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.
Your theories are random BS, especially the idea that all the random bullish theories that abound on this MB are originating from NWBO as shiny objects to distract longs.
The great success rates in the combination trials are a very good reason to reinforce the belief that dc-vax has huge commercial value and that the RAs need to approve it, but it's nonsense to think that NWBO is planning to wait until they can use the combination trials as the pivotal trials to get dc-vax approved. It needs to be approved stand-alone as the first step forward in commercialization and I have no doubt that is what they will do and not because anybody from NWBO has whispered anything in my ear. This is very basic stuff.
WRT your ranting that the shares are going to trade down to .40, I'm sure Tuesdays action encouraged your delusional thinking. Anything is possible - the markets in general could melt down with all bids getting pulled. But waiting for a more ridiculously cheap price is the best way to lose the opportunity to buy at what already is a ridiculously cheap price. At this point on any given day (except maybe Fridays), it's hardly unlikely for MAA application to be announced and then you'd have to chase the stock up or wait and wait and hope that the short sellers can collapse the price again.
Any kind of trading game is possible to try if you're into trading, but for anybody who recognizes what Dc-Vax is really worth and wants to own shares to make a few dollars or more, they'd be pretty foolish to wait imo. Disclosure: FWIW I last added to my position recently at .53 and .61.
It sure looks like the ducks are lining up!
Thanks, Ambassador!
More foolish not to realize what a watershed moment RA approval will be, even if that's only the UK to start. That's not to say that I'm claiming that will be an instant ticket to ride and bring a sustainable pps of $5 or more. But I'll eat my shoes if it doesn't bring a sustainable 1.50-2.00 or better. IMO you've got to be terminally depressed not to see that and WTF 1.80 is 3 times the current pps. That's a rocking return for shares bought now.
Maybe it will still take more time to get well above that, who knows (there's every chance that BP interest gets awakened soon after that and the market will understand that) but what the hell even a sustainable $1.50 is a huge move from where the shares can be bought today. I don't get the pissing and moaning about "OMG meanwhile we're getting diluted" at a 5% annual rate in the meantime. It's taken a long time but it's nonsense to say that means that we're not really close to sustainable major moves.
Thanks, but the link leads to an article about glioma radiology. I see no apparent connection or reference to dc-vax anywhere in the article. Did you link to the wrong article? If not, please give me a page number that references dc-vax because I don't see that anywhere in a quick scan of this article on your link. This is your article (none of the authors are associated with dc-vax trials afaik).
Radiomics for characterization of the glioma immune microenvironment
Nastaran Khalili, Anahita Fathi Kazerooni, Ariana Familiar, Debanjan Haldar, Adam Kraya, Jessica Foster, Mateusz Koptyra, Phillip B. Storm, Adam C. Resnick & Ali Nabavizadeh
Thanks, for refreshing my aging mind, Jerry! Now that you mention it I remember it - that's the one that left me really scratching my head that they would aggregate multiple individual transactions that "were in many cases small and diverse and involved a number of unrelated parties", and consider them to be a single transaction for the purpose of applying NASDAQ rule 5635. How such a strange ruling could be predictable is beyond me. It seems like somebody went well out of their way to be punitive.
Legend, you wrote: "the only reason NWBO decided to to take legal action is to detract from their underperforming stock performance." You're entitled to believe that and indeed to bash the company for it as well, but if one really believed that I think one would have to be a moron not to take the money and run, even at a depressed stock price. The lawsuit wasn't even PRed, and the stock has traded above $1 subsequent to the lawsuit being filed and that being revealed in the 8-k filing.
Two violations of NASDAQ rule 3635? When was the other violation besides the one you quoted?
The 2016 ruling by the NASDAQ aggregated multiple stock instead of cash settlements with Cognate in 2014 and 2015 into a single offering for purposes of rule 3635. It was the surprise aggregation that caused the rule violation, neither issuance on its own qualified as over 20% of outstanding stock. When was the second violation you claim took place?
To me it seems strange that the NASDAQ arbiter deemed 2 transactions (they were more than a year apart IIRC), to be a single transaction to put NWBO into violation of rule 3635. It can't be proved but I don't doubt that judgment was instigated by a complaint from the hedge funds. In any case that happened and once was enough to cause NWBO to have to withdraw their listing from NASDAQ - they couldn't very well obtain shareholder permission in retrospect and other solutions to remove the violation were punitive.
Anyway, I may be wrong - was there an earlier violation of 3635? In fact two offerings in 2014-2015, aggregated in NASDAQ's judgment, led to a single violation, not 2. Please help me out - when was the second violation you're citing?
OK, you just have no idea how to read the financials then. Simply put, the net loss on the consolidated statement of operations is by no means the same as cash burn! With regard to continuing dilution, this is a pre-revenue company. For cripes sake, anybody with the slightest clue knows that they have to sell stock to pay their expenses until they reach profitability. If that upsets you or is any surprise to you at all you most definitely should not be buying individual stocks, especially not development-stage companies! Until you have a better understanding of how these businesses work you really, really ought to stick to investing in mutual funds.
The key measure of how dangerous to current stock the dilution is, is the RATE of dilution. Since you can't correctly read the financials to understand what the cash burn rate is, you are seriously handicapped in correctly understanding this measurement. I strongly suggest that you read up on how to read the statements.
Meanwhile trust me, the dilution rate is 5% annually. If that scares a lot you then surely this investment is not for you and never was.
Thanks, Lykiri! The NWBO segment on the 6/14 show (not the latest one) begins around 2:10. FWIW, there is nothing new in this broadcast, it was largely focused on background about how bad a disease GBM is and how much improvement was shown in the ph3 trial. It sounds like Les will be back on this broadcast next week and may get into more interesting details at that time.
By my calculation, the annual dilution rate from issuing new shares at .65/share is about 5%. That's not nothing, it's a -5% rate of return if the shares remain at .65. But in my view, this is scarcely worth a ton of moaning.
In my view, in a year we will most likely see RA approval in the UK at a minimum, resulting at a conservative estimate, in a fair value share price of $2 or better. I.e. investors can, even if no deals are done in the meantime, likely anticipate 300% ROI within a year or less, at the cost of a -5% dilution. Of course, there is a risk that the pps could fall and it could fall considerably, but IMO the much-touted dilution cost at .65/shr alone is far smaller than the whining here would seem to indicate if one believes that positive events will more likely than not unfold and that the pps will, in turn, appreciate commensurately.
BTW OP's statement of $20M/Q cash burn is just wrong. Per the latest 10Q it was less than 12.5M in Q1, in other words, a bit less than $50M on an annual basis. My number for that comes from the statement of cash flows, namely $11,239,000 net cash used plus 933 stock-based compensation for services. If you disagree, please show your work.
So we get about 75M new shares ($50M cash burn @ .65/share) in a year, as the numerator over 1.5 billion shares now outstanding on a fully diluted basis. That seems to me to be about a 5% annual dilution rate. Is this the tempest in a teapot that some people here are whining about? What am I missing?
Is there any link to a recording of this show? All I have found is a link to a still shot of LG. TIA is anybody has a link they can post.
It's no time to talk about 'marketing strategy' nor to give any guidance about what the RAs are going to do when. Your premise is simply ludicrous.
Any promotion now would be very wrong. It's not their job to promote the treatment in any way now. It's not their job to 'support the value of the stock' by making any promises to anybody. They are absolutely doing everything the right way WRT to not issuing PRs, not getting out in front of the regulatory processes to try to promote Dc-Vax that includes not touting the spectacular results LL is getting at UCLA in the latest combination trials.
You don't hear anything from LP because it's not time to sell the benefits of DC-Vax to patients nor to investors. They have to just continue to walk the walk, quietly complete a full and complete MAA and BLA and get approved then only start selling the product, telling the world why and how soon Dc-Vax will be the new SOC for GBM and what that will mean financially for the company and for investors.
Do you hear a word from LP, DI or LG promoting the product or the company now? No, because that would be totally inappropriate. They aren't making promises to investors about when they will file for marketing approval, when they expect to get approved, how much revenue they expect when, etc. Why not? Because they have integrity. Because this is not a Theranos.
Do you want to blame them for having integrity? That's really stupid.
Today the stock was killed a bit by 800k shares actually traded in 10 minutes from 3:40-3:55. Could be some manipulation e.g. buy the shares up in the am to sell in the pm. More likely than not the motive was simple day or swing trading as the stock traded at the top of a 2-day .15 gain and a small herd of traders got spooked individually or together, and/or by plan sold off a big trading position (not all that big $-wise).
Mostly likely just trading algos doing their thing. IMO less likely somebody with an agenda to try to put a cap on a strong rally. Can't blame every disappointing move in the pps on the great conspiracy, not that there might be some truth behind that thought. Anyway nothing is to say that the rally cannot get back in gear tomorrow especially if there is any impending news behind it. Rome wasn't built in a day, slow and steady wins the race, and all that LOL.
How well are you sleeping these nights? It would be nice even to hear that getting full import/export approval required some stuff to be added to the MAA and it will be submitted this month. Hopefully, that happens ASAP and then the equilibrium at least moves .10-.20 higher if not more subject to another waiting game till we get to some boom goes the dynamite moves upon MAA approval at last.
BTW as of Y/E there were 140M warrants with strike price of .31 and relative to the options, a much shorter time remaining of only 1.5 years on average. But that's still a lot of time value to give up and cash to come up with to exercise for cash if the holder doesn't intend to just turn around and sell the stock (or they can exercise cashless then sell or hold without coming up with any cash).
In prior years NWBO gained a lot of operating cash from warrant exercises but the warrants were expiring so holder had to use them. Now with even 1.5 year time left on the warrants if you hold them you'd give away 1.5 years interest on a bond to exercise them now rather than hold them. Hence they are indeed a great hedge against BK as long as the pps is above the warrant price so any talk of BK is really stupid, but we know that. But in terms of cash flow, the warrants are not likely to be exercised in any large number until much closer to their expiration dates unless holders want to be quite altruistic which is not at all normal for financial asset management.
Gary, AFAIK the time limit on not trading after signing an NDA is just as long as it takes for any inside information revealed under the NDA to become public knowledge.
WRT the options the 10-k says that there were 300M options with average exercise price of .34 outstanding as of Y/E. It's super easy to find this info in the 10-k and you get very important additional info if you look it up.
Namely a big BUT on your thoughts: The options have an average exercise time remaining of 7 years. There is a very large cash value in the time value, just on a 5% interest basis for 7 years it would be a lot of money to put up the $100M cash to exercise them now rather than keeping that cash in bonds until you really need to convert to shares. And I doubt very much that the holders have that much cash sitting around even if they were willing to sacrifice the 7-year value of that cash. Generally, the holders have nothing personal to gain by exercising early unless they intend to sell the shares. IMO it's very unlikely that the options would be a source of much cash this far out from their expiration dates, again unless the holders wanted to sell the shares to cash out and take their money off the table right away.
It's a matter of negotiation. First and foremost, how good is the news and how certain? If some deal is pending and that's the news then the terms of the deal are very material. Otherwise from where I sit the only certainly highly valuable news is MAA approval. At that point certainly it's possible for the company to produce credible projections of market penetration, growth rate, revenues and profits. You know, the normal things that drive valuations of companies that are beyond the purely speculative phase.
Short of that it's a matter of how much the buyer wants to buy in and subject to negotiations. The stock having gotten smashed down every time it's extended could make agreeing on a fair price difficult, that is for sure. As you well understand. I don't know why you are even asking this question as the above is very obvious.
A legit buyer of substantial equity is interested in what they perceive as outstanding value of the company they are buying, not to game the market, though perhaps if it's a hedge fund the latter could be part of their business model. But word leaks and if word leaked that XYZ hedge fund is acquiring a large position then the stock price pops and they would have shot themselves in the foot isn't it?
Besides which in your scenario they would already somehow know it's a sure thing before signing the NDA and getting read into the game-changing news? Doesn't make sense - they wouldn't even need disclosure in that case. Anyway, a large buyer presumably values the business highly and if it's a business partner then they would be focused on buying the business interest and making a lot of money off that, not nickel and diming any deal by gaming the market if they are not in the equity trading business.
The company always has a financial interest in getting the best deal they can for any shares they sell. If they have certainty of a game-changing event but need to sell equity as a bridge then of course it would be in the company's and existing shareholders' interests for the company to be able to make disclosures under an NDA and get the best possible price. They need to be able to do that. If anybody gets illegitimately enriched through disclosure that would be fraud and civil or even criminal proceedings are available to police that.
We need to understand that there is a difference between buying newly minted shares directly from the company and buying or selling shares on the open market. A company is allowed to give information to a buyer or potential buyer of an offering under an NDA. The potential buyer is allowed to buy shares from the company - that doesn't cheat any other trader. But they are not allowed to use the info by buying on the open market - that would cheat the other party in that trade. They are also not allowed to give the info to anybody else who then trades on the open market because again the person with insider knowledge would be cheating the counterparty to the trade.
The principle is that parties to any trade on the market should be on a level playing field wrt inside knowledge. Some people might feel that it's not fair that anybody may be given any info to induce them to buy an offering or any kind of acquisition or partnership involving buying shares from the company, but that doesn't break the fairness of the trading on the open market and is allowed, again only wrt a deal between the company and a buyer of shares directly from the company.
Whatever you think about how long it's taken, analogizing an application to RA for marketing approval to a 'college paper' is a very dumb comparison. Far from being cute, you are trivializing your opinions.
NWBO is a small team of mature adults fully engaged in a very serious endeavor trying to supplant the SOC for one of most deadly diseases known to man. Very serious money has been and continues to be invested to make this happen. Just because you don't know the details of what they are doing doesn't mean that it's not ridiculous for you to compare them to undergraduate students writing term papers, etc. That's silly nonsense talk, which fails in any way to appreciate the seriousness of the work they are doing. If you think that is in any way an appropriate comparison, then clearly you have no clue what they are actually doing to get the RA submissions complete in a way that will give them very reasonable hopes for a swift approval.
It's on the books for 80k as farmland. Rezoned and subdivided into high-end single family residential lots in the middle of the booming Cambridge biotech belt, it's worth upwards of 100 times that. How soon it will be sold I don't know but I'm sure the value is a lot (pun intended) closer to $8M than $80k
It's not clear exactly what the extent of Tancredi/Walgreens' direct interest in Dc-Vax is. To me it's quite clear that Tancredi is a guy who is very on top of what is coming in general and hence very significant at least as a significant confirmation that he sees DcVax as moving into the realm of available treatments later this year. For me that is a very good to see signifier that we are indeed on the right track with this investment.
The costs of providing the 'goods' would be included in the operating costs and expenses R&D line item. I'm no accountant so I don't know and you might well be correct but it seems pretty strange to me as a non-accountant to have a net income number reported in the 'revenue' line.
I know that they may legitimately not want to expose any gm information especially on the Specials program, but this number doesn't seem to me to be a mere nit. Actually I think it would be very helpful for us to understand the status of the program if they told us how many patients were treated. At this point we have no idea when and how much we'll start to get in product revenue and as such this number is rather meaningful as far as I'm concerned. There are natural limits to how quickly a Specials program can take off and how much patients can come up with the $$$ needed without insurance payments to be sure. But at a minimum it would be great to know the throughput of the program - e.g. that also seems very important as a systems validation question. Are we actually getting enough patients through all the processes to verify the systems and make sure they will not face any delays in ramping due to systems glitches or more serious issues once the full marketing approval is obtained?
What do you mean by 'they don't call it revenue'? It's on the P&L as research and other revenue, showing numbers for 2023 and 2022:
Revenues:
Research and other
$
880
$
403
Total revenues
880
403
Operating costs and expenses:
My understanding is that the P&L statement always provides gross revenue, not net revenue. Is this case different because it's under R&D revenue? If so that is definitely news to me and it's very important to understand that correctly. I've written to DI for clarification on this.
WRT your explanation on the billing profile, indeed that is a very important point because if we are thinking that the total cost to the patient would be say $220k USD and would imagine that they get billed all at once upfront then $880k would represent only 4 patients. If in fact, some or most patients treated this quarter have only been billed so far for creating the lysate and will end up being billed most of the total charges only as they receive the injections over the course of X months, then they probably treated a lot more than 4 patients, though we don't have any idea how many patients were actually treated which would be an important number to understand.
Jerry, please remind me - which articles have the DcVax supporting Docs written that bash Optune and say that it doesn't work? I can't remember any. Were they making a lot of noise opposing Optune getting approved? I think that was before my time.
HL you confuse 2 very different categories of people. There are a number of medical doctors who are financially involved with Novacure as a therapy who bash DcVax - some of them no doubt are getting 6 figure income streams from practices centered on Optune. IMO there is very good reason to question the medical ethics of those doctors bashing DcVax. Is that standard practice in the medical community, bashing a therapy that might cause you to lose patients if it is approved? I would not know, but I have my doubts about whether that is considered medically ethical.
Posters on this MB who believe that dcVax is far superior seem to be far more focused on the merits of DcVax rather than focusing their energy on bashing Optune. I think that is one big difference and the other is that the latter are posting their opinions as investors, unlike the DcVax bashing doctors who write or speak in their capacity as medical experts. In some cases they have even failed to mention that they have a financial interest in seeing Optune continue to be the only RA-approved treatment. That is certainly a serious ethical breach IMO.
Let me get this straight. All this hand-wringing today is over a potential further loan, because, after all, we don't know when the MAA will be submitted. Well I have to admit, why would God have given us grapes if he didn't want us to whine every day, right?
Dear Karl, your English is fine, no need to apologize on that score!
All in, including shares, warrants and options LP has about 170M shares. So the difference to her wealth between e.g. $5/share price and $10/share is almost $1B, an order of magnitude larger than a 'mere hundred millions'.
I'm just saying that there could well be a difference of close to $1B for her wealth between e.g. a bid vs her ask on a buyout price, and on what she could clear by making a buyout deal in the near term vs waiting for much more solid proof of how valuable the dcvax franchise will end up being. I believe there may well be a conflict between what NWBO could sell for in the near term to somebody with a lot more $ and people to take it forward vs what it might be likely to sell for several years or more from now, but that might delay the speed of progress with which dcvax starts to see a very big impact on not only GBM but just maybe a lot of other cancer indications. I.e. there is almost certainly IMHO a big tension for LP wrt getting the maximum payout for selling NWBO vs how fast DCVax advances cancer treatment and helps thousands of patients every year.
Even with limited English skills I hope you can still 100% understand what I'm saying.
Doc, this has dragged on for years. We all know what LP said about BP bringing only a checkbook to the table, but that was nearly a decade ago that she said that, wasn't it? None of us has the slightest idea what she is thinking now, what alternatives there are, now how many more years it will take to bring dc-vaxl into full demand with insurance coverage and to bring production along to meet that demand. Say nothing of all the clinical trials which might push along various combinations into full clinical use eventually.
I should think that the pressure should be on the latter, both from a full commercialization perspective as well as from a more humanitarian concern of getting dcvax into being a widely used treatment that can benefit the lives of thousands of patients, especially if the full potential is realized.
How insistent is LP going to be going forward to try to grow this to provide her with riches that push her well into the top 1% of the wealthy at her plus-60 age vs taking what she can reasonably get in order to bring far more $ resources into pushing dcvax forward, assuming that is really a possibility? IMO nobody here knows Linda well enough to know that answer nor do we know what the universe of real world possible deals are within the next say 12-24 months.
I'm sure that LP isn't going to give dcvax away at any fire-sale price, but will she settle for a mid single figure dollars for share sale price to get this going much faster than NWBO has shown themselves capable of being? Or is even that price still a mirage for dreamy longs at this point in the development process? Who the frack really can know that know to any degree of reliability? I mean, I don't plan to sell for a dollar or two but how long do we have to wait for how much more than that we can only make very WAGs about imo.
Congrats that you now realize that Dc-vaxl will get RA approval! That is the very important first step in grasping the impact this will have on GBM treatment.
Thanks, Jerry.
Just curious, how many warrants do you think remain unexercised and where do you find that number documented?
The shares only just fell below .65 and I have it from an accredited investor that the spread vs the market was less than 5%. Who are these friends who have supposedly been buying at .60? You must know since you claim it's a fact.
They are not in e-commerce. Who do you think they need to impress with a great website? Do you think that will attract more patients? More neuro-oncologists who give guidance to the patients? Or do you think that prospective investors care so much about their website? Who is the important audience for it?