Why Instl % is Low Add this factor as well:( TWO Reverse Splits)
Like my screen name: view this as HUGE OPPORTUNITY for 50%+ levels
with DEFINITIVE ANNOUNCEMENTS like AA; L Efficacy; UK/Germany developments.
ADD to that ONE Institution purportedly Susquehanna Holdings (already own and is a $40 BLN fund from IT guys that are large
option market makers for GOOG; AMZN etc took the whole HC Wainwright placement in April 2014: to be verified when June qtr
Instl holdings are updated! & still not qualify as 13F holder: lower than 5%))
maverick_1 Monday, 06/30/14 12:25:24 AM
Re: None
Post # of 16363
Why Institutional Interest is Low(a mere 13%): But could grow EXPONENTIALLY?
FYI I just started posting in YMB under alias truthseruumm on the topic:(edited with some additions!)
Why doesn't Baker Bros own NWBO?
I also have wondered about that for many months.
Same also for those other savvy biotech sleuths.
My thought process which I think you'll find valid:
1)Blighted by DNDN (Baker Bros was a key holder early on); followed by Dec '13 debacle of IMUC data.
Important Additional Note:
IMPERATIVE that one understands as investors all the things different that NWBO does vs their ill fated sisters: IMUC and notably DNDN (run by Mitch Gold who coincidentally was previously the CEO of a company I owned in 2002(techwreck mkt then) who fortunately sold their hospital software w/wireless apps to GE Healthcare unit). I've done my long legwork DD here.
2)Only want biotechs with many targeted indications in large mkt opportunities.
3)Turblent past where if not for LP et al,NWBO would be bankrupt
4)View of LP et al owning 39%
5)Size of past NWBO offering perhaps not offering sufficient liquidity re daily trading
AND
6)Although DCVAX L currently BLINDED, IF Institutions would logically juxtapose FDA's revised view of Cancer Immunotherapy along with the revamped rules towards the possibility of accelerated approval along the lines of iHub & Seeking Alpha contributor Pyrrhonian, then it would be a blessing since institutions own 88% of Celldex(vs our 13%. Celldex has a market capitalization at least 4.5X that of NWBO where their lead pdt is really only addressing 25% of the brain cancer therapy market and their GBM trial is expected to end much later!
7)Backgrounds of mgt team has a bearing on % institutional ownership: case in point Celldex management primarily from Medarex that sold to Bristol Myers (not surprisingly CLDX's new partner!)
8)Despite the above, the time is rapidly approaching IMHO as I saw that happen where my stake in Omeros in the last year went from $4 to $18 with Baker Bros partaking late last year when a large block became available. Similarly with my stake over the last 18 mos in Anika Therapeutics where institutional ownership was close to 10% when I bought @ $10 and is now $46 with instl ownership now 70%+.
CONCLUSION: Stars are becoming aligned... ALL it takes IMHO is one or two institutions to be buying on the open market: as the shorts
are seemingly at the end of their rope (except for illegal naked shorting).
Next capital raise should be strictly institutional catering to: ie: Baker Bros; Fidelity;OrbiMed;Jennison; etc (and EXCLUDE short hedgy types) unlike that of Nov/Dec '13 secondary with Oppenheimer's retail reps unloading!on or just after Germany
P.I.E announcement that caused the first crater.
AI
