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.
They should not be able to loan shares in a non-margined account. Those are criminals, not real brokers. I'd have pursued not just the firm, but every individual I could name, for fraud. I agree, it's not legal to do what you indicated and those brokers are criminals, given my understanding of their duty. These are trust accounts, and state laws are very, very strict about "comingling" accounts and not leaving those funds alone. Ask any lawyer who does that with funds they have for you. It's pretty much immediate disbarment. Trust accounts are no joke.
But once you have any margin on those accounts, the balance changes. Title is no longer free and clear, and it gives them a lot of leverage against you as a lender. In the margining context, there is a kind of switching of positions. Now the broker needs protection from the "reckless customer" who leverages for profit - according to the basic notions. It's not absolutely like that, there are protections still, but there is definitely a shift in terms of the legal burden.
That totally makes sense to me. For brokerages, broker to broker, they may have some capacity to each other... but even then, there may just not be anything that they can do as brokerages and money managers may not hold those shares... hence those crazy invitations by some brokerages to pay you for your shares.
If at all, they would likely be helping other brokerages to cover risks associated with portfolio lending but only doing it through institutional relationships, effectively.
I think what you call "naked shorts" is effectively prime brokerage activity. They are lending based upon the hedge funds's portfolio, and these positions generate liquidity, or eat it. When they start eating it, they get charged a rate. The riskier the positions in the portfolio, the higher the rate.
So these funds will, if the price continues to rise, certainly get calls for either collateral or cash or they will have the positions liquidated, including short positions. Anyone managing that portfolio is going to look at the positions with the highest cost of capital, and the biggest negative effect across their portfolio.
Additionally, as you indicated, it's much dicier for them on the OTC, in terms of liquidity and volume typically. So the brokerage / investment bank that they do their prime brokerage through is going to give them a tougher time on those positions... meaning higher rates, more scrutiny on their portfolio.
I agree with your friend, but I think it's not so much naked shorts as prime brokerage activity that has debt linked to a portfolio of positions, where the collateral is fungible and has already been offset by the brokerage with treasuries. "Naked" with a call on the shares if they spike up, to protect the brokerage. And the brokerage can replace the shares, as collateral, if such shares tank. It's lending, and yes, it effectively increases the amount of a fungible item that was used... these shares.
Great info hopefulsurgonc. Very interesting and Presidio is interesting and a very credible source, with technology, Silicon Valley and Saudi connections.
As I've explained elsewhere, because they've likely substituted treasuries (rehypothecated) the risky shares and locked in more stable collateral, along with a call option, to manage risk - the broker likely no longer actually has some portion of those shares, in fact. Since it's collateral, you don't effectively, really own them (well you do, title is not transferred, but you don't own them outright and have given up certain rights to the brokerage - and they are fungible), as they've been pledged in exchange for debt.
So, these transactions, I believe, create the larger "number" of shares that appear to be out there... which creates the notion that there are huge numbers of naked shorts. In some sense, it's correct, the brokerage does nakedly short with that transaction, in an abstract kind of way. But they are actually hedging the debt, not the shares, in the most economical fashion possible for the brokerage, and for the regulators (who don't really want them holding that risky share) as collateral and would prefer them to keep their capital solidly hedged against such risks.
I think there is lots of confusion around these sorts of transactions and how they affect the markets. Effectively, they create more liquidity. And, in truth, one can call those shares back, effectively by selling them for cash or paying back the loan, by liquidating some other investment or putting cash in one's account.
A brokerage may not sell all such shares, it depends how much one borrows, and they likely will manage that risk, however, as a part of their portfolio of risk, they can and do tend to manage the risks of their customers as well as operational risks.
Interesting. One aspect, you only get to vote the shares you held as of the record on:
Actually, affiliated companies have lawyers to negotiate arms length agreements all the time. So that's not really true, by default, just because you allege a conflict of interest. You can't just allege things because you suspect something and assume it's true. It may work on bulletin boards and with less sophisticated shareholders, but anyone who knows how actual complex issues like this are handled at regulated companies knows that's baloney.
As for "shareholders" and the public knowing how every good and service is priced between the Affiliates, that is trade secret information. We know the aggregate numbers, and that is normal transparency. What you are asking for is that she reveal all the company secrets to the world, and that's not really appropriate nor wise for any CEO to do.
Yes BuyWhenISell. Correct.
SIPC is a private insurance scheme for your brokerage account funds and securities. Just like FDIC insurance, which is government organized, SIPC is there to ensure brokerage clients don't run and withdraw everything if there is a panic of any sort with a given brokerage. But it's really for panics, like you describe, and massive fraud at a brokerage that causes them to go bust. It's not really for individual issues in most cases. In those cases, it's going to be a direct fraud prosecution if a broker steals your funds or securities, and a breach of their fiduciary duties.
Generally speaking though, as I said, the Brokerages are not heavily capitalized because just about everything they have for you is held in TRUST. Some of them have an additional BANK, and that bank then also has the privileges of being a bank to you, in combination with your brokerage account. But a bank is entirely different than a brokerage. Banks have only 8 to 10% regulatory capital, everything else is borrowed, including your deposits (which are Federally insured). Brokerages don't have access to debt at that level, but SIPC insurance may help a little at least to make customers feel a bit more secure in leaving funds and securities at the brokerage. The truth is though, the brokerage is not lending like a bank, and mostly they are holding your assets only and prospering on transaction fees and secured lending off of margining, etc. But they are nowhere near as leveraged as the allowance for banks.
There is usually a cut-off date, a good number of days ahead of the vote, and shares bought and sold after that date, don't get to vote. I suspect that is to avoid overvotes, and to ensure that the shares that actually voted, were entitled to vote, given the proxy. I doubt this means that you were not voting the shares you were entitled to vote. The cut-off date is usually in the proxy.
My expectation is, if there are such shares that are not delivered, your brokerage has to vote the shares in your account, or basically they are failing in a fiduciary duty that is criminal in nature. It's not even SEC, it's basic, fraud, and it's a very serious crime.
But, I think if a broker or market maker fails to deliver to your broker (via the exchange), your broker is responsible to have those real shares in your account by the FTD date. They cannot credit you shares that don't exist. The slosh... the amount that was failed (FTD or failed to deliver), is ultimately accounted for as an amount of shares OWED between the institutions, the broker or the MM and the exchange, or the broker and the other broker, typically to the exchange, though it's possible it is between brokers. Your account would not be the place where that FTD would be reflected. Somewhere in there, there is going to be a maximum amount of credit risk that the entity failing to deliver is going to trigger, either with the exchange or with some facilitating brokerage. As I said, there may be some slosh, but I doubt it's going to be a large amount of shares there, over time, and the brokerage is not going to be allowed to put that risk to YOUR account as a customer. They would be failing in their fiduciary duty if they did that instead of delivering the shares that are reflected as in your account when you check.
Once a brokerage begins accumulating more than some amount of exposure to the exchange or another brokerage providing services, as in exposure caused by FTD's, there is likely going to be a call on the brokerage to perform. Systemic risk is not something anybody is tolerating, especially these days.
I believe this slack is what people call Naked Shorts and that the slack comes at different other parts of the process, most likely in the context of lending (e.g. a Prime Brokerage transaction or margin transaction) where a broker that "holds" the shares for an account, but has loaned cash, may turn that collateral into a safer form of collateral, e.g. a treasury and a call option. That reduces the risk for the lending institution, so regulators are not likely going to stop that process. That way they have the full value of the collateral (now in a treasury bond, instead of a risky share, and probably a call as well), and when the customer seeks to have their shares again, if the price appreciated, they liquidate the treasury and call to get the shares, if the shares are the same price, they sell the treasury and deliver shares, and if the shares have declined in value, they deliver the shares, but at a lower cost (effectively a short that was not covered up front). Basically they've rehypothecated the shares and have reduced the institution's financial risk for lending to the customer, based upon the value of those shares. However, as in the context of fungible assets and lending, as we see with banks lending CASH, the net result is an increase in the "supply" (e.g. money supply when your bank holds your "deposit" while lending the cash out to your neighbor). If you're talking shares, (and fungible shares are not entirely dissimilar from cash, as in a CURRENCY), it is a net increase in the shares because the borrowing entity still has "shares" reflected in their account, even though physically, the shares may not be there all the time. Hence, why "margining" is different. Prime Brokerage services are just "margining" for funds and hedge funds, and they margin all the time. They margin so that they can essentially leverage and increase their returns. Hence, certain kinds of funds margining is probably at a fairly large scale. I could be wrong, but I think that is what people THINK are naked shorts, but probably are not really exactly that... but the effect is pretty much what people think is happening, meaning there is a net increase in the "supply" of shares, and effectively shares are "created" - it's just not illegal, and it's not really what is being alleged because the nature of such transactions are so complex and abstract, even though they seem not to be so. Fungible currencies and money supply transactions are interesting, but most people seem not to really understand what's going on... even some fairly sophisticated folks.
If there is an over vote or undervote , then that brokerage has a serious regulatory problem that is verifiably documented. I think they are going to do everything possible to avoid this, even if they were doing something illegally otherwise.
The trust requirement is very strictly enforced. They don't want documentary proof that they don't have the shares that they have in those accounts for customers. That's virtually automatic jail time.
Have you ever noticed that unlike a bank, you don't have a governmental guaranty on the shares in your brokerage account?
That's because they have a fiduciary duty to hold your securities in trust. They can't transact in those securities unless you pledge them as security for a loan.
In this context, if your brokerage has not confirmed, when they do a transaction on your behalf, that they are holding real shares in your account, I expect that they are liable as though they had committed fraud. They cannot tell you, for shares you own without any margin, that they don't have the shares when you ask for them. So, when you receive that electronic proxy and right to sign-on to vote your shares, your brokerage is confirming you have real shares in your account.
My point is, a legitimate, US brokerage, should not have the issue you've described, when you have real shares held outright. And when there is a meeting, even if you have borrowed on your securities they have to have secured the shares for your proxy to count.
So I don't think this circumstance exists with legitimate, regulated brokerages.
Thanks md1225. Whose words? Just curious?
Interesting story on stock manipulation Flipper44!
I don't see a pump and dumb, but I suspect there will shortly be a lot of very, very disgruntled shorts around here.
re Cognate & NWBO merger, I'd see a few benefits, as I mentioned before... payments now going to Cognate, are just going from one pocket, to the other.... no more loss of cash, in fact, for production.
Additionally, you unify the IP ownership, but that's useful only if you're positioning for a higher valuation, in the context of a buyout also... and I don't like buyouts. If you keep them separate, however, a buyout might still come and NWBO might get a little less because the acquirer would have to negotiate a simultaneous buyout of Cognate... which takes value to Cognate shareholders, not NWBO shareholders.
Another important issue here is that with the buyout of Cognate, you get a unified entity that can fully operate, that keeps its cash inhouse for production, and Cognate shareholders can get a bit of the ride with NWBO shareholders. The risk for Cognate shareholders is that an acquirer buys NWBO, and decides to manufacture on its own, without Cognate... and if it decides to be nice, it might pay a small fee for the IP rights, but probably not what Cognate would want in the best possible world.
So I see a good number of reasons why both companies benefit, why it has to not be too much, and why the upside is beneficial for both sets of shareholders.
This is just my very basic set of thoughts, and I haven't really played out the full scenario. But, I don't think it's a bad play, so long as the acquisition doesn't dilute NWBO shareholders hugely compared to not doing it at all. So I do think they need to wait for a reasonable valuation of NWBO before they make this play.
I agree with your view RKM. I think they need to wait for results that give them a good valuation, that would then allow them to use shares to do the acquisition. I agree they'd need to get a fair price both ways, to NWBO shareholders and for Cognate.
A benefit is, they no longer pay cash for manufacturing, nor shares. They'd have all of that inhouse, and that increases the value overall, consolidates the IP to one entity, and makes an ultimate acquisition, if they choose to be sold, much more valuable.
And, in the context of your preference, I think, and mine, it creates a company that has a lot more opportunity to become a full fledged BP. I'd rather own a $60B or $120B company (or more), than sell at $10B.
Actually, you're paying for the building of a business around the technology, and the service of building it out and goodwill. What you pay though, is accretive to NWBO, so it's not really unfair.
I suspect a buyout would be with shares anyway, not cash, unless the company was suddenly cash rich. And in that context, the cash they would have contracted to pay Cognate, would be going from one pocket to the other.
Agreed, and let's hope they get a very good valuation. I'd prefer they stayed private and were able to get funding to do so. I'd like to see them take DCVax Direct to the Phase III stage as well. The valuation would be crazy. I think even with their GBM application, DCVax-L, they could have a much, much higher valuation than $10Bs, though I don't need to get greedy. $10Bs+ would make things easier, no doubt. I'd rather see a market cap of $50 or $60B. Getting approval in Japan, after approval here and in the EU, I suspect, would be a snap. Then you've got markets like China, and the smaller markets about Asia and the Americas.
Actually, Celator $CPXX was at $60 million. It must be the latest way small hedge funds are making their money.
Otherwise, they have a hard time figuring out what's going on... so they make their "luck". Disgusting - right?
22 would be exciting, though I'd rather get the full run.
I hate buyouts.
All of The TImes' articles were negative... not surprising...
Any word what might be the range? I tend not to buy rumors... but I am curious.
True PGSD, I feel the same way. We'll see the immediate response of the market maybe... maybe.
But it's just a shot of desperation. They will no doubt take other shots though, so be prepared.
This seems absolutely obvious... I agree. Desperate shorts.
This should, if bulls were smart, trigger a lot of buying, IMHO, given the incredible effort. But we'll see.
Interesting. Thanks Stillwell888!
So, one week the shorts are trying to use Dr. Liau's quotes to suggest that there is a flaw in the trial design and it has "failed" because people are living long, and this week they are claiming it's old and probably inaccurate, and thus, the trial is probably not really that successful...
I think someone's position has changed...
What is clear is that shorts are trying to CHANGE THE SUBJECT.
By switching to a discussion of Woodford... and now, that we don't really know what Liau said... or when....
DESPERATION....
Yes, basically Woodford's position is UNCHANGED, but the short driven media is publishing the repeated quotation as if it's NEW, and if it means he has changed his investment circumstances from last week, when he held 21%... though they are not saying that:
EXACT WOODFORD QUOTE FROM MAY 24TH:
LINK: https://woodfordfunds.com/words/insights/wpct-april-2016/
The FBI is not the right party to call. It's not something they are good at, and they only really get involved in stock fraud when there is already a prosecutor really driving the case.
Even if you spoke with a prosecutor, they would not necessarily act immediately, but it could prompt an investigation.
And with the primary regulator of an entity, like the SEC, it can prompt an invisible inquiry that you won't see, where they start asking questions around a process or procedure, and that may reveal a weakness or problem that then might turn into a violation and fine that you'll never hear about, most likely, but might very well get to the bottom of it and maybe even fix the problem.
There are many methods that shortly will be likely undone by the GOP Congress and Trump, but that would have likely put pressure directly upon them, without seeming to come from you. That's what the shots have been doing to NWBO.
Invisibility. Looks like it's a bunch of posters on bulletin boards and twitter, but it's really much bigger forces.
Did someone say that they were not in violation of exchange rules? It wasn't me. You really shouldn't take that whole long post out of context with that short, not even a full sentence quotation. It makes it seem I said something I did not say.
Of course they violated NASDAQ rules when they were shorted down below a dollar, no doubt. Very naughty of them.
And the Cognate arrangement, had to be unwound, because yes, they violated the rules there because their share price had declined so much, and that was the end result... so yes, vulnerability there, they had to pay for production of meds, with too many shares, even though those shares were not on the exchange. It was effectively deferred compensation, and it all had previously been disclosed in their financial filings. Phase V's allegations, made it seem like back room, undisclosed, new revelations. It wasn't - it was all disclosed. Not conventional and probably the details not ideal if you're subject to massive shorting, especially not if you get shorted down like they got shorted, with lots of noise.
And then when they had to convert the Cognate shares to cash and unwind the transactions (paying for years of production at once), (because of the short attack) and needed money, they would have had to violate the rules again.... though in effect violation 1 and violation 2 ultimately are the same transactions or at least result from the same business expenditures and necessary requirements.
They avoided dilution that would affect their share price, and now shorts are pushing the dilution button to get that all out into the market. You're right.
So yes, the shorts grabbed them by their vulnerability and shook them until the coins started dropping out.
No questions there. And NASDAQ does have rules. No question about that.
Thanks 2014turnaround. I had not seen that post. Could you link to it or show me who posted it?
I take tax losses myself, when I have big gains to offset, by the way, and eventually, I usually end up with more shares than I held previously. I don't buy companies that I haven't researched well. But sometimes you get in before the true bottom, and there's no harm in taking a loss. It doesn't mean you've necessarily divested in the long-term. Though, one could also arrange to avoid reporting during certain periods if one were a fund manager.
NW has taken a beating for being in this stock. Probably more than for investing in anything else over his entire career. That's how serious the driving short interest is... and how much influence they have, even if it's the shadiest of shady influence...
Did you bring your story to the enforcement division of the SEC? If it's not too long ago, you should do it. And also to your local US Atty's office, preferably SDNY.
I think the primary purpose of the short attack right now, is a stop gap. They know they can't really stop progression of the trial, but they are no doubt afraid that the stock will start a speculative rise to above $1.00, maybe $2 or more, and for them, it would be a disaster if the technology readout was positive, and the stock was starting from a much higher level. It would be better for them, and they'd have some room to cover if they could get it back down to the lower sub 50 cent range. For them right now, heading toward a buck, is a disaster, after so much work getting what they wanted, a delisting, and the opportunity to attack NW for investing in the first place, killing two birds with one stone.... and not even having to talk substantively about the company now. It allows them to time warp and talk almost exclusively about events a year or more ago...
That is the purpose of the story, but not what he said.
He said the technology was not the problem.
Phase 3 is about to get its readout, we hope, in a very short period, though its not good to hope for "events" just to make that happen.
It's extremely unlikely that shorts can stop that fact from happening...
He has not sold. The notion that he'd have bought more, has always seemed silly and to play on the minds of the unsophisticated. Even that Times article is ridiculous.
If the technology works out, shorts are fried.
True.
Key points to remember on that side, no matter what:
1. It will be bumpy (volatile). These attacks are meant to create bumps. And it could be quite bumpy.
2. We've all analyzed this to death. If we're in LONG, it's because we have come to some level of confidence, that the technology will likely work... LIKELY... it's likely because that conclusion is STILL only speculative.
These are the key ideas to keep in mind.
Additionally, one more point:
3. When you are pushing the limits, crap happens. As we saw with the effort of LP to maintain control, and to avoid being shorted down and bought cheaply and to avoid massive dilution, using Cognate and financing that way, it was quite brilliant, but the shorts took a strength, and turned it into a vulnerability. They made it seem shady and now they are using the term "house of cards". That was how she kept the company from being diluted immensely, at least on the markets. That would have given the shorts many more shares to depress the price. Now that protective vehicle is gone, and by blowing it up, the shorts effectively pushed the company off the NASDAQ with the constant pressure, and they blamed it on "governance"... Sounds nice, as a term, but sometimes those screaming such things most loudly, have their own agendas.
So, there are still risks... The next risk to address is that note. Most lenders don't want borrowers who are still able to pay, to be in default, and they typically work it out. I don't know the details of that funding, but the funders of that deal, could have their own agenda as well. So then the company would need a friendly source for those funds... and I'd think they would be able to raise the funds, particularly if the news is good for the technology.
Let's hope. There is still a lot of risk... usually these things get worked out, but everyone has to be at the top of their game.... and the shorts will bet, if they keep shaking, and huffing and puffing... maybe they will be successful somehow. They are speculating too, no matter how much they say otherwise. That makes us longs the little piggies... behind locked doors, and some piggies won't stay brave. This is not going to be easy for anyone, but it's always easy to bet on fear when people's money is at risk. That's the short's ace card. Fear.
And for those who are longs, the ace card is rationality.... that rationality, science, technology and good will, will win out. Doesn't always happen, and you gotta have a little faith, that smart people will work it out rationally. Hence the sense of risk... and the ease with which to play on your fears, emotions and mind...
Are you asking this in the naked short context?
Your broker does it in the context of a fully documented short. Meaning where the short position is NOT naked.
For a "naked short", there is no clear, absolute explanation. And I am not an advocate of the "naked short" theories, though I do think some may exist because of what I'd call bad plumbing.
In the context of, let's say, a prime brokerage transaction where, perhaps a fund is borrowing on its portfolio, and the bank doesn't want to keep a risky stock as collateral, the firm is likely going to sell those shares, hold treasuries instead, and resupply the share later. The brokerage itself, in that context, would or should buy probably a hedge, if the stock increases in value and will buy a cheaper share, if it goes down to substitute when the loan is paid back... so there is little risk there for them. They've shorted by selling, and covered the upside risk by a hedge.... it's effectively an undocumented short position because, for purposes of ownership, the fund is still shown as an owner of record in the stock, at the brokerage. With shares like this, meaning sub-dollar OTC shares in a risky firm, I don't know to what degree anyone can borrow against them, but I do think firms do shady things that are not always supposed to happen. And, as I said, I think the firms find a way to both lend, and eliminate the risk... doing what I just said, effectively, but not fully showing that's what they are probably doing... in their reporting systems.
I think if there is "naked shorting" at a substantial level, something like that would be the most likely source.
And in this context, we know that Goldman was fined a few years ago because they created an ingeniously untransparent system for their traders that made it appear that they had "located" shares for covering... but then they did not connect all the necessary transactions in the plumbing on the other side... so no one ever actually bought and held the "located" shares. I think shady things happen in the plumbing THAT way. It's also hidden, systemic risk that Dodd Frank is rooting out... but soon, the banks won't have to worry about Dodd Frank anymore... with Trump promising to get rid of it. And, of course, Dodd Frank does not apply to offshore brokerages and firms, only US firms. Which is probably why you're seeing stories coming out of London now... which is desperately trying to stay relevant, financially, given BREXIT.
I've seen ALL of this same nonsense before in other biotechs that were not disasters, just attacked by shorts and then that was used to facilitate an acquisition that was not always in the interest of all investors. If I had a really expensive shares, as an average price, I'd probably work hard to get my average price down substantially, in that context. Just as a precaution. And I'd work hard to keep averaging down... short attacks like this are not funny, but this is coming late, when they have huge risks at stake.... so it could get quite nasty.
I note the article you point to starts with the following bit of key info:
"Neil Woodford, the star fund manager, has thrown in the towel on his disastrous investment in Northwest Biotherapeutics, a US company labelled a “house of cards” by a short-seller."
Sounds like the author is getting his information or spin from shorts.
As I've said before, the notion that he would invest MORE is nonsense.
That he gave a statement, after constant prodding by both shorts and fevered longs, is not a surprise... he's going to protect himself, his fund and his reputation.
But, the fact is, if the technology works, this is all noise and the shorts know it. Their typical vehical, AF was no longer that effective... they clearly have a new vehicle at The Times.
I'm sure he'll also get some good stories in exchange, and it gives him the opportunity to write some scuttlebutt about a prominent money manager. That opens doors for the author. It really doesn't matter to him or his editors or the short that likely fed him the article, whether it's fundamentally true or not... "it's a disaster" for NW, because people who are not that thoughtful, don't like complicated stories. And people who understand complicated stories, are sometimes right and sometimes wrong, but usually quite vulnerable to attack because of their greater attention to detail and success, typically.
This is a short attack...through a media hack, and irrelevant ultimately.
And all these money managers ever really want is a 50% or 100% return on their money, in a short period, with a buyout. Given the ownership structure and the Cognate deal they had, that was never going to happen. And with the shorts, to get a nice pop, and ride it down... that's what they do.... they coordinate, it appears to me, and facilitate a cheap buyout... in order to do that, they had to attack NWBO at a fundamental level, and still are doing that, to get what they want, a sale. And that will help companies in which they DO have large investments... some large BP co or roll-up firm that is highly leveraged and offshore... London most likely.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/woodford-gives-up-on-american-biotech-disaster-r5vqn3pmc
Journalists are often not all that accurate.
NW has been attacked constantly for being in this company. I think that article is just him being defensive, and covering his a$$. As I have said many times, he's a money manager, subject to all kinds of obligations, duties, licensing requirements and he has to be careful not to get or seem to be too involved with any one company, or he will get sued. That's what that is.. IMHO. The fact that he did not sell, and held on and is still holding, speaks more about his beliefs than any words out of his mouth... and he was likely NEVER going to buy more, no matter what the story. It makes little sense that he would have "bought more". That's short talk and fevered longs.
I would like the link however.
I do not think the interpretations OF the article, nor the statements along the way, are accurate in most cases, on this bulletin board. I doubt very much, even if the company were now worth 2 billion, that he'd be putting more money in... nor would anyone care if he did.
It's all noise. He's a fund manager, not here to manage or save anyone's investment or companies. He has a loyalty requirement to his OWN shareholders, who did not choose to invest in ONE company, but many, according to the objectives of his funds. He is not in business to cure cancer.
Anyone have the link for the article?
This is nonsense. re NW - Money Managers typically only invest once. He has a large proportion of the company and his company is not a venture fund. He doesn't invest more not because he's alienated or angry, most likely, but because to invest more would change the nature of his fund and undermine his duties to his investors to remain a fund that invests according to the objectives of the fund he founded.
The obsession with fake assumptions about his anger or unwilingness to invest is just a ridiculous narrative manipulated by shorts.
I don't claim to know about or discuss naked shorting. I don't dismiss the notion that there are mechanisms whereby shares are possibly, in the plumbing loaned without locating. I've posted the story on Goldman myself in the past, because I do think it's a function of prime brokerage services that there may be some aspect that creates more shares, just like a bank account creates more dollars. It's kind of a function of borrowing and lending and using anything that is fungible and can be rehypothecated.
So, I don't know if shorts will necessarily cover when the shares switch from one exchange to another. If they are legal transactions,I doubt it. If there were illegal transactions, then sure, that's probably the case, if you believe those illegal transactions exist. I don't know if those exist or not. Some people are very sure, I'm agnostic at this point on that idea, as a general proposition.
I hope the story on Woodford is seen for what it is, nonsense. but there's no guaranty on that... and I hope the market understands that news is pending on the trial, and I hope that the shares gravitate up, in anticipation of news. I think the company is grossly undervalued, but I also recognize that value is nebulous, and negativity is rampant and easy to manufacture, very clearly, and it has done some considerable damage, or they'd not be explaining why they delisted instead of just waiting for good news right now. Far more damaging has been the attacks, and then the effort to defend the company from the attacks, it seems, while strategic and well meaning, may have been turned against the company, quite skillfully to suggest another story entirely. I think this is all about someone wanting a cheap buyout, and ultimately, the company's efforts have so far prevented that from happening. The powers that be are now rattling the cage out of frustration, and with the hope they can drive that stake in and make it happen for an even cheaper price. It's the Wild Kingdom, Wall Street style.
Or to take another analogy, you've all put your harpoon in this whale, and you've been dragged along ona wild ride, and you're about to get your meal... but the whale has a bit more energy than you anticipate and gets a little bit away from you... and that's when the fully supplied pirate ships that have been watching form a distance, descend to take your while for themselves, before you can catch up. It is now weakened, and makes a fine catch, easy and they did not have to work for it. When I watch these battles, that's what I'm seeing... scavengers and investors, fighting it out. Some investors want to take your meal, before you can eat it... just because they can. And they don't want to pay anything much for it... if they could get it for free, they'd do that too. They don't care about patients, they don't care about humanity, they just want something good, without paying very much for it, because in reality, they don't really have a lot of money. They do have wile and cunning, and they know how to play bit players in the media, who also gain from their connections to such interests, via symbiosis.
Meanwhile, we all hope to earn an honest buck, by investing in real ventures, and seeing hem succeed. In the world of these wiley and cunning players, who have no morals, that's far too difficult a way to earn a living. And they are living off of what they "kill". We hope our plantings will grow... and we can eat, someday.
The Phase III story wasn't told in that story, because saying anything positive was not the purpose of the story. Focusing on a non-event, and making it into a negative, was the purpose of the story. They didn't even focus on the delisting, it's an aside. The potential event of default (which is not a given), is also, referred to as an aside, in an attack on Woodford's bad judgment. They set him up. Talk about him investing more, just feeds that narrative.
But it's very important that they did not talk about the Phase III update, nor any other pending news, because again, that would undermine the focus of the story. That would be a mixed story then, with a more ambiguous meaning.