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.
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.
It came back down by end of day, it was up as much as 8%, and your point is...?
I would bet the shorts are restless.... seeing that start of a pop yesterday must be causing anxiety...
Let's hope for more of the same today.
With those transactions being unwound and repapered, is this suit even pertinent anymore? It seems that the relevant facts may no longer apply as they were originally used to justify the suit.
I would guess a plaintiff's firm, put up to it by a hedge fund or BP lurking behind the scenes. Weaken the symbiosis, and get it for cheap. That's the M.O. I believe these clowns tend to use.
Hogan Lovells is an excellent law firm.
Thanks TC Trader! I thought 30% sounded awfully high for a fund investor unless multiple funds... but even then, it's in that high range that starts to sound like a controlling interest, which is not ideal for a fund. Though that is still high, he might buy more. Glad to hear it's in the 20% range. That leaves some room for him potentially, though again, it's a nice and unusually large chunk as it is now.
Thanks for your diligence and confirming. I supposed I could have done the same, but have been focused elsewhere, so your kind addition of this detail is much appreciated!
Thanks Iwasadiver.
Agreed.
Large corporates are not typically the target of these kinds of vicious attacks (though it does happen) unless they are very, very large scale efforts to short, with a public face usually. These tiny companies are volatile and there is clearly an opportunity here with them to short, and create fear. My speculation was only that there clearly has been some opportunity, over the years to play contrarian to the fear.
But I agree, the shorts have an incredible amount of power, and even with his 30% ownership, as some suggest, I have not verified that, NW couldn't keep the price from ultimately tanking. There is only so much that anyone can buy, and there is no limit to how much can be shorted, particularly if you don't have to borrow the actual shares to short, which may impact, to some degree, I have no doubt. It's the constant push by shorts, and the fact that supporting anything sounds silly, while being skeptical almost always sounds like the smart move to anyone who does not know much about anything in particular.
Really excellent points doingmybest!
I think you're articulating a more realistic understanding of NW's likely motivations than I'm seeing elsewhere. I agree. Taking control over from the current owners is not likely his goal as a fund manager. It's a very bad idea for many, many reasons, for any investment manager to put themselves in that position, without even discussing that it is NWBO. I mean that for any company of this sort. It would be a bad idea for him and he knows it. Anyone who was trying to put themselves in his shoes would know that is the case as well.
And that is saying absolutely nothing negative about NWBO. It's the wide range of facts and circumstances in this instance, including the large holding, and the status of the company at this moment as well.
Agreed also, that "averaging down" is likely not his focus. He'd have to increase his ownership. He wouldn't be selling the more expensive shares, and increasing his ownership is likely a non-starter given discussions here about how much he already owns vis-a-vis other large holders. He has a duty to pursue the interests of his fund investors, and that is definitely not to be over concentrated in one tiny biotech that is about to release its results. When people can't see that kind of calculation or only see it in relationship to their particular decision to invest, then they are not seeing clearly the forest for the trees. He has other matters on his mind. He has remained invested. His words about the company are generally encouraging. That's all I need to know.
1. Averaging down is one thing.
2. People want him to buy shares to "support the price". He's a fund manager. His investors don't invest in his funds to see him support some random, tiny company that is not the main business of his fund. They expect him to protect their investment and generate income for them. He may ultimately determine he can do that with more investment, after investing a holding that may make him the controlling shareholder, from what people are posting on this board. But controlling such companies is not the business of his fund. He does not have that expertise.
3. there are legal reasons and considerations for why he likely won't invest, at least until there is news. I doubt very much, as you've posted elsewhere, that it has anything to do with "insider information" and Linda blocking him from buying more by not making private information public.
Most of the talk about NW seems pretty off-base to me, completely insensitive to his real job and legal obligations and about further putting pressure on the company. But the reality is, it puts no pressure on the company and has little to do with NW. It's mostly just noise for the bulletin boards.
He is already very heavily invested, the expectation that he should buy more, is beyond strange. He has taken a very positive public stand in favor of the company, but he is neither the right partner, nor the best partner at this time. People should step back. No doubt management is negotiating with potential partners on combination trials and other real and strategic partnerships that will have significant meaning for the company. And if they aren't, then the company has a limited future. End of story.
I believe they are doing that, and that the German combination trial is just the beginning and a very good sign. The constant focus on NW is incredible noise that focuses the discussion where shorts mostly want the discussion focused.
I agree 100% Longfellow95. Let's take NW at his word. Well said.
I agree iwasadiver, I was not surprised by the ownership details in the Phase V report because they were disclosed. The MFN situation was addressed, which is good. And the payments for services rendered being cashless had been to avoid having a cash issue, which of course can create more distress.
Shorts were disrupting a situation that effectively kept the company out of reach of a cheap takeover. And of course there is always the view that takeovers are always good. I don't subscribe to this view. But there is no doubt a large segment who make it their job to make these things happen.
Honestly, when shorts attack, I don't know why the market doesn't drive these stock prices up. It's a barely kept secret that they are looking to sweep these companies, their patents and technologies up for pennies on the dollar for purposes of pirate like profiteering.
No doubt Kabunushi and excellent questions to ask.
His ownership stake, posters suggest is in the 30% range. I have not checked. As a fund manager, I doubt he wants to be in a controlling position. That likely creates all sorts of potential issues for him. That's already potentially too much I'd think. But he must be seriously impressed, regardless of the circumstances now, to hold such a large position to this point, I agree.
I simply think the circumstances surrounding his ownership are likely too complex in the broadest way, and with all the details, for much informed speculation here on what, why how and when for an next investment. Given his obligations to his underlying investors, he no doubt has to be careful not to appear to lose his objectivity or to appear to have loyalties elsewhere.
Excellent post CherryTree1!
That was my impression too RKM. Super and thanks for that additional amount of detail. I have felt confident that this is not a one-dimensional, flat approach they've taken. I think they will end up with lots of very useful data to use even after approval (assumption), to guide and advance the use of DCVax.
Do you have a source for that quote? Link please?
I'm not sure it's really going to be that important at this stage, honestly, and they may know more than they are letting on. But, for this quote, I'd want timing and context to evaluate what you're suggesting only about this matter. Even though I doubt it will ultimately make any difference for this investment. If those guys ultimately go to jail, that would be great. But if they've uncovered anything real, they'd likely hand off to a prosecutor and be unable to discuss it.
True. I agree with you iwasadiver, living longer is better.
Some people might even wish that patients would hurry up and die already, so they can get their pop. Perversity is not unusual when it comes to people and their money.
The industry and some larger investors, I am sure, fear some kinds of cures (and competition that makes their drugs obsolete) and they also fear ambiguous circumstances where people go on living without strong clarity. They are all about getting that money back with big appreciation, so that they can brag about performance. To them, it's nothing personal...it's just bizness.
You mistake what I'm saying in response to very specific posts you made about NWBO, with what might be happening with another company under completely different circumstances.
I did not say that funds NEVER invest in biotech direct offerings. Go back and look. I even gave an example of a fund complex that does it regularly, Franklin. I am familiar with Args, and yes, they don't have the same issues as NWBO. Nor does their fund investor have likely the same issues as NW.
You take general situations and extrapolate them without the facts. My point was only that uninformed speculation about NW's actual reasons for NOT doing things that you want him to do, based upon some other investment you have, is not really very informative.
I agree with you that ARGS has not been subject to short attack and is in a different situation.
In my experience, shorts attack companies that are being pursued for takeover. Or at least that is how it starts, and usually how it ends. We'll see.
The one asset that NWBO has is LP, though I know she's unpopular with some, maybe even you. The purpose of the shorts is to destroy her credibility and connection to the company, so it can be taken over, even though most probably don't actually know that is their purpose and they are just there for a free meal and to ride along with the pack.
It's kind of limited utility to go on discussing ARGS in relation to what you think should happen with NWBO. Sure, a fund could step up. NW is likely not in a great position to be the one stepping up. He may do so once there is more data available or something substantially changes to allow him to do so. One issue also, is the NASDAQ matter.
Again, funds are not there to SAVE your personal investment. They are there for their own reasons, the managers have duties to their own investors, and they don't just act because they feel like doing so... they have parameters and other guidelines. If and when NWBO fits such guidelines, then sure, there may be some funds that DIRECTLY invest.
Or there may not be.
Again there are funds that typically do that, and funds that don't. Some have limited amounts of their portfolio set aside for certain kinds of investments, they typically don't go all in. The discussion around here relating to NW and how he relates to the company are simply too broadly speculative, seem ill informed about the nature of things, and kind of manipulative, though I don't think intentionally so, but most likely derived from some sort of emotional desire to be vindicated or something like that...
Again, I didn't say he WON"T EVER, just that the speculation about what his motives are, and what he will and won't do and why that is... is mostly ill informed and speculative, and in some posts, based upon grossly inaccurate assumptions that no doubt can be cleaned up on subsequent posts and redirected.
Also, you're all over the place on direct investment (money goes directly to the company in an offering), and price support by buying in the open secondary market, a whole other matter. Let's not confuse all of these things into a big mess of general :"funds" talk, when we know there are many different KINDS of "funds" with different investment objectives, regulations, and portfolios. Yes, they do tend to invest in companies that look like they are moving up, and only special funds tend to target more "distressed" companies. I'd say that NWBO, because of the steady short attacks over the years, is more the latter, though hopefully soon it will no longer be in that position. It seems to many, there is clearly great value here that the market misperceives. There are funds and investors for that kind of investment, though they also tend not to be the best sort. Let's hope, with news, they won't need that sort of investor.
I don't know you. I'm going off of your posts, which indicated you were not clear about the nature of things and how they work in reality. I took it to be a reaction to notions that have been posted here that are not entirely accurate as to how things work. Most people would be in your circumstance, including the large institutional traders I know on a regular basis, who often are so focused, they have a very tiny macro view of how the world actually works. It's not unusual.
Your point here is speculative, it seems, and inconsistent with the methodology of prediction and mathematics as a whole. No doubt they will have some ability to discuss the crossover arm, and enough patients to say that it was safe, and likely delve into further details to determine if patients who were in that status had some benefits, from also being given the treatment. And as was said, the eventing for them was at the moment that the GBM recurred. Everything after that is good additional data, done compassionately and at the request or with permission of the FDA. I don't see that hurting anyone.
The end result will be that they have more data than less that can always be used and given to doctors to use when addressing different patients at different stages. Those doctors will, therefore consider DCVax not just for the newly diagnosed, assuming approval, but also for those who have had other treatment and then find themselves again contemplating treatment options.
As RKM and others have indicated, which seems to be ignored by the critics, the crossover patients tended to come back with mesenchymal type tumors, which had the best prognosis for DCVax, ironically. So I suspect, as they've delved and as they delve into more and more data, the issues will become far clearer than your suggestion of one and done, flat and very uncurious and mechanically undynamic review of limited notions of data would suggest.
It was your point, that he doesn't take options. I was only trying to indicate to you that many public funds don't trade options generally unless to hedge their investments. But if he participated via one of his funds in a private offering, where he did not get immediately registered shares, or where he was forbidden to sell his shares, then it may be a fund that is allowed to do that.
You mistake the now... part of what I've been saying with the before part of what I've said before....
You also mistake the issue of how much he would buy.
You don't really understand how funds work, so it's all either or all or none.... it doesn't work like that at all. And there are far more likely to be a lot more considerations than people think on bulletin boards.
And as I said, some funds do sometimes participate in an offering. On good news, as I've said before, when the future of the company is clear, maybe he will and maybe he will still have capacity in his fund not to overcommit to the company or be seen to just be trying to do what you suggested, save the company. He can't "save" the company. Or use his funds to prevent "dilution". None of that makes sense anyway.
But more importantly, he has fiduciary duties to the fund holders, not the company and not to the other shareholders in the company who own their own shares.
He also has another trust related "fund" that invests in NWBO, though hard to know how much he wants either fund to be in it, as a percentage or in these kinds of stocks. They have parameters for that sort of thing. But he may be able to get options via the trust related fund, it depends on what investors he has in the funds, the objectives, the portfolio parameters, and the instruments he is allowed to invest in.
I can tell you generally what happens. We can even look at his funds, though we don't know exactly what rules and policies they follow exactly. And generally speaking, I'm going off what you're saying because, to be honest, most of the stuff said about him is so emotional and about wishful thinking that it seems very unhelpful in thinking about NWBO as an investment. The fact that he maintained his investment, despite the long drop, I think speaks the most strongly. Most money managers would have sold if they thought there was fraud or other bad activity here, and taken their $6, or $5, or $2 long before we got to this point. He may have hedged it down to avoid the portfolio hit as well. As I said, he can no doubt hedge an actual investment, in most cases.
On the offerings of small companies some are investors and some aren't. Some may very well hedge and they can negotiate on that issue as well.
It depends who the buyers are whether they are buying to invest or just taking that discount an dumping.
One thing to recognize, they actually ARE the real "investors". Their money goes directly to the company. So companies like this would not exist without them. Funds that only buy the public shares, just like you and I, are investing our money, sure, but we are buying shares from someone else, like the "investors" you are referring to... whose money actually keeps the lights on at the company. Our buys support the share price, maybe, though we may buy only when very discounted. Nonetheless, we support the base price. But our money goes to another investor, not to the company.
I'd rather talk in relation to the actual details though. I don't know who the buyer was for this last offering. The company said it's a real investor. AF said it wasn't... though how he would know without that being inside information - which he would have leaked if it were true - I don't know. I would guess, if he were sued, he'd claim he was emotional, didn't actually know at all, and was just frustrated and said things he should not have said. But he knows he would only get in trouble if it were true, and since he really didn't know, he probably has nothing to worry about.... I hope that's true for him.
My point is not that he CAN'T invest at all, ever, but that he likely has many more concerns than the ones people think about when they discuss why he is doing this or that on this bulletin board. Most of the stuff I see here, simply doesn't comport with reality for a fund like that or a person like NW.
In response to another post, I doubt very much he's doing a huge additional "investigation". He has to do his due diligence, and if he were doing an investigation, that would suggest a complete lack of confidence, in which case, his money should not be in that company, any company, where he'd have that level of distrust. He has a fiduciary duty to his investors. In that kind of instance, you'd sell and after sale, you'd not do more investigations unless you were suing, and typically it would not be one plaintiff, but many and a law firm, not the plaintiff doing the investigation.
My point is, that sounds more like fantasy, than reality. No doubt there may be some source for the speculation. But it doesn't sound real to me and it seems, given the many circumstances that would drive such a situation, like fantasy.
What would he do if he stayed invested while investigating suggested bad faith? If he found it? Would he stay invested? How would he explain to his investors staying invested for years, in a company he distrusted so much...? That would create a serious problem that no money manager would want. And if his fund allowed shorting, maybe he'd be shorting. But that's typically a hedge fund tactic, and very narrow types of mutual / UCITS funds that do that kind of trading. NW is not a trader, he's an investor. Much speculation that seems quite unlikely, fantastical and meaningless.
Two last key points. His funds look like they have some leeway to have some portion invested in a company like NWBO, or else he wouldn't have anything in there. So his peers were off-base. However, as I said, the notions that he would increase his exposure, or make efforts to save a portfolio company suggest to me a lack of sophistication in understanding the full complexity of the limitations placed upon a money manager like NW.
If he did it, I'd be the first to cheer, though I'd find it unexpected and think it really unusual. If he doesn't do it, I would not be surprised, in fact, it would be expected that he'd not be that active, honestly. If he ultimately sees that it's hugely undervalued, and clearly has turned a corner (i.e. results), then sure, he'd be foolish not to get in, if he had more capacity to do so. But also, again, they look at stats, weighing of their entire pool of investments, in different industries and companies, types and specific companies. So he'd have to look at all those factors before he put in another dime, even on the best case scenario. I just think people on the boards think he's just as obsessed as they are, and that's definitely unlikely. He has many more issues and concerns to weigh, far beyond the needs of this company, and specifically he must always consider the expectations, obligations, duties and regulations that bind him to his specific investors.
Hedge fund TRADERS don't invest directly into the company, so they don't get warrants from Linda or anyone. Typically those investments into the company are coming from other sources, not typically hedge funds. The TRADERS, by the way, are trading shares that they buy on the secondary market (NASDAQ), which means shares that were bought from other investors, not the company directly. Options and other derivatives they buy, come from investment banks as investment contracts that are regulated.
Woodford runs an investment fund. They also typically, though not always, buy on secondary markets, not directly from the company. So that's why he did not get options, most likely. But investment funds, typically regulated, don't engage in that much of that activity, generally.
It seems some don't understand how regulated funds work or how a money manager like woodford invests funds in his regulated funds. He can't manipulate the price of stocks of companies in which he invests. And that's not what his fund is in business to do. That's the last thing he would do as a good money manager. He'd end up in jail and barred from the industry, though I know some here would find that hard to believe, it's absolutely true. He'd also be viewed not as a great manager, but a crook, and that would have nothing to do with NWBO, that would all be his behavior.
I get that people think all kinds of silly things about investment funds, wall street and woodford. But many people assume things that just are not possible and then make a lot of other assumptions off of those flawed assumptions. While in this case, we've come to agree on this investment as something we support, still, if one makes such assumptions and invests on the basis of flawed assumptions of how things really work, then inevitably one will not be in a good place.
People should not really try so hard to figure out what is in woodford's mind or why he should have or should be doing something else. You have his actions, the few statements he made and the facts related to his funds and the legal regulations that guide his actions, some hard and fast, some more loose but often the most important because for him they involve reputational risk and much larger liabilities than making a wrong decision or allowing for some dilution in a relatively small part of his portfolio.
Bills typically come through long processes and variations get swallowed into other variations. The ultimate bill is a combination of those things and the Republicans could have put anyone's name on it. Though I give credit to some practical minded old line Republicans who really helped shape it, not the newer class of really unsavory types. Getting the naming rights wasn't what it was about. If countering their destructive and obstructionist behavior had been that simple, I'm sure we would have had 8 years of relative ease and harmony.
Obama's names are on no bills. Obama Care was a name started by the republicans as a form of derision that the President embraced. It wasn't on the bill. The bill was a complete compromise to the GOP so they'd vote for it, they gave them everything they asked for and then they refused to vote for it. IF it had been a Democratic bill it would have been a single payer, comprehensive bill that would have truly been affordable.
The GOP did not want compromise, anymore than they want it now. The issue now is despite some pretty amazing levels of control, they don't have complete control, so they will still have some challenges. But, let's face it, if they had wanted friendly compromise, the Dems were constantly compromising. It's the extremists in the GOP base, and the gerrymandering of their districts that make them so extreme, that got us here.
Thank you for sharing RKM. I can see the source of your passion and energy and the interest you bring to your posts. You're an inspiration. Thanks for continuing to participate and try to make this difference. I believe this will be successful as well.
That's a very nice picture you painted!
No problem. Glad to offer some thoughts on that point Sojourner.
If a US Atty takes that kind of a case, think Preet Bharara SDNY, they tend to use more prosecutorial tools and to be far, far more aggressive when they ultimately make their investigation known and go after the bad guys. They don't pussyfoot around.
SEC tends to be more comfortable going after executives at a large company, for infractions. While they are scary, no doubt too, my impression is, they have not traditionally been given the resources and abilities of the US Atty offices, who also prosecute drug dealers and terrorists.
They just have a lot more resources, investigations can last a long time before anyone knows about them, and when they strike, the bad guys don't dream of going to Club Fed... because that's not in the cards.
Traders, and just about anyone who might be doing something bad on Wall Street or using the tools of Wall Street, are terrified of US Atty Bharara.
Thank you for your careful and incredibly helpful post RKM, explaining the crossover data in combination with the specifics of this trial.
I have not been here so long and I'm sorry to hear of your nephew's illness and I wish they had caught that progression earlier. My heartfelt condolences to you and your family.
I strongly agree on this point, there is much to be learned yet. The larger data set and increased knowledge, on a wide range of responses of the patients, in these different contexts for treatment, will prove very helpful to using DCVax to cure patients in the real world, once (assuming) it is approved.
The analysis of the details can easily be broken out and shown. The only reason people have this problem right now is because it's blinded and they don't have the data to do that now.
Yes, it will be subsets of the patients, but it will show for an overall larger class different classes of patients and their responses to different treatments with the same methodology and the results.
I think the arguments on this point are spurious at best.
This is nonsense.
1. The crossover effort simultaneously can be broken out and shown to have a different impact;
2. The treatments of the crossovers shows efficacy for a different and likely very large class of patients that will be available after the trial that will be available as well, which would not be shown in your scenario.
3. Early access has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. This is a stinker argument that keeps getting made because shareholders are frustrated.
Better to have focused on lobbying Congress for the Cures Act aggressively and steadily for the last 506 years or so. They had it stuck up there and never let it out. That's what has killed many patients and held up the adoption of new methodologies and ideas from being implemented. And the reason that was held up was pure partisanship. Sabotage of a presidency. It's all utter nonsense.
I don't agree with this point no matter who says it, longs or shorts. There are reasons beyond our need to make a profit (which the complaint is really about, despite being colored by a notion of patients not being served) that this is really about.
The FDA is doing what it is supposed to do. Shortly they will have more latitude because of a bill that has been in the works for a few years but was held up by the GOP controlled House and Senate. Once that is passed and they also have a budget, new ideas and methodologies will be implemented that it is hoped, will expedite the research and access to drugs, generally, but especially in the Cancer field.
There were good forces in the GOP and also amongst Democrats working on this, but the need to sabotage President Obama, led to a lot of really bad behavior in the GOP, in both houses, and now they are willing to implement his agenda, which includes this program and infrastructure investment. Maybe they will even fix Obama Care, though they will no doubt call it something else... or they'll completely break it because they can't control themselves.
Whatever the case, much of the stuff people complain about is driven by pure, childish, partisanship that says, if you're going to succeed and make me look bad in doing so, then I won't have any part in it and I will sabotage you. That helps no one. It's disgusting, and very destructive. And shareholders like us, pay the price and patients who needed faster access to new drugs of many sorts, have been hurt as well, because new ideas were not being put into laws governing the FDA.
Law enforcement and the SEC don't work that way. But if there is something, and if they can prosecute anyone, I would expect that an investigation is already in process. This was previously started by a former US Atty in Boston, when the same groups of shorts went after a few other companies.
The better and more likely prosecution would come from a US Atty's office, not from the SEC, which is jurisdictionally limited and is not the greatest arm of the government for really serious prosecutions.
I agree that it delays the treatment coming to market, but it also demonstrates its efficacy potentially if it is given at different stages, which will help patients who don't get DCVax only at the beginning of their treatment.
Additionally, I disagree and think it's patently false that it "will actually cost more lives than it saves ..." It's a limited number during that time, and once it is approved, a much larger class of patients will be demonstrated to benefit, and that number is without definition, forever into the future, unless better treatments come along. So the future group is unlimited and larger, while the delay is a very definitely smaller number, and a more narrow number of patients.
So that point doesn't really make sense. But I do understand the impatience of real patients who need the treatment.
So obvious.... I think we even have a poster with that name...