I'm going to lay out my bullish thesis and then take a break from any long winded posts for a while....that at least is my intent.  Of course I'll read any replies and comments on what I'm about to share, but I hope to keep it short.  This is going to be long.

In Granville's book about Stock Market Timing for Maximum Profit he laid out a key principle very clearly.  He wrote that when the technical picture looks bullish in spite of what appear to be weak fundamentals, that this represented the best potential for exponential gains.  

So the first question then is this:  Does Resverlogix appear to be fundamentally strong or fundamentally weak.  In my opinion the answer is clear, fundamentally Resverlogix appears incredibly weak. 

As a development stage biotech without earnings or even revenue, obviously the financial picutre isn't enough to go on.  But even for a development stage biotech Resverlogix's financial state is alarming.  Why is there is a substantial doubt about their ability to continue as a going concern?  Because based on all the available data they must be darn close to broke.  I sincerely question whether or not they even have the $5 million minumum cash balance mandated by the Third Eye Loan....I'm not worried about it because I frankly thinks its all part of the larger game, but it is reality.  

But what about the science?  Surely that must look strong?  Does it?

Resverlogix told the markets that they were going to conduct a FA at 50% of 250 MACE.  Then they decided against it, but didn't notify the market.  A FA is the science side of the biz, but they just decided to skip it and didn't disclose that until after the fact.  Then they said they were going to do a SSRA at 75%, which would give the market a peak behind the scientific curtain.  But again...they decided to skip it and didn't notify the market again until after the fact.

Does announcing a FA and then a SSRA and then skipping both without notifying the market appear scientifically strong or weak?  To me it looks weak, very weak.  

More recently of course was the projected end of BETonMACE, in September and then again in November the market was told the trial would be wrapping up around the end of the year.  I'm stressing that this was the science side again.  Even BDZ, our most esteemed scientific poster was perplexed by this.  Now we're being told April, although the company slides say H1 which could mean June 30th.  

Can we believe that?  Event rates can obviously fluctuate, its an events based trial after all....but in terms of the company having a good handle on the science, it at least puts their scientific judgment in serious question in my opinion, at least in terms of what they communicate to the market.  Maybe they never believed the EOY 2018 guidance and just tossed it out there because they were sick of being bothered for a date.

So we have incredibly weak finances along with what I would argue is scienfitic weakness, or at the very best scientific uncertainty.  What about managment?  I'll go straight to the top with DM, it was HS Truman who famously said "the buck stops here".  Without enumerating all the expectations that have been set and then not delivered on (that horse has been beaten to death a few times ove by me and many others) I'm going to put management firmly in the weak column.  

Now....a development stage biotech with no revenues, with a scientific team that can't decide whether or not to do interim analysis, that weeks away from the projected end of the trial later adds another 6 months....with a managment team that habitually fails to deliver on expectations.

So I would submit that from a fundamental perspective Resverlogix looks incredibly weak.

Now thinking about things from the perspective of a short seller.  I consider short selling a techincal indicator because its about the mechanics of the market, the nuts and bolts.  Short sellers are sharp cookies, they have to be because they're taking on incredible risks.  Dumb short sellers are like surfers without life jackets who can't swim....they don't last long.  

I would further submit that companies with Resverlogix's weak fundamental picture, that they're like catnip to short players.  Its not unusual to see fundamentally weak companies with short interest of 20, 30 even 40% and more.  Yet RVX doesn't even have 1% short.  

So if you agree that short selling reflects the technical picture, then the fact that less than 400K of almost 200 million shares have been shorted, that is incredibly bullish.  

Then lastly comes the chart, and back to Granville.  Old Joe created a measure called OBV short for On Balance Volume.  I've explained it before but I'll go over it again for any who might have missed it.  On a day when the PPS climbs, that volume is counted as + postiive.  On a day when the PPS drops, that volume is counted as - negative.  The resulting moves up and down are then plotted on a graph and can indicate a trend over time.  

Our volume here is so low for long stretches...but using OBV over a long period of time I believe mitigates the periods of thin trading.  

If you look at the chart from June 2013 forward, when the Assure trial announced its failrue.  The chart from that point on shows OBV climbing. 

Granville opined that rising OBV is a sign of accumulation, but that you had to be careful and measure the trend against the fundamental picture.  His view was that if OBV was climbing against a backdrop of strong fundamentals...that instead of smart money types buying low, it could very well be dumb money retail players buying because the fundamentals have them thinking a company is strong.  

The market according to Granville (and many others) is forward looking...and to me the technical picture is saying that RVX is going to be worth substantially more than $3 per share in the future....

How far in the future?  I have no idea....I don't trust any of the fundamental forward looking projections put out by the company, but I am hoping for the trial end in April....eventually they have to get something right.