Also, I will try to respond to a number of requests that I've received via email or comments to the board asking for 'VFC's Take' on stocks that readers have found. While I'll do my best to address as many as I can, please take a few things into into consideration while reading:
- I have not thoroughly researched all of the stocks that I'm about to comment on. I've done the initial DD but my opinions are mostly based on my first impressions of the stock. I'm merely providing VFC's Take, as requested. Use that as a starting point to do your own DD.
- Don't get testy if I don't like your stock. Remember, this is just my initial impression and I take into consideration some variables that other people don't, that's why 'VFC's Take' is not always the mainstream impression.
- I appreciate all the recent feedback, and keep the stock tips coming; this is a great forum for all investors of all levels to share tips and insights. There's a whole lot of stocks out there, but there's only a few gems. Let's keep trying to find those gems.
BDSI: A comment from Alejandro regarding BioDelivery Sciences:
Hi VFC
How are you doing?
what about BDSI? it is near to my target price, I want to load up some shares...Is it possible that the decline is due the low volume of trading and general market drop?...
Thanks!!!
VFC's Take: I enjoy the opportunity to buy shares of BDSI for under five bucks, but the prospects of buying for a level at or below four bucks is, in my opinion, a gift.
The broad market, espeically the biotech/small pharma sector, is dealing with a turn in sentiment after reaching the DOW 10,000 mark and that could be a contributor to the decline in share price.
Regardless of the price action of the stock, let's look at the facts: milestone payments due, Onsolis approved and commercial launch imminent, heavyweight Onsolis partner, solid drug delivery system that was validated with Onsolis approval and the pipeline is solid and in tact.
I only like the fact that the Meda partnership materialized quickly; that tells me that they see immediate potential with Onsolis, contrary to NovaDel who took over a year to find someone to commercialize their product.
Is there risk associated? Sure, it's the stock market. Maybe Meda will fail to fully realize the commercial potential of Onsolis on the open market and there's always the potential of a market crash, but the days of speculating with BDSI are over, in my opinion, and the facts alone should dictate that BDSI is now looking like a good long term growth pick.
It would also be foolish to ignore the wild car, in my opinion; I find it funny that when TheStreet.com decided to go positive on a biotech/small pharma stock for a change it was when a large hedge fund, which was in the process of exiting their position from the stock, could benefit from a price boost.
Disclosure: VFC is long BDSI.
CVM: A comment from Confused Investor regarding Cel Sci Corp:
Hey VFC! I have a question for you about CVM. I'm young and new to trading (about 2 months now) and find your blogs very helpful. I do own shares in CVM and I liked the company before I started reading your posts. I've found all of your advice to be unbiased and informative but recently and only about this stock (CVM) have things started getting hairy.
There seems to be a lot of controversy over this stock. Seems like people either absolutely love this stock and you or think its complete scum and that you're somehow in cahoots. Of course with you being involved with the tour of the new facility it only made allegations worse about you being a booster of the stock.
I want to make it clear that I'm not questioning the integrity of you or your blog. I find it very helpful and I appreciate what you do for the inexperienced investor like myself since that kind of advice is hard to find. I guess what I'm asking is what in the world is going on with this stock?! The more good news I read about it the lower the price and volume seems to go. I follow other biotechs and there seems to be much less controversy and their good/bad news don't seem inversely related to their price/volume like they do for CVM.
Thanks,
Confused Investor
VFC's Take: Dear Confused, Thanks for the comments. First of all, if you are as new to the market as you claim, then you'll have to get used to the volatility and scenarios that you've seen play out over the last couple of months with CVM - especially if you're going to stick with trading biotech stocks.
It's just a part of the game with this easily manipulated sector. Also, keep in mind that a lot of big players and hedge funds lost a lot of money during the market crash and these entities will stop at nothing to make that money back because it's their own livelihood at stake, after all. The small or long term investor is nothing but some clown holding a few shares that they want in the big scheme of things, so the small investor needs to be that much more confident in his or her DD to be able to stomach the volatility and either accumulate for the long term, buy the dips, or try to play the volatility and pick up some crumbs that the big boys leave behind. The key point here is to do your own DD and stick to the facts. Don't let the haters that are late to the game scare your shares away from you.
As for why Cel Sci went with BioMedReports for the tour of the facility, I can only speculate. The fact that I was in the area helped, but looking at it realistically, if I was Cel Sci and I had to make a decision about who's going to come and visit my house, I'll put this scenario out there:
If one guy is constantly smak-talking my family, and then suggesting that my reality does not exist - even while that reality is present every day, then there's no chance that that guy is coming anywhere near VFC's House. Essentially, that is what a few entities have decided to do with Cel Sci, for whatever reason - but I'm inclined that the attackers of Cel Sci are making out financially somehow, because why else would you pick on a company that is developing two potentially life saving treatments - unless you're just that much of a cruel and heartless coward.
On the other hand, if I've got another entity that, to date, has reported the facts as the have been presented, and then made opinions based on the available facts, then that guy has a better chance of seeing the house, meeting the family and petting the dog than the guy who spreads mis-information.
After all, some people you can trust and some you can't. Unfortunately, in today's day and age, the people that you can trust are becoming fewer and farther in between.
That's the scenario, you figure out the who's who.
Let's also take another fact into consideration, there are a lot of people who are very late to the game with Cel Sci and they are pissed off that they missed the boat. It's natural, when you're on the wrong end of a stock that just skyrocketed (in terms of percentages) to want to attack those that made off pretty good, and then pressure the stock down in order to make money off the short side; but remember that it wasn't long ago that this stock was trading for twenty cents and the peanut gallery was nowhere to be found. In fact, CVM traded in that twenty to forty cent range for quite some time and again, the peanut gallery was nowhere in sight - these guys only showed up after the fact. If Cel Sci and its technology was really that bad, then why wait to do the 'good deed' of informing the investment world of how bad an investment it really is.
Poimt is: Stick to the facts. VFC is just a guy with an opinion and a computer. The only compensation I get for this blog is when readers click on the Google text ads I'll make a little bit and if people buy products via the picture ads, then I get a small commission. In reality, the blog is just a hobby. Keeps me off the vodka tonics. I get no compensation from any company that I have ever written about and I don't care to ever do that because then I've got to compromise being me - and if I'm not calling it like I see it, then I'm not being VFC.
Do your own DD and be aware of the difference between 'pumping & bashing' and having a 'positive or negative outlook.'
Pumping and bashing generally do not include facts or information. For instance, if you read something like, "this stock is going to ten bucks" and that assertation is not supported by and reasons as to why - then that could be construed as a pump.
If someone were to say that "in my opinion, this stock will be a twenty dollar stock a few years down the road because I think that Multikine will be successful in Phase III trials, based on the solid results of the Phase II trials in addition to the fact that the FDA may approve the emergency use of the company's H1N1 treatment", then that is called - because it is based on combination of potential events and actual facts - having "a positive outlook."
Having a negative outlook would be, "I don't think that Multikine will make it to market because I'm not convinced that the Phase II results were as successful as the company makes it sound and it's a tough market for cancer immunotherapy stocks right now." A 'bash' would be "get out now, this stock is going to drop!"
There's a huge difference and any investor needs to weed through the BS. That's what the ignore button is for on the message boards.
Lastly, the peanut gallery and the such were nowhere around before the stock became a ten-bagger in under a year. The fact that they're here now should be a telling enough sign of why they showed up.
Thanks for the comments.
Disclosure: VFC is long CVM.
9 COMMENTS:
Dear VFC,
Enjoy your information and common sense.
Where do you find these interesting penny stocks? Do You have special news letters, sites, or screens that you frequently use?
Thanks You!
Hello again VFC. Thanks for the reply! Your "house visit" example makes sense. Nobody gets invited to my house calling my wife a "ho" either. :) Wasn't expecting that when I read your reply and it still has me chuckling. Thanks for putting things in terms us "newbies" can understand.
I guess you can call me one of the ones who "missed the boat" on CVM, not because I did not believe in them but because I was not even into biotechs then. Even after I saw what the stock did in Sept. I was a believer and thought it wasn't too late to get in with what I've read about Multikine, CEL-1000 and CEL-2000 L.E.A.P.S. especially since their new facility and the progress/finalizing as of recently can only mean good things. Since becoming interested in biotechs my first two stocks I bought into were CVM and AGEN in late Sept. after doing my own DD. You can imagine how my biotech porfolio looks right now but I didn't get into the market thinking it would be all sunny days, so I'm staying optimistic since I bought in for the long haul on both. Still, its been a tough start.
Recently I've read news of a lawsuit against CVM in an SEC filing for Item 2.04. Any reason to be alarmed about this and do these type of allegations happen often?
Thanks again,
Nick (Confused Investor)
P.S. I'll be sure to click a few of your google ads whenever I read your blogs, least I can do for your time.
So it appears that we missed the boat on CVM. Who are you referring to exactly VFC? The longs or the shorters? At 1.06$ for a Wednesday, October 28 close it sure does seem like the shorts have profited and the institutions that you speak of are getting what they hoped for. Unless of course you are suggesting that CVM has had its moment of glory. After all, the company is well capitalized for at least another year or two. Then we might expect to see them begin this whole charade all over again. Correct me if i'm wrong, but a simple research indicates that multikine was mentioned in the media back in 2006 at which point Cel-Sci managed to fade from media reports regarding it after having capitalized sufficiently till the present day. And sure enough they spoke of the construction of the manufacturing facility back then too. Rather convenient, don't you think? Somewhat a deja-vu deja-entendu. I think it is necessary that we weigh these facts carefully in order to have a better understanding of whether this company is worthy of considering as a long-term option. I don't think any one investor has the guts to go long on a stock that might once again find itself back at the .30-.50 cent range even if it truly does have long term potential.
Do a little bit more than simple research - there's more to the story than you summed up here.
Thanks for reading.
REPUBLIKAN
I agree with you completely on CVM. Anyone following this company for more than 6 months should be able to recognize the intentionally misleading information being put out there. I view the sell off as an opportunity to buy in again for a replay. There is plenty of positive news in the pipeline for the coming months. And by that time those who were in limboland will finally catch up on their research. One has to wonder why DNDN is trading at more than estimated future sales while still building their capacity and CVM will already be capable of almost 2 Billion worth of Multikine at the outset. If the naysayers are so certain that Cel-Sci's technologies have no potential perhaps they should vow to never accept any such treatment.
A little more research VFC? That is all i have been doing. My DD on the company. The way it should be carried out. What i have discovered i am not too pleased about. You fail to mention some of those details. What arrangement does Cel-sci have with the FDA or Clinical Trials Organization? Or is there any? How would you know for certain VFC? I wouldn't know for sure either. I have written and spoken to the FDA and CTO, however. And they have responded. What hurts most is discovering facts like a purported Dr. Romanus endorsing Cel-Sci's treatments but turning out to be fluff. Someone created out of thin air. And if that is not so, well consider that he ultimately does lie when he pretends to be a director of the Health Research Group at Public Citizen. What is that about exactly? That is what i would like for you to elaborate further on. Do you not feel that it is necessary to consider such details? Who, for example, would have more to gain from his fabrication? Rhetorical. How about you agree to call a spade a spade VFC and stop beating about the bush. Certainly you have more respect for your readers than that. It is not about right or wrong. I would prefer to know that all of the information, positive or negative, about Cel-sci is discussed. Simply put it is all about full disclosure. I am not convinced a few words in response to my comment above is going to cut it, VFC. You marginalize the extent of my research on this company. I don't invest blindly. I hope you aren't suggesting we do.
Demokrat,
You said yourself you did SIMPLE RESEARCH. The Phase III Multikine trial design has already been cleared by the FDA. As has also been made public, the company previously did not have the funds to launch the trial. With the the money they did have, they decided to build the facility because they would be able to help fund the trial with money they brought in through contracting and/or lease money.
That's all public information.
As for some of your other points, I don't argue press releases, for one, and to even mention Dr. Romanus kind of has me wondering your intentions are; I don't concentrate on people who are make believe made up by a couple of frauds.
I deal with facts, if you want to have a discussion about the facts, then fine - but Dr Romanus has nothing to do with facts and until you or someone else can prove that Cel Sci is lying when they issue press releases, then I take them for what they are.
And lastly, this is VFC's House in case you didn't notice. I don't need to "cut" anything in regards to your comments. There's too me people sending in comments that want to discuss facts and opinions based on those facts for me to waste any more time with your conspiracy theories.
'Nuff said on that, Demokrat!
Not so VFC. Seems i hit a nerve with you. When one's interests are questioned they tend to retaliate more aggressively. I am surprised you haven't surmised yet that it may be possible that a SIMPLE RESEARCH implies that ANYONE might be able to get off their "derriere" and figure this company out, from top to bottom, from one end to the other. Facts? You are well aware of them. As everyone else might be if they devoted some time to it. It is simply a shame that you don't share both sides of the coin in order to better equip your readers. As far as it pertains to who said what, note that you state facts based on what Cel-Sci said. My question to you was: How do you know that the FDA corroborates what Cel-sci says? When i spoke to them they searched their data base and said there was no information on Cel-sci except for one detail i will elaborate on further below. Did you ever happen to call them personally? Or even the Clinical Trial Organization? I did. It would appear that under the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 that the FDA would have 21 days to register the company. The company first made public the FDA's approval to proceed with its H1N1 flu drug candidate on Sept. 18, 2009. As you well know, we are far beyond the 21 days for Cel-sci to be registered with the FDA. Maybe this matter is not as clear cut. Time will tell. A SIMPLE RESEARCH for Cel-sci on the FDA's website pulls up two links. The top link pertains to a list of companies that the FDA permits their employees to own. As it turns out Cel-sci is in that list of companies that employees can buy shares of. Interesting, yes? In case your readers don't understand the implication of this, the FDA can not have approved Cel-sci for anything whatsover considering this fact alone. I am not here to discuss one fact after another VFC. I am just hoping that you will FULLY DISCLOSE all of the information that might be helpful one way or another. I made that clear above. But you choose instead to press upon matters that are trivial. I leave it to your readers to appreciate that someone is bringing to light what you seem to indicate you dread most, some negativism regarding companies that you discuss IN YOUR HOUSE. Maybe now,"NUFF" has been said. The ball is in your court now. You can choose to hit it back or just let it go by. Cheers!
See, Demokrat, here's where we differ in views and why I can't make it past two sentances of your posts -
If Cel Sci were to issue a report stating that the FDA cleared them to move forward with Phase III; or if they issued a report that the FDA cleared them to conduct a trial with LEAPS for the treatment of H1N1 - and it was a fabrication and the FDA did not actually do anything of the sort, then that would be illegal.
I do understand your belief that we should question the validity of a PR, since that recent report came out about the analyst that was fabricating PRs, but it is my opinino that the CEO of the company would realize that if he issued false press releases, then chances are he will go to jail.
That's my opinion. I do not believe that Cel Sci issues false PRs. If you do, then that's your business - but if your arguement is simply, "Geert's a lier!", then don't expect me to take you seriously. I do appreciate your readership, but VFC doesn't play the "Liar! Liar! Pants on Fire!" game.
And sorry about hurting your feelings earlier, I hadn't had my morning Celsius yet!
Post a Comment