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 don't know, but certainly that is not impossible. There are convenient ways to change one's IP. Many people can have multiple email addresses and many people also, just as simply, access from work and/or home.
I find it hard to believe that the site would not allow, for instance, multiple members of the same family, who have different email addresses from posting but would have the same IP address. I think it's unlikely to be noticed and easily circumvented, in my view. Could be wrong, since I haven't ever tried.
Agreed. All good points.
He and his related hangers on are compulsive. You don't honestly think they are here under pseudonym's? I assume he's always here.
Berkshire Hathaway started on the OTC and so did Walmart and Home Depot, to name a few.
http://articles.latimes.com/1988-11-30/business/fi-567_1_berkshire-hathaway
They can uplist, as well. But, once they get above $5.00, I'm not sure that the market upon which they are listed is the greatest barrier to market cap. But ultimately, they can uplist as well, again, if that makes sense. They could also reverse merge with another NASDAQ listed biotech if they chose to take someone over, at some stage. There are many ways to skin a cat.
The shorting and Phase V, given the MFN clause, suggests to me a sophisticated interloper who knew that if they pulled that thread, they could create a chain reaction. To me that suggests someone who knew the company or parties intimately and may have been close, but saw an opportunity. I'd be very anxious to identify those parties if I were NWBO. I think it's possible that could reveal a lot.
I don't know. It's not addressed in the offering that I saw, but I only reviewed it quickly. When I saw MD's comment, assumed he saw that it was renegotiated. I think it would be difficult to complete a common share offering however, if a default were pending, since that would take priority over all shares. In that context, I would think it would have to be disclosed as a specific and significant risk factor if it was still an issue. I didn't see it with a cursory review, though I leave each person to make their own conclusion absent further information.
except the really crazy plot twist . . .
NW's sister, is in fact, AF's alter-ego...impersonating LP. It's like SWF, with a crazy, super plot twist...
Or, It's Pat, from SNL, looking for a roommate.
Yes, and that plus the new cash, plus the bond renegotiated, are what they needed to proceed with plan, and de-risk the balance sheet for now.
Agreed. Their last offering was not a whole hell of a lot more than this price, and they could not complete it because of NASDAQ rules. After delisting, it's no doubt even that price was rich now. So it was definitely expected. It's exactly why they delisted.
It was a good plan eh, bwah hah hahaha hahahahah hahaha haaaaaah!
Predicted! That's funny! LOL. It was a prediction? Wasn't it the beginning of a plan?
Yes your post has to do with why they delisted. They delisted because the would not be allowed to raise necessary funds they needed to stay in business and move things forward. That occurred because during a short period they had "issued" too many shares, and one of the reasons they had "issued" too many shares was because they were addressing the problems raised by the shorts who had already tanked their shares. So while undoing those transactions, with devalued shares, they had effectively transacted in "too many shares" during a short period.
And, then, of course, they were no longer above a dollar.
I won't list how all of this connects back to the short attack and Phase V, but basically, virtually everything is being driven by shorts who worked very hard to accomplish this circumstance, though it probably worked better than they dreamed.
Are you saying you don't understand why they delisted?
Effectively they delisted just to do this financing.
I doubt that. That's more a short move.
None of us know, obviously. However, if it relates to those matters, it is entirely possible that the SEC has independently stumbled on related matters, looked further into it and sought further information from the company to complete a case that they are preparing independently. Stranger things have been known to happen.
Wishing the shorts good luck with that...
Many hedge funds have thought similarly until those secret wire taps and email taps came to light and they realized they had been blind men under a blinding spotlight for a few years and had not even realized it...
As a comparison, even when CPXX had really excellent, results for Phase III that virtually guaranteed approval, they still did a cash raise that had a huge haircut, not unlike this one.
In that context, because of the news, the public shares actually traded above the offering price, significantly, and then it recovered again to highs before getting bought out and gapping up that morning way beyond where it had been, up to that point.
Haircuts are virtually a given in these cases, and was something I did expect, though I still bought higher, and the price of the public equity is still virtually completely dependent upon real news still to come, that either will validate or invalidate the notion of efficacy for their DCVax-L. Obviously, if it invalidates, there are always challenges in that case. If it's validated, well, then that's a big ef'ing deal and very exciting for deals and partnerships going forward.
Good luck to all who hold, despite the volatility and ups and downs. Good luck to those who sell, because they can't take the volatility, stress and risk. It's the nature of the beast, unfortunately.
Any information on the suggestions the company has responded to the SEC for some sort of information request, would be much appreciated. I'd like to see the source of the information. Is that in the filing? Or is that separately PR'd?
I'm sure if you're there, just like for other companies, that do exactly the same thing, you'll be able to ask those questions.
They did not so much as help them out as serve as the source of their primary technology, just like UCLA provided NWBO's technology. No doubt, these are typically useful relationships, but there are still questions on the validity of the patents. Car-T therapies are still hot, even though so far, they are still fairly limited.
Most board meetings that I've attended, for other companies, that are typically NOT broadcasted or recorded, by the way, ask people NOT to record. That's pretty typical.
I don't agree with your opinion here, but at least you connected it to a real thought rather than posting something that suggests that it currently applies to the company, but is absolutely not accurate, in that context.
I doubt your point is true. I've invested in companies on OTC that were in compliance and stayed in compliance. There is no reason for me to think your point is accurate, they had potential funders before, and likely they will have more of them at this point, given the various events that seem very likely in the not too distant future. Of course, events may not materialize or may not go as planned. Even then, I expect that your prediction is completely and utterly inaccurate and unlikely without something more significant affecting the company's ability to function.
It also includes large companies that are completely compliant, and the company on whose bulletin board you're posting, is completely compliant with SEC filing and disclosure regulations and has been, despite suggestions otherwise.
False accusations advance your cause very badly.
Many longs are not so desperate as to have to trade in and out of positions to earn their daily bread.
Yes, I've seen it in other stocks I've followed. Clearly there are people who ride these stocks up and down, and squeeze cash out each way, like an "ATM", as some say.
Those are traders who pay their bills and earn their "kill" each day. Not my favorite crowd, but one should expect they are here all the time.
Not to answer for Kabunushi, just found the answer intriguing. I agree, two sides are better than one, on the analysis, and I appreciate reasoned back and forth.
But responding to your point about the stock "languishing":
Though I also hate to say it, institutional investors are not the bravest lot, and frequently allow excellent companies with technology they consider "risky" to languish at low valuations until there is indisputable news. This is not a new thing to me, and it's why I look to invest in companies, JUST LIKE THIS ONE... happens all the time, and to me it is a major, basic distortion in the market.
Not all devalued biotechs mind you, just the ones I do my due diligence on and feel are fairly likely to succeed, eventually.
CPXX, was at 50-60 million in market cap. And then it wasn't. I love companies like this one, though I'm on the exact opposite side of the fence to the shorts. And I find what the shorts do, despicable and awful, but I also profit off of their consistently mendacious stupidity.
I have seen posts where these questions have been adequately addressed here to my satisfaction. I don't think this is about non-transparency, it's about much bigger issues around allowing the trial to proceed, without interference, and without miscommunicating with the patients who are in the trial, or with the larger world. I'm not of the impression that this is non-transparent, and I'm a current investor, with a good amount of my personal money on the line. They are blind to the results as well. I think their most recent press release on the trial is fairly clear. I think Dr. Liau is clear, and if there is anything she has not answered, you can clearly email her. If she can't or won't answer you, there is very likely a very good reason for that non-answer, I believe, whether you like it or not.
If I were not satisfied, I would not be here having this conversation with you, because I'd be profitably focused on other opportunities.
You should clarify what exact "issue" you think the company can "answer". Not sure really what you're saying here. Of course there are rules about making yet unsubstantiated claims, and not just FDA rules about that, and there are issues around disclosing some info, not just for investors, but because that disclosure could impact patients or the orderly completion of their trials.
Thanks MD, that's very, very encouraging!
Perhaps then, results are better than you imagined?
Thanks Senti! This is very good and exactly what I've been saying, though not with such succinct, technical terms. Excellent way for her to put it. I expect that will EXACTLY be the case. Though, as I said, I could be wrong. I think the administrative law process at the FDA will have to take normal, scientific rationality as a given, and what is in the best interests of the patients, given the disease, lack of progress in that disease and the seeming benefit.
I could be wrong, again, but I highly doubt this does not get approved, even if only for subsets of patients or only after some careful further efforts to address any remaining concerns regarding proof of anything that the FDA may want clarified further.
I expect they will complete a fundraising shortly. That's the whole point of delisting.
They did not delist because they could not find financing, nor because their price was too low only. They delisted because there were too many restrictions preventing them from accepting money they needed right away to continue advancing their trials. The delay would have been months, with an uncertain result. It wasn't worth the problems. Maybe if they had lots of cash, but even then, this seemed the wiser move to me.
Those facts have little to do with trial results. The notion that they do is great spin for shorts, but not a legitimate or real fact.
Right, in the end, it will stay the same, most likely. You might have some slight differences on Yahoo or Google looking it up in the early days when the move happens. Weird stuff happens usually during and just after exchange moves. It's always interesting.
Hart to tell. It seems that OQ usually references NASDAQ, but usually also it doesn't appear. I think this is part of the delisting, but not sure if that will be the symbol necessarily. The symbol may not even change, except in the first days or so, or for reference pages on NASDAQ or other places, initially.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters_Instrument_Code#Description
It's a vaccine, so not sure if the time it takes to show efficacy and how long people live, if they are living longer, is a negative.... It seems odd to turn a strength into a negative... Though I know that's how shorts make a buck.
But being a long in a company like this, if one does not have the patience, one can leave, go for a trial that is way out there already and buy when there is an expected finish. I would not think an untimely buy is really the company's fault... It would seem, rather, a matter of experience.
I think you've grossly simplified what is actually known about that group. Some are likely pseudoprogressors, but what they know, with an indeterminate level of certainty, is that this is a "progressor" group, with some suspected to be pseudoprogressors. Then she does have a slide showing the difference. I believe they both live much longer than the SOC, but the pseudoprogressors lived very long, on that tail.
Progressors also lived quite long, it seemed, from the chart. Just because she emphasized pseudoprogressors, with the really long tail, doesn't mean that is not very significant, nor that the other progressors were not significant.
It's important not to oversimplify such data, in either direction.
This is why I think she is probably just being a bit careful here and trying to effectively distance herself from the company, probably because she's not a shareholder, and her success does not depend upon how the trial was designed. That's normal, when you're a pure researcher and you don't want to necessarily be tarred by someone else's work. I think, given the noise around the company, she's just being very careful and defensive. Probably wise on her part, at some level. There is too much noise and nonsense from shorts, and I'm sure she doesn't want to be tarred by any of that (which is cruel, dangerous and disgusting activity by the shorts who manipulate stocks and try to tar these companies and their science) but is probably a real factor for anyone connected. To see such activity, that even includes major publications like The Times, in London, would be horrifying for anyone. Would you want your good works to be subjected to such nasty attacks? So distancing herself, probably is good and I'd guess good colleagues would tell her to do that... I probably would.
I think what she is effectively saying here, is that there may be more difficulty, and I'm not even sure this is correct. I don't think the FDA is looking only for DEATHS in the placebo class. Clearly the SOC is progressing and has been progressing, these years, very quickly, but the addition of the vaccine no doubt can be compared further, because effectively, he placebo class, once the cross over, is one arm, and those that don't get the vaccine or do other things are other arms (not huge arms, but different). And I think statistically, you're not just measuring getting the patient's lifespan on the same measure from the Placebo class to those who received the treatment from the get go. Clearly they will have different progressions of the disease based upon the order of their treatment and probably even based upon the categorization of their cancer, which they now know. Even maybe the cancer may modify, based upon what treatment they received initially. That is going to generate a LOT of data, and she says, they have the blood samples of the patients throughout their trials to analyze, and goes much further, later in the recording, to suggest that there is a lot of success that has been shown, generally, with patients that should, I expect, and I think she expects, be replicated in the trial.
Let's look at the quote specifically.
There is clearly a difference between the two classes that she worries will be muddier. if an EVENT is when someone "progressed" and the "progression" is what triggered one to go on the DCVax-L regimen, even if one was initially a placebo patient, then that patient has effectively already registered as having triggered the "failure" event with regard to the standard of care (SOC). Normally, that would be the end for that patient's data, probably until death. The next measure, no doubt will show a longer survival, post event, to death or even no triggering of a final event, in the best cases. That is a different subset of data, and I can't imagine that the FDA is actually so narrow as to not be able to take that into account in the process. Administrative law is not irrational, and there are remedies when it takes an irrational perspective. But my experience in real life with agencies, and given the pressure on them now with the 21st Century Cures Act and Cancer Moonshot programs suggests to me that the notion that this trial will fail, if it shows ANYTHING like what seems to be expected, is noise, noise, noise, noise.
Just my opinion, and obviously, I don't know anything and am not a subject matter expert. But that's the thing, this is a problem in which Liau is not entirely a subject matter expert either. She's not running the trial, she's blind to the data, and she's not a lawyer or experienced directly with the FDA in any real context. Clearly she doesn't have the actual Phase III data, but when they look at the data that they do have, for the various arms, the data is pretty darn encouraging, and more than that, I think suggests a blockbuster for this cancer and potentially for others. I don't take the Adam Feurstein's writings very seriously because I have seen too many times that they have DRIVEN the price decrease, incorrectly, based upon very flawed (I think intentionally so) interpretations, rather than on reality. No doubt, it helps to destroy some of these companies, and there is a segment for which this is an actual investment objective because it is so much easier to make money that way, than waiting for results. You can clearly make a lot of money being a financial arsonist than a long-term investor. Fear is viral, it can easily be spread, and people misspeak and miscommunicate all the time, so it is rarely actionable It's a very safe way to make a living and a literal, killing.
I think it is possible, they will have to parse through data more carefully, that they may have some issues to explain to the FDA, but if the data shows what seems to be suggested, I find it fairly strongly unlikely that the FDA would reject an ultimate application. Anything can certainly happen. More likely, if that's the case, the company has to sell itself for cheap and let someone else take it forward. I don't think the "cheap" price would be at the current market cap levels. There could be stock volatility, and enemies could target them and try to drive them into bankruptcy, so that all of the IP can be stolen from you as a shareholder and used to make lots of money, after your fingers have been pried off of your shares.
But to me, the notion that this fails, long-term, if the results are confirmed that we've seemed to see so far, is, I believe, very unlikely. More likely bankruptcy, engineered by bad forces, to take everything away. And given the connection to UCLA's program, I doubt they want to lose the IP either, so I don't see that as the likely outcome. Again, one can always be wrong. But all the short efforts to take just about everything out of context, just creates incredible discounts for smarter, more patient investors in my estimation... no expert here. All of this is just my humble opinion. And I'm a nobody.
Quote:
I have made this point before as well. I think there is a clear distinction between cross-over patients who took no DCVAX and those who did not, which represent the whole universe of patients not in the trial.
And the fact that they have already progressed, makes that an "event" - so effectively, that is the end date for them as placebo patients, and the start of them as another class of patients, the cross-over group.
I think that has to be the way one looks at that. It does weaken the "survival" against that group, and makes the progression measure more important internally to that group, in terms of trial patient only data. But again, you have the world of patients who never took DCVax to compare to... and I'm pretty sure, given all the facts, and that the FDA asked them to have the cross-over group, and that it's ethical, if you've got this kind of response, that if the data is as good as people suggest, this is not headed to "FDA failure". That's a bunch of lawyerly nonsense that someone stuck in her head.
Basically, you pay your lawyers to make you fear the law. That's what makes you follow their advice and pay those big bills. On the other hand, if a good lawyer didn't make you fear the consequences of not paying attention to the law, you'd need a different kind of lawyer, and you'd pay a lot more, in a much more desperate situation. It's the nature of the beast, and a lot of people can't really get their heads around it. But it's the best way to keep everyone as honest as humanly possible, in the world, so far discovered. If we find a new system that works, let me know.
I agree 100% doingmybest. There are plenty of "placebo" patients in the "wild" and this crossover arm was requested by the FDA. I think this will show that even when given later, after the initial SOC has failed, those patients are doing well with the vaccine and will expand the potential patient group.
It's certainly possible it will cause some confusion at first, possibly, but I think she's a bit stressed because this is her baby and she's worked hard over many years, and she doesn't want to "fail", when she clearly believes and those around her believe, that she has not failed. I agree with them, from what I've seen in terms of the other data. She also very clearly says, she has not seen any of the data for Phase III.
However, you can bet it will be a wild ride until we know, one way or the other.
No doubt she deals with a lot of hard issues every day with all of her patients, and it's just a lot of stress. I was reading today, for a friend who is dealing with this issue as a health related issue for her old friend, that Linda sleeps only 4 hours a night. Not good. I think she's under a great deal of strain, and worrying is making her say things that probably are not ideal, without the data. I think she really doesn't get it, but just wants to put it out there in case people are ultimately confused if things don't turn out as everyone hopes. It's a bit of overachiever defensiveness that you see with people who are really conscientious and would have a hard time tolerating failure when it's not a failure at all. Honestly, in my friends, I'd call it a bit neurotic, in a good way usually, but not ideal in this situation.
If patients are living much longer, across the board, I think NWBO and investors who hold long enough - will get through it and the regulatory process is actually much more robust and able to deal with this than people think. The real problem is, doctors by nature, distrust lawyers because they deal with the shadiest segment of lawyers. So I think by nature, a lot of people tend to think the legal process is irrational. It's not. And the FDA, while it no doubt has issues and challenges, has a serious charge ahead of it to advance these treatments quickly, and there will be not enough reason to say no, I believe, in this case, and more than enough reasons to advance this to patients, asap.
This is all my personal opinion and belief, I'm not an expert, and I am not making an investment recommendation. I do hold NWBO shares and expect to continue to do so.
Certainly I think that shorts are aggressive, involved in all the things we see them doing, media, bulletin boards, etc. And yes, I do think they have likely bet big and have been caught by surprise. I think some are covering now and suspect that a lot more covering could be in the cards.
However, those are just my suspicions, and I don't have enough information to know for certain. However, rather than shorts only, I think the current rally is much broader than the people on these boards think. I think that a broader rally, is a much better context on which to see a rally like this one, as it suggests a sustainable rise in price. I think that what we are seeing right now is a natural, sustainable rise in price.
When Celator CPXX made it's early announcement on its Phase III results, the company had a number of regular days (probably a few weeks) when the volume of shares traded was more than the TOTAL number of shares the company had issued. The market was extremely intense. But even on those days, the price did not always rise so much. I think when this company has such news, there will be much interest and the nature of the ownership and trading will change, perhaps faster than those here who have held so long will perceive.
GLTA. Assuming the trial gets some great news soon, I think we have a lot of good things ahead to look forward to and to anticipate.