The next 10-Q will include events through 3/31/20, and a few subsequent events like the April financing.

You won't find out about warrant expirations that occur this quarter until August, when the 10-Q through 6/30/20 is published.

You are correct that the number expiring will be way less than 200m based on the average life numbers in the last 10-K.

New norm? Surely you jest.

"This is not the kind of evidence associated with a failed trial"


This is not the kind of evidence associated with any historical trial. There are no comparable trials. Yet you magically claim that all of that collective weirdness must mean a wildly positive result?

I validated nothing.

Let me invalidate some of your post.

Would investors be better off if nwbo had sold out five years ago? Yes, and dramatically so. 5/1/2017 nwbo price was $8.40, with a much smaller base of shares outstanding. nwbo was flush with cash from the sales to Woodford. Raising cash was relatively easy.

The subsequent value destruction over the past 5 years is stunning.

A new trial would have treated ~400 patients, mostly at top teaching hospitals. Even if dcvax does nothing, SOC at such hospitals is probably better than whatever happened. Instead, ZERO new patients treated.

Unfortunately that is impossible to know. As of 12/31/19, we do know the following:

- 359m warrants outstanding

- 1.42 years average life (17 months, so average expiration May, 2021)

- $0.27 weighted average exercise price.

I am not aware of anyplace the data is broken out in detail. Even if you went back through the history, there have been multiple warrant modification deals that change both expiration and strike price. There have also been further deals in 2020.

Most investors would be better off if nwbo had become a subsidiary of a better funded company. Cancer science might have advanced. Patients could certainly be better off.

Linda Powers might be a tad less rich and out of a job, but still able to retire in considerable luxury.

Doclogic,

nwbo has never explained the hold on enrollment, yet you now claim as fact that the FDA didn't want to enroll further placebo patients?

Got a source, or just choosing a possibility that fits your narrative?

How many years since this trial treated a new patient?

Patients would be a lot better off if nwbo spent the last 5 years running a new properly designed trial (treating ~400 new patients instead of zero) rather than wasting those years trying to cram a square peg into the FDA's round holes.

Despite starting your reply with the word no, most of what you wrote is consistent with my post.

If past trial designs (like NWBO's very old trial) are inadequate, they are unlikely to result in approvals.

You seem to think that means the FDA should ignore all its procedures, ignore bad trial design, and approve dcvax regardless.

I think it means taking everything that has been learned the last 15 years (including the points you mention), design new protocols and endpoints, and run a new trial that actually does prove efficacy.

And as usual, any comparison to Optune is irrelevant (to FDA approval, not to patients) as it was approved as a medical device.

"All of these trials fail because the treatments don't work, but I think a larger part is we're not designing the trials right. But part of it is that it's difficult to provide these trials if you truly want to do what's best for your patient. " - Liau

Wow. Anyone thinking nwbo is a slam dunk ought to read that over many times.

Linda Powers has fed 71m shares into the market this year through early April. Seems like a "BUTT TON" to me. There are plenty of shares available to anyone who needs them.

Thank you for my laugh of the day.

Linda Powers does not pay for anything related to nwbo securities, at least not for the last decade. Her Board gives her these things; outright share gifts, options, warrants for loan forebearance (loan fully repaid, so no fresh cash invested).

You somehow think she would now be treated as a mere mortal, like any other holder of D-1 warrants? ROTFL

Think this through again.

If someone holds "in the money" warrants, they would be getting shares directly from nwbo (cashless or cash exercise). Then they would deliver those shares to their broker to close the short.

There is no market transaction that would affect the pps.

Do you believe that LP's warrants do not have the ability to cashless exercise? Otherwise there would be no reason to leave free shares on the table, and certainly not her style.

My expectation is that her hand-picked Board will extend her warrants and lower the strike price. Or maybe replace the expiring warrants with more 10-year options.

How could they comment on the probability of success if they are still blinded?

They can't. We are in complete agreement on that point.

However, that has not stopped many posters here from believing they did, or from thinking it is a slam dunk success.

No doubt your ASM skepticism is well founded.

Giving some indication that the end is in sight is a positive, if only because it means fewer months to finance hand to mouth. They haven't hit a timeline yet, but maybe this is the one.

What was not in the PR was anything to indicate a higher probability of success. The IDH stuff is likely important to patients and researchers, but noise (and some delay) as far as the nwbo trial. Small subgroups are a topic for future research, not something that gets FDA approval.

Warrants are nothing but an insurance policy for shorts.

Disagree. There are 5.7m shares shorted (per FINRA), and about 350m warrants outstanding, so there's only about 2% of warrants needed for hedging.

The rest is speculative appeal and can be valued. In fact, nwbo's balance sheet values outstanding warrants at $20.2m as of 12/31/2019. The footnotes state that they use Monte Carlo simulation and the Black-Scholes model.

The warrant liability value changes over time with stock price (down since year end, decrease), maturity extensions (increase), strike prices negotiated down (increase), and new issuance (increase). It can also change with assumptions about volatility.

But who is selling at these prices? Linda Powers.

nwbo ended 2019 with 614.3m shares outstanding.

The latest prospectus supplement says that after selling 19m there would be 685m outstanding.

That's 70.7m issued from 12/31/2019 through 4/9/2020, which works out to right around 1m for every trading day.

Linda Powers was a willing seller at $0.153, and actually somewhat lower since there is some value to warrants and warrant extensions.

Your link shows daily shorting by market makers doing their job to balance the books.

That is not the same thing as "short interest" as reported by FINRA.

It is not evidence of naked short selling.

6/30/2021 - Everything related to nwbo takes longer than expected. No idea what will delay it, but taking the "over" bet on any nwbo date is usually a winner.

Everything related to nwbo naked shorting is a red herring.

You are correct that it originated with Larry Smith, who was banned as an analyst. His only justification was fails-to-deliver data, which the SEC says is wrong. When this was pointed out to him (on SeekingALpha), his response was "crickets".

Any ihub expectations for a short squeeze are either inexperience or deliberate attempts to deceive.

The idea that nwbo management wants to "trap shorts" is laughable given that they feed 30m to 50m shares into the market every quarter.

The 5.7m nwbo short interest reported on the FINRA site is all legal shorts. There is no requirement for those to be covered.

There is no "naked short list". The SEC does have a "fails to deliver" list. nwbo was on that 3 times in late March, for less than 10,000 shares each time. That's just noise.

In addition, the SEC has made it abundantly clear that fails-to-deliver should NOT be interpretted as an indication of naked short selling.

"Please note that fails-to-deliver can occur for a number of reasons on both long and short sales. Therefore, fails-to-deliver are not necessarily the result of short selling, and are not evidence of abusive short selling or “naked” short selling."

Source: https://www.sec.gov/data/foiadocsfailsdatahtm

There is usually a PR to announce the results of the votes at the annual meeting, so definitely expect that much.

It will be interesting to see if the PR includes anything more.

“Trial is do do”... is that a technical term?

Yes, the FDA uses that term to refer to any trial that has gone more than 3 years without an update on clinicaltrials.gov

Serious question - Is this some bizarre sort of British humor, or are you just being deliberately daft?

Anyone who follows nwbo knows the period for nwbo falling 98%. Anyone not living in a cave without internet has a good idea of the period for market impact of COVID-19.

I am utterly amazed that anyone could read Brightboy's post and have any doubt to his meaning.

The original email is obviously comparing peak-to-current loss, which are different time periods for nwbo's $12 to $0.17 slide and the recent S&P 500 drop from peak.

I suspect it will be mid-August that you get real clarity on warrant expirations.

The next 10-Q will be reported as of 3/31/20, so not reflecting any April/May expirations. The overall average expiration may give us some color on Q1 warrant extensions and new warrant issuance.

The section on Subsequent Events might add some detail on the 4/9 filing, and anything that happens between now and 10-Q publication.

@Senti, your guess is way off. Let's look at data from the 10-K and 10-Q filings for the last four quarters.

Date warrants avg price avg years
3/31/19 369m $0.29 1.72
6/30/19 361m $0.29 1.47
9/30/19 352m $0.28 1.53
12/31/19 359m $0.27 1.42

The difference between March and June is what happens in a quarter without modifications. The average term drops by 1/4 of a year.

Between June and September, you see the start of modifications, both for strike price and term. Same for September to December.

In the 7/17/19 prospectus, NWBO told us that 33.3m warrants were extended by 12 months. Subsequent documents do not specify the number of warrants, just language like "certain existing warrants".

7/17/19 - extended 33.3m warrants by 12 months.
10/18/19 - "certain existing warrants" by 6 to 18 months, reduce strike price .05
10/28/19 - extend by 12 months, reduce strike 1.5 to 2.5 cents
1/3/20 - extend by 12 to 18 months, reduce strike 2 to 8 cents
1/15/20 - extend 12 months
2/24/20 - extend 3 to 12 months (and in one case 21 months), reduce strike 3 to 8 cents, 50% warrant coverage
4/9/20 - extend 9 to 12 months, reduce 2 to 10 cents, 50% warrant coverage, 3.25m additional warrants

If your guess about 250m expiring by midyear was correct, the remaining 109m warrants must have an average life of 3.53 years in order to produce the known weighted average of 1.42 years. Seems highly unlikely, at odds with any known warrant data.

If 100m expire midyear, the balance on the remaining 259m would be 1.77 years (21 months). More believable, but even that may be too high.

The other data point we can examine is the average strike price. This is messy because we don't know the exact number of warrants modified, and have a variety of ranges for the reduction values. If you assume the average reduction was .05, then about 40% of the warrant total (143m) would have to be modified to reduce the overall average strike by $0.02. Assuming .04 reduction, then half (180m) would be modified.

There isn't enough data to know the correct answer, but there is more than enough to say your guess is not correct.

That's funny. You know they won't provide that answer at the ASM, or ever.

We won't have any data until August when nwbo reports Q2. That's the first time financial statements will reflect any warrant expirations, and even then with a lot of other moving parts.

There were 359m warrants outstanding as of year end. You think 200m expire soon.

If there aren't at least 200m warrants outstanding as of the June 2020 data, I'll make a modest donation to the charity of your choice. Over 200m, you donate to my choice. Deal?

Note that you could also win if nwbo explodes and there are millions of warrants exercised. It would help my cause if nwbo issues more warrants. The data is going to be noisy as usual.

A = 0.17, B = 0.165

Guessing a small drop from Thursday dilution news, and routine business only at the meeting.

Scotty, I was a quantitative PM on Wall Street. I don't care if you had the best accountant in the country do your work.

Either you gave her the wrong data, or she did the math wrong.

The math is high school algebra. Everyone reading this board should be able to follow it.

You can't have 220m warrants expiring and have the average life of 1.42 years shown in the 10-K unless the other 139m have an average life over 3 years. We have zero evidence that there are any warrants that long, even with 12-18 month extensions that Linda hands out like candy.

Either you did the math wrong, or you made some wild assumptions. From the 10-K as of 12/31/2019.

359m warrants outstanding

1.42 years avg life

In order for your 220 expiration to be correct, that means that the average life for the other 139m is a bit over 3 years.

359 * 1.42 = (220 * 0.4) + (359 - 220) * X

X = 3.03

Since there is no data to indicate there are 139m warrants with an average life over 3 years, your 220 expiration estimate is clearly way too high.

There have been several warrant extension deals since 12/31/2019 that make your number even more implausible.

nwbo filed the Prospectus after hours the day before a market holiday and weekend. Give them credit for trying to bury the news as deep as possible for US markets.

It seems likely that most of those shares were sold in advance of the offering. In a way, the buyers were almost guaranteed a modest profit. Not too far from "gift" status.

Shorting to cover with offering proceeds would be illegal if it was a public offering, but passes muster for a private deal like this.

We've seen this pattern several times where there is a price rise in front of a dilution. Seems like folks should have learned not to interpret every price increase as a harbinger of news.

A virtual theater, where only virtual results are presented to a virtual audience, would be perfect for nwbo's communication strategy.

I agree that password protection is reasonable. It would be nice if nwbo was sufficiently confident to make it an open call, but they are within their rights to restrict access to shareholders.

I suspect the motivation is to keep control of the meeting lest an unfriendly journalist (AF) sign on and ask an embarrassing question.

Interesting to see what is on the list, and what is missing.

nwbo is basically financing month to month, yet just one question touching on the topic made the top 10, and barely.

Nothing about dcvax-direct. Very little forward looking at all.

I wish you luck with the list and gathering more information, but will be surprised if you get straight answers to any of it.

Since nwbo has figured out how to have a virtual annual meeting, when will they have quarterly calls like every other company?

I never said anything about the equity being worthless. If he believed that, why would he be a Director at all?

Instead of a cash purchase, what if the transaction was really JJ taking his Director fees in stock rather than cash?

Perhaps because cash was tight and it was either shares or an IOU?