Declaration: I hold no position in Dynavax Technologies (DVAX) and have no intention of initiating a position over the next 72 hours.
- Today’s near billion dollar market-cap will be cut by 50-75% in one year’s time.
- Even if approval is granted in November the launch will be abysmal.
- SEC docs and the CEO’s own words confirm my opinion.
- A $125m public offering becomes $75m in a day’s time and the offering price is reduced by 19.5% over the August 8th closing price. Why?
- Biotech CEO’s are today’s magicians – masters of the misdirect. And Eddie Gray is no exception.
From Michael S Ostrach CFO/CBO Dynavax Technologies August 3, 2017 Regulatory Update Conference Call
Actual results or outcomes may differ materially due to the risks and uncertainties inherent in our business including, for example, the risks we cannot agree with the FDA on the post-marketing study or the label for heplisav-b; whether the FDA will ultimately approve heplisav-b, notwithstanding the advisory committee votes in favor of both safety and immunogenicity; and other risks detailed in the risk factors section of our quarterly reports on form 10Q filed with the SEC.
On a certain night, long ago, while driving the route 26 inbound on Westlake Avenue just north of downtown Seattle, I noticed a motorcyclist whiz by my driver’s side view mirror at some incalculable rate of speed. Such is the nature of frenzy when passion overrides all of our senses. Though he was safely a thousand feet from the bend in the road ahead forged by the lake’s shore, I could already tell that he wasn’t going to make it. Perhaps, he had no intention of navigating the curvature as death will always have the allure of freedom that the chains of suffering in this world lack. More likely, though, he was simply ignorant of the relationship between his speed and geography, captivated by some illusion, subject to distraction, buoyed by hubris, or heaving with emotion. All symptoms of alcoholic impairment and, ironically too, of biotechnology stock ownership in moments of great success.
To the Dynavax shareholder there is only one possible outcome in November – approval of heplisav-b with a follow on Phase-4 study to dismiss the notion of associated cardio or adverse event risks. I’ll identify a more likely and troubling outcome. Shareholders will readily point to the well documented efficacy of the vaccine; the recent adcom in which safety received an overwhelming 12-1 vote of approval (while remaining silent on the importance of the 3 abstentions); and refer you to the conference call following the FDA’s unexpected 3-month delay in which an unnamed agency rep spoke with company execs of a shared desire for expediency in resolving the application, hereafter known as, the head fake. The most ardent among them will speak of an expanding population of Hepatitis B candidates from the pools of diabetic patients and of an imminent partnership or buyout on approval. All bungled logic predicated upon wishful thinking.
Affix Oxygen Masks Please
I am now going to detail for you in the simplest possible terms why a short thesis is a far more logical approach in navigating the perilous road ahead. Deconstructing rosy pictures is not something I like to do but I’ve been fooled by enough by them them over the years to appreciate the value of doing so sooner rather than later.
To reject any advance, saying “no” is only the most direct response. Other avenues are available to achieve the same outcome. Where the FDA is concerned, the label now becomes the vehicle upon which rejection, albeit, a temporary one can be implemented. If it contains a warning of a possible, serious, adverse event risk, resolved only by positive data from a post-marketing study, then commercial uptake of Heplisav-B will be so slow that marketing the drug will be next to impossible.
Biotech CEO’s Are Linguistical Magicians
They have to be! Their job is to enhance shareholder value. Complete transparency would undermine that process. Similar to an accomplished basketball player, they can’t telegraph their next move. And the head fake becomes an integral part of their game. Consequently, our job as retail investors is to keep our feet on the ground separating what’s impotant from what’s not in terms of what’s been said.
Can you identify the misdirect in this response by Eddie Gray at the regulatory update conference call regarding discussions with the FDA on the Heplisav-B label?
They seem to have taken two themes from the VRBPAC panel. They talked about how the panel had been very much in favor of the vaccine, represented, sort of, by the twelve-one vote and their other theme, really, was the fact that the panel had been ensuring that the FDA paid attention to the details of the study.
So, we raised the question of the label and I think it’s fair to say that they indicated it would just continue in parallel with our ongoing discussions on the study. We had, of course, been discussing the label with them before the VRBPAC so it’s a continuation of a, sort of, process.
It isn’t hard, is it? When an adult child calls a parent in need of something, the very first positive statement is prelude to what’s really on their mind. CEO’s are no different. The real meat and potatoes of this statement are that the panel wanted the FDA to focus on the details of the application that left a full 25% of them (4 of 16) unable to say “yes” to safety and that these ongoing discussions have been relevant long before the panel convened.
Now, when it comes to head fakes, the one that had most retail investors leaving their shoes came at the 11:39 mark of the conference call when CEO Gray stated this.
Now, obviously, one of the things we want to be doing is working with the FDA to complete the review as efficiently as possible so that it’s not a question and, to be fair, I mean, the FDA, I think, were, you know, very much of a mind that they wanted to move this forward (laughing) Rob, correct me if I’m wrong here, but I think Rob was pressing them at one point on the issue of, sort of, timing and he was stopped by somebody at the agency who said; “No, no, you need to understand, we’re working to get this over and done with as well.”
I have no doubt that the above statement is true and accurately conveyed. But what exactly does it tell you? Who made the remark and is it not something that the agency could and would say regarding any application? Does the statement give you a clear indication of what their ultimate disposition will be? The answers to these questions are painfully obvious to the casual observer. But to those vested in the outcome, the answers can only suggest one thing – approval! Meanwhile, the company goes to the capital markets with shoeless investors holding an $18 share price firmly in place.
Seasoned investors at Cowen, RBC Capital Markets and William Blair, however, didn’t buy the narrative quite so much. They insisted on a near 20% discount on the secondary offering price and there weren’t enough of them requiring a 40% paring of the original $125m ask to $75m. And even then, the offering closed a day late. I would further argue that the price per share decided upon doesn’t reflect their confidence in Dynavax, Heplisav-B or the FDA so much as their trust in retail investors to provide an early short-term exit point and put options to protect them from downside loss.
CEO’s Aren’t The Only Pump Fakers On The Court Of Biotech Play
Sell-side analysts are adepts at this as well. Take, for instance, William Blair analyst, Katherine Xu. On that euphoric day of adcom relief it was reported by Reuters that Xu tickled new initiates with a SOC market opportunity of $650m for Heplisav-B.
There are so many problems with her assessment that I’m not sure where to begin. So let’s start with Dynavax’s own assesment visa-vie its 2016 Annual Report 10-K filing which indicates a U.S. market of $270m. And while it’s swelling to include diabetics of both the types 1 and 2 variety, Heplisav’s problematic side-effect profile almost certainly precludes them from marketing to this compromised population without a supplemental application reflecting a positive Phase-4 outcome. Consequently, Xu has breached the boundaries of believability by $380m. No small amount.
Put a label on the box that indicates even a possible cardiovascular risk and you subvert the intentions of even the most professional, aggressive and wide spread sales force until such time as the post-marketing study resolves the question. And even if you argue against this conjecture, it’s difficult to argue against a painfully slow uptake of the vaccine when you realize that Dynavax has only an existing supply on hand for the 2018 rollout as manufacturing facilities were mothballed to conserve resources in the past.
From the previously sourced 10-K.
In order to maintain the ability to pursue HEPLISAV-B through the review period we enacted a restructuring plan to suspend manufacturing activities, commercial preparations and other longer term investment related to HEPLISAV-B. If the product is approved, we plan to use existing stockpiled inventory to support initial sales.
This was confirmed by CEO Gray at the regulatory update conference call.
A Cataclysmic Conclusion
Retail investors are banking on approval of Heplisav-B in November. I haven’t directly argued against that contention because the FDA is loathe to swim against a steep wave of adcom approval. That noted, they’re in complete control. A father doesn’t have to say no to his son’s request to drive the car to school 30 miles away. He just has to leave the tank near empty.
Similarly, if the cost to sell Heplisav-B exceeds projected revenues by too great an amount, Dynavax may choose to run the post-marketing study before attempting a first sale. And any big pharma partner with the necessary infrastructure in place to sell Heplisav-B will want a clean label before offering an attractive partnership package.
The only remaining option that would provide an exit point higher than that achieved on the day of approval would be a buyout. And, in the case of Dynavax, that remains a possibility, although, a remote one.
Always be well…
Thaumaturgical Disclaimer: I’ve utilized tarot card readings for over four decades to provide choice guidance in matters effecting my personal life and for three years in the analysis of biotecnology equities. You may not find this credible because it doesn’t meet with your bias towards all things logical, rational and scientific. But if a tarot card reading isn’t in sync with those three elements it is ignored. Too often, however, I’ve ignored a tarot card reading in favor of so-called scientific experts only to be left disappointed. Candle stick chart reading with its doji dragon fly, double hammer and morning star are an esoteric version of scrying utilized by investors in the mainstream to predict price movements. It’s application to biotech equities is often in error and no one complains. But mention a centuries old tradition affirmed by the great mythologist Joseph Campbell and people ready their canons for ad hominem attack. Fire away!
Mental Illness Disclaimer: I’ve been diagnosed as suffering from manic depression. Therefore, fire gently! And never hesitate to contact me first about any factual errors so that I can correct them.
General Disclaimer: Any information or opinion expressed herein may not be true, accurate or correct and it does not constitute a suggestion to buy, sell, hold or adopt any investment strategy for this stock or any stock that may be mentioned. Reliance upon information in this article is at the sole discretion of the reader. The sole purpose of my article is to entertain by providing an opinion and information the accuracy of which is as good as the public sources it was derived from. For example, KOL’s often utilize exaggerative terminolgy to describe a product or asset they are promoting on behalf of a biotechnology company they’re associated with. Do not act on anything I have written, a CEO has spoken of, or a sell side analyst has stated. Rather, do your own due diligence and consult a professional investment advisor before making any investment decision. Acting on what any one writer has imparted to you is foolish at best. I have no better access to resources than you do. I sometimes make mistakes. And there are a myriad of things, which can happen in lieu of any forward-looking statement I have made. Any stock featured or mentioned in an article I compose is subject to all manner of influences, which can change its value in dramatic fashion both higher and lower. These events can be of a wide variety – news related; managerial decisions; trial failures; stock manipulations; and so on. I make every effort to declare positions I have in stocks I cover or mention in an article but reserve the right to move in and out of said investments at my own discretion based upon the wisdom of doing so. I implore you to do your own due diligence and invest at your own considerable risk attaining the just reward your efforts have wrought. Additionally, if you are aware of any misstatements of fact contained in this or any article I have written, you are encouraged to email me immediately at the link given in the header above or address them in the comments section.
Warning: This article covers a nano-cap equity (a stock trading at a market-cap below $50m). At this level of capitalization the word “gambling” is more appropriate than the word “investing” where taking a position is concerned.
Disclosure: I am long Onconova Therapeutics (ONTX) and Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals (CYCC).
Blogging in relative anonymity on my own website is appealing to me on so many levels. The greatest benefit, however, is the ability to be completely honest about the equity I’m covering. Too many times, I would be accused by readers of being a “secret short” – someone who wasn’t really invested in the company but was cleverly trying to drive the share price lower for profit. That never happened! And it’s not going to happen! Rather, I will continue to be brutally honest because that’s the only way I can sleep soundly at night knowing that I have a secure grasp on the risk I’m taking.
The purpose of this article is to give the reader insights into the equity known as ONTX that they won’t find anywhere else. I’ll discuss the following topics in detail.
- Why I believe the (INSPIRE) Phase-3 trial is destined to succeed.
- Why the FDA is supportively working with Onconova CEO Ramesh Kumar.
- The particulars of the SymBio developmental and commercial agreement with Onconova and why it matters.
- How the strained financials of the Company could lead to an investor unfriendly merger or ruthless dilution.
- And why a beaten down equity with sound science represents the best value in developmental biotech.
The Gruesome Cause For (INSPIRE) Success
I wish I could tell you that it is the awesome power of rigosertib in high-risk MDS patients that is fueling my optimism for a positive outcome in the registration trial known as (INSPIRE) but it’s not. Yes, intravenously administered rigosertib was proven to be more beneficial than best supportive care in patients with excess blasts in the failed (ONTIME) study, although, not in a statistically significant way. And in a large subset of high-risk patients mostly unresponsive to hypomethylating agents (azacitidine (AZA) or decitabine (DAC)) it performed slightly less well. But it was the control group of best supportive care (BSC) in this corralled subgroup that folded like a $10 tent in a 10 mph windstorm that has my profit meter pegged green. The following Company graphic from the Pioneers Conference held on May 2nd explains it better than words can.
The (INSPIRE) inclusion protocol is based upon this 131 patient subset depicted on the right. When we compare the median overall survival of patients in both intent to treat (ITT) populations, we see that rigosertib patients in the larger (ONTIME) venue lived approximately 8.2 months compared to 7.9 months in the (INSPIRE) subset – a falloff of approximately 9 days. In the BSC arm, we see patients surviving approximately 5.9 months in the larger (ONTIME) study group compared to 4.1 months in the (INSPIRE) subset – a decline of 1.8 months or 55 days. Analysts will naturally look to see an improvement in the active arm which they won’t find and will be inclined to dismiss degradation of performance in the control arm as an aberration that will be corrected in a larger study. While this usually makes sense, in this particular instance, it doesn’t make any sense at all.
- This subgroup of 131 patients is comprised of those who did not respond to HMA therapy. And they will most likely be given HMA therapy again plus BSC in control. If it didn’t work once, it likely won’t work twice.
- On the battlefield of cancer psychology a positive attitude is predicated upon an intelligent body communicating with a cooperative mind.
Now, I know that a lot of you will jump in and say, gobbledygook Mike, gobbledygook. Not over the first bullet point, which is fairly self-explanatory. The notion of an intelligent body, however, is an affront to the Western mindset, although, it shouldn’t be. Most illnesses are cured not through the administration of active therapies but, rather, by allowing the body to heal itself through rest and the quieting of the mind. Most of the healing in instances of trauma takes place by sedating the patient so that their mind induced panic doesn’t inhibit that process. And while the mind can work against the body’s natural ability to regain equilibrium, it can also aid in that process. Visualizations, for instance, that are at once relevant and detailed have been shown to do this. And if the body is communication something positive to the mind regarding a change for the better, the mind will be inspired by that information to reinforce that direction. Conversely, if the body is saying, “we’ve been down this pathway before and it didn’t work” then the mind will reinforce that direction by acquiescing.
Given these two truths, I expect that patients in the control arm of the (INSPIRE) study will perform at the same diminished rate as they did in the subgroup defined above. Active arm patients, however, will be given a new drug – rigosertib and their bodies will be stimulated to fight their cancer in a new manner that will also serve to trigger patient optimism. Having already failed one round of HMA therapy, they won’t perform as well as they did in patients from that larger population, many of whom had success, but they will engage their disease with more vigor. Consequently, I expect almost the same performance in the (INSPIRE) setting as we saw in that subgroup of 131 (ONTIME) patients. That being the case, in my estimation, (INSPIRE) will be a raging success.
For specificity on the inclusion criteria, we find the following information from page 3 of the 2016 Annual Report (10K).
The INSPIRE trial will enroll higher-risk MDS patients under 82 years of age who have progressed on, or failed to respond to, previous treatment with HMAs within nine months or nine cycles over the course of one year after initiation of HMA therapy, and had their last dose of HMA within six months prior to enrollment in the trial.
The Fukushima Effect
In a curious connection made only on this platform, the FDA and SymBio Pharmaceuticals are operating from the same realization – instances of leukemia in Japan and the United States are going to rise rapidly over the next decade. I’ve already extensively addressed this phenomenon in an article you’ll find here on my website but rates of AML, MDS and lymphomas of all kinds will rise exponentially in Japan. When news of this finally hits the shores of this country, the U.S. government will have some explaining to do. It will be very important at that time for the FDA to be able to say that they’ve been approving new therapies to treat these swelling patient populations. From SymBio’s perspective, it’s all about profit.
Listen to Onconova CEO Ramesh Kumar speak at various presentations and, if you have ears to hear, you will understand that the FDA is doing everything possible to drag rigosertib across the regulatory finish line. It is a drug that helps patients. And there hasn’t been an approved therapy for over a decade. But the FDA isn’t known for coddling companies that aren’t in that large-cap club. They are known, however, for cudgeling them along to near death. Few expected that the FDA and Onconova would agree to another registration effort let alone so quickly. And even now, we find them exhibiting a degree of flexibility I haven’t encountered since the agency’s interactions with Vanda Pharmaceuticals (VNDA) over tasimelteon development in 2013. Just listen to Ramesh Kumar at the recent Q1 Conference Call talk about statistical assessment of the trial.
Our statistical analysis plan, now under review by the FDA and EMA, will provide the basis for data analysis at the interim and top-line intervals. We expect this review to be completed in the second quarter.
In this analysis, the INSPIRE study design permits two looks into the study populations, ITT, as well as a predefined IPSS-R very-high-risk subgroup, providing two shots on goal with the data.
From this quotation, we can surmise two important aspects of the FDA’s involvement with Onconova management regarding this trial.
- That (INSPIRE) was allowed to enroll and progress prior to the completion of a statistical plan of analysis.
- That the FDA is so willing to approve rigosertib that they are providing an additional pathway involving a smaller, very-high risk subset of patients.
I’ve only been around the biotech sector for a scant four years but this is unprecedented in my experience. And, from the investor perspective, it provides a second catalyst, or, at least, a second lifeline of hope where the issue of ultimate approval is concerned.
We Know A Lot About The SymBio Agreement
But like anything worth having, you have to dig for it! We find the following details on page 7 and 8 of the previously referenced and linked 2016 Annual report.
Under the terms of the SymBio license agreement, we received an upfront payment of $7,500,000. We are eligible to receive milestone payments of up to an aggregate of $22,000,000 from SymBio upon the achievement of specified development and regulatory milestones for specified indications. Of the regulatory milestones, $5,000,000 is due upon receipt of marketing approval in the United States for rigosertib IV in higher-risk MDS patients, $3,000,000 is due upon receipt of marketing approval in Japan for rigosertib IV in higher-risk MDS patients, $5,000,000 is due upon receipt of marketing approval in the United States for rigosertib oral in lower-risk MDS patients, and $5,000,000 is due upon receipt of marketing approval in Japan for rigosertib oral in lower-risk MDS patients. Furthermore, upon receipt of marketing approval in the United States and Japan for an additional specified indication of rigosertib, which we are currently not pursuing, an aggregate of $4,000,000 would be due. In addition to these pre-commercial milestones, we are eligible to receive tiered milestone payments based upon annual net sales of rigosertib by SymBio of up to an aggregate of $30,000,000.
Further, under the terms of the SymBio license agreement, SymBio will make royalty payments to us at percentage rates ranging from the mid-teens to 20% based on net sales of rigosertib by SymBio.
While the details here are somewhat unexciting given the fact that leukemia rates in Japan are, as of 2012, roughly half that of those in the United States; the U.S. population is nearly 2.5 times larger than Japan (324m to 127m respectively) and drug pricing there is significantly lower; rates of leukemia are going to climb due to the ongoing catastrophe we now know as Fukushima Daiichi. The press isn’t telling you this. The governments of Japan and the United States aren’t telling you this. But I am. And I’m not going to be wrong. It takes roughly 5 years for blood cancers to bubble up to the surface following severe exposure to radioactive particulates. And the Japanese people, once made healthier by their predominantly seafood diets, are now in further trouble due to the daily drenching of the Pacific Ocean in hundreds of tons of radioactive water.
Why do you think SymBio happily signed this agreement in 2012 one year after the calamity, and stayed in it while Baxter backed out in 2015 after the (ONTIME) failure? Why do you suppose that of the 169 (INSPIRE) sites worldwide there are 44 active in the U.S. and 33 in Japan? Think about the stats that I gave you above. Twice as many instances of leukemia in the U.S.. Two and one-half times the population. But only a third more U.S. sites? There should be at least 5 times as many sites in the United States. One could attribute the disparity to the fact that SymBio is underwriting some of the associated costs thereby saving Onconova precious resources. But the only other causal factor that I could imagine would be that sites are set up where patient demand is the greatest.
Think about it!
“Climb god damn it! Climb!”
When the antihero of the movie, Swordfish clearly sees there won’t be enough runway to accommodate his airborne bus before it slams into an old fashion neon sign, he barks out the desperate order to climb. What appears to be an unfortunate inability to avoid a catastrophic outcome is, in reality, just enough to accomplish the plan at hand. And that’s precisely the position Onconova finds itself in today – a shortening runway in front of a lengthening need for cash. Whether Ramesh Kumar is as resourceful as the mastermind in this fictional tale has yet to be determined but he’ll need to be every bit as savvy.
I’ve already addressed Onconova’s financial predicament in a cautionary video entitled; ONTX Nearing the Fiscal Cliff. This production dispels the notion that the planned Phase-3 trial of oral rigosertib in conjunction with azacitidine is being delayed due to ongoing discussions with regulatory bodies. It’s not! It’s being delayed because they don’t have the money to run these trials in parallel. It’s also why promising preclinical candidates remain bound in the out-of-clinic domain. There’s just no money.
The Company spent $8.3m last quarter alone and had roughly $20m in pro forma cash and cash equivalents at the end of that quarter. I’d like to think that newly published data at ASCO in June from the (ONTIME) study subset of patients would cause the stock to rally enough to allow for another, perhaps, more substantial equity raise. But that notion is doubtful since retail investors are still licking their wounds from that $2.49 per share $5m gouge back in April.
There might be other means of seeing (INSPIRE) through to the 2H of 2018 topline data readout. A partnership could be struck on those preclinical candidates. Or, perhaps, one could be sold outright. A commercial and developmental agreement could be struck for rigosertib in the U.S. or ex-U.S. territories other than Japan and Korea. But I’m not too sure how the Baxter agreement impedes upon those aspirations. Loans, at this stage of the game, are unlikely. Although, if Ramesh Kumar is buying his own rhetoric as I am, he might be able to collateralize such a loan to keep the ball moving forward. Tapping the notorious Lincoln Park agreement at these prices seems too little in a situation that is rapidly becoming too late.
An Unfavorable Merger Seems Increasingly Likely
The only method of obtaining cash that makes sense to me at this point would be a merger with a company that has cash but no existent commitment to a compound in hand. That fallback outcome could prove disastrous to current shareholders unless, of course, you own shares in that equity as well. I, for instance, would love to see Onconova merge with Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals (CYCC). The latter has money, although, not much of it. They attractively carry a comparatively miniscule burn rate. The new company would prioritize the (INSPIRE) trial and sport two of the most promising CDK Inhibitors to hit the clinic in 2018. The combined market-caps would be less than $40m but would rocket higher given the derisking of the (INSPIRE) trial and synergies relative to their hematological platforms.
I know that biotech executives read my articles even here on this lowly side road of equity analysis. I also know that they’re not alone. Hedge fund managers and other contributors from established platforms peruse my ideas. They shudder to think how they missed out on that Cyclacel double earlier this year. Maybe they’ll feel better knowing that the run-up took place too near to my publishing an article for me to sell into that strength. I have principles where others do not. Another, ah shucks moment for me. But if, per chance, you, Ramesh Kumar, are reading this now, please know that you are always in the care of heaven above even when the waters below are aflame in doubt. Trust in this trial. Trust in what you have fashioned. It’s real. And it’s good.
Investing In What Others Throw Away
If you haven’t noticed already, I like investing in companies that have been abandoned by other investors. Not because I feel sorry for them. I don’t! Not because they remind me of me. They do! But mostly because as the value proposition changes for the better lazy investors fail to recognize that the change has taken place. And that becomes a very, very profitable realization as long as you make it early enough to get in before their reawakening takes place.
Always be well…
Additional disclosure: Any information or opinion expressed herein may not be true, accurate or correct and it does not constitute a suggestion to buy, sell, hold or adopt any investment strategy for this stock or any stock that may be mentioned. Reliance upon information in this article is at the sole discretion of the reader. The sole purpose of my article is to entertain by providing an opinion and information the accuracy of which is as good as the public sources it was derived from. Do not act on anything I have written. Rather, do your own due diligence and consult a professional investment advisor before making any investment decision. Acting on what any one writer has imparted to you is foolish at best. I have no better access to resources than you do. I sometimes make mistakes. And there are a myriad of things, which can happen in lieu of any forward-looking statement I have made. Any stock featured or mentioned in an article I compose is subject to all manner of influences, which can change its value in dramatic fashion both higher and lower. These events can be of a wide variety – news related; managerial decisions; trial failures; stock manipulations; and so on. I make every effort to declare positions I have in stocks I cover or mention in an article but reserve the right to move in and out of said investments at my own discretion based upon the wisdom of doing so. I implore you to do your own due diligence and invest at your own considerable risk attaining the just reward your efforts have wrought. Additionally, if you are aware of any misstatements of fact contained in this or any article I have written, you are encouraged to email me immediately at the link given in the header above.
And finally, if you have any questions about this article or wish to provide me with more accurate information, please email me: email@example.com