Hopefully my last nwbo post, and first in over a month. nwbo has been a waste of my time, which I'm finally fixing, but not without a few comments on top 25 posters and other matters.

flipper44 29516 posts. Any family, friends, neighbors to talk to? Shelter pet? Plants? Any life outside nwbo?
biosectinvestor 22274 - Pompous, arrogant, condescending, and wrong is no way to go through life.
sentiment_stocks 14099 - I wonder how many readers realize nwbo is the first stock you ever owned. That you couldn't understand financial statements until kindly bears helped you out.
exwannabe 12129 - Next time you think about nwbo, research a different stock. You'll be happier, healthier, wealthier.
hoffmann6383 11539 - one of my 2 blocks. Posts like a foul-mouthed 14 year old.
Doc logic 11148 - Consistently polite.
Sojourner55 9338 - Surprised you're in the top 10. Can't think of anything distinctive. So just good luck.
jdheart101 9019 - Hunting those meme stocks will eventually bite you in the ass.
HappyLibrarian 8911 - You moderate more evenly than you get credit for.
scotty3371 8514
sukus 7800
Poor Man - 7448 - Thank you for some desperately needed light humor.
marzan 7096 - I don't believe you, or anyone else here, has minions.
learningcurve2020 6845
ae kusterer 6426 - Endless flow of re-tweets. Apparently no original thoughts.
Dr Bala 6296 - I'm actually glad you're a 24/7/365 internet troll, because if you were really a doctor I would fear for your patients.
skitahoe 6105 - You seem like a nice guy, but please try to be less naive about believing things you WANT to be true.
pgsd 5872
vator 5729
longfellow95 5643 - longfellow long gone.
CaptainObvious 5593 - Contributes timely relevant data. Discussion would improve with more users like you.
anders2211 4858
GoodGuyBill 4487
Rkmatters 4446 - No posts in over a year. Thoughtful poster. Terrible predictor.
CrashOverride 4270 - Another foul-mouthed 14 year old. No one could possibly believe you know anything about investing.

A few outside the top 25:

Pyrrhonian - Only user to truly switch sides. His long 70+ page SeekingAlpha analysis of how CYTR's trial was a guaranteed success should be required reading to see how much can go wrong in amateur analysis.
Kabunishi - a true gentleman
iclight - You post angry, and take this way too personal. Apparently forget that a lot of times you're basically responding to a bot.
ATLnsider - Just because you can put wildly optimistic assumptions in Excel does not make them real.
abeta - oddly one reason I dug deeper into nwbo is that you were such a total a$$ on old yahoo MB.


Final thoughts:

There might be one more pump if nwbo ever gets around to submitting in the UK. Have a plan. If that gets the stock over $1, stick to your plan and be smart rather than greedy.

If nwbo does submit in the UK, I expect it to be rejected. Results are marginal once adjusted for nwbo advantages over competitors in full resection, KPS score, patient health, etc. No patient level data. Way too many warts on a 15+ year trial that went from P2 to P3, upsize, unexplained FDA halt, unbalanced enrollment, etc.

LP might still try to keep the saga going with the story that some change in FDA regs make the US a better bet. That could also be the excuse if they don't submit in the UK.

I doubt there is much speculative shorting. Not a sensible bet. Shorting is logical to hedge in-the-money warrants and "C" Preferred.

Naked shorting is fiction.

There is nothing remotely normal or desirable about having a key supplier owned by the CEO.

There is nothing remotely normal or desirable about a public company failing to have quarterly investor calls.

It is ridiculous to call something a "platform technology" when it has zero approved indications, and no current trials on other indications.

Taking 3 years from data lock to submit for approval is not normal. Apparently BP has valuable experience rather than just a checkbook.

Stock and options that you have granted yourself do not qualify as "skin in the game".

Q2 was certainly uneventful.

Stock price traded in a fairly tight range of 50 cents to 73 cents. Start $0.63, End $0.57

PRs - none

SEC filings - 10-Q filed 5/10. A couple of Form 4 filings by Bosch and Boynton in early April.

That's a fine Accounting 101 answer, but not relevant to nwbo as it has no history of reporting Deferred Revenue. At least not in the most recent 10-Q or the 3 most recent 10-K.

It sounds like the board(s) you post on involve much nicer folks than the NWBO board. Dialog and actual arguments would be a huge improvement.

Let's say a person questions the preferred bullish narrative. If the bulls can't refute the content, they attack the messenger. I've been attacked for quoting the company's own SEC filings and PRs.

This nasty attack attitude also applies to any oncologist who questions the published results. People who have no medical background whatsoever think nothing of claiming actual surgeons are conflicted just because they disagree with something favorable to NWBO.

There needs to be a means to impose civility where it is lacking. Removing the uncivil from ihub would improve the overall experience because they just add noise rather than contribute anything of value. Same logic as bars having bouncers to remove problematic drunks.

No. That's just a lame excuse to attack anyone who disagrees with you.

My comments are based on the NWBO board. Folks from other boards might not realize that a penny biotech is the most active board on IHUB. It's wildly promotional, and a bit of a sewer as far as civility.

Name calling, labeling, and insults are an endless issue - pumper, basher, etc. I'd like to see permanent bans for the worst of it, like someone on the NWBO board calling another a pedophile.

Vulgarity - I disagree with the standard proposed. Be a legit investment site that promotes actual discussion. Adult civility should be the goal, not junior high school as implied by PG13. The nwbo board became much worse when "bullshit" and similar terms were deemed acceptable.

Personal attacks - I see lots of personal attacks, but very few based on race, religious, etc. Questioning the motives of other posters. Accusations of impropriety. Endless flow of "why are you here" type questions.

Threats - should also include threats of legal/regulatory attacks, not just violence.

- Jerry

You're completely wrong.

I managed over $300m in Small Cap Value, and quite a bit more in other strategies. As Portfolio Manager, not as a broker/sales type like Innes.

$200m might impress you, but it's really not a big number in asset management.

DI is like a bartender at an AA convention. Everyone who comes in contact desperately wants what he has, but he isn't allowed to serve anyone.

No bouquets, but you can still get one of last year's tote bags.

Go back to mid-2021. The short interest data reported 7/15/2021 showed a large drop of 6.8 million shares.

That was coincident with an increase in Shares Outstanding. The logical explanation was warrant exercise, and there was warrant exercise activity shown in the next 10-Q.

Holders of nwbo warrants were short nwbo stock.
They exercised warrants receiving shares.
Those shares were delivered to close out short positions.

All very logical and consistent with data on short interest, shares outstanding, and warrants outstanding.

I don't think it makes any sense to speculatively short nwbo stock. What if much of the 40m share short position is hedging activity by the "friendlies" financing the company? Two positions make sense:

1) Long "C" Preferred, short common
2) Long warrants, short common

There are past instances where the nwbo common Shares Outstanding increased at the same time warrants outstanding shrunk, so there is history to support the idea.

Some folks will argue against this because it invalidates a couple of popular bullish narratives.

1) Linda Powers would not be trying to trap shorts when they are her funders.
2) There would be no potential for a short squeeze.

But it makes a whole lot more sense than speculatively shorting a 60 cent stock.

The initial terms might not involve dilution, but loans are certainly dilutive when nwbo pays them off in shares rather than cash. See the "Notes Payable" section of the latest 10-Q.

"During the three months ended March 31, 2023, the Company issued approximately 8.3 million shares of common stock with a fair value of $5.6 million to certain lenders in lieu of cash payments of $4.1 million of debt, including $0.2 million of accrued interest. In addition, pursuant to exchange agreements executed with various holders, the Company is required to potentially issue additional common stock (the “Share liability”) if the stock price is less than the price defined in the exchange agreement as of the true-up date. During the three months ended March 31, 2023, the Company extinguished Share liabilities of $0.7 million and recognized an additional $0.5 million in Share liabilities. The Company recognized an approximately $1.3 million debt extinguishment loss during the three months ended March 31, 2023 from the debt redemption."

https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000141057823000976/nwbo-20230331x10q.htm

Wrong yet again.

As of last quarter end, nwbo Shares Outstanding was 1,083. The most recently reported number is 1,099.

1,083 to 1,099 is an increase of 16 million shares. That is dilution.

I recall reading the PR a couple of times when it came out, but understand the NASDAQ reasoning. If an aggregate of transactions is a violation, breaking it into pieces should not circumvent the rule.

Since nwbo had seen NASDAQ apply the aggregation logic in the Cognate case, you would think they would have been super careful thereafter.

Kab,

The first violation was regarding Cognate in 2014, 2015.

This nwbo PR explains the 2nd violation regarding offerings betwwen May, 2016 and Nov, 2016. Key section quoted below.

https://nwbio.com/nw-bio-announces-decision-to-voluntarily-withdraw-from-nasdaq-listing-and-begin-trading-on-otc-market/

"As previously reported, on November 7, 2016 the Company received a letter from the Nasdaq Staff indicating that the Staff had determined to aggregate a series of financing transactions that were completed between May 15, 2016 and October 13, 2016, although the transactions were in many cases small and diverse, and involved a number of unrelated parties. Based upon the aggregation, the Nasdaq Staff determined that the transactions did not comply with Nasdaq’s Listing Rule 5635(d) since, in the aggregate, they exceeded 20% of the number of shares outstanding prior to May 15, 2 016. The Company engaged in remediation discussions with the Nasdaq Staff. However, the Nasdaq Staff ultimately determined not to accept the Company’s proposed plan of remediation. As noted above, given that the Nasdaq Staff determined to aggregate these transactions and that the last transaction did not occur until October 13, 2016, the Company’s understanding is that it would likely be foreclosed from completing further significant financings until at least sometime in Q1 2017."

Let's review the situation.

Linda Powers (nwbo) hired Linda Powers (Cognate).
Linda and Linda negotiated the pricing in various contracts.
Linda (nwbo) granted Linda (Cognate) a Most Favored Nation clause in those contracts.
nwbo violated the short swing trading rules.
The arrangement by Linda and Linda caused nwbo to violate NASDAQ rule 3635 not once, but twice

Yet you think outside nefarious forces should be blamed instead of Linda Powers.

Pure fiction.

The stock transactions that violated NASDAQ rules started in 2014, before the Phase V report.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000114420416098362/v438613_8k.htm

"On April 26, 2016, the Company received the Letter indicating that the Nasdaq Staff had reviewed certain stock issuances by the Company to Cognate during 2015 and 2014, that the Staff had determined that those issuances should be aggregated for purposes of applying Nasdaq rules, and that the aggregate total of the stock issuances in 2015 and 2014 should be measured against the Company’s stock outstanding in January 2014. The Letter further indicated that when the aggregated 2015 and 2014 stock issuances were measured against the stock outstanding in January 2014, the issuances exceeded 20% of the Company’s common stock outstanding in January 2014 before the issuances. Although the shares issued to Cognate were unregistered, non-tradable shares, and were also subject to multi-year vesting and lock-up restrictions (and an independent economic analysis by a major firm determined that the actual value of the shares was far lower), the applicable price per share for purposes of the Nasdaq rules is the market price of tradable shares. Some of the Company’s issuances to Cognate were below the market prices, and the most favored nation adjustments also resulted in issuances below the market prices. Nasdaq rule 5635(d) requires that a company obtain shareholder approval prior to the issuance, in a transaction not involving a public offering, of common shares or securities exercisable for common shares equal to 20% or more of the common shares outstanding before the issuance for less than the greater of book or market value. The Nasdaq Staff determined that the aggregated issuances by the Company to Cognate were not in compliance with this rule."

You're wrong. Linda Powers sold stock at $0.17 Here is the SEC Form 4 filing.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000114420419003609/xslF345X03/tv511975_4.xml

804,146 shares sold by Toucan, indirect ownership by Linda noted
3,558,639 of direct ownership by Linda sold

Outrageous claim: the revenues are buried in many accounts in the sec filings.

Please explain further. If nwbo is being paid for Specials, that needs to be shown on the Income Statement.

https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000141057823000976/nwbo-20230331x10q.htm
On nwbo's most recent income statement, we see:

Research and other $880 - clearly not enough to represent many patients. $880k is also Total Revenue.

Expenses are Research, G&A. Can't hide Revenues in an Expense line.

On the rest of the Income Statement, there are only 2 other positive numbers.

Change in fair value of derivative liabilities 3,880 - described clearly in footnotes. Definitely not Specials.
Foreign currency transaction gain (loss) 919 - that's clearly not Specials.

So where exactly do you think Specials revenue is hidden? What lines in the Financial Statements?

Ms. Powers: We are pretty late-stage in the process. It takes an exceptionally long amount of time and an exceptionally large amount of money to develop a new medical product. It takes more than a decade of time and usually hundreds of millions of dollars. We are more than a decade into this. We spent more than a decade in clinical trials and we are now in what we hope will be the last clinical trial for the lead product that we have, which is an immune therapy for brain cancer. So, we are now on the home stretch. We are down to the last eighteen to twenty-four months after more than a decade of work up till now.

That quote is from November, 2011.

In the most recent financial statements, nwbo's Accumulated Deficit now exceeds $1.3 billion.

That is not a positive development.

https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000141057823000976/nwbo-20230331x10q.htm

That chart looks like a very successful two week pump and dump ending 5/10/22. Someone knew that news was coming. Got social media in a frenzy. Classic example of "buy the rumor, sell the news".

Your chart also illustrates why nwbo will never succeed in claiming damages based on the 5/10/22 peak. That $2 price level existed for a very brief time, and only as the result of upward manipulation.

Warren Buffett invests in companies that have assets, revenues, and earnings.

His early investments followed Benjamin Graham's (Buffett's mentor) margin of safety approach. Pretty much the complete opposite of a pre-revenue lottery ticket biotech like nwbo.

Great comparison.

Since 2002 Apple has had four stock splits compounding to 112 for 1. The actual 2002 price was a bit over $30, which is $0.27 adjusted for those subsequent splits. It has increased in value over 100x over those two decades.

Over the same time period nwbo has had two REVERSE splits (1 for 16 in 2012, 1 for 15 in 2007) which results in 1 current share for every 240 held. Since 2002 nwbo has lost over 99.9% of its value.

Thank you for reminding everyone to think really long term.

The $12 price is the high for the last decade.

If you go back prior to the two reverse splits, the split-adjusted all time high is over $1000 back in 2002.

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/NWBO/history?period1=1008288000&period2=1685664000&interval=1mo&filter=history&frequency=1mo&includeAdjustedClose=true

Kab - correct.

In the proxy you can see that 57m of those warrants belong to Linda and are voluntarily blocked from exercise without 61 day notice. See Note 2 under the ownership table.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000110465922124360/tm2231325-2_def14a.htm

No, two nearly identical scenarios with very similar language.

10-Q:

"On May 8, 2023, the Company received a $3.0 million prepayment for the purchase of securities for which the terms are in the process of being finalized."

10-K:

"During February 2023, the Company extended approximate 37.7 million warrants with maturity dates through March 15, 2023 in order to finalize ongoing financing transactions. The holders of these 37.7 million warrants had cash deposit of approximately $2.6 million in December 2022, which was recognized as a cash advance as of December 31, 2022 on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet."

Did you miss that a similar situation was in the previous 10-K? It was just an ordinary funding, and you should not expect anything different this time around. Folks are getting excited because they apparently don't follow nwbo closely enough to recognize business as usual.

10-K verbiage:https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000141057823000185/nwbo-20221231x10k.htm

"During February 2023, the Company extended approximate 37.7 million warrants with maturity dates through March 15, 2023 in order to finalize ongoing financing transactions. The holders of these 37.7 million warrants had cash deposit of approximately $2.6 million in December 2022, which was recognized as a cash advance as of December 31, 2022 on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet."

A cash deposit has happened before at nwbo. Last quarter. Anyone claiming it is unprecedented isn't paying enough attention.

"During February 2023, the Company extended approximate 37.7 million warrants with maturity dates through March 15, 2023 in order to finalize ongoing financing transactions. The holders of these 37.7 million warrants had cash deposit of approximately $2.6 million in December 2022, which was recognized as a cash advance as of December 31, 2022 on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet."

It's the last paragraph in the 10-K under Subsequent Events. https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000141057823000185/nwbo-20221231x10k.htm

"On May 8, 2023, the Company received a $3.0 million prepayment for the purchase of securities for which the terms are in the process of being finalized."

That quote is direct from the 10-Q. https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000141057823000976/nwbo-20230331x10q.htm

10-Q is out.

https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000141057823000976/nwbo-20230331x10q.htm

How is promoting a therapy whose approval might financially benefit one oncologist different from another oncologist who might suffer financially legitimately questioning it?

All oncologists are using some therapy or combination of therapies. Those folks in the trenches are the ones with the expertise to be supportive or skeptical.

I'd like to hear your description of the situation where you would believe an oncologist is offering legitimate criticism of the dcvax trial. What characteristics and circumstances are necessary for you to see criticism as valid and ethical?

Do you believe it is possible for an oncologist to have legitimate doubts about the dcvax trial results?

Kab, you've always been pretty reasonable.

Let's turn your observation around. Are there doctors involved in dcvax who would stand to benefit financially from its approval? Perhaps by taking some of those 6 figure streams you mention from other therapies?

You can't assume bias on one side and pure altruism on the other. Ethics can cut both ways.

nwbo's stock price was lower 3/31/23 than 3/31/22. It no longer has the SEC status of "large accelerated filer", so they have a longer grace period this year. Next week would still meet the requirements for timely filing.

Safest guess of the year.

As of the 10-K nwbo had 1,068 billion common outstanding, plus 477 million in already issued "potentially dilutive" securities ("C Preferred, options, warrants, and a tiny bit of convertibles).

Over 5 years from the end of 2017 to end of 2022, shares oustanding increased from 329 million to 1.067 billion.

Share issuance is how nwbo has financed itself. Expecting share issuance to continue is logical rather than negative.

You don't understand that after a dcvax rejection, there is no platform. There would be no financing for nwbo to continue as a going concern. Even if the management was young enough to run a Direct trial, do you think investors would fund them after a dcvax-L rejection? No.

Flaskworks is maybe worth what they paid for it until they demonstrate actual results.

The only logical conclusion is that 100% of nwbo market value is speculation on approval.

If dcvax is rejected, where is the value?

nwbo has more debt than cash.

Patents would have little or no value after rejection.

A few acres at Sawston? Those proceeds would go to debtholders.

The entire market cap is speculative premium. Even the most ardent bull likely believes nwbo goes to zero on a regulatory rejection.

Next week would be on the early side for Q1 10-Q. The last two years the dates have been 5/10 and 5/17.

My guess is closer to the later date because nwbo has slipped below the cutoff for SEC "large accelerated filer" status based on quarter end share price. That gives them a bit more time to file.

Shareholders tend to ask questions trying to pin down facts. Management often evades such questions because they are not allowed to answer, think it is premature to answer, or simply choose not to answer.

Analysts have the experience to know what management can/will answer. They often have a relationship they do not want to jeopardize by putting someone on the spot. Analysts will ask something like "can you add some color" on a particular topic.