España
Si, pero es lo que hay, aprovechar el momento, reverse split todo es posible en este sector, 272 Millones de acciones, de donde van a sacar la inyección que necesitarán?
DVAX es otra opción ahora para sacar x3 hasta final de año, APRI me gusta si recupera los .50
A ver viendo la gráfica de la compañía veo eso, pensando mal de que los jefazos que están dentro de la empresa saben las cosas antes que nadie, y observó que mientras la cotización subía ellos vendían simplemente eso.
Ellos siempre han soltado, subiendo o bajando sus stocks options, nada raro, es habitual.
Lo que quería dar a entender con él post anterior es el poco valor de estas compras, ya que normalmente no las han hecho ni mantenido las recibidas.
Paciencia.
Es difícil tenerla, pero trae muy buenos resultados.....
Eso del poco valor de la compras ya se comentó el otro día, quiere mostrar confianza en el valor, lo que compran representan calderillas para ellos.
NVAX
Adjunto las stock options de los directivos. Tienen muchas acciones de la empresa, no les hace falta comprar más. Si lo hacen es porque les están "presionando" para ello. Han perdido muchísima pasta con lo que ha pasado y tienen que dar una imagen de confianza y tranquilidad. Por supuesto, peor sería que vendieran en un rebote; esto para mí es positivo aunque desde luego no una señal inequívoca.
En otro orden de cosas, más comentarios sobre la serología (que aparentemente estaba prevista para final de año, aunque imagino que podrán acelerar al menos los casos de vacuna que contrajeron el RSV):
They have to look at the blood work from all 11,850 subjects. They will be able to identify whether the vaccine caused antibody buildup in vaccinated subjects where there should be little to none in the unvaccinated subjects. If they see a very large difference in the blood work, then the vaccine actually primed the bodies, but there was no RSV virus for them to vaccinate against. Casey Crooks can comment more technically and more accurately on this.
--
The anti-F results are part of this work, yes, and they were shown for the rollover, but not the P3. The other significant component of the antibody work is the PCA assay. It looks for a subset of the anti-F antibodies, those that the antigen is specifically designed to create, those that bind to the region the Synagis antibody binds to ... because we know Synagis works. So, if the serology shows a ton of PCA activity (and anti-F), then the antigen was not a bad batch. It begins to undercut the value of the PCA assay. I would like to see the bug too, did e.g. the PCA epitope change in wild RSV (or epitope site I or site IV)? And so on. I would think they would look into that, if I could get my hands on some vax arm msLTRI snot I certainly would. Sorry not snot, "nasal aspirate".
--
Data mining ... if NVAX shows mega PCA across the 5925 pts on the vax arm, it will still be, as it always is, that there is a range of immunoreponse. Some people will vax well, make tons of antibody, some will be vax refractory and make little or none. IF e.g. all of the msLTRI vax arm subjects (28 of them) ALL have crap PCA responses, then one can start to assemble an argument that the vax works, nobody that had good PCA got disease and most peopl ehad good PCA. If, on the flip side ALL of the msLTRIs in the vax arm (all 28) had awesome PCA responses ... that would be a bit rough. None of this saves the trial, but things like this will be looked for to save the program. i.e. if the low attack rate killed the ability to show efficacy (a reach) but PCA is still a valid assay (if data mining can suggest this), THEN one would STILL hope to see a PCA-curve effect, that those who got sick were indeed low in their PCA response.
NVAX
De IB, alguien que opina más o menos como yo en lo de que puede haber varios interesados incluso ahora más que antes:
I want to thank the many posters on this Board who have unselfishly contributed their time, insights, analysis, commentary and opinions. This really is a GREAT Board. Like many of you, I was shocked by the clinical results we heard on September 15th. Since then, perhaps a half-dozen theories have been proposed as to why the vaccine may have failed. While intriguing, all we can do is speculate…and wait until NVAX has completed their analysis and shares these findings with us.
For now, on the science side, I prefer to take the simplistic approach. There exits several documented trials where an influenza vaccine demonstrated a high level of efficacy. When the same product was tested in another trial where the attack rate had dropped precipitously, the efficacy of the vaccine was demonstrated to be non-existent. Glenn had referenced these in his remarks. Can I understand this correlation? No…I can’t. I expect the baseball player who hits .300 over 500 at-bats to also hit .300 over 100 at-bats. And it’s not just a question of the smaller numbers…something else is helping cause this result. In any case, because of these documented, irrefutable results, I consider the attack-rate issue alone to be the proverbial “Smoking Gun”. We don’t need to add to this. I believe that Big Pharma also views NVAX’s clinical results as invalid for the same reason.
Now, let’s get to the heart of the matter. It could take NVAX two years to get back to where we were a week ago. (I’m hoping for less time). The problem, of course, is money. NVAX doesn’t have enough of it. There are really only two scenarios that can be played out, with variations for each. The first is the “Partnership Scenario”. In this situation, NVAX asks someone for $300M-$400M and offers to give up in return a very high percentage of the Company, or the Company’s profits. If NVAX succeeds, this investor would probably make about 10X his investment. Let’s say this Partner gets 1/3 of the Company. If all goes well, we will get our reward…but it will come two years later than it would otherwise have come…and it will be reduced by 1/3. So, a potential $30 share price will be reduced to $20. This is clearly the best (and perhaps most painful) scenario for shareholders. However, I do not believe it has a high likelihood of occurring. Why?
Based on the price and volume patterns we have witnessed in the stock over the last week, I believe someone (BP) may have jumped the gun and started buying in the open market. Given that an investor has 10 calendar days to file with the SEC once his position exceeds 5% of the outstanding shares, we could see a 13D filing as early as next week. In theory, it should be the company that has the most to lose technology-wise (Sanofi), or the company that has the most to gain profit-wise (Pfizer).
OK. So if we’re looking realistically at a potential tender offer in the very near term, let’s do justice to the question that has been asked 100 times: How much? (I won’t go through all the details now, and I will post after October 11). I adjusted my DCF model last Saturday at 2:25AM since I couldn’t sleep. I populated some incredibly conservative assumptions. For example, I have NVAX burning through $800M of cash flow for the years 2017-2019. Revenue doesn’t commence until 2020, and does not exceed $1B until 2022. Full run-rate revenues ($7B) are not attained until 2028. My margin assumptions are 5% below where I think they should be, and my SG&A, and R&D expense assumptions are more than adequate. The terminal value (year 2030) is $28B, or 4X revenues.
Before we discuss how the future earnings were discounted to the present, keep in mind the following. In the old days, Companies demanded a minimum 20% pre-tax return on external or internal investments. They had to cover cost of capital (say 5%), inflation (5%), competitive risk, plus earn a return. Two weeks ago Sanofi (not the FED or the ECB) borrowed in Euros the equivalent of >$1B. They paid a NEGATIVE interest rate. Do you think they would be happy to make 20% on their money, and acquire a technology that would allow them to leapfrog their competition? I think so.
So, if we use a whopping 23% discount on this conservative model, we get a valuation of $2.925B. On 345M fully-diluted shares, we get a price of $8.48. If we use a 20% discount, we get a valuation of $4.04B, or $11.72/share. At a 15% discount, we have a valuation of exactly $7.0B, or $20.29 per share.
Consider these three scenarios: (1) The bidder has concerns about NVAX’s Phase III results, but must buy NVAX for defensive/insurance reasons. Strategically, they cannot allow someone else to own the Company. I would suggest this Company would be willing to pay ~$2B, or $6/share (the convertible bonds are not exercised). (2) The buyer believes there is a high likelihood NVAX will be successful, but wants a large discount from the $10B he was prepared to pay prior to the failure. This is a $3B buyer (70% discount) who will make a very handsome 23%-23.5% on his investment. (3) Same scenario as #2, but the buyer finds himself in a very spirited auction process. Their Board authorizes no more than $4B. $4B (60% discount) takes the Company, and the stockholders get $11+ per share. Of course, there is the “Dream” scenario, where the bidding forces the ROI down to 15%, resulting in a $7B valuation and $20 stock price…but we won’t go there.
Because of fear, depression and the current stock price, I believe many of us are diminishing our expectations as to what we will ultimately realize. If the perception is high that NVAX will solve the problem and succeed, albeit with a 2-year delay, there is no reason not to expect either a very high single-digit number or a low double-digit number. Ask yourself, at what price does Pfizer say…I want the Company and the potential outrageous profits, but I’ll pass if Sanofi or Astra-Zeneca bids > $2.8B?…$3B?…$4B?. And when will Sanofi ever have another opportunity to leapfrog the competition and own the coveted NP technology?
Folks, don’t get despondent. Things are about to get interesting.
No quería volver a opinar sobre NVAX, ya que ni me pillo ni me importa nada si sube o baja como el resto de valores, al final es sacar beneficio y punto.
Si compran bien ya que la especulación la subirá y será beneficioso para los que quedaron dentro y podrán recuperar perdidas, fiarse de estos sinvergüenzas que están(STAN E.)dentro, nunca, si se ponen de parte de alguien siempre será de los fondos no del pequeño accionista que no les importa una mierda.
Como decía Tierno: ¡Rockeros! el que no esté colocado, que se coloque... y al loro!
NVAX
Más sobre la serología, esta vez muddyc de IV:
http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=193&mn=6974&pt=msg&mid=16375950
The NP is an antigen, designed to make the body produce antibodies, antibodies like palivizumab.
Two antibody assay are performed.
One looks for antibody production against the NP (the antigen, the vax). That has always been strong.
The issue is that in the case of RSV it is known that many antibodies are not protective. Palivizumab is known to be protective. So, instead of just looking for antibodies to F protein in general (the anti-F Ig assay in all the various investor presentations), they also look at "PCA" , antibodies in the serum of vaccinated people - antibodies that block the ability of the palivizumab mAb to bind to F protein (the NP antigen).
It is a common technique, it measure the antibodies that bind to more or less the same place or epitope as the test antibody (palivizumab ) .
The PCA test was very good in the P2, and we are not talking 10 or 20 points like with disease, the data is from over 700 pts. That assay says that the NP vaccine causes people to make a bunch of palivizumab-like antibodies, if the assay is off it is because they are not palivizumab-like enough, they bind close (hence compete palivizumab away in binding studies) to the clinically important palivizumab epitope, but apparently not close enough to prevent disease (if the PCA assay from the P3 ends up looking like the P2).
If the PCA assay in the P3 does NOT look like the P2, then the antigen was a bad batch. Why? because the P2 again has over 700 pts of data and a nice pretty curve, it is not some flimsy 10 or 20 patient thing. It is the blood from hundreds of people taken 4 different times over weeks.
