improved DFS, IMO, though not to the P=.05 level of significance.


    "Galena's claims to the contrary
    Galena claims in numerous press releases, SEC filings, and investor presentations that their Special Protocol Assessment, or SPA, with the FDA for NeuVax's ongoing Phase 3 trial was reached because the vaccine's Phase 2 trial was successful (see below)."


    My response: the study clearly states that "the E75 vaccine has clinical efficacy that is more prominent in certain patients".
    "Galena's claims are not consistent with the drug's history during development."


    My response: I don't believe the results from the study can be painted in black and white terms, as either totally successful or totally unsuccessful. There does appear to be clear efficacy of the vaccine which did not reach the P value of .05 or less at 24 months, nevertheless, the reason it did not may have been due to the trial design, plus the vaccine requiring boosters to remain effective, and not because the vaccine, in black and white terms, doesn't work.


    "Turning back to the historical record, here is what Apthera specifically said about NeuVax during its clinical development.
    Via Apthera:
    'NeuVax is a HER2/neu peptide-based T-cell immunotherapy aimed at preventing disease recurrence and prolonging survival in cancer patients that have tumors expressing the HER2/neu oncoprotein. To date, clinical study results have demonstrated that NeuVax significantly reduces the rate of cancer recurrence while showing minimal side effects.'
    It's key to note that Apthera does not use "Phase 1 or 2 results", rather "clinical study results" in their description of NeuVax's progress. Apthera's description is scientifically accurate, although a bit vague."


    My response: obviously the "clinical study results" refer to Phase I and II. Since Phase I was for determining safety of Neuvax and not for determining effectiveness, it stands to reason that the Phase of the trial which demonstrated significantly reducing the rate of cancer recurrence was Phase II.


    "A look at the record thus shows that Galena changes "clinical study results" to "Phase 2 results" and often misleadingly uses the word "successful" after acquiring NeuVax.
    To illustrate my point, let's take a look at Galena's SEC filings regarding NeuVax.
    Q3 2013 10-Q: 'Based on a successful Phase 2 trial, which achieved its primary endpoint of DFS,'
    • No mention of "sub-group", "sub-population", or "exploratory analysis" is made.
    • Results are thus presented as if they are for the full trial that failed.
    Q2 2013 10-Q: 'Based on a successful Phase 2 trial, which achieved its primary endpoint of disease-free survival (DFS),'
    • No mention of "sub-group", "sub-population", or "exploratory analysis" is made.
    • Results are thus presented as if they are for the full trial that failed.
    Q1 2013 10-Q: 'Based on Phase 2 results, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted NeuVax a Special Protocol Assessment for a Phase 3 study which began in 2012.'
    • No mention of "sub-group", "sub-population", or "exploratory analysis" is made.
    • Results are thus presented as if they are for the full trial that failed.
    • The word "successful" is notably dropped in this filing."


    My response: you have a point here, IMO. Neuvax did not reach the standard level of efficacy with a P value of .05 or less. However, it has shown to be clinically effective in the whole trial population at 18 months, and in sub-groups of the trial population beyond that point.


    "Key takeaways
    Galena has stated multiple times in various SEC filings that the Phase 2 results were significant and the SPA was granted based on this result. Apthera makes no such claim to my knowledge."


    My response: The Phase II results were significant, though not achieving a p value of .05 or less. If you are referring to a P value of .05 or less, then I would agree. But, it's not black and white. the .05 cut off for the P value is an arbitrarily chosen goal post, IMO. Well founded, but still arbitrarily chosen.


    "Galena failed in many SEC filings to clearly state that their efficacy claims for NeuVax are based on a post-hoc analysis, using language that could lead a reasonable person to think it was based on the entire Phase 2 trial. This was shown by the lack of any descriptors in the filings such as "subgroup", "subpopulation", or "exploratory analysis." The company thus fails to follow the example of its own peer-reviewed studies that demarcate the Phase 2 results from the subgroup analyses. And the company further ventured away from the scientific record by stating that the Phase 2 trial was "successful." To be clear, the peer-reviewed articles on this matter use softer terms like "suggests" and "warrants further study."


    My response: Most of this valid in my view, however you bears and shorts never mention that at 18 months the Phase II trial achieved clinical efficacy with a P value of .04. I view that as highly significant information that an investor should know. Also, there was a 57% reduction in relative risk of recurrence at the 24 month mark, which none of you shorts/bears mention. So, you aren't being totally objective in your analysis, either, IMO.


    "Turning back to NeuVax, the stark truth is that there is no scientific evidence supporting the hypothesis that this vaccine benefits breast cancer patients. That hypothesis is being retested in NeuVax's ongoing clinical trials for selected subgroups, after the initial test failed."


    My response: I've already stated that I don't agree with you in making such a broadly defined statement. No scientific evidence supporting the hypothesis that Neuvax benefits breast cancer patients? The study results itself shows the case to be otherwise.


    "Given the perplexing behavior of Galena's management, however, you certainly have to wonder how much confidence they have in the ongoing trials. It is worth noting that they employed the DreamTeam group several months before NeuVax's interim data readout. If the interim analysis shows NeuVax is working, I have little doubt that Galena's share price would have increased organically. Yet, they felt the need to heavily promote the stock on unfounded scientific claims, and sell millions worth of shares in the process."


    My response: I agree, this is troubling. Add to this the fact that no insiders are buying GALE shares at these prices is even more troubling to me.
    "And the fact that Galena's CEO Mark Ahn sold 86% of his shares, and other Directors liquidated nearly their entire holdings, should give investors ample reasons to worry."


    My response: IMO, this is totally false. Ahn did not sell 86% of his shares. If you research all the stock options and exercise of those options you will find that Ahn received 600,000 options on 11-26-2013. The 796,765 exercised and sold in January included none of these options.


    Note in the link below that the upper portion of the Form 4 refers to actual stock/shares and not options owned. This is where your 86% of shares sold comes from, I believe. Before he exercised these options that he owned 113,764 shares of stock. So, adding the options exercised and to the 113, 764 already owned yields some 918,529 shares owned at the time of the sale of the stock.
    http://bit.ly/1dUyLeO
    However, before the exercise of these options in January, Ahn also owned at least 600,000 options, issued on 11-26-2013, which were not exercised and sold in January.


    http://bit.ly/1fyfy6e
    http://bit.ly/1ff5Enz
    So, your statement is highly inaccurate and highly misleading, IMO. All of his sales of stock were options exercised and sold on the same date. He did not hold 918,529 shares prior to the exercise of the options, only 113,764, in fact, plus at least an additional 600,000 options not exercised in January. So counting stock owned plus options owned = 113,764 + 796,765 +600,000 = 1,510,529 shares and options owned prior to 796,765 options being exercised and sold. That results in 52.75% of his holdings being sold, not 86%. And he may have had more options than that, I am not sure.


    "Oh, and did I mention that Mr. Ahn told a whopper about the amount of holdings he actually sold? Following the initial outbreak of this controversy, Mr. Ahn gave an interview to another Seeking Alpha contribute, where he said this:
    'I sold less than 20% of my equity position to diversify for my family.'
    Given that I don't believe much anyone says these days, I decided to do what all investors should do and read the Form 4. The record is clear on this matter. He sold 4 times the amount claimed in that interview. But don't blindly take my word for it, read the hyperlinked Form 4 and believe your own lying eyes. I also urge you to read and digest the sales of the other insiders in this time period as well."


    My response: As I have shown, you don't have or understand the entire picture of his holdings. I suggest not relying on one Form 4, but researching all options awarded and exercised and stock purchased and sold since he has been associated with GALE. It's all public record.


    "On a final note, bad stocks happen to good people all the time, but putting your head in the sand, holding out for hope against hope, isn't a viable investing strategy. Galena's risk to reward ratio is now heavily skewed towards the risk aspect, and pretending it is not is tantamount to sheer delusion. Holding onto this stock in the face of these glaring problems thus violates one of Warren Buffett's most sacred investing tactics: the margin of safety. Instead of a margin of safety, Galena offers investors a "margin of danger," with potential SEC investigations, investor lawsuits that could soar into the hundreds of millions, and weak to no evidence that its flagship experimental vaccine will succeed in clinical testing. Put simply, I believe Galena will fall well below $1 a share this year because of all these major red flags.
    Trade accordingly."


    My response: I don't agree with your assessment. There is strong evidence the vaccine works. Whether is will achieve clinical efficacy in the Phase III trial is another question, but the evidence, with a targeted patient group, provides some credibility that it may.
    Mar 3 03:37 PM | 39 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Don't Get Suckered By This Popular High-Yield Investment [View article]
    "Interest-rate risk is at the fore. A sudden spike in interest rates would simultaneously lower the value of the MBS collateral while raising the cost to fund that collateral."

    Yes, the value of the MBS would decline, but both AGNC and NLY convert their variable rate repos into fixed rate with interest rate swaps, hedges. As rates rise, the rate they pay on the swap remains fixed, but the rate they receive on the swap increases. That yields increased revenue. This helps mitigate the increasing cost of repos as rates rise. A spike in rates would yield a spike in revenues from the hedges.

    I believe both aforementioned mREITS can successfully weather a rising rate environment. The book value and share price might take a hit, but the dividend will help offset that.
    Apr 26 06:27 PM | 22 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Behind The Scenes With Dream Team, CytRx And Galena [View article]
    Can you explain how you can be in contact with federal authorities, the SEC, with information known only to you and the SEC, and then short the stock right before you release this unknown information on an investment sight? That is legal?

    Seems to me you are doing what you are saying that the two companies have done, having inside information and profiting from that information.
    Mar 13 11:03 AM | 20 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Galena Biopharma Issues Letter To Shareholders, And A Case Of Insider Seller's Remorse [View article]
    "Recently, The Street.com ran an excellent piece exploring the relationship between bio-dreck Galena Biopharma Inc. and a sleazy stock tout shop that goes under many names (DreamTeam Group, MissionIR, Quality Stocks, etc.)."

    Talk about something that has the appearance of sleaze. Let's presents both sides, not just one:

    http://bit.ly/LuW3fx

    The above article, by Mr. Feuerstein of TheStreet.com, tries to argue that the 108 patient vaccine group in the Phase II Neuvax Trial was healthier than the 79 patient control group, and thus Galena Biopharma was able to find a subgroup within the vaccine group which showed a statistically significant difference in the Disease Free Survival/recurrence rate versus the control group. Mr. Feuerstein's claim is that the difference in the DFS/recurrence rate, which Galena found in the sub group as statistically significant, was due to a healthier vaccine group versus the control group.

    He states in his May 22, 2012 article:
    "Now, I've found even more data to support my contention that NeuVax doesn't work: The breast cancer patients treated with NeuVax in the phase II study were much healthier compared to the breast cancer patients funneled into the control group. This imbalance in the baseline patient characteristics easily skewed the DFS/recurrence rate in favor of NeuVax."

    He goes on to state:
    "Overall, the table describes a Neuvax patient group that is generally healthier, with less advanced disease, than those in the control group. Some specifics:

    Node positive breast cancer: 49.1% in the NeuVax arm versus 55.7% in the control arm. Node positive breast cancer means cancer cells have been detected in the lymph nodes. Although all the patients were disease free prior to entering the NeuVax study, the presence of cancer cells in the lymph nodes means there is a higher chance of breast cancer returning and spreading to other parts of the body.

    Tumor size (T2-T4): 34.3% in the NeuVax arm versus 46.2% in the control arm. Breast cancer asessed as T2-T4 is larger and spread wider to tissues like the skin and chest wall near the breast.

    HER2/neu overexpression: 31% in the NeuVax arm versus 26.8% in the control arm. HER2 positive breast cancers tend to be more aggressive than other types of breast cancer and are commonly treated with Roche's Herceptin. The difference in HER2 overexpression between NeuVax and control is not that large in the phase II study, but…

    (Here's the kicker…)

    Prior trastuzumab (Herceptin) therapy: 11.1% in the NeuVax arm versus 3.8% in the control arm.

    That's a big difference and could easily explain away the DFS/recurrence trend seems to favor Neuvax in the phase II study. Control-arm patients are sicker, have more aggressive breast cancer and were treated less often with Herceptin, therefore, their breast cancer is recurring at a faster rate. "

    What Mr. Feuerstein doesn't tell you, and you wouldn't know unless you researched the Galena poster from which he pulled his data, is that every item he uses to make his case has a p value of .10 or greater, meaning no statistical significance between the vaccine group and the control group. (p value of 0.05 or less would have statistical significance)

    The p value of the node positive breast cancer is 0.38. The p value of the tumor size is 0.13. The p value of the HER2/neu overexpression is 0.50. The p value of the prior trastuzumab (Herceptin) therapy is 0.10, which Mr. Feuerstein calls "a big difference".

    I was troubled by this article of his and didn't understand its significance, but it bothered me. Now that I know the whole truth, I have thrown Mr. Feuerstein's article in the trash. He failed to point out that there was no statistical significant difference between the health of the vaccine group and the control group.

    So, when you read articles by Mr. Feuerstein, and others based upon his findings, keep in mind that he has a proven bias against Galena Biopharma and may not be giving you the whole story about the company.

    http://bit.ly/LuW3fx

    http://bit.ly/1fdyx67

    http://bit.ly/1fdyx69

    Disclosure: I am long GALE
    Feb 18 09:34 AM | 19 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Galena Biopharma: Numerous Red Flags Suggest A Significant Overvaluation [View article]
    "So if members of Senior Management (including the CEO) are liquidating significant portions of their holdings at current levels, what does that suggest about their views of future prices?"
    FACT: Almost all sales have been from the exercise of stock options which were part of their compensations package.
    I can not find where Ahn or Schwartz have sold any common stock that was not acquired through stock options, meaning everything they hold that wasn't paid as compensation they still hold and have not sold.
    FACT: there are other reasons why executives exercise options than fear of future stock price declines.
    FACT: most or all of the options which have been exercised recently will be replenished through the vesting of already issued options in the next few years.


    So, the exercising of options recently is about as clear as mud to me as to why they were exercised.
    Feb 1 12:52 PM | 15 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Galena Following In The Footsteps Of Insys With Abstral? [View article]
    Congrats, Cash on getting your article published! Again, very good work. Here's hoping the better mouse trap is now Abstral.
    Mar 7 06:23 PM | 14 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Galena Biopharma: The Legal Stakes Are Rising [View article]
    I have discovered, from what I consider very strong, factual evidence, that the DreamTeam Group had little to nothing to do with GALE's miraculous rise in stock price. I believe the evidence is so strong that most objective readers will agree with me. The timelines of GALE events, such as the launch of Abstral, the third quarter earnings release with updated information on GALE's pipeline of products and potential products (Neuvax), and institutional buying of the stock coincide precisely with the meteoric rise in GALE's stock price.

    I am putting together a blog at the moment, and will try and have it posted in the next day or two. Gale bears should be selling their short positions now. You aren't going to like what I've put together.
    Mar 6 12:52 PM | 14 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Seadrill sinks as Credit Suisse downgrades, cuts target to $30 from $40 [View news story]
    Oh, you mean this Credit Suisse, the ones who lied about their 4th Qtr 2013 preliminary net income, and the Credit Suisse who was caught aiding and abetting individuals evading U.S. Income Taxes.......that Credit Suisse?

    http://bv.ms/1kQst46

    http://bloom.bg/1hpGp6p

    Well, they certainly have a lot of credibility. (Cough, cough)
    Apr 11 10:02 AM | 13 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Linn Energy: A Different Kind Of Oil And Gas Company? [View article]
    In regards to your using the PV-10 standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows from LINE's 2012 10-K to "value" the proved reserves, here is what FASB has to say about that measure (see page 45 in link, "Average Price":

    http://bit.ly/U239fZ

    "The objective of reserves estimation is to provide the public with comparable information about volumes, not fair value, of a company's reserve available to enable investors to compare the business prospects of different companies. The use of a 12-month average historical price to determine the economic producibility of reserves quantities increase comparability between companies' oil and gas reserve disclosures, while mitigating any additional variability that a single-day price may have on reserve estimates. Although oil and gas prices themselves are subject to market-base volatility, the estimation of reserves quantities based on any historical price assumption determines those reserves quantities as if the oil or gas already has been produced, even though they have not, and these measures do not attempt to portray a reflection of their fair value. If the objective of reserve disclosures were to provide fair value information, we believe a pricing system that incorporates assumptions about estimated future market prices and costs related to extraction could be a more appropriate basis for estimation."

    Tired of the LINE punches being thrown. Give it a rest. If you thought so negatively of LINE, you should have been publishing this months or years ago. Find some other MLP as a punching bag.
    Jul 5 03:59 PM | 13 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 3 Key Metrics That Show Why We Can't Avoid Recession [View article]
    ronwagn,

    I'm sure there is abuse of the system, no doubt about it, that is human nature, to take advantage for selfish reasons. It's certainly exemplified in our corporate culture, not just in the lower class.

    Show me some numbers as to how many people there are who don't want to work. I honestly have no clue how many there are. I get tired of the conservative/Republican rant ( I am a conservative/Republican) about half truths. I don't believe many of these folks really know what they are talking about.

    My brother sent me a dozen emails being spread around by conservative groups. Everyone was a fraud and he didn't know it. After I presented him with the truth, he said, "You must be a democrat." LOL Some of these folks don't know the truth when it's presented to them, they are so steeped in their political dodo. I'm not saying this is you because I don't know you. But, Romney was steeped in it when he made the statement about the 47%.

    OK, I'll shut up now.
    Nov 24 12:06 AM | 13 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Lessons From 5 Years Of Economic Crisis [View article]
    I'm disappointed, but not surprised, that you failed to mention any lessons from being too greedy, selfish, unethical/unlawful, and the fact that trust in the markets continued to erode during the crisis. The government pushed the sale of houses to those too economically disadvantaged to be able to afford them, banks and lenders created interest only loans, requiring no payment of principal at the beginning and in some cases no audit of an individual's stated personal assets/income, and banks and lenders simply made credit too easily obtainable.

    Take a look at Brooksley Borne, head of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), who wanted to regulate derivatives in 1998 after Long Term Capital Management (LTCM) failed and had to have a bail out of its own. Alan Greenspan, chairman of the federal reserve, Robert Rubin, Secretary of the Treasury, and Lawrence Summers, Secretary of the Treasury after Rubin, all opposed Borne and regulating the derivatives market. We could have prevented 2008 from happening, it did not have to happen. Alan Greenspan had an Ayn Rand philosophy of laissez-faire capitalism, let the markets be, do not intervene to try and curb corruption. He believed the markets could correct themselves. He now admits he was wrong.

    Ethics, common sense, and sound economic policy all were swept under the rug looking back. Until we learn these lessons we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes. We have not learned them yet. We have a government out of control in spending, a Republican party misguided in its belief of not raising governmental revenues, and a government that can not fix the structural problems because the American people, as a whole, have gotten used to living beyond their means over the last 30 years by government subsidizing that living standard through lower taxes and government deficit spending.

    If lowering taxes really worked as well as the Republicans seem to believe (I'm not saying it's not effective to a degree), fostering full employment and bringing in sufficient governmental revenues so as not to have to raise taxes or go into debt, we would now have a strong, prospering economy with very little national debt. Such a mechanism works to a degree, but government deficit spending has been going on in a big way since Ronald Reagan and it's only gotten worse by both political parties over the years until now we are on life support due to crushing debt. The American people as a whole feel "entitled" to lower taxes, even at the expense of more government debt (this is a government subsidization of individual living standards), government subsidies for healthcare, retirement, housing, education, businesses (GM, AIG, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch during the crisis). We have gone from the greatest generation, who sacrificed their very lives for our way of living, including accepting rationing of gasoline, food, and materials.........to a generation who feels "entitled" to all that they have and the word sacrifice for anyone but ourselves and our self interests is not in our vocabulary at all. We have become selfish, greedy, and in some cases, ethically bankrupt immoral bastards.

    We'll either begin to take the painful medicine to pull ourselves out of this mess, learn what it means to sacrifice for the next generation, to be ethical, thinking about the good of society as well as ourselves or we will collapse continuing to follow policies which got us into the mess. The choice is ours to make, repeat the insanity of the past and be destroyed or change and live.

    (I have been a Republican all my life, but now view the political process and both parties as very corrupt.)

    http://to.pbs.org/TivL0z

    http://bit.ly/SSAo71
    Oct 11 06:17 AM | 13 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Galena Biopharma: The Legal Stakes Are Rising [View article]
    Suckmeister,

    When did the stock take off like a whirlwind?
    It began to rise the day after Gale's third quarter earnings release. The earnings release was November 6, the stock rose from $2.27 to $2.29 on the 7th. Thereafter it took off like a rocket.

    This coincides EXACTLY with the earnings release, not with the 11-22-2013 DTG article on SA. There were news events following the earnings release that kept it climbing.

    DTG had little to nothing to do with the rise in stock price. There was no pump and dump. Lawyers are going to have a heck of a time correlating DTG's efforts to the stock rise. Pump and dump is dead and I'll try and put the last nail in its coffin in the next day or two.

    Take a look at the stock chart. Earnings came out on Nov. 6. When did the stock begin to rise astronomically?
    Mar 6 01:28 PM | 12 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Did Galena Biopharma Mislead Investors And Patients About NeuVax? [View article]
    Another short attack, IMO, seeking to profit on fear from investors who don't understand the science. I was there not long ago. Do your own due diligence. Dig into the insider sales and info, don't rely on inaccurate and highly misleading info provided by this author and a few others. It's simply wrong.

    Also understand that a p value of .11 means there is an 11% probability the trial results came from chance, and an 89% probability they came from the effectiveness of the drug. The probability of getting a false positive with these percentages is very weak, though possible. It certainly appears to me that there is significant evidence to believe, based upon the Phase II results, both whole population and within subgroups, that the Phase III trial will achieve its stated objective. However, there is, at the least, an appearance of inconsistent behavior of management in this regard.

    I am long GALE, btw.
    Mar 3 04:14 PM | 12 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Linn Energy: Many Ponzi-Like MLP Blow-Ups To Follow [View article]
    Have you issued a warning before? If not, it's a little too late now. I saw problems back in January or February, but still am not sure what it is. Not sure LINE is a ponzi scheme.. I would not characterize it like that. The GAAP earnings are bogus, unreliable. If EV includes the company equity, then I can't say that would be reliable either, since the GAAP earnings are so distorted and "wrong", understated.

    The DCF formula, for any company, doesn't account for the cost of long lived assets. That, to me, is the main problem. Distributions get paid out whether those assets are paid for or not. That isn't just LINE, it's every company that is measured on DCF and EBITDA.
    Jul 5 09:28 AM | 12 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Could Be Back At $260 In No Time [View article]
    QTR said:

    "Tesla handily beat earnings and met guidance expectations yesterday."

    I'd like to see this type of statement accompanied with a statement that it is non-GAAP, for good reason. I don't how you justify throwing in all deferred revenue from the repurchase guarantee, since there will surely be some vehicles returned, or leave out legitimate interest expense on convertible debt. After all, we aren't talking about converting to cash basis accounting here. The revenue number is GAAP basis, not cash basis. How do you justify leaving out those items? Then we have the non-cash based stock compensation expense thrown out as well. Again, they aren't converting to a strictly cash basis of accounting. Those are legitimate expenses for the period.

    Tesla may eventually be profitable on a GAAP basis, but what are they thinking with this non-GAAP? I can see why you would add some of the deferred revenue from the repurchase guarantee in the non-GAAP numbers, but not accruing for returns, leaving out non-cash stock compensation and the interest expense, I don't get, honestly.
    Aug 1 01:15 PM | 11 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
2,577 Comments
3,295 Likes