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.
Many very successful companies have used r/s, on a turnaround scenario, and many have used them when their fortunes are sliding. The challenge is, there are going to be traders with an interest in saying every event is one or the other, regardless of the facts.
But the actual r/s doesn't affect the interests of shareholders in fact, it is how the underlying company is doing that drives the state of the company, and it is the way it is perceived in the market, which, despite people saying is "always negative" - that is not always the case.
In this case, without good news, and partnership opportunities, a r/s would certainly be perceived as a stop gap at best. With good news on the Phase III, one would hope a r/s here would not be necessary, but if it were appropriate, for some odd reason, personally it would not be the key factor that would worry me in that circumstance. In most cases, that will open the door to having more significant investments from institutional investors. The r/s is really only for the purpose of remaining on a better exchange and having access to institutional investors. If the company has no real sales pitch for such investors, then being on the better exchange is not going to turn things around.
The key factor is ALWAYS the fundamentals of the underlying company, not the financial technique used to address a particular need. The need to engage in a r/s is a symptom of many different maladies, and a correct diagnosis, therefore, is the most important factor, not the tactic itself. It has a net zero impact on the ownership interests / percentages of shareholders, but many get the math fundamentally wrong and it freaks them out. The best compensation for that is when more sophisticated investors, seeing an actual good opportunity, rising up and undervalued, then step in to buy at those bargain prices. The people who ultimately sink that price though, are the shareholders who are fearful and misdiagnose when a company is actually not in trouble, fundamentally. And we all know that is a reality in many instances.
Not sure what you're exactly asking here, but anything validly issued and outstanding, by the company, will remain so, regardless of the exchange.
But if something was not issued and is not outstanding, it's not going to be here either.
Agreed RKM. I think they needed to clarify their situation and bank some funds or they'd be taking way too much risk over the coming weeks and months. I think prudently, they had no choice but to jump to the OTC from NASDAQ, but they certainly COULD have pushed it harder had they had more funds already banked. I think that would have been a mistake anyway. It wasn't that the NASDAQ forced them, in that context, it simply did not make sense to continue in such an indefinite and problematic state for a few months, with no ability to raise funds, to pursue an appeal that might or might not work out well in the end. There are too many other things happening in the short and intermediate term to put everything off for such a useless administrative focus on appealing nonsense with the NASDAQ at this stage. No company is in business to pursue such nonsense only, and put their main purpose aside during that period. The main purpose is to keep these potential cures and treatments moving along toward approval by the FDA and get them to patients, and become a revenue generating, self-sustaining company that can also serve the shareholders interests and become a major source of medical breakthroughs in the treatment of cancer and probably other diseases as well. We are not investors here to please the NASDAQ.
That's a very strong and excellent point John1045!
I agree, manufacturing up to a level acceptable to the FDA for approval, and to meet expected demand, will be very important. The could have sold that off to a BP, but they did not do that. I think that is even better for shareholder value, though no doubt Cognate is a separate company, they won't get the kind of JV percentages that a Merck of Pfizer would have received to step into the deal. IMHO.
Given the discussions and steps taken, funds expended and facilities built, it seems unquestionable they are moving toward greater, approved manufacturing capacity, which no one in their right mind would do if they had a failed drug, nor would they do it, with reputable third-parties no less, if their only aim was to collect salaries and defraud investors. Again, IMHO.
All of that is why I have been buying since they moved to the OTC.
I've traded stocks on the OTC for years. This does not alarm me though there are drawbacks when a company is so low in valuation, and needs cash, that's a consistent theme no matter what exchange. And some institutions do invest, in some companies, but it's not a huge theme on the OTC.
Nonetheless, so far we've seen large volumes with the stock generally up, despite initial substantial crashes in price during those same days. I think the patterns in trading are encouraging, and this company is about to finish a globally significant Phase III, which is extremely unusual for an OTC stock. I think that speaks to the damage the shorts did, but like Brer Rabbit, NWBO just got out of their clutches one more time, by changing the game. I don't think being on the OTC will turn out to have been a significant negative in the end, but a positive because of the avoidance of the short trap. Assuming we have good or positive news ahead, and the company has potential for real deals, these will hopefully just be speed bumps to the next stage.
Thanks for that history on the numbers Flipper44! Very helpful.
Nice discussion Dan88!
Given my previous posts on the ethical questions, I find this part particularly interesting and compelling, and in sync with the conclusions I've drawn:
Great post Doc.
I think given the approval in Germany of the Phase II using DCVax-L, in a combination therapy, it kind of shoots a hole in the argument that "leukopheresis complications" would be the reason. It just does not sound right to me, given the new approval. I think it would be a different product, substantially if the entire approach had changed in the interim. Of course, I could be wrong.
And you look at the Car-T therapies, for BLOOD cancers, and which require draws... from extremely sick patients with blood cancers... and this theory also does not fit to me, in that context.
I think the halt had a German ethical component to it, as I've discussed elsewhere, related to having a placebo category of patients, with what appears to be, to the doctors and patients, I suspect, a patently obviously effective treatment. Purely speculative, but consider the Nuremberg Code. Germany had already granted the Hospital Exemption. The Germans are very sensitive on these kinds of issues given their history. Also, I could be wrong, but that's the only thing I can come up with that explains all the circumstances as they are, and the lack of an explanation. As you point out, "everyone is living longer". That's a big key, I think. The lack of an explanation, from the agencies, makes the reason for the secrecy, along with the continuance of treatment, very complicated and interesting. Why would agencies keep it a secret if something in the protocol created either a safety issue, or made patients less capable of fighting their cancer, or resulted in a futile treatment. None of that makes any sense whatsoever. Add the subsequent approval for the new trial, and you've goat a very unusual set of facts that suggest to me that researchers and others, including Merck and the local regulator, view DCVax-L very positively.
Again, speculative and I could easily be completely off here.
Thanks Ou71764, I appreciate your opinion.
Honestly, I deal with agencies and have over many years, with regard to a variety of matters, and this does not concern me. If they are straight and have a good case, and have good counsel, I expect they will make headway and get ultimately to the appropriate place. The agencies are not perfect, by any means, but generally, it's still the best system in the world and I'd take it before most others.
I recognize that there will always be some people who simply cannot trust government. I've had too many excellent outcomes over many years to think that is a necessary feeling or concern. A bad result can happen, but I tend to think that's typically due to a failing in the team or approach.
It would be incredible incompetence if they have not already been discussing this with all the agencies involved...
He's a man, telling lies about his own intentions (he clearly didn't mean he was leaving), in order to tell lies about people whom he has lied about previously, in order to keep those previous lies from coming out and being exposed as lies... which should ruin him ultimately.
Talk about a mess...
These would be acts of undeniable fraud and criminality that every knowing senior executive, doctor and board member would have committed... and for what? Morons make this argument. AF makes this argument because he's reckless, apparently desperate (why else would a journalist be posting on bulletin boards?) and maybe a drunk...
This is all my opinion.
Why is this not surprising. . . ?
Thanks, I'll check those out.
Nice NYT's Article on Cure's Act Flipper44, as per your quote, here's the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/08/us/politics/cures-act-health-care-congress.html?_r=0
And the uplist is the most likely justification that will be given, if that at all becomes necessary, which very possibly will NOT be the case. I think we'd all prefer to avoid the stress of such votes, whenever possible.
I don't agree on the r/s for a company in the current circumstances, and for ALL start-ups, even if you had been in Facebook, you need to keep buying and non-dilution clauses otherwise, or you're of course going to not keep the same percentage equity. That's the nature of early stage companies. They are not self-funding, at least in most cases.
The problem for retail investors is often they seem not to understand, no matter how many times it is disclosed to them, that they are in an early stage venture, that early stage ventures require a different perspective, and a part of that is the fact that dilution, and share adjustments are often a part of the necessary toolbox of techniques that need to be used, often for various different reasons.
In this case, it very probably won't be necessary, though it could be for the uplist, when they do that, but, when or if they do it, it will likely be the best method to get the company to that next stage that advances everyone's interest, in reality. Shareholders that try to sabotage such processes usually end up cutting off their noses to spite themselves. Agreed that there are truly bad companies, that have terrible business plans and technologies, or sometimes that have made big mistakes - and there is some case-by-case, but even in those cases, the alternative is usually lights out. The best thing is to not be in those really bad companies and make one's investment choices carefully. If it's worth being in, then most likely, the r/s is worth voting for... and if it isn't worth being in, then that r/s is moot. One should just sell.
But that's just my opinion. Obviously people differ.
To me, when a company is truly bad, and everyone is fighting over the r/s, it's like a bunch of starving farmers fighting over how to divide the seed corn to eat it. Not a good plan, better not to be in business with those starving farmers.
And if it's an up and coming business in truth, the refusal to r/s often is the equivalent of a bunch of potentially successful young entrepreneurs, fighting about how to divide their potential millions (long before any millions are made), and destroying their budding company long before it's off the ground.
And, because with each r/s, not successive ones (bad circumstances then that need to be reviewed, but not always bad company), the r/s is just restating the factional ownership ratio (e.g. 50/100 to 25/50), it's often not all that meaningful except for the purposes of the requirements of an exchange listing, for instance. Rarely is it otherwise meaningful on a one off. On successive r/s, it's very possible that the company has been under capitalized, from the beginning. That could be a function of mismanagement or some other issues (shorting). Whatever the case, in the context of the typical desperation that leads to such necessary moves, usually, blaming management (and picking a fight) rather than either deciding it's a necessary ill, or divesting, is probably the least attractive response. It could be reasonable, but in many cases, it's just the long way to destruction, with a lot more effort put into the destruction than construction, of the company.
There are other different circumstances, but most of the time, for these start-ups, those are the circumstances most akin to what I see in these debates.
Eagle8, GLTU! :)
On the OTC: Thanks Cadillac. Nice discussion on the legacy of the OTC.
Offering up a bit more for people who want more info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTC_Bulletin_Board
They are not on the "pinks". Pinks have .pk after the symbol. Pink sheet stocks are completely out of compliance with SEC reporting and other requirements. There are no rules for pinks. That's not the case for designated OTC markets like the one they are trading on now. There are fewer rules than NASDAQ, but that has more to do with SRO rules that apply to the companies.
I think, despite the overwhelming indicia of "potential" efficacy, knowing, of course, that it was still blind and they did not have the actual data, their hands are tied for very many reasons and because of regulations worldwide, from Germany, the UK to the US. The ethics around all of this, from making claims not yet fully substantiated, to not subjecting the subjects in the trial to undue additional risks once you know a treatment is very helpful... I think they were under incredible pressure. This is all, of course, just my opinion.
But as I read through the original pieces, and the careful parsing of what they could know and not know and how they likely knew and who likely raised certain issues to their own regulators, I think they were mired in a complex circumstance that suggests to me, they were very successful, but the end result that shorts, Phase V and AF could manipulate that situation. And I believe that they did do that. I'm waiting to see the final evidence of course.
If this proves out, to have been the circumstances, then shame on AF and his ilk. I think there will have to be a substantial expose, from major publications, like the WaPo, on the ethics of such persons.
I think the story will be how we almost did not ultimately get a potential cure for cancer, because of the greed and ambition of certain kinds of market interloper's whose true motivations will be under incredible scrutiny. I would be surprised if those investigations are not far along, though the end details are not yet likely releasable, given that much here is due to what might be referred to as obviousness, not actual, unblinded data.
Again, this is all just my personal speculation and opinion, and no one should trade anything based upon such speculation. Do your own due diligence and make your own conclusions and trade on that basis. I'm just debating the ethics of what I think may have been happening in regards to certain short interests and this trial.
Wrongly, some articles suggest pink is OTC only, but in fact, they'd have to have .pk in their symbol, and not be compliant with SEC requirements and filings. That's not the case here, so this is not a pink sheet stock.
OTC, yes, but not a pink sheet security.
Well said, and to the point.
This is a nice discussion of the crossover Cohort RKM from February.
I did not say it was a negative thing at this point, nor did I say it stopped all treatment, nor did I say it was ONLY Germany. My previous post is not that at all. It was about the chronology, and trying to stick to the facts, to discuss that the Germans have, in fact, approved a new trial using the same technology, which clearly undermines the notion that there is something problematic with DCVax-L. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. Nor did I suggest that they could have continued elsewhere. When one regulator imposes a hold, I expect that it applies worldwide, for a global trial.
Even today's statement indicates it was the regulators who imposed the "partial clinical hold", and it was listed first on the German site, which suggests it was the Germans who did it first, as indicated in the article to which I linked. If you have an alternative link, happy to look at that link, but I try to be very specific, link to the history as it was revealed and discussed, but only to rebut the notion, ultimately, that there was something with the technology. If that were the case, the Phase II would not have been approved in Germany.
http://www.nwbio.com/nw-bio-provides-update-about-phase-3-trial-of-dcvax-l-for-newly-diagnosed-glioblastoma-multiforme-brain-cancer/
"Since the summer of last year, the trial has been subject to a partial clinical hold, only on recruitment. As a result of the partial hold, the Trial has not enrolled the last 17 of the total 348 patients. To date, the regulators have not agreed to remove the partial hold, but have allowed all of the patients in the Trial to continue being treated in accordance with the Protocol. The Company is pursuing ongoing dialog with regulators. However, at this point the Company believes that the potential benefits that could be obtained from enrolling the final 17 patients would not be worth the time it would take, as the process of re-starting and re-training the sites (including through Institutional Review Board renewals) for further enrollment would take months, followed by further months for the recruitment itself."
I'm not saying it worked out negatively, only listing the chronology in that previous post, and you can say it was wrongly characterized, but then please be a bit clearer about to which exact fact you're objecting. I also linked to NWBO's complete explanation of the halt, given at the time. So my point was quite thorough. I was not trying to characterize negatively, but your counterpoint makes discussing an issue that is not fully explained, challenging to explicate further than I did in the first place.
So, let's recall that it was the GERMANS that put a "Temporary Halt" on the trial. All else flowed from that:
"EudraCT Number: 2011-001977-13
Sponsor's Protocol Code Number: 020221
National Competent Authority: Germany - PEI
Clinical Trial Type: EEA CTA
Trial Status: Temporarily Halted
Date on which this record was first entered in the EudraCT database: 2013-02-11
Trial results "
https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2011-001977-13/DE
https://www.thestreet.com/story/13263780/1/northwest-bio-forced-to-temporarily-halt-study-of-brain-tumor-vaccine.html
http://www.nwbio.com/nw-bio-corrects-ongoing-false-claims-by-feuerstein-about-phase-iii-trail-of-dcvax-l-and-interim-analysis/
Let's also remember, that, Germany just allowed the exact same technology as in the Phase III trial (DCVax-L), that was "halted" by Germany, to proceed into a new combination trial with Merck, and the top or one of the top cancer centers in Germany (an "investigator-initiated trial led trial by Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz in Germany") - which seems to contrast quite strongly that there is something wrong with the technology or that there is a safety or other issue that caused any issues with that technology, which was also allowed to be used to finish the Phase III trial in Germany and worldwide.
So given it was the German regulator that halted the trial... why would there be an issue with the FDA? And why would Merck pay for the Keytruda (an approved product) to do a trial with a failed product in Germany that had any substantial issues with it remaining? None of that would make any sense, would it? Are we to presume the regulator and Merck and Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz in Germany are all not paying attention as well as the shorts on the bulletin boards... and Adam F-stein? Wow, those guys are all really dedicated if that's the case. What do they gain from being the guardians of all?
http://www.nwbio.com/nw-bio-announces-phase-ii-clinical-trial-program-combining-dcvax-l-and-pembrolizumab-keytruda-for-colorectal-cancer/
Isn't it amazing how the "journalist" who posts on bulletin boards, to attack companies he writes about in his column, to affect investor sentiment, said that he was no longer going to do that, and keeps coming back. You have to wonder about that... What's that about?
Seems there is more than just objectivity and journalism involved here.
True. There is always the off chance that we are wrong. I don't think so, but I recognize the possibility as a reality.
I think more likely than not, the shorts are wrong, and this was just a very practical stop gap move to not wait for what would likely have been a denial by the NASDAQ anyway, in 2 months or so. Why delay if you can move things forward. And if it's good news, why delay that when you can then start moving that out into the marketplace more quickly.
I hope I'm right, obviously. I didn't come to this as $12 or $13, I've been buying at prices around here and not much higher above. So I can afford to wait a bit. I can imagine for others, that is a harder circumstance, unless one presumes, again, this is just a stop gap and nothing has really changed otherwise.
I don't think that's either correct, nor likely in this situation. Anything is always possible. Companies get bought out - out of the blue sometimes as well. But I think they did this for very practical, immediate reasons.
I won't claim to be an expert here, but it's now on a different exchange. It may not be that they won't be able to recreate a short position illegally on the OTC, though I do think borrowing even for hedge funds, on a devalued OTC stock is harder, using prime brokerage services, but in the meantime, the practicality of the new exchange may cause them some major inconvenience in terms of having to close out unfilled, rolled forward, short positions that were never matched with real shares.
Again, market caps are the measure. It's around 50 million. So long as they can raise more funds, that's probably a good target around which there will be a range. What will determine stock price is the dilution and news.
That's why I wait typically to get into these companies when they are distressed this far, to somewhat de-risk, and of course, I'm watching the technology.
I suspect and believe, obviously no one has an absolute answer, that DC Vaccines will ultimately work, and this one seems about the best so far. We've seen Dendreon get approved before. So we know that's the situation, we also know they've addressed the cost of the vaccine.
The notion that it costs 700,000 to 800,000 per patient is nonsense. That's a trial, and is all of the carry and burden from the cost of carrying an FDA trial this far, over multiple phases, without revenues. It makes for good noise though, and should confuse people if that's your aim. But, it's nonsense.
Given that I was feeling very comfortable before today (contemplating having funds to accumulate more), and that I think this is a practical tack, for news pending, I'm going to wait and watch, with some possible trading in and out if and as I think necessary to avoid undue losses. Right now, that's not the case, though I always retain some right for a dynamic change in my view on best way to endure a long positive view on a stock this volatile.
Another problem, he suggests that the treatment creates tolerance for the tumor, which would in fact make the DCVax treatment UNSAFE, and that is not what has been shown that I've seen. I find it hard to believe that such a determination would lead only to a "futility" determination. That would make the cancer worse.
I's extremely detailed and obviously he's been working on that explanation for a long time. It did not just come out at this moment. Repeated? Was it rebutted previously? It seems very likely.
Nonetheless, there is no doubt there will be more dilution, they need to finance and move forward. It's around a 50 million in market cap. What dilution ultimately means is, as they issue chunks of shares, let's say to raise 10 million, that's a good amount of current equity, the market cap may stay around the same area, it may even increase or decrease a bit, but you have more shares out there.
It's hard to say if they have news that will lift the share price. It's very possible that the new news will require more financing, and lead only to short-term pops, again, with dilution. My past experience is in this kind of circumstance, if you don't believe in the technology, for good reason, then you should certainly get out. If you do, you would have to keep buying at each round to maintain your range of percentage ownership. That's not always easy to do, and you could be wrong in your belief and certainty.
That's why the shorts are so persuasive.
I would not invest in Oil. I just came from a large conference on energy, and the economics of oil right now are HORRIBLE. It's so inexpensive to bring more oil on market. If sanctions against Russia end, they will also bring more to market. Opec will unlikely hold, as the dollar is very high and Emerging Markets have been financing in dollars for years and with rates about to go up, they will not have enough dollars to service their debts. Dollar is headed up, commodities down in price. Demand also for Gas is similar, the more oil that is produced, the more Gas. Though there may be some temporary seasonal spikes, as always in these commodities, and it depends on the severity of the winter... a little bit, not a whole lot - unless there are more wars, don't expect commodities, particularly oil, to be headed up a lot, any time soon. Moderate increases maybe, depending on a variety of factors, and best case scenarios that seem unlikely. Also, the storage of oil is very high. It will take a while to work that down. That's a very poor bet. Only guaranty to spike that price is war... which we know, some administrations love... for that very reason.
I disagree on that notion. I think they are doing the delisting now, BECAUSE they have to move forward sooner than later and waiting out the NASDAQ and its bureaucracy, which would likely still have not been favorable, seemed to just be a complete non-starter. Financings are certainly in the cards, but those may also be accompanied with news. The refinancing of the Note, also will be an interesting temporary pivot point. I suspect that it will be refinanced, or the delisting waived, but hard to know.
I think there could be news, both good and bad, in the coming weeks and even in Jan and Feb.
It may or may not be exactly the news everyone thought it would be, that's true. But I think this allows them to move more quickly, and it also allows them to do things that are completely unexpected, that were not possible before.
But the market will be volatile, as we see now. If I see the market cap going really really absurdly low, and my confidence continues, then that is just a new entry point for more shares. Anything below 60 or 50 million is going to be absurd if the technology is what it seems to be at this stage, without more news.
I did hope for a sooner pop however, and certainly it's hard to know when a large pop will happen no matter what company you invest in... anything that adds more variables, always makes that harder to measure. For some, that certainly could be a determining factor of whether to hold for now or get out. Getting out though, means one may miss big moves also, and it's already at a quite low market cap, for what they potentially have right now.
I seriously doubt that anything that dramatic will happen in terms of bankruptcy or any such thing. I've seen far worse happen and the companies bounce back on the OTC no problem, with far less in the works than NWBO. NWBO is in a good place, if they have good things pending, in terms of their technology, to use this opportunity to get everything in order and get right back on NASDAQ.
Even, if, at some stage, they do a r/s, I have no problem with that... Market Cap is what matters and that tends to remain in the same region for a company with this much in the works. We're already really low, and hard to see that go much further. A r/s is like going from 2/4 to 1/2 shares.... same fractional ownership. Just because people don't like the new math, doesn't make the math any different.
However, since they avoided that, it's also very possible they'll never have to do that with the right news going forward. Getting on the NASDAQ with a successful Phase III, is not likely a problem, I'd expect. With joint ventures with Big Pharma, especially if some are fully funded, also, that would be a big deal.
This is a practical tack, and that's all it is... hardly likely to ultimately upset my consistent, long-term view. Technology news and other things could affect my LT view, but not this so much.
I agree. My only concern about volatility is for any possible overreaction in the market for a short while.
I think you are right on this point, and that further delay made no sense. Now for news on DCDirect, Phase II trials - and that news is probably quite good. Yes, even partnerships can happen also for OTC stocks.
OTC is not ideal, but I've been here before, and with good news and some good events, it's actually not that hard to again qualify for a low or mid-tier NASDAQ listing again, particularly if coupled with good news.
Institutions often don't want to buy OTC stocks, but it's not absolute, and if they already own, they may choose to hold, though they may not. I suspect most will see this as a tack to the next stage.
It will likely be very volatile, which will be hard for some. Might even be hard for me, I'll see. But if news comes not that far off, and it's good, selling could be highly regretted.
Contrary to some, I don't see this as some sort of betrayal or part of a bad pattern, it's a very practical move and tack to get to the next stage, do what they need to do to rebalance their finances given the previous restructuring, which they would not have had to have done, if they had decided earlier to delist....
However, clearly, some may take it badly. If they get out, that will just be the way it is, but fundamentally, they should be on sound ground to progress the company forward without their hands tied. Of course shorts and others, AF, will paint it badly. That's what they do. There is nothing new there.
Keep moving forward. That's the task. The board was unanimous about this, because this made the most sense.
OTC doesn't bother me. Been there and done that. Obviously, if it spooks some owners, that's not ideal. But generally speaking, I've been in companies that kept raising funds, without real challenges. But, you are correct that options become a real issue, typically.
I expect to hold, watching the price movement, and I was about to liquidate another largish position to get cash positioned for more NWBO. I'll wait and see how this pans out, but often I buy when others are running, though usually AFTER they've tanked the shares. Hard to know what will happen given all the pending other news.
My view, honestly, is they could not delay certain events and the raising of funds, until the new year, which would have been required if they had attempted to stay listed on NASDAQ. The honest approach is just to face into the wind, and delist so that they can progress their plans and move forward faster on the various initiatives and requirements that they have pending. Delaying is never good and NASDAQ was not showing any flexibility.
I've owned shares on OTC, and bought enthusiastically those same shares. The OTC doesn't bother me. It's not ideal, but I made money then, and I expect and hope to make money here. S.it Happens. I hope to roll with it, given my view of the underlying technology and pending events. Of course I could be wrong and others should do their own diligence and make their own decisions. A good part of this kind of play depends on a lot of your own traits as much as the traits of the company and technology. One person can lose as much as another person gains, or more, in the same opportunity, based upon one's ability to see the path forward or not, given one's entry point, patience, liquidity, capacity to take more risk, etc. I don't discount that I could trade in and out, though it's not my preference and I expect to hold for now.
I'll be watching tomorrow, but at this moment, this is met by relief (they've made some decisions - I was OK with a r/s by the way, but it would not have solved their problem with NASDAQ in terms of raising funds right away to move forward, apparently). R/s usually work best when done along with some other good events. I am glad they are moving forward, and it seems they felt a need to advance before Feb. I think news is pending, possibly not Dec, but January or Feb? There will be a bit more dilution, and we'll see what's ahead. Moving companies forward can be messy, but such things need to be done and NWBO is not in a long-term bad place, I think, though we have no absolute certainty how long things will take to play out or take to get to a satisfactory stage. I think soon, but it's all speculation and opinion at this point. Good luck all!
Well, one can hope still.
I thought AF had gone for good...?
I think you have that exactly right. This is my view on the short attacks as well, that they are frequently about stealing patents and other valuable IP right out from under early investors for virtually nothing.
The intelligent market theory is a bunch of bunk, despite AF's false statements that he truly believes in it, but then his instrumental involvement in the attacks on key companies.