Iovance Biotherapeutics Inc (IOVA) News

DB, no real concerns and no way to use technical trading for an early commercial stage bio. With each quarter of earnings over the next 3 quarters, the picture will gain additional clarity and investors will be able to more fully appreciate and value the stock. With Q4 and 2025 guidance, I suspect we'll all be very happy with the share price (unless you're expecting over $100 by then - that's going to take a bit more time). I still believe we'll see higher highs yet this year. Hopefully we'll keep seeing higher lows as well.

A buddy likes to remind me that we still want to get to long term capital gains on all of our recent share purchases. I'm good with that. And all signs from the company are positive: their growing and adding new employees, their patient que continues to expand, their generating real revenue, their expanding into additional world markets, and their product lines for additional cancer types will be expanding as well.

You kind of need this daily mantra if you intend to stay long in IOVA.

Have a great weekend and good luck to the longs.

Let the facts play out.... this is just noise.

It appears that the HFs can do whatever they want with this stock. There is no rational technical trading. 200 SMA are meaningless. VWAPs are meaningless.

Difficult to watch... I just hope these guys will not again hammer the stock even if the Q2 results are good... it is possible.

The most frustrating stock that I have ever owned. Without a doubt.
Now watch them push below 200 SMA on daily to break the spirit.

Straight up playground stock for hedgefunds.

Amazing. Almost a 10% swing down from HOD.

I cant wait to crush these guys

It did indeed. It's a Friday, it's summer, no options to worry about, the traders came in early and did what they needed/wanted to do, and now it's time to head out for the weekend. I do think we'll continue to see some rise next week going into the Q2 report. IOVA has had some surprisingly good days on bad sector days. Here's hoping for that additional bump up prior to the release of Q2 earnings. If we can get some bonus guidance - even just patient numbers, that should also help support the price. Good luck.

this makes me happy.

Followed XBI and LABU to a tee.
Ok that move makes more sense.

For any of this type of information, one needs to read thru it for what it is and also what recognize what their underlying purpose is. If you can build up your own fact-based understanding of a company, it can give you an edge (and an opportunity). Citron's "best short of the year" call on NVDA back in 2017 let me enter my position there at a 25% discount... sold 60% to cover my cost x3 and still hold the rest. Figured a 300% run in 2 years was nearing a peak... boy was I wrong, but did not see the AI revolution coming so missed that fact update to my pricing model. Anyway, hope we see something similar with IOVA and a cancer treatment revolution.

OT, "SEC sues Andrew Left, his firm Citron Capital over short selling" Jul. 26, 2024, By Joshua Fineman, SA News Editor: https://seekingalpha.com/news/4128923-sec-sues-andrew-left-his-firm-citron-capital-over-short-selling :

"The Securities and Exchange Commission sued short seller Andrew Left and his firm Citron Capital, alleging that he engaged in a $20 million multi-year scheme to defraud followers by publishing false and misleading statements regarding his stock trading recommendations.

The SEC alleged that while Left recommended his followers buy or sell certain stocks, he would quickly reverse his position once his report was published.

“Andrew Left took advantage of his readers," Kate Zoladz, Director of the SEC’s Los Angeles Regional Office, said in a statement on Friday. "He built their trust and induced them to trade on false pretenses so that he could quickly reverse direction and profit from the price moves following his reports. We uncovered these alleged bait-and-switch tactics, which netted Left and his firm $20 million in ill-gotten profits, and we intend to hold Left and his firm accountable for their actions.”

The SEC’s complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, charges Left and Citron Capital with violating antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws.

Left declined to comment to Seeking Alpha.

Some of the companies included in the SEC's complaint again Left where he published long and short recommendations about include American Airlines (AAL), Roku Inc. (ROKU), Cronos Group (CRON), Beyond Meat (BYND) and Vuzix Corp. (VUZI)."

*************************

Sadly, these are the games in the stock market. Whether true or not, whether or not this will accomplish anything meaningful has yet to be seen, but we're aware that such games do get played often and on both sides of the trade - pump and dump, or short sell ahead of or timed with bad news, real or fabricated.

To the point of GMH, fundamentals often win out in time, but the ability to weather the storm is the challenge.

Investing is challenging enough and it's understandable why so many day traders and short term investors fail.

I'll be here for a while. Good luck to the longs.

Amazing when the HFs aren't naked shorting this and loading the ASK.
10 is a big spot. We need to consolidate here for a while.
Lets see.

We are now above my shares average price. :)

I am perfectly fine with a 10.00 close today.

100%... I think that fundamentals will always ultimately win out. That is why I try to get a SP range based on fundamentals and try to ignore daily SP swings (not always easy). I only change my SP target range as facts emerge to change my assumptions.

Thanks GMH for taking the time to explain the below. So it is mostly about HFs and some retail trading.

Long term, it does not matter if the market plays for us or against us now, as ultimately the revenues and profit or a BO deal will determine the SP.

Short term, it is good for the morale and blood pressure to have a portfolio in the green...

Also, my core "non-trading" accounts have been heavily weighted towards small cap ETFs (50% of holdings) since June of 2023, so really glad to start seeing this rotation into that space, not just for the sake of IOVA, but the tailwind is good here as well.

In every stock transaction, you always have a buyer and a seller, but you never know if either/both are retail or institutional buyers/sellers. For institutions, you know their positioning each quarter from the 13F filings. Most of the big institutions (i.e. Black Rock, State Street, Vanguard, etc) are long only (or primarily long). They may have some ETFs that are short/bear trades but these are generally structured using options/derivatives since the owner of the ETF can never lose more than the initial investment so a pure short play would put the fund on the hook for any excess losses. This leaves most of the true shorts to come from retail trading (probably a small percentage), Market Makers (on hedges for net short calls/long put options positions) and mostly (in my estimation) from Hedge Funds. I am also guessing, in the case of IOVA, that most of these are long/short funds (e.g. Icahn, 72Point, etc. type funds) where they short the biotech/small caps (because they pay no dividends that they would need to cover) and then go long the S&P or some other sector, basically creating a leveraged bet. A short only fund (e.g. Citron) generally creates a white paper purporting some fraud or significant business issue and then publishes right after they have taken a huge short position and then cover on the sell-off (so short term trade). I got into NVDA on such a CITRON paper (crypto-currency selloff thesis) back in 2017 for a now split adjusted $2.50. So, Shorts can be right in in the short term, but very very wrong in the long-term.

Thank you GMH for this clarification. Pardon my ignorance but can we conclude then that institutions are buying the shares that are being shorted by HF?

This could explain why there is no reaction from them as by definition they are long term shareholders who believe in the long term SP potential (> 20 $) and therefore buying shorted shares at increasingly lower price is on the long term a transfer of wealth from HF to institutional investors (while it is reverse on the short term).

If this is true then IOVA SP will sooner or later reach an inflection point (afeter certain accumulation of good news) that will drive the SP to its full potential and beyond (no need for a short squeeze, this can take over a couple of months also).

Did I get it right ?

Just remember that any short position creates a counter-balance long position so institutions could add to their long position but loan out their shares (that is where most of the short borrowing comes from) and when those borrowed shares get sold, you get another long position. Institutions have a "book keeping" long position and the second buyer has the actual long position, but when institutions report out, those "book keeping" long positions are reported as normal long positions. Its "book keeping" because you get an interest payment in lieu of any dividend payment but for IOVA, this is a non-issue.

Surfkast, and where are the shares coming from if not the shorts? Who's actually selling shares? It's an interesting situation that we find ourselves in with the SI increasing while funds are increasing their positions as well. The dam may break soon and if it breaks we may see a flood of shorts trying to cover. Then again, we've been saying this for quite some time. Good luck to the longs.

My post shows more buying by the big boys.
???????????????????????

The great rotation from the megacap to the small cap only started recently so I guess the 15th of July figures do not reflect it.

The next report should. Just a guess.

I'd love to hear theories, explanations, or reasons why we've seen a steady increase in short interest for the past year. Are there other strategies at play that aren't simply understood by the short interest numbers alone? Here's the short interest numbers over the past year:

07/15/2024 58,941,197
06/28/2024 56,421,027
06/14/2024 54,631,791
05/31/2024 49,964,621
05/15/2024 51,214,599
04/30/2024 50,055,411
04/15/2024 48,976,035
03/28/2024 46,378,639
03/15/2024 47,430,020
02/29/2024 46,706,133
02/15/2024 42,975,867
01/31/2024 41,966,529
01/12/2024 43,272,179
12/29/2023 36,407,693
12/15/2023 35,276,126
11/30/2023 34,588,695
11/15/2023 35,593,714
10/31/2023 38,861,574
10/13/2023 38,740,238
09/29/2023 36,767,836
09/15/2023 30,511,616
08/31/2023 30,071,242
08/15/2023 27,534,368
07/31/2023 27,549,902

FWIW, short interest increased as of 7/15/24, now at 58.94 million up from 56.42 million shares short.

Institutional and Fund Ownership - Buyers Jul 24, 2024, 11:15:24 AM EDT

Major holders that have opened new positions in Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. include Summit Partners Public Asset Management, Llc, T. Rowe Price Investment Management, Inc., PRSVX - T. Rowe Price Small-Cap Value Fund, Inc., Braidwell Lp, Driehaus Capital Management Llc, DVSMX - Driehaus Small Cap Growth Fund Investor Share Class, Cubist Systematic Strategies, LLC, Hussman Strategic Advisors, Inc., HSGFX - Hussman Strategic Growth Fund, TASVX - PGIM QMA SMALL-CAP VALUE FUND Class Z, PBQAX - PGIM Jennison Blend Fund Class A, AASOX - Alger Small Cap Growth Portfolio Class I-2, Kestra Advisory Services, LLC, CFSSX - Column Small Cap Select Fund, Cambridge Investment Research Advisors, Inc., ADSIX - Disciplined Growth Fund Investor Class, Nebula Research & Development LLC, Seacrest Wealth Management, Llc, FRTY - Alger Mid Cap 40 ETF, and Worth Venture Partners, LLC .

https://fintel.io/sob/us/iova

New article: "TILs Taking on Solid Tumors. Looking into the development of Amtagvi – the world’s first approved T-cell therapy for a solid tumor."

Stephanie Vine | 07/24/2024

https://themedicinemaker.com/manufacture/tils-taking-on-solid-tumors

The main reason I think that it is a biotech portfolio shorting approach is that 1) when short HFs create a company specific short thesis, they generally build a big short position and then publish a white paper on "best short of the year" and then cover on the subsequent drop, whereas the current approach seems to "let the overbought FOMO" dissolve over time and 2) with interest rates around 5%, being short biotechs which pay no dividends actually present a carry-trade situation. The overall XBI short position may be this carry trade whereas the "short the hot money" approach is probably geared towards biotechs that overshoot on good news. Ultimately, the market is a weighing machine which will eventually pan out but we were in the voting machine stage after the AMTAGVI approval until now.

GMH, regarding the bear case analysis, most of the investors who I've chatted with who are long IOVA or active in the sector have a similar conclusion - IOVA isn't necessarily a good choice individually as a short, but is part of the shot gun approach to shorting similar companies in this sector where the win/loss ratio for the shorts supports this approach. If you win often enough, one or two losers for the shorts will be easily offset by their other gains.

XBI is still one of the most heavily shorted ETFs which supports this theory of sector shorting. I assume this all means it's easy to pick losers if you pick the entire sector. Picking winners is the challenge. It's like betting on all the MLB teams to not make the playoffs, or to not make the World Series, but try and pick the one or two that will make it.

Good luck.

Yes. Right. That is factual information related to dropout rate and manufacturing percentage. Which does not support a poor launch thesis. As far as a "figuring out the bear case", I think that the day that we went to 9.50 provides a clue. Now I am veering from the facts and just stating opinion to reply to you thoughts. That day was the day of a very high percentage of the likelihood of a rate cut in sept. which means cheaper money. So, the bear thesis hinges greatly on an early raise in unfavorable times.

The company themselves said that the dropout rate will decline over time, so I am going from that, but they also said it was in-line with trials. Also, note that the 5% drop was, I assume, from patient health decline. There was also a statement in the same article that the manufacturing success rate was 95.7% so those should to be taken in combination.

I also have tried to figure out the bear case and have posed similar questions. My only thought is that this is barking up the wrong tree. If a HF simply shorts 10 biotechs after they report good news and have a significant price increase, they will win on 90% of those with a 25% to 50% take rate (as we have seen here). That would easily offset the 1 that gets a buyout offer at 100% premium. The only conclusion I can come to is that the short position is simply a portfolio play and really is not stock specific, other than the couple of items that I noted (slow ramp plays into the over-bought scenario) and capital raise gives cover for the short position.

GMH -

Yes. I do understand what the short thesis is. But what are the facts that have been presented in an objective fashion that support? vs the facts that we have seen that supports a positive launch.
From what I have seen so far with number of hires and ATC openings, physician report at ASCO and per comments from analysts and Iovance. Remember management said AMTAGVI will “generate significant revenue in 2024.” (This is from biotechreasearcher Twitter feed). I can see the facts that support a positive launch.

I am just wondering if their is any objective measures that support a "higher than expected dropout rate" (for example). Which facts have led to that thought? I recently posted a dropout rate of Moffitt as 5% as a fact. Where is the information otherwise that leads to a higher rate than that?

Just trying to put a bit of a scientific method to this.

Regarding expenses, the guide was to 320M-340M of all non-CAPEX spend (non-GAAP cash burn) and I am pretty sure they can forecast hires out pretty well and they know all of the trials that were under way so I would be surprised if those numbers change. It may not be uniform spend due to the new hires so I would actually expect Q2 cash burn to be on the low side or perhaps even below the $80M average.

Yes. I did see that. Just another example of a fact that supports a positive launch.

'I don't think shorts are in the know while we who are long are missing something, I just think it's the typical cycle of a biotech entering the commercial stage of their business - it can be a bit choppy at first, but personally I think it's actually going a bit smoother than many may believe."

I agree. Cant find facts to support otherwise

Dennboy,
I have two fundamental reasons on why there is such a large short position in IOVA; the first being the expected drop rate being higher than expected (as we have discussed here at length) and the second is the cash runway and likelihood of a cash raise before year-end (companies don't like to run cash to zero as it forces them to raise regardless of SP and shorts know this).

My real thinking on the short position is that it is more from a technical basis. Specifically, I believe that there are a lot of short only or long/short HFs that simply short any biotech on any given price pop. It was pointed out earlier by someone on the board that another company had a huge increase in short position after good news and right before a buyout. I started taking a look at this (not comprehensive) but noticed a similar pattern whenever good news broke in this space. I am guessing that it is just an "odds on" but, especially when you have cover from the two fundamentals I raised (cash raise and slow ramp) as cover. Yes, occasionally they lose on a buyout or exceptional ramp but I am guessing the win percentage more than makes up for the one-off loser... hopefully IOAV will be the one where they take a big hit to offset some of those winners.

Dennboy, here's a nice summary of the non-executive hires that have been made over the past 6 months (I pulled this from a post by xtcgg on SW - the numbers check out):

Feb 16, 2024: 16 new employees
Mar 22, 2024: 20 new employees
Apr 19, 2024: 37 new employees
May 17, 2024: 30 new employees
Jun 21, 2024: 43 new employees
Jul 19, 2024: 19 new employees

A total of 165 new, non-executive employees in 6 months … (certainly looks like growth and demand).

To your concern, I do think the launch is likely going very well, but I'm uncertain as to how much of an increase we're going to see in overall expenses. Even if the Q2 revenue is good, there may be an unrealistic expectation (a whisper number) of what earnings should look like that is completely out of line with what we're going to see in the report. That's also why I say we need 3-4 Q's of actual earnings so that a lot of this current fear will disappear because we'll have actual verifiable facts. We don't have that yet and so FUD can take hold of many of us who are long. The short interest report for July 15 will be out this Wednesday, July 24th. I'll be curious to see if the shorts are finally starting to cover some of the position. Even if they haven't, I'm confident that we're still going to see higher highs yet this year. I don't think shorts are in the know while we who are long are missing something, I just think it's the typical cycle of a biotech entering the commercial stage of their business - it can be a bit choppy at first, but personally I think it's actually going a bit smoother than many may believe.

Good luck to the longs.

Would love you all to input your thoughts into this post.
I am just attempting to post the facts as we have seen them.

My overarching question is multilayered.
Why is there such a large short position in IOVA and why has the stock declined since approval.

For there to be such a large short position with SP decline, the facts must be that the launch is not going well and revenue and guidance will not be satisfactory.

So what are the facts.

Support that the launch is going well

Please add the facts that we have seen. Just the facts.

My facts related to a positive launch.
1. 50 ATC are now onboarded.
2. Hired 49 new employees (we do not now however how many of these are filling positions as replacements of former employees).
3. Multiple presentations by company that have stated that launch is going very well (still no objective measure. Just subjective.)
4. Statement that they have a cash runway til 3rd qtr 2025.

What else?

Facts that support that the launch is not going well.

I have not been able to find any objective facts. I have only seen conjecture on message boards and increased short positioning.

What facts have you all seen that may lead to thought that launch is not going well?

Just trying to get input from board as I was thinking that I have not seen any real factual/objective measures that indicate a poor launch. I have only seen facts that support a positive launch.

So, longer run, we get a 95.7% manufacturing success rate and keep the dropout rate at 5%. Initially I have both of these doubled since the initial patients will be more heavily treated (lower TIL count in the extracted tumor) and will have had longer to progress. Question is how quickly does that drop down to the 5%+5% rate? I am guessing 4th qtr or 1st qtr 2025.

Thank you.

Hey Dennboy! On Stocktwits I posted a summary of that full paper in Cancer Cell. I’m a postdoc so I have access to all journals.

https://stocktwits.com/InvestingSince2021/message/580097878

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-07-tumor-infiltrating-lymphocyte-therapy-milestone.html

People have been postulating on the dropout rate.
This article gives the rate for the Moffitt center at 5%. I would assume that since this is the site with longest history in providing TIL therapy then that would be the best rate. Still, I would think that most of the premier cancer centers would be in line with that number. Appears to be lower than people were thinking.

Here is the full article in the medical journal. Let me know if you have the credentials to access as this only gives snippets.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S153561082400240X?via%3Dihub

I had made that point in the past: They are attracting employees by granting options not common shares and therefore it is in their interest to have the SP as low as possible in the period they are recruiting most of these new employees to make the package attractive.

This, in addition to the fact they don't need to raise new capital yet, partially explain why the shareholders are not intervening to support the share price. It is not in their interest YET.

FWIW, Iovance has 19 new, non-executive employees getting awarded their inducement grants: https://ir.iovance.com/news-releases/news-release-details/iovance-biotherapeutics-reports-inducement-grants-under-20 . The point here is the company continues to expand its operation, they continue to hire more employees for what is likely a very good ramp-up of demand, but they continue their quiet approach to sharing numbers (it's still just too early to worry). Q2 will provide some insights, we'll likely get a glimpse into Q3 with some forward guidance, but we're still several Q's of revenue reporting away from the general market knowing how to value IOVA and to evaluate this company's growth potential. Everything still looks great to me except the stock price. Good luck to the longs.

I just got home from one business trip and I'm heading out again for another.

I'll catch up with all of you later.

Badgerkid

I may start flipping this one once ir goes back up. Which is what I believe is happening.

I share your frustration × 10.

I began to believe that the pain was over, I built back my position to 125k shares (and believe me this is a lot of money for me) then the decline started all over again. Another lesson learnt the hard way.

I will now adopt a passive attitude (just hold) until the SP reached the 25$... will not be excited when it goes up or get depressed when it drops...

Until then, I wish you all a very nice holiday and summer.

Really no need to post anything as this stock is in control of HFs that are short. They coordinated a nice move up to 9.50 by not shorting. They waited for people to buy and then hammered it down 18% in 2 days. I have been in biotech for years and the stocks are extremely volatile. Still, this stock has become a vehicle for HF money making through coordinated SP control. It is not trading normally in that for the last 2 days every tick on the ask has been refreshed and loaded to overcome the bid. Really nothing more to say. There is no need to comment on the stock anymore as it is meaningless until earnings are released. Currently, it is just a playground for shorts.
And that is a real shame as it has a drug/procedure that can provide hope and recovery for people at the potential end of their life. I get shorting some stocks, but this one is - to me -unethical. I CAN NOT WAIT for the day this company crushes the shorts via earnings or buyout. It will be the best day as I will make a ton of money with a company that is saving lives while seeing the shorts lose a ton.

Just MM shaking the tree. They'll pick up weak hand shares. ;0.

Although I run marathons, I still fear a heart attack on our journey to the 25+ SP....

$7.17 last week. $9.56 yesterday, Not for the faint of heart!

GMH, and that's why we're here, Iovance's future looks incredibly bright for both patients and investors alike. Though I disagree on the buyout scenario, I understand your view (and desire) that iovance continues on its own as a stand alone. If this management team and group of investors wish to continue on that path, the rewards could and should be enormous, but I also don't think big pharma wants that risk. I expect that some company will eventually make an offer that just can't be refused when it's put to a vote of the majority owners. That said, if the major shareholders are all on the same page, your scenario is certainly possible, but my gut says that there could be dissension in the ranks should a significant offer be made. I'm good with both scenarios. We're nowhere near my target price, so all of this conjecture is just a way to pass the time while Iovance continues to execute on its plan of multiple approvals and additional markets.

BTW, at 10,000 patients treated per year (which would require NSCLC approval), on a purely financial PE basis, I have this at a fair value of about twice that.

Even at the $125 price, the market cap of IOVA would be $35B which is almost twice the BO price of Phamacyclics and roughly equal to the BO price of Seagen and that is before any buyout premium is applied. That is why I think that IOVA will go it alone to maximize shareholder value. I think that if you wait for a buyout, you may just end up being a long-term shareholder waiting forever, but that will still be a very profitable investment. Just know at what point the upside potential is no longer worth the downside risk.

I am primarily a fundamentalist investor and not really proficient in technical analysis, but it does seem to me that we are at the upper bound of a downward channel. I am guessing if we can break that level (around 10 visually assessed), we should run to the $12-$14 level . Where we go from there will depend on earnings/guidance. If that is good, think we need to get thru the overhead supply at $16-$18 level for further upward movement. I generally do not timebound my investments (just my catalyst trading) so again, just a curious exercise for me, but that is how I see it from my very limited technical viewpoint.