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.
So if I understand you correctly, NW has not traded(sold or bought) because he is prevented from doing so due to inside information.
I think that biosect answered that issue,i.e., that funds have a way around this. I am sure that it is rather common that funds and a fund manager, in doing DD, may come across, and perhaps inadvertently so, inside information. However, they do not want to be hamstrung by this and so have ways and means to get around it.
However, it does appear odd that if unrestricted, NW would not have sold on the way down. It could be within the realm of speculation that the information he did have, however he came to know it, was so compelling that he held on in fear that if he sold, he might miss out on a quick and huge updraft. Who knows? Obviously, we are not privy to the whole story and the principals ain't talking.
Gopgrip, I respectfully say that you are mistaken. What was said was that they did not sign an NDA that prevented them from trading. In addition, they said that upon occasion they come across "inside" information that may prevent trading, or words to that effect. However, they have not clearly stated that in the case of NWBO they are so restricted. I agree with biosect's explanation. I also think he saw value initially and saw nothing "untoward" with NWBO, which are rather conservative statements. He was an "active" shareholder and has at least implicitly admitted that his fund gets more intimately involved with some companies in their portfolios. NWBO was one of them. I do think he was behind an attempted takeover which failed. He then became a "passive" shareholder but held because ultimately from his own DD NWBO may be the little engine that could. Anyway, his investment is now relative peanuts to his fund's overall value. If it ultimately pans out, he wins. He has already lost over 95% of his investment, so holding on, if there is a calculated chance makes sense. No big deal to him right now. If it hits big, with his stake, he snatched victory from defeat. A real genius after all. JMHO
I believe he is referring to top-line which he believes can happen in two to five months which is a rather similar though less aggressive time table than Rago's. Binary means: either the results are good or not good enough. JMHO.
Beach:
Always thought you had good insights. Care to explain what is wrong with the view I expressed? Yes, it is pessimistic. Because it is pessimistic, ipso facto it carries us back to caveman days? C'mom Beach, you can do better than that. Looking forward to your response.
I did not read Ike Esq.'s transcripts before posting. I stand corrected. There were cogent questions asked at the ASM. The responses by management as well as by the two directors were very reasonable. After reading these transcripts I am encouraged and more than ever, I think we have a winner in the science.
From the transcripts, it appears to me that LP and LG are genuine and while I haven't agreed much with their lack of transparency, I am certainly now more inclined to give them slack and the benefit of the doubt.
I still believe in my original opinion as expressed in the post I am responding to that top line announcement will come around the end of the year, not because of any nefarious motives on the part of management, but rather due to the complexities and pioneering paths associated with this particular trial. The uncertainties are well understood and top line will come when it comes. From the extremely positive remarks made by both Linda and Les, who are allowed to speak only very conservatively as Les stressed per the transcripts, thus the word "encouraging" rather than "out of the ball park", I believe more firmly than ever that we have a big winner. I get the feeling that Les and Linda wanted to say that but are constrained.
Yes, overall, not a bad ASM after all.
Sukus:
If you read my commentaries, you will appreciate my views on the fat tails. I believe we will see very good results in this regard. My instant post does not address whether results will be good or whether approvals will issue. My OPINION on these, btw, is "YES".
As I have said ad nauseum: it is more of a question of when and not if.
The sooner the better. JMHO.
You certainly have a shot at some value. Even mu rather pessimistic analysis does not preclude it. Of course, I hope the outcomes I have projected are wrong. However, I can see the difficulties in providing any dependable unblinding guidelines.
My hope is that LP understands very well that unblinding much past mid-year could lead to a scenario that I have described. My further hope is that she can do something about it so unblinding does not take place as late as the end of the year.
GLTY
The reports of the conduct of the ASM pretty much corresponded to what I had expected. I had hoped for more but I am not surprised. The tentative conclusions that I draw are that we are a ways yet from unblinding. It is definitely not around the corner. Further, despite what one of the directors may have said in a side bar conversation, the current "transparency" strategy will continue indefinitely. Finally, attendees may have wasted precious time in discussing shorts, etc. This plays into the hands of Les who uses these conspiracy excuses as a deflection from addressing other more important questions and issues.
From what I can tell, there was no strong follow up on the 8 questions or on what I consider Flipper's acute observation on timelines and "unexpected extensions"of the trial as well as the number of patients currently alive within the nonsensical context of possible "cherry picking" accusations. There were other cogent questions as well that do not appear to have been asked.
Essentially, this ASM was no different than the previous "softball" ASMs. Attending shareholders had an opportunity to demand more transparency or credible reasons for non-revelation. Rather the meeting was cordial and everyone had a nice time on one-on-one discussions after the meeting, which Linda wanted to end rather quickly. It seems apparent that she wanted to punch her get out of town ticket before things could get rather uncomfortable.In addition to Les' lack of credibility, from reports of his petulancy due to criticism, this was certainly not very professional. Finally, director JerryJ did himself and shareholders more harm than good by talking about his efforts to encourage greater transparency by management. If Linda/Les get wind of this talk, they could well think that he is disloyal and just does not get it. There goes any influence that he might have had
I totally agree with Flipper's observation that shareholders are now being set up for a longer rather than shorter extension of time to unblinding. From now until LP is ready to announce unblinding there will likely be no updates and shareholders can forget about getting anything other than a regurgitation of information which is already known and dated at various conferences which are not only a waste of time but more importantly money which they may likely run out of by the end of this year necessitating another raise which will most likely be dilutive.
A scenario that I think is more than likely is that top line may not be revealed until year end. The allusion to multiple RAs and finalising SAPs with their blessings, pioneering new regulatory paths, the complexity of the information to analyse and how to present, etc. appears to strongly indicate, if the past is prologue, that the process will take significantly longer. Thus the vagueness and difficulties in coming up with a clearer exposition of time lines. This may all be reasonable, but it translates into more time.
The war chest obtained through the Sawston sale might last until the end of the year or there about. This will coincide with top line revelation most probably. The fast approaching need to go to the funding well will act as an albatross on any pps spike due to good top line results. When you desperately need cash, funders will exact their toll with significant discounts to market and associated warrants. Any significant rise and momentum will be blunted by the desperate need for cash that may be highly dilutive. Sale of the remaining acreage will not provide enough of a respite. The next pps raising opportunity will be an RA(s) approval(s), however, even then funding requirements may have similar effects. Indeed, commercialisation will become a huge issue if current management continues since it does not have much market credibility in its ability to lead the commercialisation initiative.
It appears that NWBO will be playing long term catch up without getting much sustained momentum in the share price. Big P will be waiting in the wings and any BO will fall far short of current expectations.
Accordingly, I project top line announcement on or about year end/early 2020. IMHO, I doubt very much it will happen by ASCO 2019. The share price could conceivably spike to somewhere between $0.50~$1.00 on top line revelation but will quickly snap back on a toxic financing deal due to a desperate need for cash. I think the pps well settle around $0.30~$0.50/share. The share price will rise from an extremely low base level due to the inordinate time taken to end the trial and the attending silence. I think that the base level will likely be in the low double digits, perhaps in the $0.10~$0.15 range.
I project some kind of regulatory approval during the latter part of 2020 but would not be surprised if it issued in early 2021. Up to regulatory approvals, and due to continued funding requirements/dilution, I project that the share price will remain well under a dollar.
So in early 2019, we are still quite a way from unblinding and any RA approvals which could be 2 years away. The pps, most likely, will linger at levels below $1.00.
In order to avoid the above scenario, NWBO will have to announce top line by sometime mid-2019. However, according to what has been reported at the ASM, management has little to no control over the process as it pioneers new ground. There is not much to stay tuned to. JMHO.
I hope you ask questions
Yes, she has effective control. Anyway, if money raises are needed, she has the leverage. It is either get the funding or go bankrupt. Many investors are in it this far and they'd rather endure continued dilution by increasing the shelf than see bankruptcy and a pps of $0.00. You can apply a multiple to a penny but not to zero. JMHO.
I agree---"stay tuned"
Hi Marzan:
No, I can tell you that I did not buy any and have not for a while. I have enough shares and bought in on the convertible offerings. I am hoping for a buck and I think that is a realistic target which could hit sometime in late 2019 or early 2020. Just a WAG but still OK if it hits a buck by end of 2020, when I project an RA decision(s). Not greedy and don't have wild -arse expectations either.
I think Flipper is right. Les' response indicates and may even portend dragging out the process leading to data lock or even formally extending the trial because of this or that "unexpected" eventuality. We are being set up now for just such an extension. If so, and not clarified at the ASM, the share price will suffer and plummet to unprecedented lows. NWBO management will have lost all credibility and no one will believe them, even if they do now. Even with ultimately good results it will be difficult to reach even a buck. If you are trading at about $0.05 a buck is a 20x rise. From about $0.25 it is 4x. I admit same market cap but the market works differently. It will take much longer to rise to a specific level from a very depressed base than otherwise. Plus, the reputations of management will certainly be an albatross despite the solid science. Lack of transparency and nonsensical responses(can't reveal how many currently alive because don't want to be accused of "cherry picking"----now I have heard it all, LOL)have a ruinous and negative effect no matter how good the science.
Now the days of $10 or even $5 are but a distant memory transported to a different dimension. Hope the dollar target does not go that way either. But I think the odds are that it won't. That's why I am still in.
JMHO which you may not share but that's what horse races are all about :)
Vu:
Your post is one of the most sensible that I have read on this board in a long time. Great insight.
Meirluc:
Same here :)
Not necessarily. LP is not loath to raise more money even under toxic circumstances and even risking the bleating of shareholders. She has effective control and will do what she needs to do in order to achieve her objectives. What can shareholders do? Vote her out? Don't be silly. How about major investors' influence? Nada. If you don't like what she is doing, sell. LP has been pretty successful in finding vultures to advance her money. That won't change.
Anyway, that is what Les told me a while ago to silence my own bleating. I voted no on the proxy not because I think this will change anything but primarily because I could not vote yes. It would cause me to vomit.
So why am I still here? Bottom line, I think the science is a winner even if the primary/secondary endpoints are not SS or otherwise. It is all in the tail and OS milestones. The issue is not so much, at least to my mind, about IF DC VAX L will be approved, at least by some jurisdiction, but WHEN and I hope I am still alive by the WHEN. LOL.
JMHO.
And you still voted "yes" or did this come out after you voted?
Sounds good but depends upon where the decimal point is placed.
Meirluc:
I agree with your analysis. It makes sense and is more positive than mine. If they have met the PFS endpoint of 4 months delta over control, then it would appear that they have the home runs required to obtain regulatory approvals in most, if not all, jurisdictions.
From the lack of transparency and nonsense responses Les has provided---e.g., not revealing the number of trial patients alive as of the latest update because NWBO could be accused of "cherry picking"---the perception created is that something is amiss with the trial. It may have to do with not achieving the required PFS delta. This is a primary end point and may be at risk. They don't know for sure but it is possible that their review thus far points in that direction. Thus, the strong emphasis on long tail and OS milestones. Not achieving the required PFS delta is by no means fatal. There are explanations. Possibly, PFS eventing may come earlier due to the fact that immunological approaches such as DC VAX become more established and entrenched over time and progression rates may slow dramatically thus resulting in longer OS. This is not bad but naysayers will turn "good news" into "bad" by harping on the failure to achieve the delta.
But once you are placed into a position where you need to provide an explanation for why you failed to achieve the desired end point, to "tell it to the judge" so to speak, your position is weaker. Sticklers may claim that you failed to achieve a primary endpoint, so do another trial IF you don't have strong countervailing data such as OS and the long tail. I think that running the trial as long as they have and are continuing to collect data as they work to data lock, etc. provides for an insurance policy. They have got to get it right the first time or we all go home. Thus everything is cloaked in secrecy until they are ready to come out with all the info and analysis as powerful ammunition to gain approval across the spectrum of RAs.
As I have said, I believe the odds are good that NWBO will gain approvals. To me, it is an issue of when and not necessarily if. Let's hope it is sooner.
More transparency would certainly give us more to work with in assessing the odds. And it would do something for the credibility of management. However, some of the answers provided strain credulity and insult the intelligence of investors. Not to mention the possible impact on the pps. JMHO.
Indeed, I stand corrected. The word impossible is inappropriate. Better said, improbable.
Marzan my friend, it is all in my opinion. I hope you are right and I am wrong. Happy to eat crow. My purpose is to express an opinion and candidly, a lot of long posters are pollyanna-ish. I don't see this investment thru rose coloured glasses and I am not looking for what I think are unrealistic share prices. I would be happy with a couple of bucks considering my cost level and number of shares held.
If you read my posts carefully, I am quite positive about the science and the ultimate success of the trial. But to reach dollar levels in the share price, NWBO has to hit a double grand slam in the long tail because I believe the primary/secondary end points won't get them there. Look, a couple of bucks above where we are now is an 8x premium. Not so bad. In fact LP and friends have enough shares that even at this price they make out like bandits. But $10 or $15 bucks? Hmmmmmm, probably not in my lifetime and certainly not counting on it. Maybe its just me. Anyway, GLTY.
Regards,
U
Plummet? Gee, a drop of about 30% to $0.17 seems like quite a drop to me.
All eyes are on the ASM. If no news of any substance and artful dodging as was seen by the LG responses to the questionnaire continues at the ASM, I think the share price could easily hit $0.14, a drop of about 40%. Sure looks like a plummet to me.
As I said, investors especially, want an accounting. Les has artfully shifted the responsibility for continued vagueness onto the lawyers just as LP shifted responsibility onto the SAB. They don't want to release still alive info because it could be viewed as cherry picking, etc. Puleeze, gimme a break. It sounds very much like...."it aint me, the devil made me do it..."
Continued silence is deadly to the share price. JMHO.
Well, Senti, you have now seen the Les/Ike conversation report. Do you think these responses have gone a long way to inspire trust and support of management?
Receiving offers that are essentially frivolous are meaningless. In fact, they may be downright negative in perception. Imagine that NWBO received a BO offer from a big P for $100 million. That would signal to the market what the offerer thought the technology was worth. LP would very likely be embarrassed to reveal what these "offers" were.
However, I don't think LP received any offers. She has said that big P only carries a check book and it is probably well known that her price tag is very high. Not worth it to make any formal offers without unblinding anyway. Too expensive and risky to buy/invest in a pig in a polk. JMHO.
Marzan:
As in everything NWBO, what does close mean? NWBO's close and your close may be wildly different and of course, as in times past, things change, like lengthening the trial, etc. So close may change depending upon the circumstances. With NWBO, we have seen this all too often. I would not read too much into this-----after all close only counts in horse shoes and dancing. :)
Les has said this many times dating back at least to January, 2015. The word "planning" is artful in that there are no timelines and anyway "plans" change. He has said a number of times that a PR about legal action would be forthcoming as part of a string of PRs calculated to raise the share price in the midst of complaints about toxic financing. What happened? Change of "plans"?
These responses are carefully worded and scrubbed by legal counsel if not written by them. There is no accountability whatsoever. Much of what Les says is useless and a waste of everybody's time. Essentially, management is hiding behind counsel as it has been wrt the SAB.
They will not say anything beyond their responses to IkeEsq. and there will be little if any clarification. The responses presage a short and uneventful ASM. The direction is now very clear. Silence will continue essentially upon the advice of counsel as management does not want to prejudice in any way the regulatory process. It does not want to be accused of "cherry picking." Well then, why did they reveal the number of patients alive as of 3/17? Why did they release an article in the JTM? Could that prejudice the regulatory process? Why were only snippets of the updated data revealed at SNO? Isn't that the same as "cherry picking"?
Why are they pioneering various regulatory paths? Is it because the primary and secondary endpoints are a mixed bag, not undeniable and perhaps not SS? The clear implication is that they are not anything to write home about and not favourable enough for regulatory approvals at least insofar as the FDA is concerned. Otherwise, if they were, the usual regulatory paths would be open. The excuses of pseudo-progression and cross-over confounding the trial results now cause a shift in emphasis to a new "primary" criteria, to which of course the FDA has not given the green light, and that is the "long tail", the new gold standard for immunological approaches such as DC VAX L. Didn't LL hint at this a long time ago? Patients are living longer and a way needs to be found to approve such a therapy?
Accordingly, it appears almost certain that everything is riding on the long tail and the primary/secondary end points are argued as antiquated and not appropriate for Immunological approaches. This is the new regulatory pathway that NWBO is pioneering. And hoping that the data supporting the long tail is persuasive enough to be deemed undeniable and over riding other criteria. Hence, they need a touch down pass in the fourth quarter and fourth down. A field goal will fall short(pun intended).
If this interpretation is correct, then it is obvious that NWBO has nothing more to say. And it will not bring anything else into play at least until after top line is announced. Forget about legal proceedings, other trials including combos with DC VAX L, possible BOs, partnerships, etc. Without grand slam results wrt the long tail, nothing else matters. There is no concern for the share price now. If results are less than stellar, we all go home. If they turn out to be stellar, the share price will appreciate from a very low base, but the days of $50, $30, $15 are all but a memory. We will be lucky if we achieve even a couple of bucks. Any more will take years even with competent management. LP and friends have enough shares that even a couple of bucks in share price will be a great haul. Retail shareholders? Not so much. Sorry to repeat the mantra but "stay tuned". Very disappointing.
Thanks Ike for posting responses. To say that I am disappointed......
Hear, hear. Could not agree more.
Kam, my friend, there is no BO. Nobody is going to pay $15/share today. That is a fanciful dream. If nothing of any substance is said at the ASM and the attendees' questions are dodged with obfuscating lawyerese, trust me, the share price plummets. It just reinforces the market's perception that NWBO management lacks credibility and that they must be "hiding" something. No, BP is going to wait for unblinding. They waited this long, and they will wait longer. Do you realise what the premium is on $15/share? Trust me, no one will pay anywhere near that even if the results are good. JMHO.
Could not agree with you more. Unless we get something between now and the ASM, I am voting NO on everything. Not much time left. Not that LP will be unseated but she needs to get a message that not all is hunky-dory in "Pleasantville".
I just hate to see the share price plummet again after a softball ASM. JMHO and stay tuned.
Marzan:
I don't have the answer to your query. But, confoundment with pseudo progression and cross-over may have an effect. It may be possible that PFS is not significantly improved because it takes time for immunological therapies to demonstrate effect. Just speculating, but there may be earlier progression but as the therapy begins taking effect, the rate of progression slows and in some cases may even go to zero. Insofar as OS is concerned, it may be very likely that the vaccine is very effective for M+ which apparently is predominantly composed of pro-neural. Blended mOS for this group is about 35 months. However, for M-, the SNO update showed at OS 36, survival was just 14.3%, despite the fact that mesenchymal is in this group. Previous studies showed that the vaccine appeared to be very effective in this molecular group(about 30~50% of all nGBM) as opposed to pro-neural. We don't have the answers to these seeming contradictions. Thus, depending upon these criteria alone, it may not be clear or undeniable enough. It may not be SS.
Accordingly, the focus upon the long tail where the data appears mature enough to LP and her experts to work toward data lock and unblinding. She and her experts may have a great amount of confidence that the data supporting the long tail is at least as close to being undeniable as it can be. If, otherwise, the unblinded data at the front end shows comparable efficacy to Optune with the added benefits of the demonstrable long tail, ease of administration and QOL, safety and manufacturing preparedness, then with the flexibility shown by the FDA in approving treatments like Optune and others with safety concerns and limited efficacy, I believe that the odds would strongly favour FDA approval for DC VAX L. It is more of a question as to when. JMHO.
LP, in her most recent presentation on January 23rd, stated in the slide deck that the key focus is on the long tail. From the blinded data we have seen so far, a long and robust tail is suggested. We don't know its relative composition or Tx survival rate yet but the data again suggests Tx about 30% at OS 36 and Tx about 20% at OS 60. LP stated that the data is mature and that they are working with experts to go to data lock and unblinding the trial.
It is entirely possible that the primary and secondary end points are not SS according to the data they possess and the assessment their experts have made. Thus, the overwhelming focus upon long tail and making sure that the data backs up undeniable results in this regard.
I would assume that the FDA would look at all factors, not just the long tail, in assessing whether or not to approve. I think that management and their experts have some concerns about these other factors whereas they are quite likely to be confident about the tail data by now. They understand that unblinding the trial at the appropriate time and being confident about the data is their one and only chance for approval. The FDA is likely to look at all these factors and relatively weigh their importance in reaching any determination.
The recent MB discussions concerning Optune suggest, at least to me, that the FDA recognises that there are few and very little alternatives in treating this deadly disease. Even though the data raises questions about efficacy and safety, the FDA appears to be open and flexible to approve therapies that might be effective to some degree despite concerns about the extent of efficacy and safety.
Hence, with the blended information we have seen, I believe that DC VAX L is well within the FDA's current range, if you will, for flexible approval of alternative therapies for a devastating disease where little progress has been made thus far. There is no real drug therapy alternative available in the relatively near term, except for DC VAX L. The only other available alternative is a helmet device. This fact was clearly articulated by LP in her most recent presentation.
Thus, even if DC VAX is just as efficacious as Optune(and has a demonstrably longer tail), the FDA is quite likely to approve. The issue is how quickly would approval result. The data thus far is very suggestive that the vaccine also works on groups with less than favourable prognostic indicators. As Dr. Ashkans has said from his clinical experience, the vaccine works to a greater or lesser degree across all groups and thus the vaccine should be made available to all such patients.
My strong belief is that it is not so much a question as to whether DC VAX L will be approved but rather when. It appears to me that NWBO is working toward a sooner rather than later approval by having undeniable data.
Having said all this, I hope---but I am rather pessimistic---that we get some answers at the ASM. I hope the attendees voice their concerns and demand answers or reasons as to why they cannot or will not be answered. We are entitled to more than just "stay tuned" at this ASM.
Good luck to IkeEsq and the other attendees. JMHO.
I completely agree. Well said.
Poor Man:
I believe there is a shot at home plate otherwise I would not still be invested. The perception the over-lawyered and ambiguous statements create is one of lacking credibility and somehow trying to hide something. It just seems to smell foul even though the opposite may be true. There is a certain lack of transparency and all this may needlessly hammer the share price. I'd rather price appreciate from a higher base. It is easier to get to a dollar from, e.g., $0.25(4x premium) than it is from $0.05(20x premium and takes longer) even though the market cap value is the same. In my experience, Wall Street just works that way.
In any event, it is time for an accounting. However, I have real doubts the ASM will provide any really meaningful answers. If so, fasten your seatbelt as severe turbulence is up ahead. JMHO.
JR, as an attorney myself, I must agree with you on this. The words are carefully chosen and seem to support the following:
On April 27, 2017, LG stated that the trial would continue until the results are "undeniable". Even this statement cannot be said to mean "undeniably GOOD results." Rather it could just as likely mean "undeniable results---one way or the other".
Then you have LP saying that ".......there are good reasons to continue the trial however we are working toward data lock". This is an ambiguous statement that is not very helpful either and is susceptible to a number of interpretations. In a general sense, NWBO has been working towards data lock ever since the trial started. If there are good reasons to continue the trial, then a reasonable interpretation could be that the results are still not undeniable, either good or bad. Rather, it is a mixed bag. If there are good reasons for continuing the trial, what are they, and why despite these reasons is NWBO "working towards data lock?" The reasons are good to continue but not good enough??????
If it were an appropriate time to end the trial and proceed to data lock, why confound the situation by saying that there are good reasons to continue the trial in the first place? Rather, the reasons are not good enough and the decision to proceed to data lock is timely with sufficiently matured data? LP's statement suggests that although she may want to continue the trial for some undefined period, she is somehow being "forced" to work toward data lock earlier than she would prefer. A more positive statement might have been......the time is now appropriate for us to begin(or complete) the process to data-lock....rather than muddying the waters by gratuitously declaring that there are "good reasons..."
Sounds very ambiguous and a lawyer-like CYA statement that is not very helpful and raises more questions than any clarifying declaration. It also seems to suggest that she and the SAB may not be on the same page. She may be paying lip service to the SAB by saying there are "good reasons" but despite these reasons she, as CEO, is making the decision to work toward data-lock, but with an undefined end-point. The end result may be a win-win for the SAB who may want to continue the trial for a while, for LP to show she is in charge and cognisant of shareholder concerns and for shareholders who are, in fact, being artfully led on into believing the status quo has changed and that data-lock is just around the corner. This is all a carefully worded lawyer tactic, the end result of which is that data lock continues to be out of reach.
Makes one wonder whether everything is riding on a fourth down, fourth quarter Hail Mary long tail touchdown pass. The first three downs of OS, PFS and SS did not gain enough yardage.
Pessimistically, I don't believe the ASM will provide any real clarity and the questions the board has so meticulously put together will, for the most part, be artfully dodged by more of the "good reason" like statements as per the above. Perhaps LG will sum up everything and declare that "all these questions will be moot when top-line is revealed"---one way or the other. Stay tuned.
I can agree that showing your hand on a case before you are ready is ill advised. Then why did LG tell me and other shareholders that I know that a PR would be released among a string of PRs announcing the filing of a case in Federal Court. Why offer this info in the first place? A string of PRs has been declared by LG at least twice as far as I know.
One may argue that LG was pressed on this issue and so he felt some response was warranted. However, there was similar pressure if not more on the halt issue and essentially crickets. IMO LG lacks credibility with his disingenuous rants, blown time lines not by weeks or even months but years and his generally obfuscated communications, not to mention his rants on conspiracies and his denials that he ever said this or that when backed into corner or that he was completely misunderstood. I have gone through this entire drill with him.
I admit extreme pessimism on the share price if we continue the status quo on lack of adequate transparency. The shorts literally own this stock. Silence is deadly. The trial should be complete but there are good reasons to continue as LP averred. Like in PFS is not stat significant; not enough separation on OS; need a clear grand slam on long tail and that is the Hail Mary pass and why the trial drags on while they are "proceeding" to dead lock? At least this is a story that the shorts will continue to hammer in the absence of results any time soon, continued obfuscation and silence. New investors will be scared off, volume will remain paltry and the shorts will operate the pps Iike a yo-yo with a lower lows and lower highs range.
I hope I am wrong but silence is a killer. JMHO.
Hi Abeta:
I do enjoy reading your posts on occasion although I mostly don't understand what you write.
Anyway, thanks for the laugh--I think?
Regards,
U
Kabu:
You have put your finger on the issue of transparency. Silence eventually results in moots. If that is the case, and results are what count and when they are revealed everything else prior to revelation is moot. Then the company need not waste time paying for an IR executive or even having an ASM. Shareholder questions will eventually become moot anyway so why bother complaining about lack of transparency now. Let's let management off the hook. All the questions this MB has prepared for the ASM need not be addressed as they will become moot. No doubt, LG will repeat this refrain at the ASM. "Thanks for the questions but they will become moot--I promise".
My point is that lack of transparency, including the halt issue, certainly had a major effect on the pps. LG's diversionary tactics to foist blame upon nefarious conspirators as the major reason for silence and the corollary decline in share price is disingenuous IMO. Of course, we will never know if more transparency would have been more supportive of the share price, but it is certainly a good bet that silence was not golden and contributed in no small measure to pps erosion. I think S/Hs are entitled to more transparency than this management has shown. Many other Board members feel the same way. Of course, it may be possible that all these questions may be the work of only a few malcontents.
Believe me, I would welcome everything we have been asking to become moot with the release of top-line well before ASCO 2019. I would then welcome that my complaints about this management's lack of transparency become moot as well through a BO.
JMHO.
What you say is certainly possible. Although the FDA has claimed that there was no embargo upon NWBO to explain the reason for the halt, I can understand that if the foregoing did happen, NWBO would be very careful. However, there was a reason or reasons for imposing the halt in the first place. I don't think the FDA, willy-nilly and without sufficient reason, would impose a halt to screw around. Perhaps, the length of the halt may be ascribed to such actions. In any event, I think that LG could have addressed the situation better.
As you may recall, initially NWBO fully expected that the halt would be lifted in weeks not in years. In this connection, LP declared that the halt was not necessarily bad. This in and of itself is not very helpful in that the halt may not have been necessarily good either.
Finally, LG did say that once the halt was resolved, the reasons for its imposition/lifting would be addressed. Instead nothing, nada and crickets. It is time for an accounting. Silence does not work. The manipulators are emboldened by the continued silence and periodic obfuscations that engender more questions than answers. No wonder the pps are at $0.25!!! Continuing the status quo will result in a very low base pps and if/when good news comes the pps may be little improved from where it is now. The only thing that drives the pps is an irrefutable result where the FDA is forced to act favorably, notwithstanding the BP hand that feeds them. Patient and physician demand will not permit another result denying patients a safe and relatively efficacious alternative. It is time for an accounting. It is unacceptable to remain silent because a big bad AF school yard bully gives you an embarrassing spanking. It is like a little boy hiding behind Mama's skirt with a bloody nose and afraid to confront the big bad wolf. If LP and LG are good lawyers, they should be able to handle a bully like AF. JMHO.
Why? His info should be well known to her what with the SAB, PIs and other experts advising her including Bosch and LL. If Rago came up with anything she and her advisors did not know, I would be worried.
IMHO, Rago's analysis is rather a confirmation of what NWBO knows and much more in depth. After all, LP's professionals work in this field every day. So I would assume, that to LP, Rago's analysis is nothing new other than supportive at some level. JMHO.
No, I won't be attending the ASM. I don't live in the US and have an oversees business that I need to run. I think that ASM attendees need to firmly follow up on questioning and refuse to "softball" the ASM and make clear dissatisfaction, in order to send a strong message when coupled with a significant albeit minority "no" vote that the status quo is unsatisfactory. I think IR is a disgrace. It is clear to me as a long time C executive that LG is incompetent in this role.
It is a rhetorical question as to what should have been done differently rather than silence. If LG asks such a question, and he has, then obviously he is blind to share devastation and doesn't know what to do. It is not up to me or other S/Hs to instruct him. If he is not creative enough, he should resign and make way for someone who can do rather than complain incessantly about conspirators, naked shorts and the like. Rather, it is what it is, what are you gonna do about it. Clearly the silent treatment ain't working.
I don't want to tell you how to vote, but you are sending a message of support for the status quo by voting "yes". Don't complain if after the ASM we are still essentially at status quo. By voting "yes" you essentially agree.
I can tell you that if I were within driving distance rather than half a world away, I would attend and raise hell. All these wasted conferences with 15 minute slots and expensive booths and toxic financings to fund them, all this wasted activity has resulted in $0.25!!!!. I can tell you that my board and major shareholders would not soft ball me at the ASM. It is time for an accounting. Stay tuned is a worn out mantra. Enough already. Having someone like AF run rings around two lawyers and force them to retreat into silence is embarrassing. LP/LG oughta be ashamed of themselves. Hopefully the science saves us, a BO occurs and we can move on. Current management is not up to the task of going beyond reg approval. Professionals are required. JMHO.