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.
Perhaps I should have been a little clearer. I did not mean to suggest that the current share price or anything near that would be seen as an acceptable deal price. Surely no investor would accept anything close to today's share price. But if the deal read something like say a 20 or 40 multiple of the average closing share price of the previous ten days of trading.
But I see the issue you were pointing to, and the reason you were pointing to something like potential revenues and EBIT or EBITDA.
ATL, that is great info. Thanks. Can you per chance post similar information for rGBM?
I have another thought (speculation) on the trading battle we are seeing daily shortly before closing. This is mere speculation. Why are they so concerned if the close is half a penny up or down? In the big picture this should not matter very much when we look back say a year or so from now? Consider if NWBO has a major PR to make about now, BEFORE announcing the ASM. What if this is the announcement of some sort of partnership deal or even a BO they have been waiting to make shortly after the JA publication which has just happened big time in JAMA! One more "what if." What if the terms of the deal made was tied to the average closing price say of the last 10 days prior to the effective date of the deal. Now we have major interest on the part of the buyer BP to force the price as low as possible before closing each day. Literally BILLIONS of dollars can depend on these closing prices even if the actual value of these before-closing trades dropping only a penny or two is only a few tens of thousands of dollars, if that!
I suspect that many of you have already noticed this as it has been going on now for quite a while. The trading bot (or human) dog the trading for the shorts, has a cute ploy that is probably well know but quite effective. When there is some buying strength showing on the Bid, with a Bid Size say between 25K to 50K say at .86 for example. The sellers do not want to show bidding strength, so they "remove" (hide) this by simply entering a "higher" bid at .8601 with a Bid Size of only 1K and poof, the bidding strength has been disappeared like a magic trick and is not visible anymore to most. The same can happen in reverse on the Ask going from say ,86 to ,8599. Clear manipulation in a poorly regulated market like the OTC. I might add, that this is rigged in favor of the MMs. They can place a bid or sell at say 8601 or .8599 while the retail investor can only place their bids to three decimal places such as .861 or .859! This always puts the MM's bid as first in line, ahead of the retail investor, due to the fourth decimal place!
You've got it exactly right. The share price goes down in response to the manipulative selling by the cabal, NOT in response to the content of AF's article that no one believes anyway. Like you posted, he is merely either a "cover" for their selling, or more likely, he is the signal for all parts of the cabal to start the selling.
The LL presentation at SNO was on Nov 20 - not Nov 23. Probably a minor typo.
It is not AF who did the damage today, but the major shorts who pull his strings. Unfortunately their ability to short does not need to fade away like the influence of the AF article. Hopefully, they will choose to allow the inevitable to happen as more PRs drop from NWBO.
Follow the money - they stand to gain big time by this shorting activity. They may not do this for your run-of-the-mill small bio, but this case may be a one in a lifetime event. They definitely want a big piece of this pie.
I agree with you on this. Wish you luck in trading in the fresh air and stars on you park bench, for the stale air of heated/air-conditioned space indoors.
AF is not "successful" at all. The success is that of the major shorts' power being well funded. This is not simply a retracement. it is to sharp and well coordinated to be a sell on news. Now after the JAMA article, we will not see an 80 million share short mounted by the shorts as even they see the writing on the wall and will not get in that deep again, but they do hope to cap the stock in hope of a better deal at the bargaining table when they try to deal with LP for a piece of the pie.
AF's hit pieces do not convince anyone - all know he is a fraud. They merely signal the start of the short attack by the interested major shorts.
AF is not the cause for the shorting - he is the symptom of the shorting. Follow the money - and it leads to big BP! (not AF).
Fully agree!
No you're wrong. It is not just "one bogus article is published in a bogus rag by a bogus reporter." It is because of some determined major shorts (MM, BP and Venture Funds - very few actors in control of huge funding) who will lose billions in revenue id they do not succeed in capping NWBO and take it over cheaply. I think they all know that backruptcy is not on the table anymore.
AF won the hour - NWBO won the future!!
AF is not the reason for the 20% trimming. He is controlled by the major interests who are shorting. He is merely their poster boy. They tell him when to post his hit piece and then they begin with their shorting activity.
AF has not convinced any retail to sell. He no longer has any real influence. He is the figure head for the large interest shorts. They are already aligned to sell NWBO short. AF is merely the bugle call for the attack. He is a puppet on the real shorts strings. so yes expect a large short effort, but AF is not the cause of the shorting. He is merely the symbol for the start of the short attack. It will happen - but not due to his influence. This is a long planned and well funded short attack not of AF's making. Retailers give him power he does not have by ascribing the shorting as due to his article. This is totally false. The shorting which will happen is done by those who control AF to announce their shorting.
Not an issue if you bought shares directly from NWBO in a PIPE or by exercising warrants. In any case I suspect there are mechanisms to step in by various elements of the stock exchange to make good - so retail does not lose their shares. I have no clue on how that actually works.
Is this what you mean?
So far the only thing I have seen from the LL SNO presentation is the one slide posted by LET a little earlier.
There were four bullet points. The first three were all repeat from the JAMA article and I believe the May 10 presentation. I am not sure about the fourth bullet point. I know that better OS survival in MGMT meth patients (even without recurrence) was already known. But was the (~20%) number already known for those >5 years without recurrence already published previously or is this new info from SNO?
Of course the number of shares outstanding then was much lower than today.
A naked short killer!
Now that is very reassuring!
Next week will be AFTER the Nov 20 presentation by LL - let us hope for a serious gap up on the news she gives us to well over $2
That's a start - BUT the article on CNBC does not even mention the JAMA article and only discusses the PIII results without even mentioning the peer review.
Interesting. Is this archived anywhere where we can see this as well?
I speculate that the current shorting to cap the share price, is not your usual shorting with the standard short profit plan - that is to make a profit off the shorting activity in the belief that the stock is overpriced and they can make money on the way down. this is not what is happening now IMO.
Here we have shorting done as a service to others willing to pay for the losses incurred to those shorting, At this point in time, IMO the share price capping activity is a money losing proposition, and can only be done by someone willing to absorb those losses and pay the MMs or Venture Funds to the costly shorting to cap the stock. This then only makes sense if some BPs are willing to absorb this cost, to either buy the technology more cheaply, or to keep their competing chemo, radiation, etc in business making billions a little longer. Thus for example some BP may be willing to expense say some $100 million in losses on the share price capping activity in order to say shave some $10 BILLION of the price which makes the $100 million sound like chump change in comparison. Shorts are smart, and realize that at this point normal shorting.is a losing proposition and would cover unless some BP was willing to cover their loss and throw in a profit as well for the service. The shorting will IMO only stop once the BP are ready to throw in the towel and ready to pony up what NWBO is worth once they realize that is the only path to getting this technology from NWBO. Driving them into bankruptcy is no longer a viable option and capping the share price will only become more expensive until that is no longer a viable option as well. BP need to prepare to write big check.
yup, I moved all my shares from margin accounts into cash accounts. (but this does not always help - it depends on the broker agreement).
I agree. the ASM announcement will probably follow shortly and be held this year.
Can that be part of what we hope to hear on Nov 20 from LL? Would 10 minutes be too short for that?
I suspect he may be walking to the highest bridge he can find.
So how long now before CNBC finally picks up the story!
WOW, they kept the secret that long!!
Thanks for the info.
Do you know what is the source for the information contained in this chart? Is it from a gov or agency source, or is it from some deductive or speculative reasoning? If a gov or agency source, can you provide a link?
I'm not a doctor, but I suspect you are wrong on this. I strongly suspect that if there is a significant tumor nodule they will definitely resect a second time (if the patient is strong enough) and the bonus will be they can make a more precise and matched lysate to the current tumor V 2.0 with improved immune response. Sure the cure rates are good, but why settle for "good" when you could have (much?) "better."
Got it, thanks Bio. SOW6 is merely the name of a document. It does mean that ir has six component workstreams within it. The name could have been SOW25XB if they so chose. By coincidence it happens to have 6 workstreams which what was causing the confusion.
Why was it not called SOW5 rather than SOW6, if there were only 5 SOWs initially?