Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
From our NWBO chart up above, the stochastics indicator is displaying a buy (short term), the MACD is still displaying sell, although it is getting long in the tooth. Take that information as you will.
Fascinating mention of NWBO and picture of DCVax-L in a story about another company. How did NWBO's picture get in there?
My post did not say RK was the cause of this. I did claim that message board posts do have an affect of varying degrees of price and opinion. That is true. Rk if my post offended you in any way I apologize, I do value your posts, it was not directed at you, but rather an acknowledgement that posts on message boards do have varying degrees of affect.
They certainly do affect price to varying degrees. They also affect opinion to varying degrees.
Sentiment, to reply in more detail your figures that you mentioned $14.7 million and $6.4 million are correct for operating activities for December 31 2011 and December 31 2010 are correct. To provide a little more detail from the same 10-K you can find a description of the following from the same 10-k
Thank you Flipper, I was actually reading the SITC website guidelines the other day and was particularly interested in the embargo considerations associated with certain late breaking abstracts. I recall how anxious I was waiting for prior embargo's to lift so that we could see data. Here's to hoping we don't have to wait for the embargo.
To be clear I am fine with waiting, although my preference would be to not wait.
That would depend on the terms. I don't think announcing a partnership would mean a doubling of sp (I hope it would). It would add to validity claims, there is a partnership because so&so thinks DCVax works. Shorts would then point to something about the partnership as a negative, it's what they do. If we had a partnership agreement like Celgene with Juno, that would cease any cash problems. If we had that we could see a doubling of sp, but more likely a 25-50% increase. Here's to hoping we get some positive news soon.
I think it would be unlikely, not impossible. If I had to quantify how unlikely I perceive that outcome to be, I would say at best 10% probability of that occurrence, and in my opinion that is very giving. Just my opinion. I think there is a great deal of support at $10.70-$10.50 which is very close to the 50 day ema ($10.45). Then below that $10, and lower would be $9.50. Even if we went down to $9.50 the trend would still be intact. The previous low during the last MACD sell signal period was $9.48. We are at $11.00 and this MACD sell signal is getting long in the tooth. I personally don't think we will go below $10.50 before the MACD signals buy. I could be wrong, I could be right, time will tell. I did buy @$10.37 during the flash crash.
$11 was a good support number, $10.75-$10.50 is the next support number. The moving avg was $10.40ish last I checked. Then $10 and finally $9.52 (the low of the flash drop last week). I bought more @ $10.37 during the drop, so my cash is deployed for the most part. If we hit $10 I may buy more.
Here's to getting a positive PR soon, or the MACD signalling a buy. The trend for the year is still in tact. That trend would describe the current softness as a buying opportunity.
Thank you Jim and thank you follower for your contributions
I honestly think that was a concerted effort by shorts to implement "fear fall" with their limited amount of shares available to short, and implement a MACD sell signal. Way over done by them (or anyone who sold like that) as it was an amazing buying opportunity (if you could get past the obvious fear, which I felt, then bought more NWBO to fight back).
I thought the last MACD buy signal was capable of reaching the $1 billion market cap mark. That was a stretch. The $ billion dollar market cap mark will be a significantly less stretch if we get a buy signal at $11.50 as opposed to the last MACD buy signal at $10.20-$10.40. Food for thought...
Ladies and Gentlemen, just wait for the next MACD buy signal. In my opinion we will see a new 52 week high shortly after the next MACD buy signal. This pattern has been working all year. Currently the MACD is displaying a sell signal. Look at my prior posts for more details about the pattern of MACD signals, length of signal, price movement during signals (+/-), and you may see that this current consolidation period is (technically speaking) a good entry/accumulation point.
I am very excited about the next MACD buy signal.
As a point of reference the last MACD buy signal occurred at roughly $10.20-$10.40.
That video is amazing
How long does your clearing house take to exercise an option? Are you hedging your long calls (purchased lower than intrinsic value) immediately with a temporary short until the exercise goes through and closes out the position?
Just going over prior press release dates from NWBO. The last time we went a whole month without a press release was October of 2013. Here's to a positive press release in the next two days.
If not, I can only imagine what is keeping them busy.
In supportive news for BIO TECH, GILD just beat their numbers. A new Immunotherapy firm had an IPO today, and we (NWBO) can back stronger than the close the day before yesterday! WOWZA!
haha, instead of the puking feeling, I experience a sinking feeling in the place of a puking feeling. I would love to see a PR show up and a 20+% move, or more, much more!
I felt fear yesterday. I paused, let it process, then bought more at $10.37. In a previous professional life I was an option trader at the board of trade.
NWBO.....not for the faint of heart!
I love this activity
To all check out the activity of the trades on NASDAQ's webiste in the period of 10:11-10:13am
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/nwbo/time-sales?time=2&pageno=13
$1.40 swings inside fractions of a second
Very strange
10:12:07 $ 9.90 100
10:11:54 $ 11.31 100
10:11:51 $ 9.6835 900
10:11:38 $ 11.32 100
10:11:38 $ 11.31 100
Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/nwbo/time-sales#ixzz3h7pU171N
How about a +20% move tomorrow to even things out?
My impression of today's activities is that the seller's over did it. They either wanted out or they wanted to short, either way they didn't get the best possible price on their shares. What if you had sold at $9.52, $10, $10.50, today and you look at the close of $10.98-$11. It appears that there was a signal of a lot of shares for sale on the market, and the bid was reduced accordingly, stretching the price of NWBO. Then the rubber band (NWBO stock price) reverted back to some sort of normalcy after the share dump finished.
I would love some update in the form of a positive PR from NWBO tomorrow, or before the end of the month.
I bought more shares today at $10.37, someone sold them to me too cheap, and I benefited in the form of a roughly 6% gain today on those new shares.
WOW, glad I bought more today. Ladies and Gentlemen if you were looking for an event, we just had one. roughly 400K shares dumped, in a 5 minute period and now were are only down 4-5%.
Also from a technical POV, we did not go lower than the prior period low of $9.44 (low of today is $9.58), the trend is still intact. The selling today is completely overdone (meaning exaggerated, like a rubber band that is stretched then released)
Sentiment just dropped the mic............and a hush fell over the NWBO crowd
Bravo Sentiment
I am not arguing any such thing. I think CEO's have a significant place and purpose. In fact I used to argue that we needed a CFO as well (please note my older posts, can't remember which post number but if you look back you'll find them). I now know that my prior position is not the end all be all. I agree that we will need a CFO (if everything works out as planned), and a high quality CFO at that. If we bring in some bargain basement CFO, they may not add much value (above the removal of verbiage, and it's possible that adding a CFO won't even remove the verbiage), yet require additional cost.
I do believe (operative word "believe") that Woodford has a team of analysts, to complete DD for him. I would argue that they have put their eye on NWBO in detail (probably significantly more detail than we can, unless we actually go to HQ, are shareholders on record, and request certain information at certain times, and are doing it to protect our investment). I have done a review of Woodford and his style of investing, I agree with it. I agree with NWBO. I agree with Linda.
Consulting is very interesting to me, I do provide some light consulting to clients. But the majority of my work is as a tax accountant.
You mean like these from the most recent 10-K?
31.1 Certification of the Principal Executive and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002
32.1 Certification of the Principal Executive and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000114420415016579/0001144204-15-016579-index.htm
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000114420415016579/v403266_ex32-1.htm
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000114420415016579/v403266_ex31-1.htm
Know fear, great post. I appreciate arguments with facts and supporting evidence. At least there is some basis for making your argument other than your opinion. Again, great post.
Stepp you received numerous answers as to why NWBO does not have a CFO, apparently none were to your liking. Oh well, goes to show you can't make everyone happy.
Now on to this
Segregation of duties has a place in business, some more logical than others. For example the same person who receives cash from clients should not be the same person that makes deposits/records income on the books. They could keep the cash then not record the income on the books. That does not mean the person who receives cash will keep the money personally but with out segregation of duties there is weakness of internal controls. Alternatively it does not mean that with effective internal controls that multiple parties could not overcome internal controls and commit fraud in spite of internal controls. Internal controls are checks and balances. Material misstatements are inaccurate representations of financial positions (intentional or unintentional)
In fact it is nothing like saying that "I haven't broken the law because I haven't been caught", If you haven't broken the law then you haven't broken the law. That is the jump that you are making. You assume that internal control weakness is a material misstatement. Internal control weakness will never equal a material misstatement they are two separate things.
Now you are injecting opinion as to why there is no CFO as though there is only one reason? Really?
Also to confirm material misstatements happen when material misstatements are reported in some sort of filing requirement (SEC, IRS, or third party). Finding out about them is a subsequent event. Just to point out the flaw in your argument that they only happen upon admitting or being caught.
They can remedy the matter by not having any material misstatements. That costs $0.00. As I said internal control weakness does not equal material misstatement.
Let's say for sake of argument there are no material misstatements, but there are weakness in internal controls. They would need to incur additional costs to remove verbiage from the audited financial statements. The reduction of the verbiage does not change the fact that there are no material misstatements (as indicated in the hypothetical argument we are following)
This can be achieved by working with the 3rd party independent auditors without requiring a CFO.
You are correct that until there is adequate segregation of duties the verbiage will be there, and I am correct in stating that just because the verbiage is there does not a material misstatement make.
Shorts argue that
Internal control weakness = material misstatement
Fact is
Internal control weakness = Internal control weakness
Fact is
Internal control weakness does not equal material misstatement
Jim, from the most recent 10-Q
Based on the evaluation of our controls and procedures, our principal executive, financial and accounting officer concluded that during the period covered by this report, our Company’s processes for internally reporting material information in a systematic manner to allow for timely filing of material information were ineffective, due to inherent limitations from being a small company and insufficient personnel for segregation of duties, and there existed material weaknesses in our oversight over the financial reporting that contribute to the weaknesses in our disclosure controls and procedures.
Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting
We have been taking steps to remediate the weaknesses identified above, which continue to exist as of the end of the period covered by this report. Specifically, we have expanded the personnel resources and activities performed by the external firm. We plan to continue taking steps to improve our internal control system and to address these deficiencies (including by potentially bringing some of the functions in-house), but the timing of such steps is uncertain and our ability to retain or attract qualified individuals to undertake these functions is also uncertain. Aside from these changes, there has been no change in our internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2015, that has materially affected, or is reasonable expected to materially affect, our internal controls over financial reporting.
it's standard language when discussing the matter. It can be found on SEC.gov http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000114420415029414/v408078_10q.htm#main_007
It merely explains that there is weakness in internal controls not that there is a material misstatement. Two different matters. Shorts assume that because there is weakness in internal controls that there must be material misstatements. That argument is simply not true. That is not to say that it could not be true, internal controls weakness does not equal material mistatement
I honestly think you are confusing two arguments. 1. Who owns the proerty? 2, Who will manufacture the product?
Answer to #1, NWBO owns the property in the UK.
Your original post references the purchase or sale of property, not a manufacturing agreement.
Answer to #1, NWBO will manufacture the product moving forward in the UK/Europe
NWBO has been using the Cognate facilities to complete their work because they do not have the infrastructure in place to do it themselves. As you can see they are planning to do it themselves in the UK and Europe. The next question is what will happen in the US? They may continue to use Cognate, they may branch out on their own. I don't think NWBO is going to branch out on their own for manufacturing in the US.
Just read your link, Acaris is a subsidiary of NWBO and owned by NWBO. Cognate is listed as Guarantor, that means they will guarantee the the contract in the event that Acaris defaults. You ask Why, then you inject opinion. There is nothing in the link provided that states Cognate will occupy the building, period. That is not the sole reason why 3rd parties act as guarantors in corporate real estate investments.
You have not proven your point.
I have proven that NWBO owns the property (as listed on the financial statements listed with SEC), which initially was your argument before your confused and combined two arguments into one.
Please note your original comment
Steppenwolf you are wrong;
Quote:
NWBO bought its own manufacturing plant last year and is setting it up to serve most of Europe with its products. That purchase is the best argument to your claim that the CEO, Linda Powers, is just trying to grow Cognate with NWBO money. It proves that NWBO is moving into the manufacturing area, which will save them money. it's a move toward autonomy, their first step toward independence from Cognate, which we all know is owned by Linda Powers.
Since this is your primary argument to my issue...why don't you see for yourself...from the 10Q:
Item 6. Exhibits
10.1 Contract for the Sale and Purchase of Land and Buildings at Sawston, England, dated July 3, 2014[color=red][/color], by and among Spicers Limited, Aracaris Capital Limited and Cognate Bioservices, Inc.
Hmmmm...that's strange. I don't see NWBO mentioned here. I do, however, see Cognate.
As you can see from the 10-K filed on 3/17/2015
On December 9, 2014, the Company completed the purchase of the second portion of the UK Property intended for the manufacturing expansion for DCVax products in the UK. This property is located within and surrounded by the first portion of the property already acquired by the Company, as previously reported. The purchase price for the additional property was £5 million (approximately $7.9 million and other capitalized costs of $2.4 million). The additional property includes approximately 12 acres of potentially developable land (as well as non-developable land), and certain existing buildings. Development of the property for DCVax manufacturing will require approval by the Planning Commission to re-classify the property, removal of certain existing structures, making certain site improvements, Planning Commission approval of the intended use after re-classification, and Planning Commission approval of the specific designs and engineering. The Company plans to explore various structures and approaches for financing and/or development of the property that may enable the Company to withdraw its capital from the property.
Furthermore you can see on the most recent 10-Q;
the asset property and equipment detail #6, 41,318 Construction in Progress in UK as of 3/31/15 = 41,318 (in the thousands)
In accounting the asset is listed on NWBO financial statements, NWBO owns it.
You were saying...
I rolled my July option over to October options yesterday
DoGood/Board, if you have recommendations of cancer research funds I would appreciate any and all recommendations for review? Thank you in advance.
Board,
I wanted to follow up with you about what I will do with some of my proceeds I have earned from my expiring NWBO options. I am going to attribute some of the proceeds (a meager amount) to further cancer research in the form of a charitable contribution/donation to a research fund. This is my way of displaying that I am not just here (invested in NWBO) for profit, that I am also here to further research. I am not going to be able to make a large donation because I have limited funds, but I figure as long as I can contribute something, that is better than nothing. To me doing this is a form a giving thanks, to those in need. I received information that contributions to a research fund may provide a more direct impact than through an intermediary. I am still looking into the matter to gather more information as I know very little. Captain Oblivious I agree with your comments (Karma) and this is one way I see of giving thanks for the benefits I have received.
GO NWBO
Hi Slapdaddy /scottrs61771 your messages are strangely similar
scottrs61771 • Jul 13, 2015 3:38 PM
0users liked this postsusers disliked this posts1Reply
10% swing in one day!!!1
WEEEEEEEE!!!!!!
Sort: Newest | Oldest | Most Replied Expand all replies
ryanlies • Jul 13, 2015 3:40 PM Remove 0users liked this postsusers disliked this posts0Reply
scottrs61771 • Jul 2, 2015 11:25 AM Flag
0users liked this postsusers disliked this posts0Reply
Looks like another buying opp!!
Burn that powder! Time to load up!!! NWBO is selling at a discount! Get in before it goes back up (someday)!!!
... More
Sentiment: Strong Buy
1 Reply to ryanlies
scottrs61771 • Jul 13, 2015 3:42 PM
0users liked this postsusers disliked this posts0Reply
WEEEEEEEE!!!!!
From Michonne on YMB about NWBO
I'm sure a little retail guy holding 200 short shares at $9 or wherever isn't happy! But they lack skill. Obviously, they're not professionals!
The short interest grew mostly at prices above $9. Our basis is now in the low $11 range. You cannot tell where a stock will trend and so must evolve strategies per basis, such as if it trends up in x window of time to y price points our spread is this, etc. I wanted this stock to go up because it would create a situation where before data we would have more shares shorted than other movements. The increase in pps causes the theory that a short is good to become that short is GREAT.
Branko already said he was willing to buy it up to $13. You cannot wholly rely on such things, nor know to what extent other factors are at play, and so a strategy evolves that considers that as only one leg.
You are all far too simple =)
I'm hoping we can average in the $12 range with a much higher % fr the fund allocated short NWBO!
Keep buying muppets! Keep buying Branko!! LOL
Shorts are also hurting retail shorts who don't have limitless pockets as the big time shorts have. I find the short argument hypocritical on so many levels. This morning I was thinking to myself, these bashers post messages as though they are trying to save us longs from losses and that we should sell our shares, or worse yet short the stock because it is going to $0.00. How come they are trying to protect retail shorts (smaller traders) from shorting a stock like this that has had fantastic performance all year. Those retail shorts could actually get wiped out. The bashers are not relaying anything to retail shorts to short with caution because despite all the short bashers opinions they really don't know what will happen. Do you think the short bashers take responsibility for that? Not likely, they think that everyone who is not them or affiliated with their group (trading firm/investment house) are "marks" and ready for fleecing. I am glad that they are getting fleeced at the moment, they truly are hindering progress, I find it deplorable.
The short thesis is this, empirically X amount of FDA trials fail, find companies that are poorly funded and publicly listed and attack. Empirically they will win, they may lose from time to time as empirical evidence is not absolute for every occurrence but overall they win. Shameful profiteering