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.
Maverick, as always, lots of very powerful information in your post! Thanks! By the way when is happy hour? Can't seem to find that info??
Sentiment, also worthy to consider where sp would have fallen under a theory that Woody did not support it through share purchases. Though no available proof on that point. Also, really doubt NW would want insider info such that his trading the shares would be prohibed until all is made public, since that handcuff is not desirable from standpoint of running a fund, and might show a course of dealing theory that could harm him in the future under insider trading allegations. Finally, I would just note LP's public statement is neutral, but also powerfully positive since the fact that trial is ongoing eliminates the truly terrible possibilities. I believe NW is smart enough to get that. I am nonetheless surprised he contacted LP at all since that does raise questions, such as the ones you raise. Creates a world of speculation.
Sentiment, nice thinking cap time! We have to recognize that Woody certainly wouldn't want insider info that could get a criminal charge slapped on him; assuming he is buying!
Dollar cost averaging is an effective tool to reducing share cost. I am sure Woody is still acquiring. Woody has acted as a very powerful friend to existing shareholders and has supported share price! Many funds would have acquired shares in a more power broke fashion with significant discounting demands. But Woody has provided support by buying on regular intervals in general mkt. He wants to create greater total capital value for NW. This very temporary low we have in price has a two pronged cause: 1) general rout in biotech mkt; 2) surprise issue with P111. The price should climb on satisfactory conclusion of issue two. And certainly hope issue one reverses!
Being an Admin could suggest that you have a connection to the Big Head and thus conclusive information about share count. Of course a very effective short strategy could be announcing that Woody has lost faith and is selling. Take your assertion of share count and show the next SEC filings of Woody would establish that argument. As flimsy as that seems, people seem to believe anything!
See post 40406 and 40408. You need to press a little further to see that the SEC filings themselves indicate whose included in the count for that filing.
Your ideas about Woodford shorting are totally nonsensical! Aside from having no logical underpinning from a hedge strategy, they make no sense from a momentum strategy either. Finally, Woodford is constrained by his charter, and pretty certain it's a long only fund. So like can we talk sense here. I'll just ignore I guess!
WIM includes Equity fund in its count! So you are double counting.
A bit like the crab in seeking Elmo ! The "financial advisor". So 1000 shares long on NWBO and 1000 shares short NWBO equal someone's idea of the perfect hedge? But why bother!!!
Not sure Woodford's fund charter permits shorting. Could be a long only fund. Also, not sure it makes sense to short stock you are long on. Generally the hedge is against other stocks within a mkt sector to take downside mkt risk away. What you are suggesting is pretty novel!
my last post was going to be my last for the evening, but I will make an exception for you any day. I believe your text that is an exact statement of our concerns. So we need to know 1) does the SOC that exist at the time of NDA application/review qualify to eliminate trials that were initiated under a different SOC; 2) Can a device that is approved to treat a condition or disease become a SOC against which a new drug must prove efficacy.
I bet the second issue has not been addressed, even in the regulations.
koman, It is standard procedure for the incorporater to be a stranger, as most incorporations are preformed by service companies like PHC. A little different when you get to special names like GE Capital or GE Consumer Services, etc. In instances where you have a registered corporate name that is playing off existing ones, then proof of relationship may be required. Since you think NWBO didn't use its name, although it is registered to do business in England, then it most likely used a service that used a stranger as the incorporater. The process is simple: The first concern is to do a name search to find whether the name is available. A filing is done to save the name and then the corporation is subsequently assigned to NWBO at which time it files incorporation documents stating the nature of business, name, place of business, service agent in the jurisdiction, and other stuff that change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Bylaws are pretty general on issues like this so bet they can create any number of corporations to do business. I really doubt LP has anything to hide, it all sounds like standard practice to me. This is my last post for the evening. Have a good one.
Agreed! Which is one reason he can't sell unless it's a success! Aside from the issue of who would want to buy if he is selling. No, Woody's intent is to buy deep into a superstar very early! So he thinks NWBO could be that. If it turns out different, write off. He only needs one really good victory for every five investments. I think NWBO could be it!
Agreed. I think a very strong minority position may change the timing of project completions (Woodford). Unfortunately we have no control over whether the FDA accepts NDA based on PFS. And I am not saying that they want, but if that turns into the case we are left with OS. Which puts another year on the calendar, minimally.
I have practiced in Admin Law and can say that NDA hearing records do not offer authority. The reference IV made to those records were comments by the FDA which to extent they referenced positions by the FDA an authority should have been cited. FDA can't just make things up as they go along. They had to engage in rule making about all the issues we are discussing. Rule making is a complicated process. Long of it there has to be regulations on this matter! That would be authoritative!
Senti,
I read that debate over on Ivillage. I find it interesting that IV does not resort to regulations in his discussion of this matter. He merely points to references from NDA application hearings with the FDA. I do not know beans about this area of law, so really can't say much. I might try to look up the regulations regarding NDA and see if anything matches up with these issues. Generally these regulations are very complex and take some knowledge to simply navigate. But I thought you stood your ground well. Not much you can say regarding his claim of authority, unless you can site to something also. Good luck with the FDA boys, if anything like the IRS then whatever they tell you is 50% reliable. Unless you are dealing with someone in a professional capacity. Rather than the people they hire to answer the telephone and provide basic answers.
Woodford can't sale shares! He ownes to many shares. When big funds buy large percentages of a small company it's for keeps. Who would buy 20 million shares on NWBO? He is in it to win as a fast growth holding! So if you are waiting for him to sell you might as well set the alarm for five to ten years!
Koman, corporate registrations take place at state level with various entities, but generally Sec of State. A registration gives much info but does not reveal owners (incorporates only) nor corporate bylaws, charters, minutes or assets. There could be a listing for director or secretary of the entity. Be mindful that subsidiary ownership of assets such as real estate is a standard strategy to create bankruptcy remoteness. Additionally, there could be local rules which encourage separate ownership (property tax valuation models) In the U.S. Property deeds are held in the local county seat of government with the Registry of Deeds. Assume same approach in England. The deed will provide description of property, seller, buyer, price and type of title and reservations to title.
A corporation has to assign an agent for service of legal process in the state. That might help identify the owner as it might be a local company officer. Corporate SEC filings and statements of public companies should list all subsidiaries. 10q or 10k.
What are you wanting to accomplish? You could always ask the company directly as a shareholder, since real property ownership does not fall under corporate secrets! That's why they employ shareholder relations people!
Hey, thanks for the warning some time back. About this post on shorting; you would have done much better on virtually any other biotech. Looks like NWBO is hanging in pretty well.
Maverick, you are a really good guy, and it's unfortunate they don't make them like you anymore. No today we have people who believe in Martians and vampires and such. So I have argued for certain logical positions that seem right to me. It's fair game for anyone to take an opposing view. But somehow I have managed to draw fire from both short and long. I find that to be very funny!
To the longs, I encourage accumulation of shares, if you believe in the science. Nothing like buying shares while there cheap. The arguments do obfuscate the actual facts. But LP has made very clear statements that crystallize a claim that L and Direct substantially extend lives. Folks, you don't get those kind of statements from most CEO's. If she is wrong I believe she will have donated her family wealth to existing shareholders. I believe she is speaking from observations that are unique to her. So even if it takes another year to obtain approval, so what. And I wouldn't worry about Woodford leaving the stadium as selling is not his plan (that must be very clear from his posture). Finally I point to the substantial shares held by LP and affiliated entities which have not been sold off. LP puts her pocketbook at total risk on the success of NWBO. That is not something you see from a crook folks.
A question for the group: do you believe your efforts here affect share price? I believe your pocket book does more so use it wisely.
To those who don't like me (oops guess that is about everyone) Good luck, you need it! :)
I believe it is relevant to our discussion, though it's the criminal side of enforcement. I have yet to study the 2nd Circuit opinion so I am not totally certain. It appears to address enforcement where information was not from typical insider. Should be interesting read! I use lexis subscription, but you should be able to access opinion on web.
Rational minds have to agree that the hots demonstrated by AF is a little on the unusual side. I am not going to judge the guy, but clearly he is very biased! Whether he supports shorts is an unproven issue. But it is clear that the shorts are heavily invested in NWBO. And I know that they are sometimes activist about their positions. So a little pernoid is warranted.
Advaxis has no short problem, has enjoyed rising share prices! The issue here is a stopped trial for safety (pretty big issue).
Regarding the cash burn by NWBO, the company is not only finishing trials, but preparing for commercial production post P111. Given that, it's cash burn is a bit like a rocket, not to much as to blow up nor to little as to fall to earth. But it's a clear lack of analysis to assert mismanagement.
I failed to add that this is relevant to NWBO as it is to all stock companies! Enough Jim?
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/05/us-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-major-insider-trading-case.html
Sentiment,
Newman case recently made news as S.Ct. Declined to hear appeal from 2Cir. Federal Appeals Court which overturned conviction of insider trading handed down by Ma Fed D Ct. The Justice Dept. has non-acquiesced to the 2nd Cir. Which means the Feds will impose the stricter standards in all Circuits other than the 2nd. The S.Ct. Likely declined hearing the matter because of a lack of conflict of opinion in the circuit courts (matter not important enough for the court at this time and the issue has not been fully developed as will happen if conflict of positions develop in cts.). I think this addresses the issue of insider info that has moved beyond insider control. I have not read cases yet, but intend to soon.
Yea, its called case law. The issue is stare decises.
yep. I have to get some work done. Have a great day.
The law is quite a wide area of knowledge. When you have time look at the federal register at your local library. Guess you don't like me for sure. Odd how people take a position without thinking why. I call them the non-thinkers, go-along crowd. Anyone you can think of here?
Attorney's have (uniform) rules under the local bar which defines their obligation to clients, and also to the way in which they interact with the public. Reliance can be a tricky subject and is why most attorneys issue disclaimers. I think its clear that I am not your attorney and you are not my client. And I am pretty sure that Schnauzer1 is not a listed attorney anywere in the US. I could look into a matter and offer my view on the subject, but frankly, I don't make a practice out of that area of law, and the standards are being defined by new fact patterns. I believe the issue may have been recently redefined by the patent claims for discovery of human gene complex. I have not looked into that matter specifically. Is that a contentious issue. I don't think LP claims to hold anything by patent other than the processes. Can you articulate the very specific area of concern you have?
Which is why predictive ability is important and should be one of the core concerns for NWBO. Of course, if the prognosis about efficacy is only available after the manufacturing process is finished, not a lot of savings there.
finally, a sane one in the group. Truly a twilight zone episode. I guess you guys have some strong feelings about that pyrr fellow. But really, the Paranoid group think is amazing and worthy of some couch time.
You mean you want a recital to case law, or perhaps the federal register, statutes or regulations. I don't see any value in that really. The litigation issues are stated pretty well in the complaint filed in federal district court in Maryland. A complaint has to cite to the authority that is controlling of the claims. If I have time I'll take a quick look. I am assuming the statements made by LP were truthful and correct. Complaint cites to the Street's assertions about the Anderson response (bussdar?) as justification for it's claim of a misleading statement. I think LP has acknowledged that she is less forthcoming as a result of those initial law firm claims (which were unable to attract clients). The subsequent Conference posters seem to support the early claims of LP. And LP is on record as giving no settlement for these claims.
Sorry to hear that you don't like me. I can give you my opinion only. Linda is a very bright lady, so I defer to her in regards to the patent. She states that NWBO is the investigator and trial sponsor, so that would appear to offer some protection as to the methods used by the company. I assume the patents have been filed correctly and therefore should be enforceable. I don't think they get patent to biologic components of the human body. Litigation issues are always dicey to analysis, however, enough to say that I am invested in the company. Naked shorts: illegal for sure, however, who knows for sure what is taking place as the dark pools are a problem.
You guys need to understand, its in my training to debate issues. There is no right or wrong, the debate refines the issue to clarity. I certainly learn a lot more by taking a position and jumping in rather than passively reading someones opinion. And more importantly the concern you pose is not really a sound one. The best organizations operate by thrashing out the issues. If you don't do that you tend to walk blindly saying yes to each other, and walking off the path.
afford,
Thanks for the feedback. I found some things curious with regards to the conference presentation in London. That seems proper for anyone. I am an attorney, so I have always tried to understand the subject of conversation. Arguing against the science? I don't know why Pyrr self-destructed like he did, since he should have known that the US tradition for turncoats is to hang them. I really could care less as to whether you are invested in the stock or not, whether your short or not. I came to this board to learn more about the subject. Nothing like jumping in the water to learn how to swim. So if you are waiting for me to argue against the science, don't hold your breath. Thanks,
Good Luck
No, I hear you clearly. I will have to review the issue as I am not sure the survival chart or the presentation suggest that all dendritic cells can produce cytokines at specified levels. LP was high lighting the differences between cancers within populations and within the same cancer, and the same with dendritic cells.
Yes, but not all Dendritic cells have the same production rate for these cytokines. The survival graph is about those with D cells that produce more correlated with those whose survival is longer. To the extent that production is measurable at manufacturing and is predictive of survival then researchers are able to offer better guidance. It's about distinctions between individuals and the ability to predict outcomes! Clearly the discussion is not relevant to the sub grouping of GBM types. That was not the topic.
All you say may be true. But, the focus of LP on IL-8 as a significant new development as it was newly shown to be highly correlated to survival appears to be overlooked here. But where it gets interesting is when she states that 'we can see the creation of IL-8 even before the conclusion of manufacturing". Was she suggesting that they could use this IL-8 production in the manufacturing process as a predictor of the efficacy of the product? Because the higher the amount of production the higher the correlation to survival. I find this to be interesting. The second proposition that I made was that L and Direct have the same biological form of action. That seems straight forward and apparent as they both are the same D cells but for the timing of the maturation and the uptake of antigens. That being the case (assuming you buy into this for a moment) the question is can NWBO look at the batch of L product at the end of manufacturing and determine with more accuracy the individuals who will have greater success than the rest? That would, of course, be quite significant.
Very funny.
I wouldn't take much from those typos as they are generated by the correct type on my iphone. Besides I typically don't do a second edit (as I would for a formal document) because it really doesn't matter. Why you ask? Because it's Schnauzer1 !!
Don't 90% of all options expire outside the money? Maybe more