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.
A) you have no idea who was buying and how much they were buying
B) you have no idea who was selling shares today (unless it's from your friends all trying hard to sell as many borrowed shares as possible)
C) Based on the price action there were more buyers than sellers today as evidenced that the price went up.
D) I thought you were going to leave for greener pastures? That was a "short" trip.
E) HAHAHAHAHA Some one was dumping shares today and the price went up HAHAHAHAHA Why don't you go ask George about the rabbits, Lennie.
Exactly, there are trading algorithms or shorts working overtime here today. I am going to follow suit with Sentiment and thank the shorts for the cheap shares. I bought a 1000 shares last week, and 2000 shares today.
Thank you shorts, may the eventual PR from NWBO fry you like bacon...... hmmmmm bacon
You are correct, that was a typo should have been BMY
Great find Flipper. I would like the combo trial information to be confirmed by any party involved (BMS, Merck, and/or NWBO) in a formal press release.
As a shareholder I would like clarity on many of the outstanding matters as soon as possible. I am of the impression that there are some matters not relating to the current temporary screening hold, that could be discussed, which would dispel certain uncertainties. That is my opinion
Bonus question time,
If there was a combo trial with BMS or Merck would that support the grapefruit juice hypothesis?
Alternatively would a combo trial with BMS or Merck add validity to what NWBO is attempting to complete?
If BMS or Merck were working with NWBO on a combo trial would they be working as peers?
Yup, it's there. Sounds like grapefruit juice to me, but then again I'm only a hack of a blogger with no qualifications whatsoever.
That is a valid question, how are they able to make that claim? Or what do they know that allows them to make that claim? I certainly hope it is true.
Remember when you acted like you were long?
funny thing is that someone also bought 100,000 shares after the close....Woody?
Come on turtle, your posts are awful.
Notice how it's a flat line at $1.50-$1.51? Yet below that range it trades relatively freely......that is a concerted effort by MM's to not allow the price to exceed the range previously mentioned.
Good thing I only risk what I can afford to lose.
The investment advice is in your most recent comment where you stated that TC should re-read all your posts with regret after NWBO blows up.
You are wrong for two reasons
1) In your prior post to me you claim that you cannot take credit for those who short and lose, or those who avoid and don't lose. Then in your most recent post you go on to take credit, by claiming if TC had only listened to you he could avoid the feeling of regret.
2) If NWBO is assured to blow up as you opine, which would cause the price goes to zero or near zero, then holding a position is to face certain losses. The only way to not experience the opined losses would be to have no position. For a person who currently has a long position in NWBO, to have no position, they would have to sell their position, to avoid the opined losses.
I understand full well that neither of these points will register with you, as you have a prejudgment that you have dug so deep that you could not possibly reverse, and that you have decided to hold your position until proven right or wrong. Something tells me that if the data comes out positive, meaning a statistical benefit to patients, that you still will not change your tune.
More important, answer me this question if you have it in you,
If NWBO completes the trial and the data presents a statistical benefit to patients and a successful trial, will you write an article from TheStreet.com stating that your opinion was wrong all along?
Would you be willing to take responsibility for your words?
I thought you didn't give investment advice?
Thank you for compiling this list. When NWBO blows up for the last time, you can re-read these stories and tweets with regret for not listening to me the first time.
I don't offer investment advice so i'm not responsible for anyone who shorted CPXX into the phase 3 data results. I also don't take credit for anyone who made money shorting, or avoided losses by staying out of, the numerous stocks in which the Feuerstein-Ratain Rule worked.
Well stated!
Adam, I was thinking about your rule the other day. Do you take responsibility for the losses suffered by shorts of CPXX who followed your rule that empirically phase 3 trials do not succeed when going into the phase 3 results and the market cap is less than 300 million?
Think of all those shorts who followed your rule and have been eviscerated by CPXX positive results?
SEC.GOV
It has nothing to do with my feelings, it has everything to do with facts. Your starting point is incorrect. I have not made any excuse in this interaction, I simply pointed out facts and used evidence to support my claims that your post and your timeline were incorrect.
No feelings, just facts.
Turtle it would help if you understood how to read. It has been 91 days since the press release stating that they planned on beginning the investigation.
The Special Committee anticipates that the investigation will get under way in the coming week and will likely take at least 90 days.
The downside is known, it could go to $0.00. What is not known is the upside.
So did I, I have a few hundred shares now. I wrote a letter to Les as well. The worst part about it is that NWBO is playing right into the shorts hands. All you sleazy dirtbag shorts should be ashamed but I understand you could care less.
I'm glad that I only wagered what I could afford to lose. It is really unfortunate for biotech companies to have to not only work on their science but also to have to deal with to bile of the world that is scumbag vulture capital investors, who coordinate with media, and sweatshop like keyboard jockeys. That is a true shame.
I thought it was interesting as well as red acre investments is generally very bearish on NWBO
I just dropped half of my position. I am tired of this. First we get the Christmas special, now this....
Furthermore reinforcing his silence as approval was that he was the person who initiated the investigation vocally in the first place. He was vocal and public about that, he is vocal and public about every holding that he sells. He has yet to sell his shares in this company = approval.
He buys when he perceives the reward is greater than risk.
He sells when he perceives the reward is not greater than risk.
He has not sold NWBO therefore he perceives the reward is greater than the risk.
I also perceive the reward to be greater than the risk and that is why I am not selling now.
If NW was of the impression that NWBO management was below board and a poor risk reward investment he would have sold out by now, as is evidenced by his many sales in the past year and the explanation he presents for each and every sale. The fact that he has not sold out his position in NWBO refutes your claims.
It could also be a pattern of paying rent for NWBO's HQ, where they conduct their business for their public company as most public companies have a HQ's and pay rent for the HQ based on market rates.
If the prices were materially more or less than the market I would look further asking why are we paying more or less than the market? But they aren't.
You are mixing two issues because you eventually want to prove that Cognate and Toucan are playing shell games. Well in this case I disagree with you. But don't take my word for it, go talk to someone who thinks this transaction that you have identified is representative of malfeasance or illegal, and do something about it.
I would argue that you would find the same answer that I have provided to you from a great many people who have no interest whatsoever in any company mentioned.
Go ahead
No I didn't, I just don't agree with your argument.
Then I take into consideration the total amount of rent for the period in question to identify materiality. You know what in all we are talking about at worst a year or two of rent at market rates which based on competitors rental expenses is fractions on the dollar and I think that is all the perspective that is needed to come to a conclusion that your argument is weak.
If you feel that your argument is strong and there is malfeasance then, again, submit your data to the SEC for review.
Good luck to you as well
I also bought more at 2.02 a few weeks ago.
I disagree with how you are trying to obfuscate the issues.
To be clear I do not think they were overpaying for rent as evidenced by market rates presented by AVII
To be clear I am glad that they are not spending millions of dollars a year in rent, which can be better spent on R&D and manufacturing
I disagree with you in your claim that they paid above reason, they did not and the facts do not support your claim.
RK I never agreed with you
You are clearly lacking in knowledge of fixed and variable costing issues. I can expand latter tonight after I am done at my real job, where I work for a living.....by the way what do you do for a living?
Your analysis of cost per square footage is not a red flag, and I will provide substantiation later after work.
Also good catch on the square footage for the last property of CLDX, 10,300 vs 103,000 sq ft, you are correct about that, it was a typo as it was late at night, something CLDX knows all about given they accidentally filed their 10-K ahead of schedule while testing (I own CLDX, but even I can admit that their error is amateur)
Also something to consider the data for CLDX was from 2014 10-K they built out roughly an additional 50,000 sq ft in 2015 and their rental costs have gone up materially.
The metric has no relevance what so ever, it is merely calculated to attempt to show that NWBO is overspending. When you look at what they are actually paying for rent and comparing to competitors NWBO is spending the least per month for rent in absolute dollars.
Haha, another (wicked burn) "you didn't check my math for errors" ouch! Frankly I don't care about the rent either but apparently AVI and the shortsters have taken up the mantle, so I thought I would put some context out there with facts and supporting data so that the claims are not made without comparison. And wouldn't you know it when comparing rent costs of three biotech companies we are spending the least by significant amounts hundreds of thousands per year to millions per year.
I would absolutely agree with spending less on the rent so that there is more to spend on manufacturing and R&D.
Yup, we'll you have me there (wicked burn) I guess I'll just have to rest my head on the absolute dollars spent on rent on two locations is the least spent among three biotech companies compared, I'm glad NWBO isn't wasting millions on rent when they could put the additional millions to use on manufacturing and R&D.
As a shareholder I'd rather have it that way than spending millions a year on rent.
Read CLDX's risk disclosure statements in their 2015 10-K
Something along the lines
Using contracted manufacturing increases the possibility that our intellectual property will be discovered by our competitors
I am glad that we don't have to read that disclosure in our 10-k's.
Well I had time to review three different companies annual 10-K's (for purpose of comparison I used 12/31/14 as all three have filed their 2014 10-K)
NWBO, AGEN, and CLDX (I own NWBO and CLDX)
all the data listed here can be found in their 10-K's
As you can see, compared in absolute dollars we are spending the least dollars on rent and leases of the three to the tune of roughly 22% of what AGEN spends on rent and 15% of what CLDX spends on rent. I was also able to confirm the exact figures for each location of NWBO from their 10-K (see image or 10-K).
If you compare the cost per square foot we are in the middle of the pack. Again this hardly supports the claim that NWBO is goosing shareholders for rental income.
Now on to the arm's length issue.....
Apparently there are some who would argue that NWBO's deal back in 2008 and 2009 was not at arm's length. Well in case you didn't know what that meant here is one definition (my apologies for formatting)
(b) Arm's length standard--(1) In general. In determining the true taxable income of a controlled taxpayer, the standard to be applied in every case is that of a taxpayer dealing at arm's length with an uncontrolled taxpayer. A controlled transaction meets the arm's length standard if the results of the transaction are consistent with the results that would have been realized if uncontrolled taxpayers had engaged in the same transaction under the same circumstances (arm's length result). However, because identical transactions can rarely be located, whether a transaction produces an arm's length result generally
will be determined by reference to the results of comparable
transactions under comparable circumstances. See Sec. 1.482-1(d)(2)
(Standard of comparability). Evaluation of whether a controlled
transaction produces an arm's length result is made pursuant to a method selected under the best method rule described in Sec. 1.482-1(c).
(2) Arm's length methods--(i) Methods. Sections 1.482-2 through
1.482-6 provide specific methods to be used to evaluate whether
transactions between or among members of the controlled group satisfy the arm's length standard, and if they do not, to determine the arm's length result.
(ii) Selection of category of method applicable to transaction. The methods listed in Sec. 1.482-2 apply to different types of transactions, such as transfers of property, services, loans or advances, and rentals. Accordingly, the method or methods most appropriate to the calculation of arm's length results for controlled transactions must be selected, and different methods may be applied to interrelated transactions if such transactions are most reliably evaluated on a separate basis. For example, if services are provided in connection with the transfer of
property, it may be appropriate to separately apply the methods
applicable to services and property in order to determine an arm's
length result. But see Sec. 1.482-1(f)(2)(i) (Aggregation of
transactions). In addition, other applicable provisions of the Code may affect the characterization of a transaction, and therefore affect the methods applicable under section 482. See for example section 467.
In English, when two unrelated parties agree upon a price for a transaction. When they are related there must be some basis for the transaction to an unrelated party......and wouldn't you know it but AVII provided us all with a fantastic comparable property and rental figure in his post earlier today. If you review his post you would see that the price that Toucan charged NWBO was not materially different then the comparable lease agreement AVII posted for a different unit in the same building, therefore comparable and a representation of market rates. Sooooo if Toucan charged NWBO market rates for the rental then the transaction was done at arm's length.
If Toucan charged NWBO materially more or less than the market rate as evidenced by AVII's post then the transaction would not have passed arm's length.
Now on to RK and the "ridiculous spending" comments. RK now armed with a comparison of what NWBO and NWBO's competitors have been spending on rent and are in similar stages of development, do you maintain that NWBO is spending ridiculously?
I would argue that the facts do not support your claim.
Good Night
Haha do you think AVII supported his argument or mine? If you don't understand the answer then to bad.
He just provided additional context that the rate was reasonable relative to market rates for comps.
Answer me this, does that support an arm's length agreement or not?
Just wait I am still at work, I'll put together some more information for you and all the haters out there later.
It's not clear, nor is there a control to the data (meaning comparable market rates for the same type, geographical location, or condition of the property) to provide context. Just a lot of opinions flying around with subjective unqualified statements like "ridiculous spending". Board, we'll get to the bottom of it in due time.
I was referring to current rent issues, I will also provide the rent back then and provide a similar sq ft comp if possible, in addition to several competitors rent expenses then we will see how egregious the rental expense really is....the results may surprise many on this board.