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.
NWBO management never talked up the prospect of reimbursement revenues! That is just a false memory! It never never happened.
Given that clinicaltrials.gov has a history of being inaccurate when it comes to the completion date of NWBO trials, yes, it is reasonable for anyone to doubt that November 2016 will finally be the endpoint collection date.
Hear! Hear!
Last December, NWBO investors got coal from Santa Claus. Maybe this time will be different.
Dividends don't lie. Just buy valuable dividend payers whenever the market beats them up. That is and has been my primary strategy, even now.
Unless you're in a penny stock like NWBO you're not going to care. Too bad we are.
We have to distinguish between fake investigations by law firms and actual lawsuits.
Unless Ms. Powers takes a hammer to the company mobile phones everything will come out during the discovery process of an actual lawsuit.
Remember that anyone who wants to actually sue has to have standing, in other words be a shareholder.
So the best way to turn those investigations into real lawsuits is to keep alienating shareholders with total silence.
If these lawyers want to announce investigations they can do that now, and have the initiative.
They would probably find a lot of takers among shareholders now given our frustration.
And yet...nothing.
The litigation is just a convincente excuse for not informing shareholders about almost anything.
At this point it wouldn't shock me if Ms. Powers used a cut-out to sue NWBO to give her an excuse for not being transparent. Far fetched? Yes, but no more or less than the invisible wolf pack that sounds like a low budget horror movie.
I know the mentality that tells us to average down, so I cannot criticize anyone for buying more. It is just that I think most of us have risked enough to take a well earned pay day if we are right. Why risk more?
That is a pretty cogent explanation, I have to hand it to you.
While it does not prove that the wolfpack exists, it does prove that it would be hard to define.
Ever heard of refinancing debt?
Isn't that, basically raising debt to pay off debt?
People do it with their credit cards and mortgages all the time. Sometimes it is to lower their monthly payment, other times to get a better rate of interest, and still other times just to consolidate several loans into one.
Yes and that is one of the comparatively few verifiable facts about NWBO.
Even though air is (usually) invisible to the naked eye, scientists can name its composition here on Earth and even on other planets.
Scientists can tell us what percentages of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and oxygen the atmosphere anywhere consists of.
So unlike Larry Smith, scientists who make a study of the atmosphere do a great deal of research and do not just repeat the same claims over and over without research.
Mr. Smith first raised his wolf pack allegation a long time ago and has had plenty of time to do the digging needed to substantiate his accusations against unknown parties.
Also, being a lifelong Floridian I have seen both hurricanes and even a water spout, (a tornado or twister on the ocean) I can assure you that neither of these things are invisible.
As to the confession:
Let's stipulate for that just a moment that it is all true and still going on in the same way 8 years later and that it is now going on with NWBO.
Most of what Cramer is talking about relies upon a company not knowing how this works and just allowing representatives of the hedge funds to be the only ones talking to journalists etc.
There is a reason you need a good PR and IR operation and you need to do quarterly conference calls etc.
If someone gets fed a line of bull by a hedge fund, they need to know the name of your PR person and know that 24/7 they can call and get the actual truth.
NWBO has not built that relationship with journalists and has not been transparent, even with its own shareholders.
As a result, assuming it exists, the wolfpack would dominate the discourse about NWBO and its prospects and deservedly so.
Which hedge funds did Mr. Smith name as belonging to the Wolf Pack? I do not recall.
There is no Wolfpack.
If there is, then name even one member with accompanying proof.
Otherwise maybe invisible gremlins are dragging down the share price. I have as much proof of that as there is for any Wolfpack.
Instead, given that shares of speculative biotechs only stay aloft based on news, since they have no profits to speak of, NWBO is at 40 cents or so a share because of management's decision to:
1. Not refute the Phase V allegations for a year
2. Alienate Neil Woodford by not coming clean with him, thus costing us our only source of non-toxic financing
3. Not provide much in the way of meaningful updates about pretty much anything for over a year.
Bear in mind that while many of shareholders like myself can afford to buy and hold other shareholders might experience changes in their life circumstances where we need to tap into some of the capital we invested. That is why there is an obligation under the law for management to make every reasonable effort to preserve shareholder value and such a high risk - no reward "tactic" would be a great way for them to spend the rest of their lives fending off lawsuits from former investors.
NWBO is trading at $0.435 a share.
Thus, buying 136,834 shares does not take that much money (in the grand scheme at least) and is almost certainly not a sign of anything big happening, especially with such a naturally volatile stock like NWBO.
There is no evidence of any wolfpack outside of Larry Smith's fevered imagination.
He has not named, to my knowledge, even one company or individual involved.
Not one.
As an online journalist, he is protected from civil liability unless it can be shown that he had actual malice in printing something untrue.
Actual malice would consist of printing false information to try and harm someone or to print it out of a "reckless disregard for the truth."
So, if Mr. Smith is scared to name names on his blog, it must be that he does not have information that would stand up against a libel suit.
My 3rd anniversary as an NWBO shareholder was last month so when you say things like this I have to strongly disagree:
However, 5 to 6 months seems way beyond the pale.
Knowing the way this company moves I would not be surprised if they took the full 6 months.
Glad I only bought straight shares, although dilution means that they are more time sensitive than we realized at least it takes them a lot longer to become worthless.
If we are going to be asked to make a concession then I believe we are entitled to a lot more granularity from management on a whole host of matters.
Responsibility? That's right, I'm actually one of the NWBO BOD and just forgot. I could have fixed this the WHOLE time.
There is little interest in this stock chiefly because NWBO has stopped communicating with their stakeholders or the media and existing retail shareholders who once touted to their friends have nothing good to say and would not suggest that a friend or family member consider starting their own due diligence to buy in.
Institutions are likewise staying away since NWBO is the stock equivalent of a junk bond and does not even fit the criteria to be held by most funds. Those that might have been interested would be turned off by the conflicts of interest with Cognate and the total lack of management accountability and transparency to shareholders. They can also see how Neil Woodford took a hit to his reputation by buying big and then being told to go to heck when he asked for modest corporate governance changes and a truly independent investigation into serious allegations of wrongdoing by NWBO management.
So who is left then to invest in NWBO:
1. Toxic financing firms that demand warrants so they turn around and short the stock they were just paid with.
2. Battered existing retail investors who have already been at this for years and have been told to "stay tuned" for so long that the only reason they haven't left is becausr they have little left to lose. But that is not a recipe to buy more.
At this price level the justification that we must somehow forgo desperately desired information out of fear of manipulators just falls flat.
Maybe that argument worked at $10 or $8 or $6 or even $3 a share but not way down here.
If shareholders have to endure the negatives of losing 90% of our equity we should at least also experience the benefits.
The only benefit I hear touted down here is to buy more but we cannot do that without more information.
NWBO also had several ways to win but unless those ways are not dependent on each other (and apparently they are) then they don't add up to much (say 40 cents or so a share).
That logic works with a low risk investment but many if not most retail investors have invested what we can safely risk and perhaps more. After 10 years in trials, it is time for NWBO to prove out and we need the maximum not the minimum amount of information possible to make an informed decision about whether to keep throwing good money after what, based upon the track record for conpsnies of this market cap, is likely bad.
Just beware that NWBO investors with a much higher cost basis including far more skilled and experienced ones like Neil Woodford also thought they were buying in at a good time.
There are several seemingly positive aspects of the company's performance they can talk about that would help us, the owners of NWBO better understand our company:
1. When will we see Direct Phase 1 complete data? This is an OPEN LABEL trial.
2. What indications will we be studying in Direct Phase 2?
3. When will Direct Phase 2 commence?
4. When will the facility at Sawston go online?
5. What is the full current data for the Phase 3 Open Label information Arm?
Dilution is not the issue, dilution with next to no accountability and transparency is the issue. This is a publicly traded company being run like a privately-held firm.
Thanks for the answer, Mr. Goldman's stock just went up in my book!
Mr. Goldman's reassurances to concerned investors reminds me of a character from Foundation by Isaac Asimov:
"Lord Dorwin, gentlemen, in five days of discussion didn’t say one damned thing, and said it so you never noticed."
When has Les ever been negative? It is okay to be an optimist and all that but when one is positive no matter what happens then being positive does not really show whether or not things are going well.
With NWBO there is just nothing left to talk about. As an NWBO investor I feel like I am on the Ghost Ship of Fools drifting on the Sargasso Sea.
NWBO's share price certainly reflects all of this invisible urgency.
Good luck getting NWBO to explain how the money raised via dilution is actually spent and whether they are paying at, below or above the market rate for the goods and services in question.
At this point a lot of NWBO investors would be happy just to come out of this with what we put in (minus inflation, transaction costs and opportunity costs of course).
When Fiercebiotech talks about NWBO it is almost always negative. Also and respectfully, we are well past the point of getting excited about non-specific mentions of cancer vaccines. Instead it is high time to start hearing about NWBO and DCVax both mentioned by name in an article.
If this mysterious investor were good news, his participation would have been heralded by NWBO not left a matter of speculation.
Good point, we retail investors have all outlived our usefulness to NWBO.
Mr. Feuerstein, would you be willing to share the identity of the new investor right before the regulatory filing would come out?
In this way you would not cause anyone to have an unfair advantage in trading of whatever is causing you to not simply share this knowledge now.
You raise a fair point although I would point out that since some predicted Neil Woodford specifically, refuting their position was also legitimate.