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.
Have you thought about how 5-ala would impact trial results?
It seems to make enough difference that comparing a trial with some 5-ala to pre-5-ala data would be problematic. That would seem to indicate that nwbo couldn't look too far back for historical comps. Might also be another reason for the long time to TLD.
I can imagine the intense negotiations between Linda and Linda.
Linda: There's been enough dilution that I'm below 20%. Load me up.
Linda: Okay, how's 25 million options?
Linda: But it's Tuesday.
Linda: Okay, 30 million, but that's it for a few months.
Early July nwbo shares outstanding jumped, presumably from conversion of warrants about to expire.
For the first two weeks of July, short interest dropped 6.8m shares, yet nwbo stock price retreated. The obvious explanation is that it was warrant holders who were short, and they delivered conversion shares to close positions. Thus, 6.8m shorts were closed with no market buying.
If it is warrant holders who are short (which seems far more likely than speculative shorting), there is zero squeeze potential.
Did you check whether you are looking at a Merck sponsored trial?
There is a huge difference between Merck choosing to work with a partner versus a university doing a trial that combines two treatments where Merck simply supplies one.
@GGB, why not go back to the original tool where you found the data, and try a few other stocks. Maybe a couple of highly liquid names, plus a couple of smaller bios like CYTR, CVM.
Unfortunately some brokers tend to hide some of the details. At Schwab, nwbo has the HTB (hard to borrow) and RCB (regulatory circuit breaker) flags set, but I don't know how to see the borrow rate without calling.
You found the 7 year old article, but did not find the apology the author subsequently wrote.
https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/washington-posts-pearlstein-didnt-intend-to-disparage-thestreets-integrity-12929412
You really need to read both.
A hypothesis based on nwbo's published words is a lot more compelling than an argument based on nothing.
Woodford freely admitted that he did not dig into nwbo sufficiently.
If a Portfolio Manager is right 60% of the time, that's enough to generate hero level returns. Even the very best are wrong a lot, so no one should assume that any one pick has to be correct.
Seems totally unsurprising to me. nwbo "friendlies" are involved to make money. If they have profits on warrant positions, it is just good business to lock some of that in via shorting. Don't think that makes them any less of a "friendly".
Speculative shorting of nwbo has always seemed unlikely to me. What does seem likely is that most of the remaining short interest is similar hedging.
Of course that would invalidate much of the nefarious forces argument, so I don't expect wide acceptance even though the premise is logical.
There is another very reasonable possibility. In early July, there was a jump in nwbo shares outstanding, presumably from warrant exercise. If those shares were delivered to cover shorts, then there would have been no need to buy in the market.
That's a reasonable explanation that fits the data, and does not require any unsubstantiated assumption of manipulation.
Consider the data posted in early July about the jump in shares outstanding, followed by today's decrease in short interest. Here's my hypothesis:
- warrants about to expire were exercised. We won't know if that was cash or cashless until the next 10-Q.
- some of those warrants were hedged by short positions.
- holders delivered the shares from warrant exercise to close the short positions.
nwbo stock price is down 14% so far in July, which would be very tough to explain if there were 7 million shares bought to cover in the first 2 weeks of July.
I think you are confusing multiple topics.
SEC 13-F filings are required if a stock is on the 13-F list. That is the ultimate source for most website listings of institutional holdings.
That is a separate concept from an investment fund staying true to its mandate. That is between the fund and its investors. Public funds generally report full holdings to investors on a regular basis.
If nwbo TLD is successful, it likely sells itself. Otherwise, it would need to raise an enormous amount of funds to ramp up production and distribution, starting from scratch as it has no proven expertise in those areas.
Gary, the reporting requirement is based on whether a stock is on the SEC's 13-F list. nwbo was once on that list, but was removed.
Remember the hubbub when some low grade website reported erroneously that Woodford had sold out? They just had a bot comparing 13-F filings versus the previous month. The reality was that Woodford had not (yet) sold, but stopped reporting on nwbo because it was no longer required.
The statement "currently conducting" is a LIE. An active trial is a materially different situation from concluded in 2014 and sitting on the shelf for 7 years.
Can you provide evidence that there is anyone alive from the 2014 trial to continue monitoring?
The statement "is currently conducting" is a flat out LIE regarding Direct, at least in 2021.
You don't see anything misleading about not labeling the DCVAX-Direct info as 7 years old rather than current?
nwbo has had Direct on the shelf for a very long time. That is certainly relevant information to any reader of nwbo research.
You are correct about my financial expertise. That means that I have read thousands of research reports, and have an excellent background from which to draw conclusions on the quality of research.
In this case, someone clearly not current on nwbo is not a reliable source.
If a report on nwbo cannot distinguish between current news and 7 year old news, the quality of that research is laughably, pathetically POOR.
It looks suspiciously like someone has used a quote from 2014 in a current research report, and you see nothing wrong with that?
If someone can't tell the difference between current news and 7 year old news, I'm happy to conclude that is an unreliable source.
Perhpas that DCVAX-Direct quote is something very old (2014) rather than something new. Draw your own conclusions about the quality of research.
It loosk remarkably like what nwbo said in this PR from April, 2014.
The Company is currently conducting a 60-patient Phase I/II trial with DCVax-Direct for five main types of inoperable tumors, including lung, colon, breast with brain metastases, melanoma and pancreatic cancers, as well as some others. The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center is the lead site of the trial. In pre-clinical animal studies, injection of DCVax-Direct into inoperable tumors was able to cause tumor cell death, and the shrinkage or elimination of existing solid tumors.
Was that wrong? Should I have not done that? I've got to plead ignorance...
How many multi month processes for each stage?
Did LP really not know about the 6 stages last fall? Hard to reconcile that knowledge with the "close to the finish line" statement in the October, 2020 PR.
I said nothing about the diversionary topics you attempt to introduce.
I agree with you that the actions are dilutive, but don't agree that management self-interest is any sort of bullish sign.
Nope. My original post was simply to show that an earlier post vastly understated all-in nwbo management compensation. One point, nothing more.
The rest of my contribution to the thread is just responding to a variety of nonsense distraction posts.
Once again, nonsense.
Non-officer employees can have options, and do not have to make SEC filings for trades.
If you knew the history of nwbo/Cognate, you would know that they have not always been diligent regarding updating of SEC holdings.
The number in the 10-K is 2020 only. For 2019 it was $1.8m
Do you know that you can use Control-F to search a PDF? Look for the following line in one of the tables.
Total stock-based compensation expense $51,955
Nonsense. How is quoting nwbo's own 10-K and nwbo's own valuation in any way misleading?
Let's look at the 10-Q for March 31, 2021,
Stock options cash exercised $183,000
Stock options cashless exercised $3,695,000
Since only management has options, you are wrong on that point too.
Because they could?
One thing we know for certain is that the $52.9m in nwbo stock based compensation was definitely not for delivering TLD or publication of results.
No, the $52.9m was not in exchange for any promises. Go back and read the 10-K section on stock based compensation.
The $52.9m is solely grants to insiders. The extension/suspensions are accounted for elsewhere.
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000110465921044832/nwbo-20201231x10k.htm#ITEM11
The 52m stock-based compensation value is direct from nwbo's own 10-K, using their calculations. This is exclusively option and warrants, and has nothing to do with LP loans.
I said nothing about news. I implied nothing about news.
nwbo's last 10-K recorded $52 million in stock-based compensation. Did you miss that?
Yes, nwbo insiders hold $millions of shares, all of which were granted to themselves rather than purchased.
Just like nwbo hiring Kevin Duffy indicated TLD was any day now?
And like Duffy going back to Merck meant a Merck deal was imminent?
Then Duffy leaves Merck, and no one wants to talk about him anymore.
In order for nwbo to relist on NASDAQ, Powers needs to clean up the issues that forced her to downlist.
I think you are misreading.
One fund (Toucan Capital Fund II) wound down and no longer exists. Toucan Capital still exists, as do its other funds.
See Linda's bio in the most recent proxy: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000110465921051466/tm212568-1_def14a.htm
"Ms. Powers served as a managing director of Toucan Capital Fund II from 2001 to 2010, and Toucan Capital Fund III thereafter."
Invoiced to Advent:
2018: $6.2m
2019: $5.2m
2020: $7.2m
2021 (q1): $1.7m
There is a long term pattern of dollars flowing from NWBO to Advent. Not saying that is all illegitimate.
Citing a single case of a loan by Linda does not constitute a pattern.
Just quoted a snippet of your prior post.
I suppose you think it would out of context to quote you saying "NWBO will be dead."
You watched Linda Powers building up one CRO (Cognate) at the expense of nwbo shareholders, and you can't see the pattern repeating real time with Advent?
Your reply didn't convey much information, so please point out which part you do not understand so I can try to help.
I believe the inference is that as long as nwbo is alive and can continue to scrounge up funds, then Linda Powers can funnel some of that cash into developing Advent (as done previously with Cognate).
When I saw your headline I thought you might say the binary risk was whether you would still be breathing when/if nwbo ever reports tld. :)