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.
I agree/ It's the holidays anyway. Nothing gets done this time of year.
Just look to the latest SEC filing (offering docs) and type in a search command "Outstanding After Offering". That should get you to the shares outstanding after the latest offering.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000114420416140438/v455389_424b5.htm
"Shares of Common Stock Outstanding After Offering 153,237,425 shares of Common Stock.(1)"
"(1) The number of shares of our Common Stock to be outstanding after this offering is based on approximately 124,662,425 shares outstanding as of December 19, 2016."
I agree. I have known of the duke vaccine for quite some time. It has also been in the works for years, but it[s much more narrowly focused.
Duke's vaccine has been in the works for a while, and I have heard it has narrower targets.
http://www.dukecancerinstitute.org/research/clinical-trials/00065241
http://www.dukecancerinstitute.org/research/clinical-trials/trials_for_adult_category/1100
Juno was $6B without a product and $1B in cash, when optimism was high. So generally I agree, though as I said elsewhere, I don't like to just throw out numbers without doing much, much more than this rough comparison. But I agree with your general view Etienne1, that would be low to me and if BP made that bid, it would, I believe, invite competing bids.
Thanks for asking. I would not speculate on that number here or elsewhere. I think you'd have to make a number of assumptions - obviously for approval. Then you'd have to estimate the potential revenues and baseline costs, including market size, etc. Then you'd have to come up with some rough numbers for the multiple on the revenues that would be reasonable. Then you'd look at some comparable valuations for companies with similar potential. I don't think that is unreasonably high, and probably on the low side if they get FDA approval, or look certain to get it. But that would be based also on the notion that DCDirect may also very possibly be effective broadly also, and more importantly, it depends on the numbers you'd come up with to justify such numbers. I could see that and more, but I can also see people arguing otherwise, very aggressively, as we see on this board.
Hard to know, and I don't do that very frequently. Let's see how the immediate future plays out before we go there.
Let's hope this gets to approval very quickly in the new year!
Wishing you and yours and all who post here, very happy holidays and a wonderful new year ahead!
Much success and all good things, to each and everyone!
Biosectinvestor
Vulture funds. Their job is to destroy the price, and then come in and "fix" it. They know it's very valuable.
Let's hope.
She doesn't work for the company, nor is she an investor. I doubt you're correct on this point.
I agree Smokey21. I don't see it either, but just like Linda Liau, I wanted to be careful... you see how that works... I didn't really think it's likely, but I said it to be comprehensive. [This isn't really for you, it's for others.] And she's a scientist who needs to avoid looking biased, so you know she is gong to do what I did, times 10. :)
I think you're right, or I'd not have bought so many more shares now at this point. And I would not be holding it all.
Thanks MasterBlastr!
I'm guessing you liked the animal spirit distillation. We all have to struggle with and against the animal spirits of the markets.
You must be excited about that German combination therapy trial then. That's a tough area. Nice to have you here doc!
She's a doctor. For her to retain her credibility she has to say, to some degree, what she honestly thinks. I think she did that, though I also think some of it was driven by the criticisms she sees. It wasn't beautifully ideal, but nothing is that, in real life. This trial is driven by technology that comes from an independent institution and doctors, and that's what both gives it its biggest injection of credibility, and also makes it subject to such honest opinions. The fact is, every time shorts criticize this technology, they are attacking UCLA's technology, not really NWBO's technology. That's the truth of it. When they say "Linda Powers is lying" or suggest NWBO is lying, they're really suggesting that UCLA is lying. That the researchers and docs there are lying. That is the reality.
The drop in price came with the OTC listing, and the certainty that a deal that had tried to close before, and had not, was going to close, and I think the market knew that the previous market cap terms were likely to dictate the valuation... maybe even with a discount now, because it's on OTC and no longer on NASDAQ. Hindsight is easy, but I think the current share range was a given. Period.
I think her talk is mixed with really good stuff and some speculation that could have been made some shareholders anxious, but actually didn't get much of an audience. So, contrary to your view, I think the viewing was limited and focused, given the volume of shares traded during that time. So I simply don't agree that she was the primary cause of the decline. The stock is holding at the value of the offering because that was the agreed valuation between the new buyers and the company. That's what happens. It happens even to companies that have already announced gold standard results, like CPXX. But in that case, once it crashed to the offering price, which was well below the trading price, the stock recovered fairly quickly because it was a gift to all buyers to get a near certain approval at a huge discount.
Unfortunately, that's how the street often works. Seems crazy and irrational, but it's kind of the nature of the game. New investors often get their blood in early stage companies, no one does debt, generally, and you expect dilution until you're cash positive or have deep pockets behind you (which can sometimes limit upside as well, though it doesn't seem like it when you're on that ride).
I'm not shocked at all. The companies I follow almost all drop like this, even when anticipating good news, prior to final release of Phase III data.
The market is terrified of a gamble. They don't view any preliminary data or lectures evidence enough of much except when all the big boys get behind a company or two or a specific technology, like Car-T. But even with that, there has been some substantial shrinkage in the last year, even with companies moving toward seeming approval.
The market is not monolithic, and not that intelligent. Think animal spirits, but not human, intelligent animal spirits, think less than intelligent, instinctive, fearful and greedy animal spirits.
Actually, the Supreme Court requires that the government decisions be reasonable. But it takes longer and more resources when governments are unreasonable. Many people don't have those resources individually.
I don't expect that to be a problem in this case, ultimately. But if there are issues with measures being met, then it's actually reasonable to discuss it. I believe they are already well along in those discussions and have been for a few years, but are waiting for the results to officially engage the necessary processes to start that discussion in its final form. In law, you don't really resolve things with hypotheticals and abstract thoughts, but with real situations.
I believe you are absolutely correct hopefulsurgonc, though you know the shorts will be attacking the moment the news comes out to suggest otherwise. For whatever reason, the biggest of which may just be that they don't want to be wrong now, I think we should expect it.
But nonetheless, I think we will see this as a part of the ultimate standard of care, and most likely in combination with a range of treatment, and let's hope the CI combination shows what they saw in the lab. That will be incredible.
Nicely said Flipper44. I agree with your points here and they are well made.
Sandbagging is the word for it.
More than anything, her caution there says to me she reads the critics, when she is attacked, whether in blogs or newspapers and probably even, from time-to-time, even bulletin boards. I would guess she is anxious as hell, given the nastiness. I just think that is doc talk for I'm just a doctor, I can only tell you want I see, and I make no promises that the trials or anything else are perfect. CYA.
But I disagree that it's the primary reason for the stock price drop, or that she was malicious or even did anything entirely surprising, despite the frustrations here.
The bipartisan efforts, the current head of the cancer efforts at FDA, the cancer moonshot work that has already been done and is continuing, have all laid the groundwork, IMHO, for this to be approved if it approaches anything near or is even far less helpful, IMHO again, what Linda Liau described. All just my personal opinion.
Of course everyone often covers their asses, and if there are ambiguities, things can get delayed. I'd hope not, but I put that out there because there are ALWAYS unknowns with every possible effort. And I'm sure there are unknowns. Also, if the halt was for reasons that we have not yet speculated about that pose a serious concern for risks with patients, but that also seems unlikely to me, and again, of course this is all just in my humble opinion.
I doubt that would happen, for many reasons having nothing to do with this company, the personalities or anything specific here. Maybe if he won his 100M playing the lottery. Otherwise, I don't see it.
I saw no malice in her move. I understand your frustration, though I think you misplace the reason for the price decline. The offering did that. I think your assumption of her motives just seems completely unlikely Al4door. Just my opinion.
I agree with you 100%.
I did not know about the conspiracy theory, but since it was funded with shares prior to Phase V, I'd say that Phase V is the one who put the company at more risk, rather than less (by causing the restructuring of those transactions from shares to debt), though of course, she had a controlling interest that way and could prevent a cheap, aggressive "short and buy move", which happens with these hedge funds being the vehicles of aggressive, offshore big pharma types, typically non-US firms.
For me, the cheap buyout is always the big risk in holding long on these tiny but very promising biotechs. That's the easy, and most likely play by the hedge funds, colluding with outside interests, and the one the longs fantasize about but is often a sucker's play. I believe it's the chief reason they almost always attack senior officers and major principles. They weaken the strongest links first... then go for the jugular. It's a big reason why I think any long should always ensure that their average price is as low as possible. It's costly though, but tax benefits accrue.
Agreed Kabunushi.
For China, et al: You have a very volatile company in terms of value. 40 million right now. China wants them to borrow 10 million when they have an 11 million note about to come into a refinancing situation, so that's 21 million at least, maybe more, based upon no revenue, no cash on hand, and to forego equity financing that she can get.
Equity financing secures the interests of all shareholders. Yes, it's dilution, but debt holders get the company if she fails to pay. And, as I said in another post, she has no more information that Linda Liau, and probably less, and no one knows what the FDA will do, even if the results are extremely encouraging but the data is not perfect.
Back seat drivers usually are not the best source for information.
If LP took that advice, that would be about as idiotic as I can think of, and I'd want to remove her. That's definitely a way of stripping shareholders of their equity, and taking the company away from them for cheap. If she and her husband bought it out of bankruptcy, that would be a nightmare.
And, I agree also, people with 100M aren't all liquid, they usually have most of their money tied up elsewhere. They don't bet the farm, and entrepreneurs at this level rarely need to do so to have a substantial equity stake. So even from a personal finance view, that advice makes absolutely no sense for anyone involved, except maybe debt purchasers who know they might be able to extract ridiculous interest terms on such a high debt to equity level, and then kill the company and steal all of the assets and resell it to BP for billions.
Nonsense. They already have a loan coming due and have to roll that over if they can. Completing the financing that they needed, and which was already in the works previously, is a lower risk and more proper thing to do.
If this were the case, then CPXX, after excellent Phase 3 results, would not have done the same, pretty much knowing it was going to become a billion dollar or more company very shortly. Yet they did, and hedge funds ate that stock up, eating many times the outstanding share count, day, after day.
Still, it didn't multiply the stock value, by the way. Investors are pretty darn clueless, but you don't leverage these companies to the hilt because crap happens and that's a sure way to create bankruptcy if the unexpected happens.
No one does that... if they can avoid it. Debt holders get the company. Shareholders are screwed. That is just a stupid, stupid thing to do.
Yes, thanks, I backtracked and saw. RKM, Excellent post!
Thank you both for your efforts to bring it all out!
Well put Flipper44!
Drama on bulletin boards is often seen where there is none in reality. I don't think this drama plays at all.
Did NWBO transcribe or record? Many companies don't.
Agreed Marzan. I'm certainly encouraged. But I've not been in this long enough to be as tense or discouraged as some. I recognize my newness here, makes being relaxed a bit easier for me. I'm just excited to hear the results asap, and I pray and hope and expect, to some degree, that DC vaccines generally are being validated and this will be a major one. Obviously, everything I say is speculation.
I'm just speculating colmar, but that's my experience with end of year transactions and news generally in a corporate space. There's no attention this time of year. Though RKM rightly says, if they have the data in hand, they have 3 days to PR it if it is clear and there is no analysis to be done. Even to say they have it is a big event that likely gets announced very quickly.
I didn't say you said she owned the stock, I was trying to get you to see it from her perspective.
She did not actually ruin the momentum, I think. One thing, was wow, why was this site down during those days? Strange right?
But I think the key thing going on, and again, I said this elsewhere, and this is not rocket science, but we have an offering at .35. When that happens, your price goes to that level. I think it was inevitable that the offering would be at either 1) the price previously offered to investors; or 2) below that price because we had just moved to the OTC. The fact that we were just about to cruise over $1.00, seemed unlikely to change that, though I know it seems odd. I think they already had that deal priced. There was no clear reason for the trending up there, and yes, her comments re-established some doubts. I would also consider that purchasers of the new shares had reason to emphasize the negative as well, so they could buy in cheap, though of course there is no evidence of that...
But at this moment, there was no reason that they would pay at that level when the price trend, without substantial news, might not be sustained. The buyers might've backed out, had that trend continued, thinking it was due primarily to that one press release about the trial coming to completion, rather than having been halted and never completing. I think buyers, in that context, might've been more cautious to complete the deal, despite the "momentum". That's the reality. Everyone wants something for free or as cheap as possible. Whether it's towels or shares.... it's all the same to a lot of folks.
Hang in there!
You're right. I don't think she even had much to do with it. When you have an offering at .35, the public price is going to go to that price as well. That sets the value. This is not rocket science.
Hi RKM. Great post and I agree. I like to increase my holdings on declines and trade out more expensive shares with cheaper shares. You have to be mindful of the tax complexities in the US, and rotate over the right period, but if you've got other gains to offset, it works out very well.
Fund managers can't really do what we do most of the time, because that would make their trading look disastrous, meanwhile, for tax purposes, that's often a fantastic strategy for deferring taxes and reinvesting gains, and building a larger and larger, diversified portfolio. Though I like to concentrate, to some substantial degree amongst a few key companies that I like the most, for a variety of reasons that I won't go into here.
I don't agree that the Linda Liau video changed it all. Though she was distancing herself from the FDA process, which clearly she worries about, she is also saying that they trial clearly demonstrates efficacy, if you look at the entire picture, and demonstrates excellent results.
I suspect, rather, the price came down because the market knew the offering was inevitable, after the delisting; that the price would likely be a discount to the previous offering price, because it's now OTC and not NASDAQ, and no results are available yet.
That's the nature of things. It will take a bit for the price to recover from the offering price. If you see, basically, the price is hovering around the price of the offering, barely moving right now, because on a daily basis, this time of year, no one is paying attention or doing anything. That will change, I expect, soon enough, just based upon expected milestones and the end of the holidays.
Interesting Sentiment. But this is a group that did very well in the side arm eventually, at least outside of Germany.
Thanks. I would definitely not say that for myself.
However, just about everything comes to a halt this time of year, and if the CRO's have to rely on other partners to respond, you can bet that won't be until January. People are rapidly departing the office for the holidays. The personnel left are there to manage emergencies and daily basic business, typically with a fair number out. And even with the people there, think about it... there's not a huge amount getting done now. There is work, but it's limited to the basics.
I think they don't hear back until early January, and even then, the answer may be insufficient events to end the trial. We just don't know... though that is very encouraging (for serious, not yet frustrated longs, but not for the stock price, and great for shorts).
We should all be happy that people are living forever. Wouldn't it be amazing if inadvertently, they gave people these treatments and they became immortal... :)
Just kidding.
She doesn't own the stock, she owns her own situation and reputation. The more emphasis on NWBO, and the attacks that the company faced, the more anxious any scientist would be to distance the validity of their work, from that other unpleasant stuff. She didn't even mention that stuff, really she's worried about the FDA not seeing something that she sees through her daily practice, and being burned by all of it. I think she and her colleagues know what they have, and just worry that it has not been or won't be demonstrated clearly enough to validate it because of complexities introduced into the process via the politics of trials. Her answer, in one context, not both, was kind of driven by a political / ethical question relating to allowing patients in the placebo arm, access to drugs.
So, I don't blame her, though I agree, she effectively sabotaged her own work, with her efforts to protect it, by undermining, inadvertently, the finances of the interests trying to advance it. Obviously, it was not intentional. She's just speaking her mind. It's frustrating, but the world is complicated and most people don't know how to act, when they are in such circumstances, except, possibly in hindsight, if someone can effectively show them... and even then, mostly, people are fairly incapable of managing change and all that comes with it.
I don't blame her. It's a part of the nature of the world these days. Very frustrating, no doubt.