$PVCT.OB: What we do in life echoes in eternity.

Fratres! Three weeks from now, I will be harvesting my crops. Imagine where you will be, and it will be so. Hold the line! Stay with me! If you find yourself alone, riding in the green fields with the sun on your face, do not be troubled. For you are in Elysium, and you're already dead! Brothers, what we do in life... echoes in eternity. -- Maximus Decimus Meridus in Gladiator

I want to:

1. Share my speculation about what I think happened towards the end of the third quarter and how it relates to the temporal nature of the PVCTP "IPO,"
2. Explain why I will invest a token amount of money in the "IPO" if it happens, and
3. Write about management's poker hand, the hand they have dealt shareholders, and how both of them might be played.

1. Speculation, Will Robinson. Speculation.

I think management was convinced the SPA would arrive by the end of Q3 and the PVCTP "IPO," which was supposed to have been in the right place at the right time, was being teed up to follow it.

As we know, Provectus and Peter have been working several financing options:

• The "IPO,"
• A dermatology license deal,
• One or more geography-specific oncology license deals, and
• A strategic investment from a Big Pharma entity like Pfizer as the sale of common stock at a premium to the share price (or, as mentioned above, an "IPO" led or co-led by a Big Pharma company).

Each of these has its own value proposition (i.e., pros and cons), but the propositions are temporal, having greater or lesser value as a function of time.

For example, the best option today for shareholders would be an optimally valued (i.e., net present value) and structured (i.e., upfront, milestone and royalty payments) dermatology or geographic-specific oncology license deal yielding an upfront payment sufficient to at least pay for the pivotal MM Phase 3 trial. Optimality, however, might be more likely to be achieved later rather than sooner, in November or December.

A sale of common stock to a Big Pharma company would be "more optimal" if the price at which these shares would be sold was much, much higher than Friday's close of $0.59, like at least $4. But why approach or ask a Big Pharma company like Pfizer for this kind of strategic investment unless you have or need to ask? In my view you ask after the SPA is in hand and if you determine (a) the PVCTP "IPO" is not feasible and (b) dermatology or mini-oncology optimality is later rather than sooner.

Up next is the PVCTP "IPO," which, for a certain period of time, provides attractive and pragmatic ways to begin driving company valuation dramatically upwards:

• Attractively: A NASDAQ listing would facilitate new buyers, who could not buy the common while it remained an over-the-counter stock, and more national media attention from major journalists and reporters, who would not cover Provectus until it traded on a major stock exchange and was in Phase 3 trials.

• Attractively: A smart IPO, led by Pfizer (and J&J or a life sciences investor like OrbiMed) and with a conversion ratio and warrant coverage good for existing common shareholders, would draw many more new buyers to the preferred stock listing itself over time.

• Pragmatically: A $15-20MM raise at an acceptably high valuation, while creating dilution that a dermatology or a so-called mini-oncology license deal would not, fully funds the pivotal MM Phase 3 trial. There would be no need to force or rush dermatology or oncology deals, nor completely rely on them to commence the MM trial. The trial could start within 30 days of the SPA PR and move Provectus and its shareholders closer to the interim analysis of at least the first half of the trial's patient population.

A smart PVCTP "IPO" is a better temporal option in October than a dermatology or mini-oncology license. In November, it might not be.

Back to the SPA PR. It was the first domino to have fallen in a hoped for series of them, whether the next temporally best one was a license deal or the "IPO."



But the SPA did not arrive by the end of September, despite very ernest and serious expectations set to the contrary by folks directly interacting with the FDA. It is coming, but it was not nor is not here yet.

To compound these missed expectations were:

• Shorting of the stock (end-of-September short interest was nearly 100% greater than the end-of-August figure) for whatever reason(s),
• Selling of shares (September's monthly amount of traded shares was nearly double that of August's) for whatever reason(s), and
• The PVCTP "IPO" process, and particularly the aspect undertaken by Maxim Group's retail banking side.

Th "alleged" sloppy "IPO" process was made much more so by "alleged" disgusting behavior by some Maxim retails reps spreading baseless "facts" about the "IPO's" details. I used "alleged" because, while Paul LaRosa from Maxim's capital markets part of business agreed Maxim reps should not have been saying what they were saying, the reps themselves probably would say they were doing nothing wrong. "Alleged?" I crack myself up.

The rep revenue model is predicated on the number of transactions they encourage and facilitate. The revenue model is not based on asset appreciation.

I now have what I think is a better handle on the increase in short interest, and will wait until October reporting dates to confirm this. In the interim, am I concerned? No. Am I annoyed and irritated? Yes.

There is the thought one very determined seller has been and is getting out of the stock. Could he/she/it have thrown in the towel for whatever reason(s)? Most likely yes. Does he/she/it know something we do not? I am betting my share ownership (note: no sales of any shares bought) the answer is "no."

Funds holding Provectus preferred and/or common shares have much different pressures than entities and individuals. The quarter-to-quarter reporting to investors and limited partners funds in this group (as opposed to a venture capital or private equity fund) are required to provide make it difficult to hold to an investment thesis because of complaints of poor performance by these very investors and LPs. Such theses turn into trading ones, if they did not start out as such. Did someone's patience runout? Probably.

So, here we are today, observing an IPO that keeps getting pushed out, from the week of:

• October 1st to
• October 8th to
• October 15th to, likely,
• October 22nd.

While the preferential path to financing might be a dermatology deal, the "IPO," for the reasons I presented above and others, is temporally better. I think, however, it needs an SPA PR to launch it, and I do not see the "IPO" occurring until after an SPA PR is issued. As such, if the "IPO" does not occur in October, management will probably pull the plug on it because other financing options would have become temporally better.

2. I got your initial public offering RIGHT HERE! (w/gesture)

If the PVCTP "IPO" goes off, I will participate in a very small way. I prefer buying common stock.

I work hard to maintain an objectively dispassionate investment case to buy and hold Provectus stock, but I am not always successful as emotion does creep in from time to time. I have an emotional attachment to this situation. Seriously folks, who blogs this much about one company or stock if they are not part of it? Participating in a token way in the "IPO" is something to add to "the box" that holds the collection of my life memories.

Emotion aside, however, the ROI from buying common stock should exceed the ROI of buying preferred stock (when compared together and presented as a choice of whether to buy the "IPO" or spend the equivalent amount of money buying the common stock), irrespective of what a Maxim retail rep tells you. Of course, you could always trust Chris Varick.

Let us make some assumptions to frame this analysis -- and please let me know if you disagree with my work below (as I am open to feedback and being corrected). I will toggle these later under certain circumstances to make some illustrative points. Nevertheless, the key assumption underlying my belief of a better common share ROI is that Provectus will not do a dumb IPO.

Let us assume you have $100,000 to either spend on the "IPO" or just buy common stock. In this analysis, you cannot buy both. Furthermore, since you do not know if and when the "IPO" goes off, you have to make a reasonably timely decision: wait for the "IPO" to happen or buy common stock before the SPA PR is issued. The SPA, which management surely knows they now have, should not affect the terms of the "IPO" but should increase the price of the common stock post-announcement.

Do you buy the "IPO" whenever it goes off, or do you buy common stock, say, starting Monday?

I assume about 150MM fully diluted number of shares of non-listed preferred and common stock, stock options and warrants. PVCTP deal terms then suggest some more shares. "As converted" means I used the conversion ratio above (i.e., 1) to convert the PVCTP shares and warrants on PVCTP shares into the appropriate but requisite number of common shares.

On an as converted basis, your $100,000 gets you (a) 35,000 PVCTP-derived common shares or (b) 166,500 common shares.

Let us assume the company is acquired for, among other things, a $1B upfront payment (i.e., the preferred shares you bought when converted into common stock or your common shares you bought are exchanged for your pro rata share of $1B) on December 17, 2013. Let us also assume the IPO still happens: you either participated in it, or you bought common shares and did not. I make this assumption only to simplify the analysis in some ways. If you buy common stock and the IPO does not go off (i.e., it is November and Provectus completes a license deal), the fully diluted shares outstanding figures remains at $150MM and your common stock ROI is higher.

Let us also assume you convert & exercise/sell your preferred shares and warrants, or your common stock, when the acquisition transaction occurs.

The outcome makes sense. A smart IPO implies a healthy valuation at which PVCTP "IPO" shares were sold and, thus, a substantial uptick (about an order of magnitude) from today's market capitalization. Under this scenario, one should of course buy the common stock, say, starting Monday, then wait and buy the IPO.

Hold on a second! Didn't your stock broker, er, Maxim retail rep "allegedly" tell you to flip the preferred shares and hold onto the warrants as "a lottery ticket?"

The flipping-your-preferred-shares ROI is less than the hold-your-preferred-shares ROI, which should be much less than the buy-common-stock ROI.

Maxim's "alleged" story only works -- that is, you make out like a bandit by indeed cashing in a lottery ticket -- if the conversion ratio and, to a lesser extent, warrant coverage is very punitive to existing common stock shareholders, such as 6- or 7- or 8-to-1 and 60%, respectively. That is, the "IPO" is a dumb "IPO."

A 2-to-1 conversion ratio (and, say, 50% warrant coverage), worse than my initial example above but far from punitive more than doubles your return from buying the "IPO;" however, one makes more money, again, by just buying common stock soon.

To be fair, a dumb IPO produces a result where buying PVCTP and eschewing the common stock is the better course of action.

3. "Poker is not a game of cards played with other people, it is a game of people played with cards."

Right now, Provectus only needs money to literally keep the lights on and the water running (note: hyperbole). Fixed costs are low. The burn rate can be turned down and compensation deferred, with a focus on those activities, and whatever variable costs are associated with them, that drive value (e.g., the end-of-phase 2 meeting with the FDA for psoriasis, remaining toxicity study parameter elucidation, etc.) until money targeted for key, pivotal and other trial work is raised or obtained.

In this game of poker, management will play the hand they think they have the way they see fit. I think:

• The company's hand is very strong,
• Management thinks the hand is a royal flush (I think the hand is a royal flush, too),
• Provectus has enough chips (cash on hand, and temporal cash needs) to play it well, and
• Management will play it well (i.e., not raise money in a dumb way).

I am betting my share ownership on this. Of course, I could be quite wrong (note: the usual economist's conviction of "on the one hand, ..." but "on the other hand, ...," which is why we need more one-armed economists).

Now, what kind of poker hand do you think it is: a straight flush, four of a kind, a full house, worse or one that can be beaten? Which hand you have is up to you to determine. How you play it also is up to you.

There is no doubt of the battering the share price has taken since the beginning of September, let alone this year or over the last several years. I see it. I feel it. I understand it.

You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em,
Know when to walk away and know when to run. 
You never count your money when you're sittin' at the table.
There'll be time enough for countin' when the dealin's done.

The company needs money, but not in the way the markets and most observers think Provectus does. Management has indicated they will do a smart IPO if they do one at all, and that raising money below $1.12 is not in the cards (pardon the pun). Anonymous wrote "[p]oker is not a game of cards played with other people, it is a game of people played with cards."

Playing your poker hand requires you to ask yourself how management will play their hand.

Disclaimer: This blog is neither intended to be nor is investment advice. The author of this blog (the "Author") is not a registered investment advisor. Under no circumstances should any content from this blog be used or interpreted as a recommendation of a trade or investment in Provectus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Trading and investing can be hazardous to your wealth, health or both. Any investment decision must, in all cases and without exception, be made by the reader or by his or her registered investment advisor. This blog is only and strictly for educational and informational purposes. The Author may have a position in Provectus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. at any given time that is not disclosed at the time of publication. All opinions expressed by the Author are subject to change without notice. You, the reader, should always obtain current information and perform the appropriate due diligence before making any investment or trading decision. All efforts are made to ensure the information contained in the blog and/or a blog post is factual and accurate; however, the Author does not guarantee its accuracy under any circumstances.