A different viewThank you proboscis & others who posted their observations from the AGM for taking the time to share them.
i understand it is probably difficult for those attending to not come away from the meeting feeling positive and full of anticipation and excitement, but after reading your (& others) notes there really isn’t anything new, including the same old glaring management spin. allow me to point out some concerns and raise some questions I would have liked to have asked were I present.
a person expressed concern about the permission to issue up to 50% new shares. Brad said the possible reasons could be to raise funds, to aquire assets, and "for defensive purposes". He said "it is not the intent" to go up to 50%, it is just for prudence/expedience in order to protect the interests of the shareholder
BT in essence suggests that voting to allow management to reduce my & your equity or ownership interest in onc/reolysin by 50% is for my "protection", and this comment isn't further explained, questioned or even later challenged. in fact, not surprisingly, it appears along with BT, to be implicitly praised here.
i know shareholders need to have at least some degree of trust in management, but granting this "flexibility" without so much as even the CEO outlining the circumstances when it would be potentially used seems just more business as usual with these guys (remember they aren't shareholders (by their own choice) but option holders who will exercise their options along the way and sell the underlying shares right after exercising their options. they will make their real money on the royalties which aren't affected by share dilution.)
but I am glad for you guys that are willing to simply trust BT (the guy that got you & me into tth) to give up 50% of your ownership in onc & reolysin for what he as a non-shareholder thinks is worth it.
and please, BT’s patronizing crap that he doesn’t purchase onc shares from the market because of difficulties about the timing & legal concerns of when he knows something material or not, is simply not credible – it flies in the face of most legitimate public companies whose officers actively purchase shares of their companies from the markets and put their money where their mouth is. (BT obviously didn’t buy when he publicly stated that there was nothing material happening at the company either, but perhaps he didn’t buy, not because he misspoke, but was speaking the "truth"?
re. the systemic trial in the UK will probably be more colo-rectal and lung cancer patients than others because of the interests of the clinicians
why didn’t they seek out a clinical program that specialized in pancreatic cancer? Is it because reovirus might be too effective in that case, and the reportable results ready too quick, causing the share price to increase perhaps significantly which would mean they would have to do their private placements at higher prices and not allow those hand picked “private” investors to pick up cheaper onc shares thus minimizing dilution?
And another thing re: BT’s talking about the difficulties and uncertainties for biotechs raising cash from the markets – if reolysin is just half as good as most here think, onc should not have any problems raising enough cash to last them to commercialization in one financing. An inconsistency that apparently doesn’t warrant any further questioning or challenging. Sorry for pointing it out again (NOT).
The phase 2 component will have 14 patients. The full protocol will be presented at some conference at a ski resort in Europe (Switzerland?). "It is a very interesting and very complicated protocol". Brad reviewed it and it was 100-150 pages long
it appears they have chosen a sub-optimal cancer in terms of RAS activation & therefore expected reovirus efficacy for this very important systemic trial – so the results likely won’t be as good as they could have been with other forms of cancer more susceptible to reovirus. yet they seem to have gone to considerable length & expense to develop this sub-optimal protocol – why????? What do they hope to learn from this trial that they couldn’t learn from a pancreatic cancer trial study?
Does ONC have appropriate human resources? Yes, and they have finacial resources to early 2007.
interesting for him to give a timeframe estimate how long he expects the money will last, but apparently he can't give any estimate or much less a guess when their trials will be completed and results out. Kind of funny to me, since logic says to me that you have to estimate how long the trials will run (& therefore cost) in order to estimate how long your money will last, but apparently BT & his fans don't use that logic.
another inconsistency that simply falls by the wayside, but hey, these are good guys who know what they are doing cuz they have that proven track record, like sybb, tth, etc. don't they?
Brad mentioned that for ONC staff their participation is more an inteerst or labor of love than anything else.
that’s great to say, but they seem very well compensated to me for a development stage company with no operating revenues – if they were truly sincere about their “labor of love”, why not take their salaries, bonuses, royalties and options in onc shares and put their interests & motivations directly in line with us shareholders? Because that would be too much labour & perhaps not enough love?
Last year's comment re. it being more important to do the glio trial "right" (correct) rather than fast. Brad said he would be happy with "correct AND fast", but he will not sacrifice correct for speed.
very well spoken generality that few could disagree with – but what specifically about the glio trial needs to be done slow to get it right? No examples? No Nothing? - is he sitting on air here to support himself and make himself look good (or at least not look bad?) – I don’t think I would rule that out – we have no info to decide other than those wonderful “vibes” from “being there” and “informally chatting” with Brad.
Someone asked what is needed to get the glio trial going in the US. Brad said that right now the FDA is waiting for data from ONC re. the manufacturing process. Brad said he won't give a timeline on glio - "it's in the hands of God, or the local equivalent which is the FDA."
interesting that he takes a shot at the FDA (probably knowing it will play well to such a polite, pro BT/onc crowd) in the same apparent sentence that he says the FDA is waiting for data from ONC!?! – another inconsistency (those inconsistencies are getting kind of consistent aren’t they?) waiting for data from onc…
as an onc shareholder, I feel I have more in common with the FDA than with onc management – we both are waiting for glio data from onc and we’ve waited at least 2 years & counting…. glad the tone at the AGM allowed you to get all that inside stuff from BT though probo.
They then sold this (tth shares) asset so they could focus on their core activities However, the movement to divest themselves of TTH immediately catalyzed new financings.
they bought tth to create a “pipeline” so that they would have something to spend all that partnership cash on & occupy their time with after their partner(s) took over reolysin development.
Onc issued shares to private individuals in return for those private individual’s tth shares – a move that was extremely dubious & questionable at the time since tth needed cash but didn’t get it in that deal with onc – BT stated at the time that the tth share purchase was only the first step and there would be more tth share purchases by onc presumably via participation in financings – yet later onc’s tth shares were sold (perhaps back to the tth guys who got those cheap onc shares in the original deal?) which confirmed that onc’s original tth purchase was a bad move at the time (as was suggested by several posters including myself.)
BT also mentions that with pp’s they can essentially “pick” onc’s private investors – of course BT would never give any of his pals a good deal at the expense of existing onc shareholders, would he now – he’s just too altruistic for that right?…(tth anyone?
A question about the timing of a partnership. Brad said, "We prefer to keep it to ourselves", but it will be based on securing the maximum return for shareholders. "It's all based on what's best for you guys, for shareholders
that is so reassuring - I can feel the positive vibes so far away & even now
A question regarding management compensation. Brad said they hire a third party to do surveys every year and that information is given to the Compensation Committee
they have what 4 or 9 employees and they HIRE a 3rd party to do a survey???
No one thought this was strange? Why doesn’t Ball just check a few development stage biotech companies annual reports and review the compensation packages????
Instead they spend shareholder money to hire a 3rd party so they can apparently “independently” justify their inflated compensation to shareholders? I smell more BS coming from BT here
Brad said he doesn't own any shares today and he doesn't plan on buying any.
great vote of confidence for our CEO to be sending to the market. On behalf of shareholders I want to thank you BT for doing what is in our best interests, even though you aren’t one of us!
Of course BT isn’t arrogant or playing GOD here, the FDA is!!!!
question about giving a glio update now It would be inappropriate and it would do damage to the trial."
no expansion on how it would or could do damage to the trial?
Why did the interim prostate results become the final results? Based on their ongoing analysis they realized that they had all the information they needed so no more patients were needed. He said it is common in phase 1 trials that far fewer patients are ultimately required than first anticipated.Re. the length of time it took to get (final prostate) results out he said "we won't rush or compress the science by putting a timeline on it."
so if I translate that statement, it seems he is saying it took them a year to “realize” they had enough information and no more patients were needed? Is this credible to anyone, including those who attended? Maybe that is why its taking so long with the trials??? – because it takes BT & crew so long to realize they have enough info, despite the very very small trial size?????
Anyone see any inconsistency here?????
Re. the Marsden trial he said, "It will be done when it is done. Any timeline would be inaccurate."
so his estimate for the cash lasting until 2007 is by association inaccurate, yet he has no problems giving that out. Interesting.
I know this post will pile up more ignores for me from the very knowledgeable and objective posters here who post the 10 to 20% of non-BS that BT refers to.
I’m sorry to crash the AGM “party” this way, but imo, someone needs to provide the other side of the story, and point out some of BT’s numerous inconsistencies. His lame and amateurish attempts to illuminate shareholders is nothing but a smokescreen to cover his & onc’s failings, and he gets away with it because people are all too willing to overlook the inadequacy of management, not realizing that they, not the science, will determine the ultimate success or failure of the company.
Imo, BT’s AGM performance is further proof positive that management is running onc like their own private company, and keeping things to themselves that should be disclosed to shareholders and I believe one of the primary motivations real disclosures aren’t made is to protect management, not shareholders, as BT implies.
BT should be replaced – and if the BOD doesn’t do it, the BOD should be replaced.