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.
U.S. wants Huawei CFO to face charges over Iran sanctions - CNBC.com
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/07/us-wants-huawei-cfo-to-face-charges-over-iran-sanctions.html
So how does this make Huawei a desirable buyer for nwbo's Sawston acreage?
NWBO Short interest up to 14m per FINRA site. Data for 11/30/18.
http://otce.finra.org/ESI
Settlement Date Issue Name Symbol Market Current Short Previous Short Chg % Change from Prev Avg Daily Vol Days to Cover
11/30/2018 NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS INC NWBO Other OTC 14,056,482 11,455,458 2,601,024 22.71 6,086,734 2.31
Adding to your list of deficiencies in Larry Smith's nwbo article...
SoS apparently does not understand that Accounts Payable actually do need to be repaid, or have providers stop doing business with nwbo.
He does not acknowledge that most (all?) nwbo warrants can be exercised cashless.
And then there is the usual wolfpack and naked shorting fable, backed by no data whatsoever.
Your links are evidence that there was some abuse in the past, and that the SEC caught it.
It does not change the fact that SEC fails-to-deliver are NOT evidence of naked short selling of NWBO (or any other stock).
It does not change the fact that the folks claiming massive naked shorting of NWBO have zero factual data to support those claims.
SEC fails-to-deliver data and NWBO
The SEC states very clearly that fails-to-deliver are NOT evidence 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. “
https://www.sec.gov/data/foiadocsfailsdatahtm#.VDNO-xaLXD4
A download of the most recent SEC fails data covers early November and shows the following for NWBO:
11/01 0
11/02 23092
11/05 0
11/06 38505
11/07 53046
11/08 55551
11/09 3273
11/12 0
11/13 28534
11/14 165789
Have you figured out that Gartmore no longer exists?
You clearly have not figured out that I departed before Gartmore was acquired by Henderson, which is several years before the Janus deal.
I'm sure that Janus' Compliance department will be quite amused that you think they would care about an ex-employee who left many years ago.
ROTFL
Don't take the net income number at face value. It's pretty much meaningless in this case. The reason is an Expense line as follows:
Change in fair value of derivative liabilities 24,358
What that means is that the value of derivatives outstanding (warrants, options, etc) dropped because nwbo's stock price fell from $0.26 on 6/30/18 to $0.20 on 9/30/18. It's a non-cash benefit.
If nwbo stock remains at current levels ($0.29) through year end, the next 10-K will show a large non-cash expense on the same line.
One item nwbo has previously mentioned in regard to after-the-quarter adjustments is VIEs (variable interest entities). Ex: Advent.
Also note that accounting related to Advent was cited as the reason for the late 10-Q in May, 2018.
Correct. This does feel a bit like the MFN, except direct to insiders instead of via Cognate.
This new award is especially egregious after the November 2017 nwbo options were supposed to cover the previous 6 years and the next 2 years.
"Following the discussions with investors, on November 19, 2017 the Company’s Board approved a new plan for equity awards of fifteen percent of the authorized shares at present, to take account of employee and director performance over the last approximately 6 years and anticipated performance over the next approximately 2 years. The awards are subject to various vesting provisions, forfeiture and acceleration provisions tied to milestones over the next 2 years. The Company is now undertaking the steps for implementation."
Let's see if I have your position correct.
The Sawston site has some Roman history. No controversy there.
You believe that history will somehow exempt it from environmental remediation.
You also believe that history will not restrict development.
That strikes me as a highly unlikely combination.
You have missed a key point. The liability immediately after buying Sawston was 1.6m, and later rose to what you see now. If they got a discount, was it big enough to reflect whatever new info increased the environmental liability on the books?
The current liability number has not changed in SEC filings in almost 4 years. That does not indicate work being done, which would reduce the liability.
In one way, it may be prudent that they have not done any remediation work. If such work led to the higher cost option (33.4m) being required rather than lower cost (4.6m), the impact on nwbo's financial condition would be quite negative.
GAAP accounting disagrees with you. Take a look at nwbo's Balance Sheet under Liabilities and Stockholder's Equity to find:
Environmental Remediation Liability 6,200
Whether nwbo pays to do the cleanup, or accepts a reduced selling price as is, there most certainly is a real cost.
Did you consider that the interest rate on the Sawston mortgages is almost certainly higher than it would be with no environmental issues? How about insurance cost on the property?
You can argue the semantics of "toxic waste liability" (ex) versus "specific ground contamination" (nwbo), but there certainly is evidence of the need for potential environmental remediation in every 10-Q.
We engaged a third-party specialist to conduct certain surveys of the condition of the property in the U.K. (“UK Facility”) which included, among other things, a preliminary analysis of potential environmental remediation exposures. We determined, based on information contained in the specialists’ report, that we would be required to estimate the fair value of an unconditional obligation to remediate specific ground contamination at an estimated fair value of approximately $6.2 million. We computed our preliminary estimate of the fair value of this obligation using a probability approach that measures likelihood of the following two potential outcomes: (i) a higher probability (>95%) requirement of erecting a protective barrier around the affected area at an estimated cost of approximately $4.6 million, or (ii) lower probability (<5%) requirement of having to excavate the affected area at an estimated cost of approximately $33.4 million. Our estimate is preliminary and therefore subject to change as further studies are conducted, and as additional facts come to our attention. Environmental remediation obligations are complex and technical. Accordingly, it is at least reasonably possible that any changes in our estimates could materially differ from management’s preliminary estimates.
There is also evidence that nwbo's due diligence prior to purchase could have been better since the liability estimate was increased shortly after buying. Original text late 2014:
The Company determined, based on information contained in the specialist’s report, that it would be required to estimate the fair value of an unconditional obligation to remediate specific ground contamination at an estimated fair of approximately $1.6 million.
The existence of known ground contamination could make it challenging to fully monetize Sawston. That much is obvious.
Appreciate the effort, but I don't think any your speculation fits enough of the known facts.
Forget the "come across" idea. Unlikely in the first place. Unless it was critical to nwbo, they could make it public and then trade. Nothing in that category would last 3 years. The only possibility is info direct from nwbo.
It has to be info that was new to nwbo subsequent to Woodford's last investment. Otherwise, there would have been lawsuits. It's a fairly narrow time window from Woodford's last direct purchase to the public falling out.
So a negative IA is plausible, but does not explain Woodford's subsequent actions. He would have tried to appoint a medical expert to the Board rather than a forensic accountant.
Negative IA and governance issues at the same time?
Just for giggles...
What material non-public inside information do you think could have been known 3 years ago and still be restricted today?
It can't be related to the halt, because that was lifted some time ago. Any restriction would have disappeared with the halt.
It's not about results, because they aren't out in 2018 much less 2015.
It's not about Cognate, because that was sold, and is no longer a related party.
"We do not reveal whether or not we are ‘insiders'" is not at all the same thing as "We are insiders" no matter how much you want to believe it.
"We haven’t signed anything that precludes us from trading."
Simple declarative sentence that certainly answered my question.
https://woodfordfunds.com/blog/evolution-not-revolution/
Jerry Campbell says:
September 25, 2016 at 12:14 am
Mitch,
While I suspect you are sick of NWBO questions from the US, I hope you can clear up one small point. Is Woodford & Co restricted from trading by NDA (non-disclosure agreement) or any other means, or have you simply chosen not to trade?
Regards,
Jerry
Reply
Mitchell Fraser-JonesAuthor says:
September 27, 2016 at 3:23 pm
Hi Jerry,
We haven’t signed anything that precludes us from trading. Hope this clarifies your point.
Mitch
No, Mitchell (on Woodford blog) stated very clearly in plain English that they have not signed anything that restricts them from trading nwbo.
I think that is a very logical speculation. In addition to Invesco support staff helping with recommendations, big company restrictions tend to reduce the risk of any one position.
On his own, Woodford gave himself a very broad mandate, ability to make bigger bets, minimal risk control, and less restriction on tiny (and even non-public) situations. Too much belief in his own press clippings?
Personal note: I worked for a British investment firm for several years, including living in London for a while. I don't recall ever hearing of Neil Woodford during that period. Not sure that means anything...
No, I've never cared enough about Cenkos to dig into it.
If your point is that Woodford is not the world's best judge of character, then we are in agreement.
I suspect we would not agree on the most egregious and damaging example of Woodford's poor judgment.
I think you are on the right track. My take:
1) Woodford thought nwbo was a great opportunity.
2) Buys stock from the company at expensive levels, and as the only buyer without warrant coverage.
3) Buys more in the market aggressive and sloppy, pushing the price up to $12.
4) Woodford becomes shocked at governance issues. Realizes that his team did not do anywhere near enough due diligence, particularly on the Cognate relationship.
5) Woodford tries to engage with management with no success, and realizes his investment is in deep trouble.
6) Woodford files with the SEC changing from passive to active. I view this as an act of desperation and exasperation because it is not at all typical for him.
7) Continues to engage with nwbo management, including an attempt to add a Board member with forensic accounting skills.
8) Nwbo rejects Woodford's Board appointee as having insufficient experience in the industry, and no long term commitment.
9) Nwbo appoints a new Board member who also has no industry experience.
10) Woodford is gobsmacked (for our Brit posters) and switches back to passive with the SEC.
Shame on Woodford for committing so much cash with so little research. I think he was foolish and unprofessional, but nonetheless a victim rather than evildoer.
The folks who view Woodford as a manipulator (and bizarrely perhaps even behind Phase V) have no explanation for why he would trash his own $100m+ investment. That makes no sense.
Woodford is a money manger. He has no history of buying full control. He has no history of pushing out management. He has no history of manipulating prices lower to buy more.
FAKE news, but not in the Trump sense.
Franklin, Andrews, Kramer, Edelstein acronym spells FAKE. That should have been a big hint. 10 seconds on google would have led you to:
https://valuewiki.wordpress.com/2007/04/26/the-myth-of-the-paid-basher/
I think you are trying very hard to tie together two unrelated events.
Let's consider how to tie the 10-Q to the calendar a different way.
Perhaps Friday 11/16 after the close? If cash is short and there is no good news to report, they'll want to have the weekend to spin the 10-Q on social media.
nwbo 10-Q should be out in less than 2 weeks.
The latest they've filed for Q3 was 11/20 last year, and that required filing for an extension. This decade the date range is 11/9 - 11/20.
Interesting to look at the subsequent performance.
PBYI today (11/6/2018): $22.39
Down 70.9% from $76.90 on the date of your 5/30/17 anti-AF post. However, you could still have profited nicely from that point as it peaked around $132 a year ago.
That is not how you used the term in your original post, specifically the phrase "placebo (not SOC)".
Isn't this trial SOC vs (SOC + dcvax)?
So where did you get the idea of placebo patients? Or is that some sort of genuinely unfunny attempt at humor?
Doesn't always work the way you describe.
Consider CYTR the last year or so. They put forth a vote for a reverse split without adjusting authorized shares - and got rejected. A second vote then passed with authorization adjusted down by the R/S factor.
Besides, NWBO shareholders voted to incrase share authorization last April. That was independent of any R/S.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000114420418024749/tv192875_8k.htm
A reverse split requires a shareholder vote. Since that has not happened, it's not accurate to describe it as imminent.
There are two reasons for R/S; to be taken seriously by institutional investors, and listing requirements for Nasdaq or NYSE. It is not clear that nwbo is ready for either of those steps.
No, I think you missed the point. I said nothing about cherry picking patients.
Unless you have some reason to believe that the overall population of GBM patients is significantly different from the original 1599, anyone who was not a trial participant seems unlikely to be a treatment participant ( Note that getting this far requires making very positive approval assumptions).
The idea that 50% of overall GBM patients is somehow a "conservative" estimate is nonsense. It was based on nothing but opinion.
Start with real numbers from nwbo's publication. Add a bit of algebra. Now 5% market share look like an aggressive estimate.
In all fairness, you ought to include my reply including:
"They had to screen 1599 patients to get 331 trial participants (20.7%). The paper implies that certain subsets appeared to benefit the most (ex: methylated MGMT, younger, stronger immune system).
In light of 80% being eliminated in screening, and only certain subsets appearing to benefit even among those, guessing 50% market share of GBM is insanely optimistic, and totally at odds with the data published thus far."
How about a list rather than just one? These are all financial firms related to the mortgage crisis.
https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/enf-actions-fc.shtml
Goldman Sachs was fined $550 million. Several others in 9 figures.
Your conclusion is based on a sample size of ONE? And of course because that one example supports your preferred view?
And you believe that despite many cases where the SEC has moved faster, and despite the fact the SEC is already known to be involved with NWBO?
@Flipper, more right than not.
Pre-Woodford, nwbo was mostly doing public deals that met exchange standards. So I would date the toxic stuff to post-Woodford.
Once you do one vulture finance share+warrant deal, it makes it more likely that you do another, and another, ...
Meeting the terms of the vultures led nwbo afoul of NASDAQ regs. To me, downlisting was a big negative for longs. Once off NASDAQ, it removed some restrictions that the vultures likely wanted removed. Again, not good for longs.
I don't agree that nwbo is working with vultures to manipulate the stock price down. My take is that nwbo management has made a lot of mistakes, including underestimation of how dirty financing gets in sub-dollar land. In this case, I see nwbo management as victims of folks who better understood deal structures and terms.
The Cognate deal is interesting for many reasons. I suspect cashing out makes biotech a home run for Powers and Hemphill even if nwbo goes to zero. And yes, they took advantage of the circumstances to gain a lot of nwbo shares via Toucan, so if unblinded results are good they do indeed become very wealthy.
From 6/30/17 to 6/30/18, nwbo shares outstanding increased by 207 million. I think those 207,000,000 shares being for sale explains the $0.20 stock price much better than any conspiracy theory.
Pretty much all of those shares came with warrants. Someone buys (share + warrant) from willing seller Linda Powers, then tries to sell the share for the same price paid for the combination. The result is a zero cost warrant. Seems logical to me.
By your logic, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny must exist because there is no proof to the contrary.
My post was about no evidence of naked shorting of NWBO, but let's run with your point anyway.
"... we are committed to exposing and halting abusive naked short selling..." - from an SEC enforcement action back in 2014.
In the 2014 case above, there was an odd series of fails-to-deliver in the equity market combined with unusual activity in options markets. Complex, difficult to trace, but done none the less.
That gives us two relevant bits of knowledge:
1) The SEC takes naked short selling seriously.
2) The SEC has some ability to unravel complex trading schemes.
NWBO filings indicate that the SEC has an interest. To me the obvious issue is related-party transactions, but that's another discussion. If it was an investigation of market activity, there company would have no need to disclose, and might not even know about it.
Let's assume that nwbo longs have contacted the SEC about their belief in trading malfeasance. Despite the lack of supporting data, let's assume that the SEC took a look. Since naked shorting was floated as an issue 3-4 years ago, there has been plenty of time to build a case. Since we have not seen such a case, I think it is reasonable to conclude no evidence of abuse was found.
The market thinks nwbo is worth $0.20 at the present time.
I don't see anything wrong with that, and certainly don't think it is evidence of any malfeasance.
Have you looked at the increase in fully diluted share count (shares outstanding + potentially dilutive)?
6/30/17: 237 + 192 = 429m
6/30/18: 444 + 625 = 1069m
When the market sees that a company has sold that much stock, it expects more to come. When the company has been a willing seller of stock at prices $0.20 and in some cases below, that caps the price.
Of course I knew that no one can produce evidence of naked shorting. That's exactly the point. It's why I don't believe that thesis.
Dan, you know that I don't believe the nwbo naked short thesis. The fact that you are "pretty sure" is not compelling. If you can produce supporting data from a legitimate source, I'm happy to listen.
I also don't believe in the nwbo wolfpack thesis. One contrary argument is that folks keep accusing me of being part of a wolfpack, which I know is not true.