RE: bilo.....proboscisproboscis - we have to try to keep things shorter
The question is when do we take those profits. That depends on our evaluation of the current situation. But by no means is ONC's share value hyper inflated like those of so many companies during the tech bubble. Therefore, I don't think it is a fair comparison.
i agree that onc's market valuation may have much more current upside - but at what point does the market tell you that it is "overvalued" or due for a correction and time to take some profits? i suggest that without at least positive ph II results to fall back on, it is the volume and trading of onc, rather than company fundamentals that will give you the best "time" to take profits.
You seem to put no great significance on the announcement of NCI trials, or on interim glio and systemic results. It's all anticipated you say, it adds nothing significant to the reolysin story. Are you serious?
no i don't and yes i am serious. everyone is anticipating an onc/NIH announcement sometime this year and the only thing such an announcement will add is a timeline on when final NIH trial results might be expected. given the unforeseen delays and length of previous, smaller trials, i think a timeline for NIH trials will be longer rather than shorter, and have no material impact on the real question of whether reolysin is effective or not. as i posted, the announcement will likely offer a trading opportunity, but i don't see it (the announcement itself) as adding anything to the science that isn't already known.
Results, whether they are interim or final make a world of difference. The results (interim or final) will bring confirmation or repudiation to the theory. If interim results of the glio or systemic trials are even 1/4 as good as I expect there will be HUGE interest and significant increases of share price
we are talking ph I, which as you know is mainly about safety - sure there may be some secondary efficacy reported, and that may add to the speculation, but the real value is in ph II & III trial results.
it is a bit ironic that, reading some of your (& others') posts, safety of reolysin is no longer regarded as an issue or a concern - it is largely assumed (and i tend to agree to an extent), yet you also suggest that when actual ph I safety results are released, there will be a "HUGE" interest and reaction by the market.
seems a bit conflicted if you ask me, but maybe that is just attributable to you not having "a high opinion of the wisdom of the market."
also, i am simply guessing that there will be announcements re: interim results - which you should also know, contradicts BT's earlier stated "policy" of not releasing any updates except the final results. i suspect, however, with the new, increased shareholder base, he will have to take his foot out of his mouth and come out more frequently from his "cone of silence" bunker to provide "official" updates to shareholders on the status of trials. Expectations have gone up, whether he is prepared for them or not.
Seems like even you anticipate further share price appreciation in the near term. So is this an efficient market recognizing the true value of ONC, or is it a hyper market being swept up in unreasoning emotion?
well, markets in the short term are unpredictable and anything can happen, but it looks to me like the volume and price action suggests there is still strong buying pressure - which suggests to me we are headed higher - not exactly rocket science (or viral oncolgy) i know, but the ultimate answer to your question will be yielded, imo, by the collective market, not by myself, or even onc posters, individually or collectively.
Gee, that sounds bullish to me, but then you seem to suggest it might just be a "bubble". I think that most of us, on this board at least, know what we have in ONC. We have a grasp of the science, the profile of the optimum cancer therapeutic (Reolysin), and the plan the management is working to execute.
until we get ph II results that support efficacy and possible commercialization, i don't think anyone "knows" or for that matter, even has a good idea, what the value of reolysin/onc is - it is still speculative - that is why the market will have a hard time valuing the stock, going from undervaluing to perhaps "overshooting" even its best case commercial value if it is proven effective. (refer to what bristol myers originally offered to pay imclone for erbitux). one thing seems certain to me - given the difficulty of valuing reolysin/onc, there will be a lot of volatility and accordingly opportunity to trade this stock.
If anything, Brad has been accused of being too understated. No danger here of hyped-up pronouncements from management and underhanded accounting practices. Again, I don't think there is any valid comparison to be drawn with the collapse of the tech bubble.
aside from pumpers & hypers here, i'm not sure who thinks BT is understated. his & onc's problem is they are literally such a small company with very limited resources trying to turn a breakthrough discovery into an understandable and protectable science that would change the course of cancer treatment if reolysin is proven effective.
so far they have taken an inordinate amount of time to produce basic ph I trial safety results, imo, and their lone ph II trial to date had only 6 enrolees undergoing a 3 week treatment that took almost 2 years to complete. it seems to me that BT's unfortunate public comment that "nothing material is happening at the company" was too often the case with onc.
hopefully with NIH & the UK trials being run outside of Calgary, there may be some more timely progress, in addition to more credibility and recognition for reolysin & onc.
I WILL be focusing on the news, the science, and on what BT thinks. I will be more relaxed about market fluctuations. Fundamentally, I think that ONC "is building it (a revolutionary cancer therapy)" and that "they (the market) are starting to come."
good luck. I’ll stick to my focus on the market and on what it has to say. thanks.