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.
“You mean up $.14! Junk stock, junk science! Feds closing in and Nader is actually suing the company for his legal bills! “
Yup - just like the stock will see .15 before .30. Yup
“It's been 6 months!! Aren't you concerned? I am!! Why didn't he take the CEO position yet?? Tell me!”
Why are you so ‘concerned’ that the CEO position has not been filled yet ?
“do they have a CEO yet? What's the deal?”
Obviously they do NOT have a CEO. Why even ask??
“Meanwhile the little Cytodyn pump seems over, stock crumbling again as usual LOL “
What exactly was the CYDY “pump”? Did I miss something ? Or is it a pump simply because the stock went up for a few days ??
Ok. I accept your statements as facts. But I’m glad you’re not trashing leronlimab as being some nonsense “saline solution” that’s worthless. I wasn’t missing your point. Thanks.
I noticed in these past few posts — very good posts with HONEST debating — that nobody mentioned “leronsaline”. Why would the FDA be so interested in issuing this very rare letter if leronlimab was a pice of sh*t saline solution not even worth a damn???
I’m glad that’s last few posts were more on target with different opinions. I do not believe that the FDA cares if bad boy Nader was a 2 time “felon”. These 2 past “crimes” — they were from a LONG TIME AGO and weren’t that serious. Were they ?
Good points Krgomax....
But oddly enough, these predictions of "great things for CYDY" with all these dates reminds me of those predictions of dates for CYDY to be bankrupt.
What exactly is funny ? I don’t get it.
You did not correctly summarize.
Not questioning anything in the 8k. Just questioning your statement about 50 M shares at .10
Sorry - I was simply asking for facts supporting this statement “Cytodyn has just transacted 50M shares at $0.1 “
We all know that CYDY is doomed. But kindly state facts - the statement seems a bit misleading.
Thanks for the summary. I didn’t read thru the 8k. Is this a valid summary of all the shares / warrants ? 50 million?
Seems like the warrants expire in 5 years as opposed to CYDY ‘just sold 50 M shares at .10’
Just looking for honest clarification and breakdown.
“Cytodyn has just transacted 50M shares at $0.1”
Any details on this ‘transaction’?
“Another red day in CYDY la la land.
LAUGHING”
Help us understand what is so funny?
Thank you.
I’d say that the stock dropped a lot as a result of very higher than normal volume - most of which was selling volume. It’s plain and simple.
I answered your questions and successfully challenged your ‘opinion’ (not fact) about higher trading volume.
No I’m not. Who cares ? How was this list obtained ??
Just replying to the initial claim that volume was not higher than usual recently. When it really is. That’s all
“BTW, I'm looking at the chart now, and see no evidence of a "higher than normal" volume. “
Today CYDY shares have traded approximately 70% of the 10-day average volume in the first one hour and 10 minutes. That’s higher than normal volume. So less than 20% of the trading day has passed and yet 70% of the 10-day average volume has traded. That’s just today. The past few days have had higher than average volume.
I’m not a pumper at all. I’m simply asking for some evidence of pumping. Yes there have been many paid promoters that have pumped this stock with articles written.
So please provide a recent one that’s causing this latest small runup with higher than normal volume.
And if there is none then so be it.
Where is the ‘pump’ coming from? Please attach a link here so we can see for ourselves. The volume has been a lot higher the last few days. Thanks in advance.
“As usual, if you actually dig you can find answers. “
Sorry but I couldn’t find any ‘answers’. What was the purpose of that link?
“So the story CYDY insiders are feeding public markets is that they are issuing 25% of salary in stock yet on the 10Q says this :
“General and administrative expenses decreased approximately $1.3 million, or 17%, for the three months ended August 31, 2022, compared to the same period in the prior year primarily due to a reduction in stock-based compensation expense and legal fees, offset by an increase in salaries, benefits, and other compensation. “
This is only half of the information needed. Can you please state the # of employees on the payroll at August 2021 and compare that to August 2022? Without knowing HOW MANY people were being paid last year vs. this year one should not conclude anything about salary increases.
“We examine 1,612 reverse splits from 1962 to 2001. We find a long-run return underperformance.”
Can we get some data for the past 21 years please ?? While MOST reverse splits are bad news for a stock — I’m curious to see if the results are similar as a lot has changed in the investing world in the past 21 years.
“The Company further requests that, in accordance with Rule 457(p) of the Securities Act, all fees paid to the Commission in connection with the filing of the Registration Statement be CREDITED FOR FUTURE USE.”
Laughing at yet another attempt to spread a non truth.
“Or CYDY just trying to recover the prepaid fees amount as it desperately looks for any cash bill to survive a couple more weeks”
NOT TRUE !! There are NO FEES being recovered. They simply asked for a “future credit” - big difference.
“600 million shares hurtling toward the bid”
Not true at all. There are NOT 600 million shares hurtling towards the bid. Please provide PROOF — just because shareholders approved an additional 350 million shares it will take a while for UP TO 350 million shares to be actually sold (most likely via private investments over the course of several or many months). Also, 99 million of those 600 million are warrants that do not expire for 5 years. Nobody has any idea how many of those 99 million will be exercised and when they will be exercised.
“Damon Thomas dumping? I thought he would not, not at all, never, absolutely never, dump? LOL”
NOT TRUE. Please PROVE that Damon Thomas is dumping all his shares. Just because he is listed in the recent S-3 with the ABILITY to sell his shares does NOT prove anything.
“Why didn't ALL of the private investors register ALL their shares? Could understand some would require paying out cash -- the warrant holders -- so could understand perhaps delaying those as many were under water anyway.”
FALSE AGAIN. Prove your statement about “many were under water anyway’. The warrants were for 31 cents In the last offering so how the heck are they under water?
“Only 37% of the investors requested to sell ALL their shares.”
TOTALLY FALSE — prove this statement above. There is NO WAY anyone can claim a certain % of investors selling shares.
End of story.
“Most of these private investors got burned as they bought 12/21 through 4/22 and now are down ~50%. 37% of the private investors are attempting to sell all of their shares.”
Please cite your source for your statements. First — how do you know that MOST of the private investors got ‘burned’?
Also —- There is NO WAY you know that 37% of the private investors are attempting to sell. No way. That’s not public information. Unless you contacted EVERY investor nobody has any idea.
“Why bother participating in the S-3 if you aren't going to sell in some reasonable time frame?”
That’s like asking why buy ANY stock that I’m not going to sell in a reasonable timeframe ? I’ve been long for a while and WHEN I sell is my choice. Definitely not selling on day one. And please don’t forget those 99 million warrants that expire in 5 years. I doubt many of the investors will exercise the warrants right away since they don’t expire in 5 years.
“Sorry but you are incorrect. The S--3 shows the total share count being registered to clean legend and offer to sell free and clear. “
Sorry I AM correct. It has been discussed here before. Those shareholders listed in the S-3 — including myself - are NOT necessarily selling their new shares acquired in the offer. The ability to sell these shares does in no way mean the shares are being sold.
Thanks RTBhub! You worded it correctly. We must admit the way the wording is on the S-3 is misleading and those that are not part of the accredited investors just made incorrect assumptions.
Thanks for clearing it up.
The 2nd to last column is Number of Shares Post-Offering, and for Van Houten it is "-" meaning 0 and for Lonsford it is 15,000. I don't know why you can't understand that they intend to sell the amounts listed.”
You are correct with what the columns say. But I’m correct in what they mean.
All we need is for you to know one person in the S-3 and ask them. I know based on me being in the S-3 and I was scratching my head when I first saw those numbers and columns for me.
But I can tell you that Van Houten REPORTED owning no shares before this offering and Lonsford 15,000.
I reported an amount that In no way shape or form was traceable because I did not have to give any evidence.
I just wish ONE accredited investor would chime in.
Good nite all. I’m done with this topic. Enjoy your weekend
“Look at Andrew Van Houten for a random example of someone selling all their shares:
Andrew Van Den Houten. 686,273 * 392,156 294,117 *”
This means that Andrew Van Den Houten purchased 392,156 shares and 294,117 warrants (simply do the math —-> 392,156 * .75).
His total shares is 686,273 meaning he is claiming to have ZERO shares before this offering. That’s what it means.
I’ll say it again : the “selling shareholders” listed in the S-3 does NOT mean they are selling their shares. I’m not selling these shares I just bought for 25.5 cents each and not exercising the warrants I got for 30.6 cents each.
Anything else is just speculation.
“Lonsford claims to own only 15,000 shares after the offering correct?
CORRECT? “
Not correct. The column headings on the S-3 are confusing. It makes it seem like the number of shares AFTER the offering is what the person will own. That’s not necessarily true. That assumes the investor sells all the shares from the offering. Again - that’s not a fact they they will sell all shares even though they are referred to as ‘selling shareholders’.
I saw the S-3 and was surprised it’s listed that way. I looked at my investment and the column where it shows the number of shares AFTER the offering is actually self reported (at least via a form completed with Paulson) where the investor states how many CYDY shares they have besides this offering. There’s no way to verify this amount. It’s actually meaningless.
Please repost the S-3 columns along with Lonsford’s totals and I’ll explain in detail.
Because I’m in the S-3 I know exactly what the columns mean but again it is a bit misleading.
If there’s anyone else here that invested recently and appears in the S-3 feel free to chime in and back up what I’m saying.
Want to clear this up AGAIN. Just because people are listed on the recent S-3 (as I am) this does IN NO WAY mean that those people are selling their CYDY shares. I can see how some can get confused because these people are referred to on the S-3 as “selling shareholders”.
This simply means that the once the S-3 registration is approved these investors will get their shares and have the “ability” to sell. It DOES NOT mean they will sell.
So Lonsford appearing on the S-3 does NOT mean he has a lot of shares to dump.
There is NO HARD EVIDENCE that anyone on the S-3 will sell their shares once the registration becomes effective.