Anavex Life Sciences Corporation (AVXL) 옵션

That is not the way it works: the Fed does not dictate the price of bonds, the market does. If consumer prices are going up - and they are - and the Fed lowers interest rates then that fuels inflation further and causes interest rates for bonds to go up. All the Fed can control is the federal funds rate - the rate they lend to banks at. In addition, a rate cut in the face of US government actions that caused the market to crater will further show that the executive in the US is controlling more than is legally allowed and undermine confidence in rule of law and the USA as a place to invest and do business. The best move for the Fed is to keep interest rates where they are until they have enough data to justify cuts. If we want debt to be cheaper then we need to raise taxes, cut spending, reduce our cumulative federal deficit (by at least balancing our annual budget) and show that our debt should be coveted, thereby driving borrowing costs down.

You have to distinguish between a reduction of inflation (associated with recessions) and actual deflation (a hallmark of depressions). I don't think you see the difference. There is a difference in how people behave during deflation -- they hoard cash. And that failure to spend, that systemic loss of demand, deepens the depression with a resultant massive loss of jobs, economic security, and the value of investments. Do not wish for this.

Tom - I saw this interview today on ETF Selling and how the Market Makers make the uncertainty work for them in both selling and buying. What do you think?

A big part of the market SELLING in this environment comes from ETF Destruction.

(Paraphrased from an interview with Shah Gilanis - Manward Press Chief Investment Strategies.)

Net SELLS of ETS means there are a number of shares that need to be unwound, because there are buyers for those shares.

So, the authorized participants of those shares (i.e. the Market Makers) who handle the creation and destruction process of those shares,
they know those shares are going to be SOLD. And, they are the ones who have to buy them and unwind them, by selling all the underlining stocks that make up the Prorata stocks of whatever that particular ETF is.

In order for them to do that, they have to end up buying those shares. To unwind them, they first SHORT them. They see the order flow coming in and they are going to short the underlying shares. Because they know that the order flow is coming in and they have to liquidate those share, so they "SELL" all the underlying shares.

In the Process of "SHORTING" those underlying stocks, they are knocking the stock prices down which means they are knocking the ETFs prices down, which brings in more selling. And they know, they are going to have to buy those shares. They then end up buying them to cover the shares they all ready sold SHORT. It is about keeping there own Profit and Loss (P&E). Thereby, making money on their own trading desk. So this is the negative feedback we have seen over the last three days.

So the ETFs make money when the short force the stock down lower and buying the stocks at significantly lower prices. The ETFs exacerbates the selling to able to make more money for the firm in both directions. Shorting and then buying at a much lower cost per share and in turn making money when the share prices rise in the future.

It's not my case, it is the facts. And across the board they support the notion that vaccines manufacturers are being hammered post-election. There is no disputing this. Pfizer and Glaxo and Sanofi are big in vaccines but much bigger in other areas so while they have been impacted, that impact is mitigated by their vast portfolios. Novavax, Moderna, and other one-trick ponies - all vax - are down a larger percentage.

Sab, it is true that raw commodity prices are falling and in some cases those lower prices could reach consumers. For example, Chile is now subject to a 10% tariff despite the free trade agreement we have with them...but copper is exempted from that tariff. So, falling copper prices could mean lower prices for builders and plumbers etc here in the US. But, other commodities like steel are subjected to high tariffs that will be passed on to consumers even if they are buying less. Food may be less expensive, maybe, because American pork and poultry and lobster etc. won't find the markets it had before in China and elsewhere due to tariffs that will make Argentinian, Chilean, Brazilian, and other producers' products more affordable. But, equipment and electronics, and clothing will be more expensive. All in all, probably we see higher than baseline inflation (4%-6% maybe) and a reduction in overall GDP - possibly a return to stagflation of the 70s? Without tariffs, I think prices would come down.

The brutal reality may well be: lower tax revenues, lower GDP, higher inflation, higher interest rates, and an exploding federal deficit (again Trump setting new highs as he did in term 1.) There are going to be some really unhappy people but this is what we voted for so let's take our medicine.

Yeah, it's an ongoing hobby.....just like the results of scientific analysis by most of the peer review scientists (50 plus), OLE data release and one big believer, Chris Missling who retained shares recently at around $8.50 or so.

I've seen many cock sure analysts who have been bloodied.....

I tried being logical, but I must be crazy

🤠

Doc328

https://blog.techcharts.net/index.php/2018/01/30/head-shoulder-failure/

oldmystic

Yes, let's see if this very reliable H&S Pattern works out as you mentioned.....top of head to neckline, breakdown, and target easy to measure....of course, I happen to use other measures....but, so far you are "King"....🤕

I agree

boi568

Recessions can be either deflationary or inflationary, depending on the circumstances, and economic theory doesn’t provide a one-size-fits-all answer. Typically, recessions are associated with deflationary pressure because demand for goods and services drops, unemployment rises, and businesses cut prices to stimulate sales. This reduces overall price levels—a classic deflationary scenario. Data backs this up: during the Great Recession (2007–2009), U.S. inflation fell from 3.8% in 2008 to -0.4% in 2009, per the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
But it’s not always that simple. Supply-side shocks can flip the script. If a recession comes with disruptions—like oil shortages or broken supply chains—prices for scarce goods can spike, driving inflation even as the economy tanks. Think of the 1970s stagflation: a recession hit, yet inflation soared to 11.1% in 1974 (CPI data) due to oil price shocks. More recently, post-COVID recessions saw inflation jump—U.S. CPI hit 9.1% in June 2022—because supply couldn’t keep up with stimulus-fueled demand.
So, deflationary is the default tendency in demand-driven recessions, but inflationary recessions happen when supply gets hammered. Context matters: what’s causing the downturn—demand collapse or supply crunch? Without specifics, both are possible.

An article ask "What Causes Stagflation? and argues..
"Modern economics can be described only slightly tongue-in-cheek as a continuous battle over the causes of the stagflation of the 1970s...
Supply Shocks
The most widely accepted view focuses on the era's major supply disruptions. When significant economic shocks reduce an economy's productive capacity while simultaneously raising costs, both inflation and unemployment can rise together, as occurred during the 1970s oil crisis.

Higher tariffs can have the same effect, especially when put in place very quickly. As Powell noted after the 2025 tariffs were adopted, "Higher tariffs will be working their way through our economy and are likely to raise inflation in the coming quarters."

Like the oil shock, today's trade barriers are believed likely to create widespread cost increases across supply chains. When companies face higher input costs, they typically pass that on to consumers through higher prices ..."

An alternative target calculation formula I've seen when the head-neckline value is more than 1/2 the neckline value uses the percent drop. In this case top of head to neckline is +/- (14.4-7.6) = 6.8. Percent drop is 6.8/14.4 = 47%. Then target is Neckline x (1- percent drop) or 7.6 x .53 = 4.03 which is a more realistic value

You TA guys and your constant pattern changes just seems like a puppy chasing its own tail and never quite catching it.

Oh well tomorrow is another day of the updating charts hobby. Idk perhaps stamp collecting is even more fun…

OldMystic's call on the Head & Shoulders Pattern did see a break of the neckline
A classic Head and Shoulders projects the distance from the neckline to the eventual bottom will be equal to the distance from the recent top to the neckline. In this case it projects to 1.17 plus or minus. Shoot the messenger: https://invst.ly/19xw0c

I am just assuming the current brilliance will likely backfire unless it gets replaced soon with a deal from the current art on display.

Recessions do not cause deflation. Serious depressions cause deflation. Hopefully we are not headed for that level of trouble.

Yes, we seem to be headed for stagflation -- not just a recession, not just inflation, but both at once. In this case, at least, the inflationary component can be easily solved with a removal of the new tariffs.

Consumer prices are what matters - and if commodity prices are falling, but the wholesale and retail prices are rising 50% or 100% due to tariffs then there is inflation that prevents lowering rates.

Leonard Leo and Charles Koch --familiar names -- have filed a lawsuit arguing that Trump has no legal authority to establish tariffs under the law he cites as authority. A President does not have authority to establish tariffs without supporting legislation, since the Constitution gives Congress the sole right to create tariffs.

None of the injunctions you reference have been vacated as unconstitutional. District court judges have this recognized authority and these types of injunctions have been commonplace in recent years.

If it wasn’t
Tutes who supposedly add everyday MOC
If it wasn’t WGTers who always add dry powder
It must have been shorts selling all the way down.

Not sure I buy that scenario, but would
Indicate little demand to encourage covering.
I gave up this attempt one BMW ago having
lost two already in my latest effort.
There are bargains either currently or
soon to become in the Market.
Liquidity will serve me well, IMHO.

That definition for AVXL may yet be either lower or later or BOTH.

Sooner (selfishly would benefit from later)
$37T will be monetized.
Forget the penny, nickel, and dime
We may be lucky when rounding change to a Quarter.

1/16 and 1/8 in Market revisited?

Pollock or Rorschach !!!!

Bourbon
Yes, falling prices in Commodities are suggesting DEFLATION and a Recession is probably what will clean out deficit spending. $37 Trillion in debt needs to be sharply reduced......oh boy, it's going to be a bumpy year.

Do you suggest the Euro or Yuan assume
the role of reserve currency?
Three different Social/Economic models.
Not sure I could pick a favorite.

I don't think a conditional approval with a P3 is a thing
I asked ChatGPT, because I know how it works and you should too, as follows:
My understanding is that the FDA now wants to see a confirmatory P3 trial underway before granting accelerated approval, whereas previously a P4 trial may have been sufficient. If so, why would patients want to join a P3 RCT trial risking being on placebo, when the drug is approved and available?

You're absolutely right — the FDA’s position has recently shifted, and this is a critical development for both biotech companies and patients in the accelerated approval pathway, particularly for serious conditions like Alzheimer’s, cancer, and rare diseases.

Let’s break this down:

🔁 Regulatory Shift: FDA Now Wants P3 Trials Underway for Accelerated Approval
✅ Historical Context
Before 2023, the FDA often granted Accelerated Approval based on a surrogate endpoint (e.g. biomarker change), and the sponsor would promise to run a Phase IV confirmatory trial afterward.

However, some companies were slow or failed to complete these trials, and drugs remained on the market despite unconfirmed clinical benefit.

⚖️ The Change (2023+):
The FDA Modernization Act 2.0 and public pressure (partly after controversies like Aduhelm) led to reforms.

Now, the FDA expects that the confirmatory trial — often a Phase III — is already underway at the time of accelerated approval.

This ensures the trial isn’t just a promise — it’s already happening, reducing the risk of drugs lingering unvalidated in the market.

🧠 Now to Your Core Question: Why Would Patients Join a Phase 3 RCT If the Drug Is Already Approved?
You're asking a sharp, strategic question. Here's the breakdown:

🧪 Key Dilemma:
If Drug X is available through accelerated approval — but a Phase 3 RCT (randomized controlled trial) is ongoing — why would anyone join the trial and risk getting placebo instead of just receiving the drug?

💡 Answer: It Depends on Several Factors:
1. ⚖️ Trial Design (Crossover, Add-On, Open-Label Extension)
Ethical trial design matters.

Many modern Phase 3 trials now include:

Early crossover to active treatment if placebo patients decline.

Open-label extensions, so all participants eventually get the drug.

Add-on designs, where everyone gets standard-of-care, and the experimental drug is added vs. placebo.

🧠 Patients may be reassured that they'll either:

Eventually receive the drug,

Be monitored more closely in a trial setting, and

Contribute to science — especially in terminal or serious illnesses.

2. 💵 Access and Cost Considerations
Even if the drug is approved, insurance may not cover it (especially under conditional approval or outside label).

Patients in the trial get the drug free of charge, with regular care and diagnostics.

This makes trials financially appealing even if there's a placebo arm.

3. 🔍 Uncertainty About the Drug's Effectiveness
Accelerated approvals are based on surrogate endpoints (like amyloid reduction), not proven clinical benefit.

Some patients and doctors may prefer a controlled study setting to really understand whether the drug helps.

4. 🤝 Altruism & Advocacy
Many patients, especially in rare or underserved diseases, are willing to participate to help advance science, even at personal cost or inconvenience.

Advocacy groups often promote trial enrollment to get to full approval faster and help the broader community.

🧭 Regulatory Incentives Also Matter
Sponsors are encouraged to design trials that are attractive to patients — the FDA frowns on designs that create perverse incentives (e.g., avoiding the trial to get the drug).

In some cases, the FDA may require sponsors to limit access outside the trial until more data is in — though this is controversial and not always enforceable.

📌 Summary
Concern Why Patients Might Still Join a P3 Trial
Drug is already "available" May not be reimbursed; trial provides free access
Risk of getting placebo Modern trials often include crossover or open-label phases
Already approved — why help? Patients motivated by faster full approval, data clarity
Trial burdens Offset by close monitoring, cost savings, and ethical framing

If the Fed lowers interest rates while inflation is up due to tariffs,

Go back and read the thread which argued that falling commodity prices were a sign of recession. Falling prices is not inflation.

Ouch.......🤕

say what you want, but the price data for Pfizer doesnt lie
or support your case.

no grounds I have heard that are plausible for the Supreme court to intervene.
President has the tariff authority, given to him by Congress
Congress would have to act
All these minor court judge injunction are being overturned as unConstitutional.

It's going to get ugly.

If the Fed lowers interest rates while inflation is up due to tariffs, inflation will spike and may even feed on itself, the dollar will drop, and foreign goods get even more expensive. Not a good cycle to enter.

No more painting. Our paint is imported from China and we can no longer afford it. Our brushes are made in the U.S. but without paint they’re useless.

The obvious resistance overhead now, is 7.70/7.80/8.00 area... and above that every step from 8.10/20/30 etc... back into the latest rollover zone, 8.40/8.50 area.
I'm watching for a repeat of todays... opening pop fake out, whipsaw back down to finish off the 7's. Something like an open pop to hit 7.80 resistance, roll over, tumble down to retest 7.45, and bleed the steps to 7 dollars, and I include the target at 6.80 area.
Remember the old peak in the rally to 10.20... rolled over at 9.80, then the pattern peaks and rolls over at 8.80, holds temporary support at 7.80... which breaks down today... this pattern, if it could be so easy to play out, a caveman could do it, it's waiting now to hit 7.80 Resistance, and roll over, and the target in these 1 dollar waves, is waiting at 6.80.
If it would just be this easy... they'd be making it easy for us.

Hoskuld
I agree with your thoughts on Commodities, in general, and a Recession seems most probable to me.....the outcome is not assured to be a "body blow"

Skitahoe

I do realize that this message board is focused on the fundamentals, scientific data, trials, etc. (and I listen to what is posted), but I also rely on the technical condition of the stock, too! Much weaker than I thought, my bad.

So some might be interested in what is happening or not....it's just my opinion and observation. I try to give spots that "might" prove to be good.

I'm in the camp that the peer review which reflects the scientific bullish opinion will help get the EMA approval....the OLE data was impressive based on some people who posted about it....forcing a long Phase III trial does NOT make sense to me based on the ability of Avanex to compare favorably to the MAB's. I lean towards a conditional approval and a Phase IV confirmation process, but I'm not qualified to debate that with others of a different and more negative outlook.

I might be wrong and the market is trying to pry the shares I have away from me, but I am hanging in and staying long...🤕

boi568, to be honest, they are arguing for stock to go down to protect their shorts...not Phase III or Phase IV. That is just some cover for the argument.....rather constant BS.
I really appreciate your contributions on this board including patiently answering these players when you know what their agenda is.

Thanks,
vg_future

AVXL Up up up into the close of trading as buyers come back!!!

Yet another terrible prediction like you make on a daily basis.

Yes, no doubt that the extreme demand for covid pumped Pfizer up for a year or so but it is well below the average price for the last 5 years now and declined still further after the election. Yes, Trump's actions and rhetoric have had a negative effect on vaccines and life sciences generally - the whole economy as well. Look at Moderna if you want a better vaccines example.

No, not happy at all. Just resigned to the inevitable.

Who painted the $AVXL tape today?

Considering that these universal tariffs were created by referencing trade deficits (!) instead of foreign tariffs, it's hard to see how this gets negotiated any time soon. As Rand Paul recently noted, he runs a trade deficit with his grocery store. He still needs to buy food -- and the grocery store doesn't buy anything from him.

Maybe we eventually get a Supreme Court case to strike them down. Eventually.

If shorts were looking for a time to cover
the time is now.

You sound pretty happy about another schitty day for AVXL😆

Only down 9% today! What a comeback!

AVXL can apply for FDA approval any time it wants. But the company management moves glacially, and will probably wait for EAM approval before applying.

Then the Fed can lower interest rates, and some of the $37 trillion in debt can be refinanced at lower rates.

EMA invited AVXL to apply for EMA approval.
AVXL did apply.
Can they also apply now (concurrently) for FDA approval or must they wait for EMA findings before doing so?

Pfizer peaked at `$60 a share the end of 2021. By November 4, 2024, it was at $28 and change. All pre Trump and RFK jr. Until the recent tariff situation, it was trading at $26 and change in February 2025. To blame RFK is simply nonsense. Try looking at a stock chart before posting. RKF Jr did not have any significant effect on the biotech sector or AVXL's stock price.

Commodities are telling the story: they are pointing to significant economic weakness to come. If tariffs are reversed quickly then maybe recession can be avoided but it looks like this self-inflicted body-blow will result in weakness for at least 2 quarters.

The market is overwhelmed by the Tarrifs and what is happening worldwide because of them.  This too will pass in time, but until then, I wouldn't be overly concerned about trading patterns. 
Gary