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.
Les is not investor relations.
What you mean is you just make stuff up and post it.
You can say what you think volatility is and I will say what I think it is. My definition is broadly accurate. You may have a personal definition. That’s fine. Mine apples broadly. It is a volatile stock and persons who buy it need to invest with that in mind as well as the other cautions that go with investing in pre-approval, pre-revenue microcap biotechs.
Then they can steal the IP for nothing and sell it off, or patent troll. It’s basically legalized, more sophisticated, mafia. Crooks who “went legit”.
It’d be a shame if anything ould a happen to your nice company… duh.
You’re blowing smoke Smitty.
Fantastic post sharpie. I had also seen through the 21st Century Cures act it was the intention to make more such drugs available to patients. But this is even better, additional direct confirmation of the fact.
I don’t know that to be the case. Many of us advocated for people to average down when it was in the teens and low .20 range especially. It is very easy and in fact cheap to lower one’s price for many fewer shares when you bought at a very high price and also possible to grow one’s investment dollars in a portfolio when one harvests losses against gains and rebalances.
People should not invest in segments like this if they can’t handle the volatility. Volatility is clearly a huge part of the ride and profit, but it’s also a huge part that distinguishes investors. Most people should obviously be in indexes and even then a lot of smart people who have not prepared themselves can compound losses by buying high, when there is market euphoria and FOMO and then selling in fear during market crashes like 2008 and even during COVID.
This is part of markets and understanding one’s risk tolerances. For those needing cash, buying at .17 and .20 and selling well above $2.00 would likely have well compensated people for their losses. If they decided to hold while shorts squeezed us a second round, which was predictable especially waiting for approval and even after approvals, if you watch the sector, then those investors were making a choice to hold as long as it takes to get the full benefit. They obviously could have traded. I held onto my shares when I could have sold at huge profit at that $2.51 and above $2.00 range myself. Might not have been the best move, but as I said. I am well positioned in terms of average price, and I do make it a point to rebalance by selling shares that were at higher prices early on against gains in other stocks, which allowed me to net, keep the gain and rebalance. Generally I bought more NWBO after the relevant period to an ensure I got the full tax benefit and also got the best price. Virtually all of my shares are .20 and below. With a good chunk at .17.
People lose money buying Apple too. But during long stretches in this stock, the 5 year and even 2 year period for holding showed very good gains not easily found in many other investments, though we have had some fantastic, historical gains in certain technology stocks and that will likely continue. Technology is easier in some ways, because you have almost instant satisfaction once companies are well established and they create hit products. However, fortunes can turn quickly, or seem to turn. That might last or just be a passing moment of market anxiety and fear.
The fact is, this team steered this to a successful completion of a very difficult trial, set-up so because of ethical and regulatory concerns at the beginning of the immunotherapy journey. But most reliable experts seem to agree this is likely to be approved and to be shown to ultimately be a very meaningful breakthrough in oncology. I expect there will be many others as large resources are being channeled into oncology research and immunotherapies. But this treatment has one big advantage, the end product vaccine is not a batch of highly modified cells that will react in unexpected ways like killing patients or creating new cancers, like Car-T, which enjoyed a huge bubble.
For simplicity’s sake in the averaging down, we could take any number investment or dollar amount, but let’s say someone bought 1,000 shares at $12, costing $12,000. And they watched the stock decline to .20. Let’s say they took another $12,000, then and purchased shares for the full amount possible. That would be 60,000 shares. Now they have 72,000 shares. If they sold at .3333 per share they’d be breaking even. At $2.51, they had $180,720. Today they would have $41,148, but in September they could have sold for $75,600.
Not underwater and with lots of potential excitement ahead. But anyone buying these stocks knows and has to know whether it is NWBO or it was REGN during their very long journey to validation, a total loss is always possible. People buy these stocks for the volatility and opportunity that they provide upon success, not on average during the day to day swings. Though clearly there are some traders who do trade in and out and we know that some of them here have explained that they think this stock has been volatile like clockwork and that was easy for them to do and they did so quite profitably, ultimately some indicating it allowed them to really grow their stake. Some of those persons today would apparently be loathe to admit their claims over the years, to that effect, but I was here and see those posts. No foul. That is what they did. But those who do so while changing the narrative they amplify on each swing trade, those folks, I think, play dirty. Trading is fine, manipulation is not.
That doesn’t even make sense. Many institutional investors invest directly to get maximum value and that kind of investment no matter the stage of the company is dilutive. However, when it delays dilution, it’s also a positive thing. Now if you mean buying secondary shares, that is not direct investment and since they are not on a major market like NASDAQ and are a penny stock, that is not their current issue.
However, investors who can invest in company’s not on a major exchange will, assuming approval, have the ability to accumulate at a substantial discount to ultimate value. And for some investors like me, this has meant volatility, but of course I remain solidly in the green, having been up more than 10 times my investment and now over 2 times my investment, and for institutional investors that are allowed high risk, comes high potential rewards like that.
I hear you. Tools are great. AI is useful. Computers are great. Smart phones too. But putting an experimental chip in your brain so that you don’t have to type or speak, if you have those capabilities, is maybe not so ideal. If you were Stephen Hawking and felt it was critical to your becoming you, I think it’s more justifiable and reasonable.
Some aspects of improving our health and capabilities I agree with, others I have some concerns about at this stage of their development, and also some of the philosophical and practical notions that fuel them.
No mention of Merck or Pfizer or any other commercial company either. It’s not a commercial event.
I did admit I was wrong, on that number and yes, but you basically repeated what I said.
No, I realized later that I understated… meant to say millions. Millions of shares would be normal at that stage. 10, 20, 50, 60.
Yes, you basically affirmed my main point, you just needed to pretend it was all your point. I get it.
Everything else basically you repeated.
My point was that the number is adjusted, no one payed the price stated for those shares. It was not my major point as to how many shares they had outstanding, and yeah, not the focus, the focus was basically that that number is a calculated one and that companies that have long-development periods for expensive regulated areas like drugs, tend to require investors who understand what that entails. Shorts use that information to imply things that while “true” technically, can also be used to deceive, as larger context is basically always required in these circumstances, context they conveniently leave out to sell an simplified story, for their own purposes.
You basically just repeated what I said. The multi-thousand dollar share price is a reverse calculation. No one bought those shares for the price indicated. It basically undies adjustments to shares and dilution.
But anyone and their mother knows that companies that have huge regulatory hurdle, and no commercial business until that is completed, will need to dilute like mad. That is this sector. Understanding it before you invest is a necessary part of investing.
The 2018 ASCO Expert theater presentation allowed patients to discuss their experiences, and there was at least one non-gbm patient there. Unfortunately, the company seems to have removed many of those old videos. But the CEO, I believe, has also previously discussed that they have a wide range of compassionate use data. I expect you know where to actually find it if you want to do so.
It seems nuts to me but it’s all about transhumanism. I think people are going to run the risk of damaging themselves and their brains, long-term. But maybe people don’t want to live long anymore either. Or they actually believe if you download their memories into a computer they are actually “immortal”.
Fascinating sci-fi, but I suspect that people will eventually be disillusioned. In the meantime, it lets some entrepreneurs capture imaginations and use that attention to keep funding their other ventures.
Yeah, it’s a whole scam for shorts to play the role of “disgruntled longs”, “seeking transparency” , “shareholder advocates”… They do it because legally it protects them in their manipulative activities, it’s a legally acceptable role, but we all know some of those “advocates” are completely insincere and their aims are more about price manipulation or worse. And they understand that these companies must dilute to survive, and if they suppress the price, they ensure much more dilution, so it’s an easy and profitable run, doesn’t even really matter the company. I won’t speak to any one person.
It was never $1300 per share, that is a “calculated” price based on the fact that it probably only had tens of thousands of shares issued at the beginning. Many small start-up bios with long development periods for a new kind of platform like this, have similar stats, for the very same reason. Anyone investing in those early years typically figured out they have to manage for the long development period. It does not define the potential for profit in the future and in fact I have bought in recent years and been up by as much as 10 times my investment and more and still am up a good amount as they prepare for commercial launch by seeking approvals.
I think Musk has his reasons for making his arguments. While Chinese batteries are supposedly advanced, you have all kinds of disasters with exploding cars there way worse than here. And my understanding is the government is buying massive fleets of cars that no one wants, because they are not good, and so those many thousands of course are graveyarded in China. This subsidizes their ability to go into other markets, with inferior products, claiming they are better. But everyone knows in truth that their manufactured products are not of quality. Chinese people in China, that are not CPC who need to, for their safety, always say otherwise, know that to be the case.
The reasons are likely not clear rather than a failing of the study. My understanding is there are various other studies that have found that 30-40% of nGBM patients receiving the standard of care convert from unmethylated to methylated MGMT status. But it's still an area being studied. Meaning we don't absolutely know what happens to patients receiving the standard of care, but the nature of their tumor tissue may change.
We know that methylated MGMT patients with DCVax-L have a much higher rate of survival than the same patients in the external control arm, the mOS being just over 30 months, rather than 21 months for the placebo arm, an increase of 142% for the median patients receiving DCVax-L so categorized. That is very possibly going to extend survival for a good chunk of those patients with DCVax-L substantially, but it's not an absolutely known factor, something that is being studied and upon which this study was not focused.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/2798847
I did not say they were a national exchange. Your desire to argue this point and pretend to be an expert on these matters, when you’re not, is noted.
I did not say they were a national exchange. In fact I said the other exchanges are SRO’s.
I’ve already explained what triggered the massive issuance of shares, it was not some “scam” by NWBO, it was basically a scam by shorts, but shorts are allowed to rob companies and their shareholders, this is part of the problem currently with the regulation of our exchanges, yes, even the NASDAQ… criminals in charge. Bernie Maddoff was the CHAIRMAN of the NASDAQ.
Shareholder authorization was not the issue with those shares issued. And no, if you have shares available you can issue them to raise funds. Every issuance does not require shareholder authorization because they are authorized when you create the shares for management to run the company and continue to finance it. No shares were issued without shareholder authorization, just just put a big lie in your post.
The shares that led to the delisting were required by previously authorized contract. There was never an issue if that contract was authorized. The issue was that the NASDAQ counted those topping up shares issued over a period of time in the same period and the company needed to issue more shares for their current requirements, that it debt. They chose to delist because they did not want to take on more debt and they did not want to do so AND do a reverse split to save their listing. It made no sense to do all of that and undermine the confidence of their supportive shareholders through it all. It would have been extremely risky and exactly NOT the circumstances in which you would want to do a r/s.
Shorts were trying to back them into a corner and constantly try to get regulators to take punitive actions against them intentionally to create the very narrative you are laying out. It’s part of a game for shorts. And there is likely always also someone standing with open arms to be the black hatted “white knight” to take advantage of them on the other side as well. Shorts rip these companies off and the shareholders and then project the blame onto the companies and the shareholders that defend them.
It’s all indirect, using markets, legally attacking them, undermining them through third-parties, so the opportunity to stay behind the reach of the law and make easy money, is just too tempting for some spoiled brats in our society.
No, you're incorrect. I was correct. I said the same SEC rules apply and they do. There is no special distinction for OTCQB.
What you are describing are SRO rules, and those rules I did not reference. SRO, self-regulatory organizations, including the national exchanges, have their own additional rules.
However, the bulk of rules and the most important ones that involve disclosure, are SEC rules. SRO rules are very nice to have, but they are NOT a pink sheet company which is one of the wrong things shorts repeat.
No, the reason the NWBO dropped off of the NASDAW was about shorts destroying their financing for years back by attacking their past financings but not saying so. I've explained this many times. That triggered contractual clauses that yes, by their nature and the fact that they were years worth of financing at very favorable terms, had to be refinanced at very unfavorable terms because of the short destruction of the share price. The end result was the re-issuance of shares that had been used for payment at favorable prices of many more shares at unfavorable prices to pay their supplier who was obligated not to sell those shares, for cash payment. Obviously when you have spent money as a supplier, and agree to hold shares used as payment, they have to be topped up if the share price crashes. This is a common attack by shorts and yes, it required that they either, delist, or go into massive debt. They chose not to go into such massive debt, but rather to honor the contract and issue the share in payment. The shorts understood that either option was terrible, but issuing the shares would basically ensure that their short positions were profitable. This is why they attack those clauses, called most favored nations clauses (meaning the holder of the previously issued shares in payment, get the benefit of the pricing for future issuances).
They had to pay their bills. The reality is, the exchanges are best for established companies, not development stage biotechs. They really do not have rules that accommodate companies that are more like private equity than public equity. Many of the things you point out, are not uncommon for these tiny companies, but also do not necessarily mean what shorts suggest when they create the cascade of circumstances that allow them to destroy and then gobble up these companies and their assets.
What can you do. The style of shorts is to choke out forums with immense amounts of noise. Apparently this is what Inquirig is here to do.
I don’t pump, but yes, Advent is the responsible party in UK, for a drug that is not licensed and sold under the Specials program. But misstating whose drug it is, who is responsible for it and whose business ultimately it is, is yours and Inquirg’s lie, not NWBO’s.
You are incoherent.
Already have many times including to you. You don’t care about conclusive proof, you make up your own reality to perpetuate your fud and lies. What is your purpose here if not to do that?
Sorry, it’s established directly by UCLA officially and its personnel as DCVax-L. Your efforts to sow confusion are sad, but expected.
You’re misinformed and putting out false information. But nothing new for you.
They are not on pink sheets. They are on OTC. The same SEC regulations apply here as elsewhere. You really need to keep better informed.
I refer to her as “Bride of HyGro”.
You’re about to go on ignore because you play it both ways pretending you’re just kidding, but harassing. I would suggest you get lost.
No one here is likely paid but shorts.
I am definitely not paid and have no interest or desire to be paid.
It must really upset you that your lack of sophistication is so obvious. You keep posting at me, but I don’t really care.
Well, ordinary investors chatting about their stocks is a reality. Watch Dumb Money.
The unfortunate thing for shorts is we’re all on to you now, and we do our own thing to counter.
If you don’t like it, that’s your problem.
The older personas were not very credible anymore, so, they launder with new ones or ones they’ve used for other drugs and forums. My guess is some have maybe switched sides, still critical but more the “disgruntled and disillusioned” than the full on basher, undermining with concern posts and similar critiques. I think they are starting to think the handwriting is on the wall in terms of likely approval, and now they need to keep the market from too much positivity. Squeezing shares from and discouraging longs tends to be a tactic at this stage also, I believe.
Hi Chiugray, and maybe think about them as range of potential market size as well as potential market cap, not necessarily actual. Obviously much depends on assumptions, execution, ability to deliver DCVax-L and various other factors. But in terms of the opportunity ahead, many want us to presume that based only on brain tumors and the UK, you can’t expect much, and I think just looking at the basic potential says otherwise.
They will try to distract with other arguments as well, no doubt. But the basics are all there for massive growth and opportunity, not even looking beyond to a general cancer vaccine and other opportunities which I think will also come more rapidly than some want to suggest. Not immediately, and clearly the company wants to meet the most obvious and clear demand first, and some doctors will be forward thinking and have patients who want off-label options.
This has major potential and there are people saying it’s a tiny puddle. The market may believe a range of narratives. I just wanted to rationally discuss what I think is potentially reasonable. Some of the numbers may ultimately come in smaller. They might not get as broad a label everywhere for brain tumors maybe? But I suspect the new data, and past decisions by regulators suggest they are likely willing to give the broadest label.
Right now, the way shorts seem to want to keep it down is by not being so uncredible as their old arguments would be at this time, and trying to downplay the opportunity, even if they get approved.
Honestly, agreed on all points Gary. Thought you sounded a little less excited in that previous post but I think I misunderstood. Thanks for the clarification.
Given the potential after the UK approval, I agree that a 30 multiple would be justifiable given the larger markets them just likely ahead.
I wrote this on my phone and kind of quickly and corrected my self as I went along, but let’s not say actual market cap but potential addressable market after all the discounting. I do think the later numbers are reasonable estimates for a potential market cap as well, ultimately and assuming a credible commercial company exists, which likely means deep pockets backing. And it is not a share price estimate as that depends on dilution as well, ultimately.
Surprisingly negative post Gary.
I do not generally put up numbers but I don’t intend to sell for $3 per share either.
So, I am breaking my general rules to put up some numbers that I do not think are unrealistic, to bat about. These are not trillions nor every cancer under the sun. In fact, I think they miss huge categories like recurrent patients and patients from markets beyond the big 4 we have already potentially just ahead.
Let’s consider first the UK.
Market size of the UK, of course I do not necessarily presume all patients could be operated on or be patients getting DCVax-L, though I do think there will be a lot of off-label patients with other cancers who may want to get DCVax-L, if they can, once it is approved.
However, here is what ChatGPT said about the size of the brain tumor market broadly defined as in the new application, in the UK, but it has a hard time coming up with a recurrent patient set of numbers, mainly newly diagnosed:
I’m not one who puts out future market caps. I do believe the reforms will get DCVax-L treating other cancers far faster than the old dogs around here looking to old rules.
However, has anyone noticed that shorts saying it won’t be approved have been replaced by new ID’s trying to convince people that the market cap can’t go higher than…. But they don’t specify?
I agree there are unrealistic ideas and numbers bandied about. But suddenly all the new negative posters are here mostly to beat on people who have been here for years, and suggest they don’t know anything. Which is amusing.
Seems like there has been a change in the negative sentiment mostly conceding approval, now mainly trying to keep any euphoric rise and optimism tamped down. New ID’s replace the old ones, but some sound like previous posters. And of course the old ID’s make cameos still.
Just saying, there is a whole different conversation focus now, and mostly, though there are a few reminders or minor newbie shorts, the focus is on approval and post approval market cap.
Something has changed.
Just my thoughts Eagle but my pleasure as always, to share. Have a great weekend ahead!
No, just that financial markets and coverage of them and companies in them is very carefully managed by papers and major media to avoid promoting things that may not be reliable. They'd happily promote Dr. Liau and UCLA. But honestly, it seems like Duke is perhaps better at self-promotion than UCLA. There is a lot of noise in the US as well. Many, many companies claiming that they have "The Answer". Media are terrible distinguishing them from one another. They'll tell just about any story. But say "penny stock" and that's a deal killer in terms of certain kinds of reporting. And even then, like I said, you have plenty of companies that are NOT penny stocks and the coverage focuses on the doctors, patients and trial without often mentioning the company names. Science reports are seen differently. But, often it is hard to get the attention of general media. Science media, as I said, will cover. And we saw LOTS of reports in science media about the clinical trial. But those are not general interest media, which means your dad or uncle or mom, aunt or sister is not going to likely hear about it unless they happen to read very narrow science coverage in industry related media typically.
I will note that there was surprisingly less coverage of the Phase 3 JAMA publication in the UK media than the interim results publication. So the US is not unique. I did not see it in Canada, and I'd expect that we'd have heard about German coverage if it had occurred. So the US is not unique. It's just the nature of things. Some stories are too complicated for major media to really parse what is significant and what is not and without approval and more news of patients living long with GBM, you're probably not going to see a lot of curious journalists promoting the story.
Thanks. Was not aware she was so poetic. :)