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 only heard of the nwbo glitch, so you conclude that is was the only glitch? Just seeing if I understand your logic.
Here's an old story about exchanges cancelling trades in a similar scenario.
https://www.cnbc.com/id/42369858
Please explain how you are so certain that this is manipulation directed at retail nwbo investors rather than an extremely brief trading glitch.
I think you are reading the 2012 text incorrectly.
The goal was to test "trading algorithms". The ability to change prices in a controlled environment was a necessary precondition for testing, not the end goal.
The recent chart looks like a one time glitch. I expect those trades were cancelled as erroneous. It happens. If someone was trying to manipulate, they would try to move the price with some subtlety, not create a flash crash.
It's a description of a coding blunder, a very expensive one. Something that was only supposed to be used in test mode was erroneously re-purposed and went live.
The statement is very clear that the code moving prices higher/lower was to verify algorithms in test mode, not manipulate live markets.
You are looking very hard for something nefarious in the everyday business of a market maker.
What you suggest is pretty much impossible to reasonably estimate, so it still tells you nothing. Obviously there are degrees of success, and the possibility of other news in the announcement. Even if it was possible, the data is subject to change.
How many more shares are issued before any announcement?
What other news appears prior to any announcement?
Is the announcement before or after warrants become un-suspended?
If you think that last point is not in play, remember how good nwbo is at estimating. 4/18 they said late May for data lock, and still no hard data lock late August.
I see no logic in your comment.
If there is positive TLD, the stock should be strong on heavy volume. That is a completely predictable result with or without naked shorting, so I don't see how it proves anything about naked shorting.
I agree. The "naked short" claims never made any sense, and has no relevance to nwbo today. No idea why some folks keep bringing up something that doesn't matter and which has zero supporting evidence.
Maybe they think the nwbo board needs its own sasquatch?
Really? What evidence and from what sources?
Do you seriously believe that any market players are giving nwbo data or documentation without subpoenas?
You're just making stuff up, like everything else related to naked shorting.
Your belief in naked shorts with zero evidence is ridiculous.
I'm #104. Most of the top 10 is not surprising.
If it is not confirmed by a statistically significant difference between treatment and control, the blended/blinded data is meaningless. That is how you prove a drug works.
If the control cohort and treatment cohort both lived longer than expected, then nwbo is back to square zero.
Proof is treatment versus control with statistical significance, not blended/blinded BS.
The SEC filings tell you what is owned versus related-party. In the UK, nwbo and its shareholders own Aracaris. They do not own Advent.
"Advent continued to be owned by Toucan Capital Fund III through 2018 and then transferred to Toucan Holdings, LLC"
"Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries NW Bio GmbH, Aracaris Ltd, Aracaris Capital, Ltd, and Northwest Biotherapeutics B.V. (collectively, the “Company”, “we”, “us” and “our”) "
You can find some limited filings for Aracaris and Aracaris Capital on the UK's Companies House site.
No, there's more than a month left in the nwbo saga. More can kicking to come.
"With this data now in hand, final quality control checking and confirmation are under way to enable Data Lock."
That's not an announcement of data lock, only to "enable" it. That does not preclude another multi-week step or two before actual data lock, or even multi-month processes.
Then they can divide the statistical work into endless bite size morsels, of course all while proclaiming nwbo still blinded.
Then you have more steps while the SAB, Steering Committee, other experts, and nwbo itself each take time to become unblinded. Then a round or two of discussions.
That will probably take long enough that the first round of warrant suspensions becomes irrelevant.
My 7/1/2021 TLD date in Evaluate's contest is still in play.
Be serious. LP does not inject her own money into nwbo.
Her loan was repaid with above market interest, plus all sorts of self-dealing kickers. Anything else is many years ago.
nwbo's detractors have consistently stated that the German tax issue is insignificant. I don't understand why, but Senti and other "loyal longs" keep bringing it up.
Since the financial impact is minimal, the SEC angle might not be about the tax issue itself. It might be about how late the 10-Q was filed given that part of the recent settlement was about chronically late filings. That's speculation, but at least a consistent story.
Think you've got that wrong on the options, Kab.
Go back to the latest proxy statement.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000110465920039528/tm2013863-1_def14a.htm
Look at the ownership table for Board members. Every reference to options is "underlying options that are currently exercisable". That totals 99.1m, and that is without including non-Director employee options. They would not have been described in that manner if they were granted, but not issued.
The "subsequent event" options are clearly in addition to the 107m.
If you doubt this, wait for the next 10-Q, and check the line for Options in the table of "Potentially Dilutive Securities".
Doc Logic, you're just guessing, and in this case guessing wrong.
A subpoena from the SEC is likely to be both broad and deep. They ask for everything; documents, meeting notes, email, phone logs, contacts, etc. Even if they already have the information, they'll get your version to cross check. Sometimes they are fishing for info. Sometimes they have a very specific target.
In the US, the first legal advice is to answer all SEC questions honestly and completely. The second advice is to not volunteer anything else unless already discussed with counsel.
UK regulation is quite different. The FCA approach is much more collaborative than punitive. When I was in London, I recall one co-worker having lunch with his (then FSA rather than FCA) regulator.
It is indisputable that Linda continually funnels more shares/warrants/options to herself while putting up no cash.
I suspect she is motivated more by absolute control than just greed. That explanation seems to fit the Jean Davis saga better.
On a fully diluted basis, 1.4 billion shares is pretty much spot on. That total is based entirely on data from the latest 10-Q, so obviously consistent with company filings.
shares outstanding 722m
potentially dilutive 454m
subsequent events 203m, comprised of:
8/5 offering: 21.8m shares + 5.3m warrants
Debt conversion: 8.8m shares + 2.5m warrants
8/5 options grants: 160.7m comprised of 26m directors, 31.4m officers for past service, 86.7m current and ongoing, 16.6m staff and consultants.
7/2 Linda self-dealing: 15.2m warrants for "forebearance"
For two supposed legal experts, Linda and Les have a very poor record dealing with regulators. Ex: SEC multiple times, NASDAQ twice.
I'd bet on the Germans knowing their tax code better than nwbo.
Still baffling that "loyal longs" want to keep this seemingly insignificant issue alive. Makes me think there is a plot twist to come.
@Senti, I don't know why you are wound up about the German tax issue. Even if nwbo capitulates, it's less than $1m.
What's another 3m shares when they gave insiders over 200m shares/warrants/options in the last 5 weeks?
Yes, nwbo blundered by delaying the 10-Q by over a month because of a nit they could have footnoted. They're current on statements now. Water under the bridge.
That was exactly my point if you took the time to read carefully.
You have a nasty habit of assuming that other posters don't know anything, which is even worse because you are so often wrong.
Up-listing isn’t the only reason to do a reverse split. It can be a sneaky way of increasing authorized shares without having shareholders vote specifically for it.
Investors are on to that game. CYTR is a microcap biotech with a CEO who has pulled some crap on investors. They voted down his RS until it was revised to decrease share authorization proportionately.
So every uptick is righteous genuine volume, and every downtick is manipulation? You seriously believe that? ROTFL
Do you have any factual evidence that there is collusion trading, or is that something you just made up?
In the long term scheme of things, a penny or two makes no difference. I do not understand the need to manufacture nonsense explanations.
nwbo traded 6.6m shares today, which is more than 2x average daily volume.
Until they are fully ready to relist on NASDAQ, it is not clear that a RS accomplishes much.
If you are thinking about institutional interest, they need to be listed and over $5 to be in the investable universe for most firms.
If nwbo was ready to relist, their market cap is above the latest Russell index reconstitution cutoff. However, so much of the market cap has been given to themselves that they might not have sufficient free float.
How is this any different than Carlo Rago being paid to write a paper that promotes nwbo?
If you see them differently because you like what Rago wrote, then that is not a fair criticism.
BP buying a percentage would increase shares outstanding even more. Unless the market price dropped on such an investment (seems unlikely), LP could not buy more shares than that on the open market.
If there is a deal that pushes the price up, the cost of buying back shares would increase. It would also make it far more likely that options/warrants/converts get exercised, which again would increase shares outstanding.
Your idea does not work.
I agree with your numbers. Way past 1.2b authorized, but they don't need them all now, so no legal or regulatory problems at present.
Details:
6/30 shares outstanding: 722.2
6/30 potentially dilutive: 454.6
Subsequent events:
8/5 offering: 21.8m shares + 5.3m warrants
Debt conversion: 8.8m shares + 2.5m warrants
8/5 options grants: 160.7m comprised of 26m directors, 31.4m officers for past service, 86.7m current and ongoing, 16.6m staff and consultants.
7/2 Linda self-dealing: 15.2m warrants for "forebearance"
In the 5 weeks since the quarter closed, subsequent events issued securities representing 30% of quarter end shares oustanding.
Let's talk warrants now that the 10-Q is out.
Back in springtime, there was a discussion of warrants exercised, expiring, extended; particularly the impact on potentially dilutive securities. Now we have conclusive answers.
Warrants from March 10-Q: 365.7m
Warrants from June 10-Q: 323.9m
So a drop of 41.8m which reflects all warrant activity in Q2.
1) As to the question of whether suspended warrants are reflected in "potentially dilutive securities", yes they are.
2) Someone's accountant was claiming 220m expirations in Q2. That claim was refuted with vigor, and correctly so.
On the Balance Sheet some of you might have noticed a large increase in "Warrant Liability". That reflects the price increase in nwbo shares during Q2, repricing some warrant strikes downward, and the time extension of some warrants. It's a noncash line, so not really a concern.
Pretty much boiler plate. Here is similar language from 424B5 filings by a couple of companies on my bioscam watch list; CYTR, AVXL.
"To facilitate the offering of securities, certain persons participating in the offering may engage in transactions that stabilize, maintain, or otherwise affect the price of the securities. This may include over-allotments or short sales of the securities, which involve the sale by persons participating in the offering of more securities than we sold to them. In these circumstances, these persons would cover such over-allotments or short positions by making purchases in the open market or by exercising their over-allotment option, if any. In addition, these persons may stabilize or maintain the price of the securities by bidding for or purchasing securities in the open market or by imposing penalty bids, whereby selling concessions allowed to dealers participating in the offering may be reclaimed if securities sold by them is repurchased in connection with stabilization transactions. The effect of these transactions may be to stabilize or maintain the market price of the securities at a level above that which might otherwise prevail in the open market. These transactions may be discontinued at any time."
"We may grant underwriters who participate in the distribution of securities an option to purchase additional securities to cover overallotments, if any, in connection with the distribution. Any underwriter may engage in overallotment, stabilizing transactions, short covering transactions and penalty bids in accordance with SEC orders, rules and regulations and applicable law. To the extent permitted by applicable law and SEC orders, rules and regulations, an overallotment involves sales in excess of the offering size, which create a short position. Stabilizing transactions permit bids to purchase the underlying security so long as the stabilizing bids do not exceed a specified maximum. To the extent permitted by applicable law and SEC orders, rules and regulations, short covering transactions involve purchases of the securities in the open market after the distribution is completed to cover short positions. Penalty bids permit the underwriters to reclaim a selling concession from a dealer when the securities originally sold by the dealer is purchased in a covering transaction to cover short positions. Those activities may cause the price of the Common Stock to be higher than it would otherwise be. If commenced, the underwriters may discontinue any of the activities at any time."
They've issued more securities that authorized (on a fully diluted basis) in the past, so do not think there is any reluctance to do so again.
Remember them selling convertible Preferred stock, except that it was not convertible until shares were freed up?
"The Series B Preferred Stock will be convertible into common stock, but only when common stock is available or after 6 months following issuance."
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000114420418002318/tv483373_8k.htm
You predicted 6/21/20 in Evaluate's contest, so clearly you have yet to realize that everything takes longer with nwbo.
They've announced mushy lock. No hard lock yet. So nwbo likely still has several months to finance prior to TLD, and will need more $ than they raised today.
nwbo needs the cash, so I agree that raising it is a good thing.
As far as the last raise before TLD, we've heard that a couple dozen times. I'll bet there is another raise (and possibly several) prior to TLD.
My 7/1/2021 prediction in Evaluate's contest is still alive.
There are no naked shorts.
Few of the 11m legal shorts are speculative in nature. Almost all are likely hedged by warrants. You can see this by looking at the history of short interest.
2020 through April, short interest was dropping to the 5m range. Why? Because the warrants needed to hedge that position were getting close to expiration.
Subsequently, short interest has risen above 11m. Why? Warrants were extended, so the short positions could be hedged again.
If nwbo stock rises significantly, a hedged short can cover by exercising warrants. No damage. No short squeeze.
You are railing against speculative shorts who simply do not exist.
"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you" - Joseph Heller (Catch-22)