Well-known member
Shows how bored I am at work :LOL:

Ok, we have had a short attack which is 'doh' to anyone who follows CUV...

However, I hadn't really understood as to when it commenced. An obvious day is the 5th of November when the price dropped $5 and think that is when it started. But I propose it started way way way earlier than this. Looking back at the data, things were trending down from a short position till the 24th of September where the price had motored up to around the $43 mark off the back of the EoFY report which was received at the end of August.

Now in the following 3 weeks (24th Sept to 15th Oct), the price which had been only going up, started to have some interesting volatility with SP downward movements of -$1.20ish occurring on the 8th and 11th Oct, but CUV maintained the $40 SP mark pretty much. However the SP was now $3+ off the high since the EoFY report which didn't seem too much given the rise. During the same period the short position had also gone from 3.72% to 4.04%. I mentioned in a previous post that I thought 4% short position was now a 'risk ceiling' for shorty, so for this to have been breached was an indicator that my assumption was false and things were on the move again. (hindsight eh 😁).

For the next period of 2 weeks (18th Oct to 29th Oct) the SP dropped another approx $1.6 down to $38.61 and the short position went from 4.04% to 4.18%. Looking at this it was a relatively 'flat' period, but add in the previous 3 weeks and the SP was now $43.26 to $38.61 or down $4.65 ( -10ish% from high). So in 5 weeks (keep up in the back :ROFLMAO: ) SP is down 10%ish and short position has gone from 3.72% to 4.18%, up 11%).

In all honesty I didn't realize that a short attack was occurring at this time, knew shorty was on maneuvers but looking back it is obvious. The signs were there and with the knowledge of how easily shorty can manipulate the price, should have seen it coming.

The next week (1st Nov to 5th Nov), well this is where the attack went full throttle. From Monday the 1st to Thursday the 4th, the SP was having a good week, back up nearly $2 from the previous Friday close to $40.56 (I see this as a disguise to what was to come) and shorty went from 4.18% to 4.25%...again up another 1.7% (now up nearly 13% from 24th of Sept).

Then the bomb on Friday the 5th of November, down $5.06 in one day with short position increasing from 3.72% to 4.33% over the course of the 6 weeks.

So my question is, why commence this attack 6 weeks before Friday the 5th of November? How could the shorter be confident enough that a 'cover' of a downgrade to hold with same target SP of $36.80 from Jefferies would occur in the near future?

We all know that the short position of around 2 million of the current 2.37 million are out of the money till 27 SP mark is reached to be the motive for the attack, but how could you be sure of a pending down grade. Why was CUV even downgraded apart from some scuttlebutt about competition? Especially given the 4C clearly showed this:


Given the SP is WAY WAY below the HOLD target of $36.80 with Jefferies, why has the recommendation not been updated? Client's who have used this advice must be fuming as it is miles off the mark....nearly 20%.

The following graph shows the data and the expected SP trend (pretty obvious I know), which suggests the short attack will continue till the SP is back to where the 2 million shares are 'in the money from a book keeping perspective anyways.

Then what 😁.


If folks see any value in the graph above, I will post regularly. Any recommendation welcome.

Though this is a 'bummer' period for CUV holders, as shorty attacks, I personally have confidence that this is temporary as fundamentals will no doubt clash in the near future (1/2 year financials due in Feb 2022 and EoFY which we will get next August). Who knows when other news will come either

Repeat my punt is $0.88 EPS for FY 21/22.

Last edited:


Well-known member
How many cases would you expect in a normal population of 1000 random people?
Wouldn’t it be great if CUV was currently treating 1,000+ EPP patients!

To be clear I’m not trying to be facetious, I’ve posed a similar question previously however I have concerns about the ‘n’ required to be able to determine a statistically significant causal inference (esp. since we are talking about a prophylactic effect).

From memory I discussed this with @Desert Rat a while back perhaps he/she or some other members of the forum are more familiar with the stats involved to determine what sample sizes and duration of monitoring would be required?
Last edited:


Well-known member
@investek Determining the minimum number of people needed in a trial is part science and part 'black magic' in that certain fluid assumptions need to be plugged into the model. It all comes back though to if a study is sufficiently 'powered'. If you expect a large effect of your intervention, then you will need less people in the study to detect that potential difference. If the real-world effect was expected to be small, you would need lots more people to pick up that smaller difference in amongst the 'noise' of normal biological variation.

Power calculations are based normally around an 80% level, which roughly translated is the minimum sample size needed to give yourself an 80% shot of picking up a statistical difference if that difference is actually there. And then into the calculator you need an indication of the variance around the effect so that would normally be the standard deviation plus a call on what you determine as the meaningful clinical significance difference between groups. A weight loss trial that resulted in 0.5 kg of weight loss after one year could be statistically significant, but it is actually clinically insignificant.

The more people above this minimum level you get from a power calculation, the better. The big issue of running a trial underpowered is that if you don't see much of a difference/effect you really don't know if it was because the intervention did very little, or that the 'real' effect was hidden in the normal biological variation and study noise.

I've done a randomised controlled trial with just 18 people in it that was adequately powered (this is done before the study) because the intervention was expected to be very large in its effect - and it was! Hence the results and p value all were good. Yet a study could have 1,000 people in it and not be sufficiently powered if you are trying to pick up a very small intervention effect.

Summary: more patients are always better in a study (for the stats at least, cost and time is the downside), but it is utterly arbitrary to say that a study with 50 people in it is 'small' and one with 1000 is 'large' when the 'small study' could be adequately powered and the large one not.
Last edited:

CUV Quote (Yesterday's close)

Time: 4:10PM AEST
Price: 19.98
Volume: 160415