I disagree. Adding some serious FDA experience to nwbo would have been incredibly beneficial at any point in its history.

The idea that all big pharma could contribute is money might be the most naive statement ever by Linda Powers.

- Dealing with the FDA
- Processing complex data
- Writing SPA and other key documents
- Distribution

Anyone who believes in DCVAX and genuinely cares about GBM patients should want it in the hands of management that is competent, experienced, and well-financed.

How many years since nwbo has treated a new patient?

I don't see any logic in that argument.

Every startup biotech includes people who are smart, tenacious, and hard working. Lots of them fail.

Or he thinks nwbo might pursue colon cancer next. :)

My point is that LP's financial shrewdness has already worked in her favor. You are just hoping that it also works in your favor.

The history is that whenever LP's nwbo ownership drops much below 50%, some event under her control as CEO (debt conversion, options grant, share grant) quickly restores her to greater ownership, and at zero cost to her.

There is a difference between owning a lot of shares and having a lot at stake.

Have you looked at the source of Powers' ownership? How many shares did she give herself versus those actually purchased?

Powers has extracted so many dollars from nwbo (salary, options, 18% interest + warrants, and especially Toucan via Cognate) that she already has a home run. Unlike nwbo longs, Linda is playing with house money.

The nwbo accumulated deficit is over $800,000,000. Ever think about where all that money went?

The only thing up is clueing in the "911 trade" victims that they were duped by a long-running elaborate prank.

I had nothing to do with those nwbo trades, but have had some good laughs at months of some folks pontificating about the meaning.

Didn't realize that 4 posts constituted "incredibly active". Both the quantity of my posts and the 911 trades are equally meaningless.

All you have to do is be willing to cross that tiny bid/ask spread at the right time. Quite easy really.

You should also read the IV thread.

Anyone who thought the 911 trades meant anything was silly.

Those who built other analysis on those assumption were truly foolish.

No. It has nothing to do with market making. You have been duped.

Read the whole thread.

https://www.investorvillage.com/mbthread.asp?mb=6543&nhValue=13060&nmValue=13100&dValue=1&tid=19458973&showall=1

You really haven't figured out that the 911 trades are just a poster here messing with you? And no, not me.

If you are interested enough to do some serious reading on insider trading data, there is a decent book on the topic:

Investment Intelligence from Insider Trading - H. Nejat Seyhun

1.2b fully diluted is a bit high per the latest 10-Q.

Shares Out 560m
Potentially dilutive 470m
Subsequent events 16m

That comes to 1.046b fully diluted.

There are 1.2b shares authorized, so perhaps that's the source of the incorrect number.

You sure about that Asian connection? This post from user roger_wilco back in May ssems a more likely explanation for GTSM market making on NASDAQ.

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=148999856

The new Market Maker GTSM acquired CANT:

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--

GTS, a leading electronic market maker across global financial instruments, today announced that it has entered into an agreement to acquire the Exchange Traded Funds (ETF) and wholesale market making businesses of Cantor Fitzgerald (“Cantor”), a global financial services firm. The transaction elevates GTS into the top-tier of global brokers with the potential to touch virtually every investing household in America and across the world.

“For the first time on a scale never seen before, the most sophisticated Wall Street technology is being deployed for mainstream investors, be they institutional or retail”

The unique combination of that business with GTS, which on many days trades upwards of six percent of all U.S. trading volume and is the largest Designated Market Maker (DMM) at the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), ushers in a new era of technology access and innovation that will lower the costs of investing.

“For the first time on a scale never seen before, the most sophisticated Wall Street technology is being deployed for mainstream investors, be they institutional or retail,” said Ari Rubenstein, CEO and co-founder of GTS. “Investors around the world can now leverage the very best in machine learning, artificial intelligence and execution technology to help them save money whenever they trade and invest. This is an unprecedented opportunity for investors that unites unrivaled innovation with pioneering client service – while enhancing the capital raising opportunities for listed companies.”

Stacey Cunningham, president of the New York Stock Exchange said, “The NYSE and our partners embody the synthesis of technology and human judgment, leading to the best possible outcome for investors and issuers.”

Reginald Browne commented on today’s announcement, “We are creating a new standard together that will marry technology and capital deployment to create robust efficiency for client access across all asset classes. Public companies want to be sure there is access to deep pools of liquidity and transparency they can trust. And in a similar fashion, investors want to engage in the capital markets in the most cost-efficient manner possible. GTS responsibly uses technology to deliver positive benefits to the entire financial markets ecosystem.”

Joe Pleffner also commented, “We are extremely excited to combine our wholesale trading platform with GTS’ world-class infrastructure to provide a holistic, flexible and sustainable offering to enhance the retail client experience.”

At the NYSE, GTS is responsible for the trading in more than 900 public companies that have a total market capitalization of approximately $13 trillion dollars. Listed securities include blue chip companies ranging from ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM) and Ford (NYSE: F) to international companies such as Alibaba (NYSE: BABA) to leading global technology companies like Oracle (NYSE: ORCL) and AT&T (NYSE: T).

Rubenstein concluded, “This partnership is another step in GTS’ mission to build out its global capital markets business and to put its premier trading technology to use for all of those who may benefit, in order to truly democratize access to our markets for all who participate.”

The transaction is expected to close in the first quarter of 2019. Terms were not disclosed.

Rosenblatt Securities advised GTS on the transaction.

About GTS

GTS is a global electronic market maker, powered by combining market expertise with innovative, proprietary technology. As a quantitative trading firm continually building for the future, GTS leverages the latest in artificial intelligence systems and sophisticated pricing models to bring consistency, efficiency, and transparency to today’s financial markets. GTS accounts for 3-6% of daily cash equities volume in the U.S. and trades over 10,000 different instruments globally. GTS is the largest Designated Market Maker (DMM) at the New York Stock Exchange, responsible for nearly $13 trillion of market capitalization.

For more information on GTS, please visit: http://www.gtsx.com.

That's great. If folks lose money on nwbo stock, maybe they can make it back by getting hired at Cognate.

Duffy has exactly as much CEO experience as Linda Powers had before taking the nwbo job.

Woodford had endless cash in 2015 when Powers could have sold him more stock. Another $50m or so changes everything.

Terms? He paid cash for stock without warrants. Twice. Those are better terms (and higher price) than any subsequent investment in nwbo.

What if Duffy was brought on board to replace Linda Powers?

The SEC investigation has been around quite a while. What if the only acceptable outcome to the SEC is that Linda Powers leave the BOD and cut all management ties?

My take is that nwbo stock would at least double on the news.

Discuss.

Pretty sure it was you who changed the subject to reading between the lines.

I was talking about Woodford and nwbo until then.

Deep pockets. Willing to buy a large position. Woodford had endless cash to invest back in 2015 and wanted more nwbo.

He'd still be a seller in 2019, but at better prices, and without so much difficulty. 4 years is a lifetime in biotech.

Reading between the lines of nwbo PRs has cost most of the posters on this board quite a bit of cash.

How often has the "read between the lines" been the correct read? I recall hundreds of posts about how data release is any day now - since 2016.

Yet you somehow still think that it is a good idea?

Please do not put words in my mouth. Most of what you wrote is not at all what I said.

As an investor, Woodford is thoroughly discredited. He took silly risks in concentration and illiquidity, and was badly burned.

Instead of watching Woodford buy on the open market, Linda Powers should have sold him even more stock so that cash came to nwbo instead of sellers. She badly misjudged completion time and cash needed to get there.

Another $50m on hand would have prevented much of the subsequent dilution. Shares outstanding would be much lower. The stock price would be quite a bit above $0.25. nwbo might still be on NASDAQ, and thus on the radar for institutional investors. None of that happened because Linda Powers burned that bridge.

I'd never heard of the new hire before the PR, which makes it hard to have a strong opinion.

Interesting CV. Experience at a top pharma. Market reaction was positive, which seems reasonable.

It would be good to have a more thorough explanation for why he was hired rather than have folks speculate and fill in the blanks. Perhaps an 8-K that does more than repeat the PR?

Woodford would have been the ideal investor for nwbo if Linda Powers had not destroyed the relationship. Deep pockets. Willing to take large positions. Zero history of taking over companies.

Woodford make two direct investments totaling over $100,000,000. He is the only direct buyer in recent history to do so without warrants.

Woodford bought more in the market (sloppily) pushing the price to $12.

nwbo would not have survived to 2019 without Woodford's investment, yet longs somehow paint him as a villain via lots of convoluted conspiracy theories. Truly bizarre.

Only one dilution? You must have a fairly optimistic timeline.

@Longfellow - agree that WEIF is almost certainly out of nwbo.

No idea on PCT. There is less urgency to sell because of the different fund structure.

If they did choose to sell out of both, it would likely be together rather than sequential. Don't want any appearance of advantage to one product over the other, especially given that regulators are all over the situation already.

Recall rather than looking it up, but pretty sure of these numbers...

Woodford held 24.8m total as of the end of May. This from his website reported voluntarily, and matches the last data reported to the SEC.

18.6m was in WEIF, which leaves 6.2m for Patient Capital Trust.

There are no required SEC filings, so we won't have confirmation until Woodford reports full holdings in UK regulatory filings. I have no idea if those filings are impacted by the WEIF suspension.

@Senti, the SEC maintains a list of 13-F securities. This first link is the archive of lists over time.

https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/13flists.htm

next link is the current list for 2Q19

https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/13f/13flist2019q2.pdf

nwbo last appeared on the 13-F list for the 4th quarter of 2016.

https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/13f/13flist2016q4.pdf

nwbo short interst has dropped from 13m to 6.7m since the end of May.

The data does not support your statements.

Once again, no reason to expect any filings. Assuming Woodford was the seller, the only confirmation will come when his funds publish full holdings.

15m at once is a huge change from dribbling out 100k per day. Makes me curious why it did not happen sooner.

This makes me wrong that Woodford could be selling into 2020.

Confirms that folks were wildly off base to claim he was nearly done prior to today.

Refer to the last 10-K. Woodford is no longer on the list of Beneficial Owners as the cutoff is 5%.

We also know that he controlled 24.8m shares between both funds, and that nwbo has over 560m outstanding.

If Woodford was the seller, do not expect a filing. He is no longer a 5% holder. nwbo is not on the 13-F list. There is no requirement for him to file anything.

To get to 10% of volume in nwbo, a seller has to be opportunistic and hit bids when available.

This isn't Apple where you can just plug into a VWAP engine as trade consistently through the day.

While I appreciate your anecdotal observations, they do not change anything I said.

In order for Woodford to be done selling even 18.4m, he would have to have been more than 1/3 of the total volume.

That is seriously unlikely. At a more reasonable (though still aggressive) 10% of volume, he finishes selling in 2020.

So "Straight forward study designs" didn't catch your eye at all?

I know your post is only intended as fun with math, but a realistic assessment of your scenario is that a $100 account would quickly go to zero.

In real life

- Borrow costs to short
- Commissions to trade
- Slippage due to bid/ask spread
- No one would implement a strategy that requires additional shorting (equity from previous day profit) daily.
- Recall risk on a hard to borrow short.

Correct, @Senti.

Woodford has been diluted below 5%, so no longer has to file on that basis.

nwbo is no longer on the SEC's 13-F list, so no requirement to include nwbo on 13-F filings. Woodford has excluded it ever since nwbo was dropped from the list.

The only place you will find info on Woodford's nwbo holdings is when he has to file full holdings for UK regulators. That will likely be months after any trading.

24.8m as of the end of May is the latest public info, from back when Woodford was voluntarily posting full holdings on a monthly basis.

The dart throwing monkeys in academic literature are only allowed to choose from listed shares. It takes special talent to drown in unlisted shares. Pretty sure Woodford's next gig will not be in private equity.

Back in 2000, one of the best indicators that the dotcom boom was ending was when a few hyper-agressive mutual funds were given approval to take stakes in pre-IPO firms.

Investment overconfidence can be so dangerous in so many ways.

None of that says that Taubman is involved in selling nwbo.

If you want to use Woodford selling as the catalyst for nwbo dropping from $0.34 to $0.20, there are a couple of other issues.

1) nwbo price started dropping well before any discussion of Taubman engagement.

2) There has been no increase in volume, which would make it hard for Woodford to be the massive seller some claim.

Let's go to the data. August is partial month, obviously.

Month Avg Daily Volume

Aug 1,128,460
Jul 951,927
Jun 862,885
May 1,436,468
Apr 811,652
Mar 1,490,748
Feb 888,700
Jan 705,557

So where is the elevated volume from Woodford selling? What about those short sellers supposedly getting in front of him? Did all other sellers of nwbo just get out of his way and give him all the volume?

The story I saw said that Taubman was hired to work selling unlisted biotech shares.

That would not include nwbo.

Not what I said at all. We have no way to confirm whether Woodford has sold or not.

My point in the earlier post was that I believe that Woodford still controls what gets sold and does not.

If you want my guess (and only a guess), the data is consistent with Woodford selling some nwbo at a measured pace. That is, less than 10% of daily volume.

Published statements from Woodford make it clear that their selling is going to take several months due to concentrated and illiquid positions. It doesn't make sense that they would push harder (over 10% of volume) on tiny nwbo that isn't going to raise a lot of funds.