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.
It was a good link for me. Click on Projects and NWBO's DCVax is listed as he indicated.
I agree with your view that shorts love to see longs sell and drive the price down. There is no realistic reason that the company would want to do that... or its managers.
Those people! Living too long! Just who the heck do they think they are anyway!?
You're right, it could be bought. Not my ideal outcome either. But it won't be bought for 50 million, I suspect. Buyouts do happen and if I feared that outcome very sincerely, and my average price was much, much higher, I'd personally try to average down or take a loss on more expensive shares and buy cheap now in some amount that might attempt to address that risk, if I intended, overall to stay invested. These are risky stocks, no doubt, and it could ultimately go bad. I think most of us have calculated the risk and made our own determinations of what we can afford here, for the upside. People should continually do that calculation.
Thanks MD. You're kind. I admire and appreciate your posts as well.
Excellent answer. Professional money managers like to muddy the waters with noise for a reason. Thanks for the facts. :) Much appreciated!
There is no indication there is a negative interaction with the doctors or the institutions doing the trials. Moreover, any doctor that puts you on a drug because his pharmaceutical marketer treats him "nicer" and gives him vacations, while another one has a treatment that will allow his patient to live far longer, needs to have his license revoked and, personally, I as a patient would be running from that doctor so fast, he'd never know I had even stepped in his or her office. Good luck with your healthcare if you're going to doctors so falsely swayed, willingly.
I'm sorry, that point makes little sense to me.
Though that may seem likely to some, I think another potential reality is, even if it doesn't hit certain end points, it still succeeds. So people who sell without understanding the full impact, may very well lose out on the end game here. This is a very complex trial, with potentially very complex results yet to be revealed and that will very possibly be revealed very carefully, in the long-run.
Some will make lots of money trading the ups and downs as the market digests news, but it may not be obvious what is going to happen, based upon any headlines.
It will be interesting to watch, certainly. Lots of traders will be having public meltdowns on this one, no doubt.
All that matters are the trial results, and their relationships with the doctors and institutions and journals. Relationships with posters on bulletin boards, or being quiet during their trials, to the dissatisfaction of bulletin board posters and investors, will have no impact on the success of their product.
Very interesting. Thanks!
Your article quote (no link) mentions no JV, no miletstone payments, and it's an already approved product and says nothing about nwbo's DCVax trials nor its potential. NWBO has a combination therapy trial now too, and I certainly expect more to come.
I hear you. And those instruments create a lot of opportunity if you are absolutely certain you're getting a deal at that moment.
I only buy and sell extremely deliberately. I'm a long, or I am out. Though sometimes I get out to take a loss, and then jump on another opportunity and miss out on a stock I'm mentally still long on, but happen to be out of while catching another bus.
Interesting and understood. Though selling covered calls is not the same as investing buy buying calls on the shares at a high price. I know they are cheap, but what you "own" is not very much and it's not current shares. It's a promise to pay if an event is triggered, with a deadline for that date. So it's extremely speculative.
Selling calls, is still speculative, but you own something, and you're getting revenue on it while you may have speculated also that there is no real way that you're going to lose those shares. It's a different kind of speculation, certainly. But you own a relatively more substantial investment right as a shareholder.
The downside there is that you're getting that "revenue" on a very speculative stock that is more likely to go down in price, often, until it gets close to that key binary (but not even binary these days, given less certainty whether reaching key points is even absolutely necessary to ultimate approval) moment, as we are, we believe, now.
Apologies, I was thinking you were speaking generally. You have calls added to a fundamentally long position. I hear you. Adds some fizz, no doubt.
My post was not intended to attack, just to indicate that calls are not something I tend to trade in, no matter what the news is, given what really happens. I know the brokerages love to sell them, and "traders" love to talk them up. But traders are traders. They eat what they can kill. I try to avoid that mindset because the short-term nature of it creates pressures I'd rather avoid when making sound long-term investment decisions.
On the other hand, honestly, given how the market operates these days, it's almost a given that all of these companies are run down, unless they start really start high (ala Juno), with big players already invested. So I effectively am buying "calls" with my very, very cheap shares. I waited a long time to get in here, because I didn't like what the shorts were doing, and I was busy elsewhere to get into a company far from results. The market cap now, at $50 million or so, is low, and makes a real pop here very substantial potentially. So that's what makes the share ownership similar to a call. But at the end of the day, 30-50 million, maybe 25 million, the market cap is still in a range. Dilution becomes the issue, though right now, with 10 million in the bank, I'm feeling it's not a bad time to hold for now, given pending news.
I evaluate differently than others. I also think this is why the shorts are all over this board right now. They know getting this market cap down now is hard, and it's more likely to drift upwards, without news, as speculation builds.
Well, longs who hold calls get screwed, but longs who hold shares, not necessarily. I don't really call investors in options, longs. It's a bit of a non sequitur. I would not get in a long position in that manner. It's a cheap and quick way to make some money sometimes, but it's more like gambling than investing.
Nice thought here!
Hedge funds! Those guys!
GLTU and Happy New Year Eagle!
Let's hope 2017 is a phenomenal year for NWBO and all who continue as longs!
1. There is no such thing, beyond one article and Feuerstein's tiny world view, as the Feurstein Rutain "rule". Those referencing it are only doing so in ignorance or desperation, or both. Feurstein is typically the person referencing it, so assuming others are doing so, it suggests a level of coordination one would hope doesn't exist, since there is no such thing. People talking about a nonsensical notion, as if it is a rule of physics, repeatedly, on various forums, is pretty weird.
2. You don't know what the problem is with the "Phase 3" trial yet beyond speculation, based upon some few facts we know and speculation.
While we know about the "halt", what you think you know, is all "known" through speculation, at our levels, and via the key researcher, who is also speculating. We also know, according to her, everyone is living longer due, she believes, to the crossover arm. It's an issue, but not necessarily what you suggest and speculate about.
No one says anything is perfect or great. Just that we need the data. Shorts speculate without data and claim they are being "realistic". That's just not the case at all.
The technology doesn't come from a small tech company, it comes from a University that is part of a state system, and the state is one of the largest economies in the world. These efforts have been funded by NIH and large institutions for years and years. Feurstein's views are so isolated from reality and meant so specifically for spin only, and destruction of these companies, that his game has long ago been exposed fro what it is, at this point - gaming the markets.
I appreciate what you post generally, but the liberalization on these issues has absolutely nothing to do with Trump, and was well underway a few years ago and continues based upon bipartisan legislation and the cancer moonshot project and personnel already at FDA. It's unfortunate people keep trying to politicize something that most everyone was already in agreement on some time ago.
People who sell "financial rules" on stocks belong on late night informercials, selling fraudulent products. There is no such thing as a rule and certainly not one based upon a disgraced, previously barely resected theory that no one believed, ever was a "rule".
Markets are not quantum mechanics.
Didn't stop CPXX, which was valued around 50 million before it popped on fantastic news. Just a recent example.
Like it would have been smart to update when no one is listening or watching or at work?
Feurestein's reliance on old data, from old companies, doing a broad array of products, and their fundamental assumptions based upon the "intelligent markets" theory, are so dated, so flawed and so useless that they are no longer academically sound ideas.
That he quotes them and that he or his "acolytes" ... or whatever, keep quoting this notion, are just justification for shorts to do damage to companies that they want to see bought out for cheap, by someone else. It's utter nonsense and it's not valid.
He's a joke. A blogger on a washed up financial web site that itself is a penny stock and under capitalized. He's a loser. His followers, or cheerleader users... use it and him, because they are convenient.
Before we had such regulations, many thousands of Americans used to die of all manner of random, horrible and avoidable things, with no means of recourse originally. If you ate a cake with a rusty nail in it, that was your problem if you died of lock jaw and you were a widowed mom of 4. No privity of contract since the local diner bought the cake from a baker, and you did not contract with the negligent baker, and the diner was not negligent either.
Those were bad times. Seems you think we need to go back to those bad old days where food and "drugs" had no controls. That's not a view I find particularly attractive.
Actually, I find MD's posts quite informative and interesting. I base my DD on many things, but MD's posts are not disinformation, IMHO. They seem to be, IMHO, MD's real opinion. That's all most expect on a bulletin board where you are responsible for your own due diligence and not necessarily for convincing others of your viewpoint.
It would truly be breathtaking for anyone informed to suggest that the forum, the context, the subject matter or the guest were so inconsequential because there are no comments below the youtube video that a poster recognized as "top scientists". The forum of the lecture, the institutions involved, the doctors involved, the speaker and the subject matter were all very serious and very substantial. I haven't ever seen serious comments below a youtube video on any serious and substantial topic because that's not the way to address the speaker or the institution.
So this seems like an unsubstantial and unserious means of attack.
Honestly, I have not had the pleasure of meeting Linda yet, but hope to do so, and thank her personally, hopefully. I think this technology will succeed and she will be a big part of that story.
I'll look forward to seeing that success!
This is not true. Manufacturing has been a huge roadblock to many, many new technologies, including biologics. if a company can't make enough product in a consistently safe and consistently effective manner, it means they can't actually get to market. This is a well known, well understood and very important part of drug regulation. Some companies have been prevented even from getting to Phase I until they spent hundreds of millions of dollars and had a production level factory. I suspect, in this case, the regulations are not as bad in that case, because this is not to be dispensed at that scale, but it is still a large indication and ultimately they will need to be able to produce a safe and consistent product. Thankfully it seems like this is a product where consistent and safe product has been well handled and nowhere near as expensive as many other types of products.
Hard to believe people would be saying this at this point, at this level of discussion.
Actually, the shorts are setting up a repeat pattern that they are doing over and over again. It's stupid of them, and it's clear, from my own careful observations and research that some posters represent major funds, offshore and domestic (indirectly).
Once the patterns become known, other funds can just do the inverse to make a killing. It's the long-term capital story. Moreover, observers don't have to do anything illegal. Easy money.
Happy, this post alone shows you know very little about FDA regulations and the similar regulations in the major developed nations. It's a curious post in the context of all of your other posts on the company.
I think MD was just being careful. I appreciate that, as should anyone who reads MD's posts. It looks and smells like DCVax to me, but if there was a clear answer, that's always good. But my understanding is, they can't promote, so that is likely why it's not indicated who is the ultimate provider. Additionally, Germany has, in the past, had clinics did variations on "home made cell therapies", so again, it's important to be careful. The technology is basically exactly the same concept. I'd find it hard to believe it's not DCVax.
Thank you RKM! Happy New Year!!
Just coming back from being away. You are responding to Pyrrhonian? Just curious.
Thanks Senti. That is incredibly thorough! I very much appreciate that!
It's a safety trial. There is no "they" excluding "the obvious". It's not an accurate discussion, as I recall. It's a post for those who don't know anything yet. That's how I view such cryptic, barely formed posts anyway. What other purpose?
Well said!
Personally, I find chicken livers delicious, satellite photos fascinating, and astrology is intriguing party fun, though not particularly illuminating. But as for the promised "pending news" or "update", you don't believe anything is actually pending? Nothing whatsoever? Hmmm....
Very skeptical of you. May that serve you well.
Hi Senti,
My understanding, from previous videos I watched, not your discussion with AVII, I'll need to look it up, was that the DCVax treatment triggers an immune response that 1) may have been mistaken for progression (or psPD), by some doctors (and that this also happens without DCVax, in other instances where psPD has been indicated; and 2) that this is likely why these patients have done so well, because they are having demonstrable reaction to the vaccine (or to the cancer) and there are potentially a variety of indicators and markers that will show that immune response, once they have access to all of the data. I think this is going to be an unusual circumstance, that will no doubt piss off the shorts, if it goes the way I hope it goes.
I could be wrong, but I believe this has been discussed and indicated.
This is the challenge with learning how the immune system works while you try out new technologies and methods. For the FDA it's a problem if success, though ambiguous, leads to delays in having access for the patients.
I think we are heading toward earlier access, while the details and science get further study. I could be wrong, in this instance, but I'm optimistic.
Yes, completely different.