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.
Nonsense. Great ridiculous political rhetoric but nothing like what is really happening.
The bad people, are the AF's and the fake "hedge funds" LOL, that they enable to manipulate these companies and undermine innovation and the normal operation of capitalism. Those people are not really Wall Street, though they pretend and preen as though they are, but are something much, much closer to the boiler room criminals of old, who once used phones, but now use keyboards. They don't sell investments, they use volatility instead, and they injure real investors and the youngest companies that they can exploit and undermine. That's who people should be fundamentally focused on with their anger. The real Wall Street elite don't even know any of this exists, and they don't care about any of it. It has nothing to do with anything they do on a daily basis.
No, the exploiters, in the tiny seams and crevices of the Internet, who write scurrilous things about legitimate companies and attack them, swift boating them and their executives, for profit, are not much more than arsonists, thieves and economic terrorists.
Thank you Sentiment. That's a very helpful explanation of how NORMAL trials are done in Germany. It seems that a surprising number of ID's here might suggest there was something not so great about the plan for NWBO's investigator initiated trial. But I am seeing there are lots of factors that suggest that it's a pretty solid and exciting development. Thanks for your work here!
This was a perfectly positive announcement not crafted to manage your expectations or make your day. It is a very positive event, it's just not about managing expectations, but advancing the science and technology. There is no actual reason to spin it negatively, and that the market went down, isn't particularly surprising, regardless of the nature of the news.
No, it was not a joint venture. It was news. Good, solid, news that shows that the technology is taken seriously at a major cancer center in Germany and that people want to see if it will advance the current options with a fairly large indication that has a fairly tough prognosis.
Repurchase Agreements are a very particular kind of agreement. It's one way institutions deal with one another in large amounts that provide maximal protection for their assets and also liquidity. Typically though, they are just for government securities, like US Treasury instruments.
Prime Brokerage services are also a part of those relationships. I don't have time to look at it, but it could be some of those things going on here. While you're right, shady things can happen and be bundled into such services, it's also very likely that most of that is just ordinary, run of the mill financial transactions that broker-dealers do with other financial institutions. I have often suspected, however, that what people think of as naked shorting, is probably some ordinary aspect of these processes, where just like the money supply, when you borrow against stocks, it effectively increases the "share supply" in any given company. I suspect funds of various sorts are borrowing on their portfolios all the time, to maximize their returns.
Very interesting though. Thanks for looking so deep. If I can, I'll try to take a look at it later today.
https://www.google.com/#q=repo+agreement
https://www.google.com/#q=repurchase+agreement
https://www.google.com/#q=prime+brokerage
They have lots of individuals trading small chunks of change in various companies and opportunities. Nothing is too small if it generates a big percentage return and has a good probability of success. Driving people out of any tiny biotech, even a potentially very successful one is child's play. This is why these stocks get so much play. It's also why they are both profitable on the downside and the upside. These people want to take your money, so you need to know when they are playing with you, or when they are full of crap.
And while they often are wrong and don't always win, one thing to be cognizant of is, even if they are full of crap and lying through their teeth, even if you know that is the case - they can still win. Winning isn't, unfortunately about truthfulness, it's about creating the trend and playing it all the way out.
So the managers of a company like this, they have to be good too, they have to know who they are up against and how to best play it, and they need to avoid, as much as possible, dumb mistakes. Unfortunately, that's not always possible as there are many potential types of mistakes one can make, and one can make some of the biggest mistakes trying to fight against these kinds of bad people. Most managers should keep their eye on the ball, most of the time, while strategically trying to box their shorts into a corner. Instead, things often go the other way. Again, even if the shorts are wrong as h3ll. They can usually find something to make a lot of noise about.
Hopefully our heroes have a plan right now.
Agreed. Apologies if you thought I was blaming you. I blame AF. I was only clarifying my view of that point, that AF made.
They look for prices they can control with incredible levels of volatility. So you're actually wrong on that account. This is a perfect stock. Microcaps and small caps are where they do most of their damage. They can move these puppies with ease. Though they can also, theoretically, given Kramer's great video from years ago, move Apple, the "alpha" is nowhere near as great. They need companies that they can really destroy easily, then rebuild for a while and then destroy, driving the little penny stock investors before them in fear and then in greed.
For them, it's easy money that accumulates, over and over again. For individual traders at a hedge fund, they develop specialties, like a particular stock or segment of stocks, and that is all they do, all the time, 24/7/365.
She once worked there, but was not connected to any wrongdoing. To suggest that all employees who have ever worked at a company have to do with what the top executives did to enrich themselves, is to fail to comprehend what the "Enron" case involved.
She'd have to be completely idiotic to have worked there and then stepped into a CEO role to do the same thing at a biotech. It has nothing to do with this company. It's a baseless slur intended to mislead everyone and anyone.
That's what shorts do. Shorts that do this kind of attack are at least of the same character and nature as the worst people at Enron. It's very similar fraud.
No, generally no one sues for these. But it would make his column uncredible to thoughtful people, I have no doubt. Not that it matters since he mostly targets retail investors, day traders, penny stock investors and people who generally have reason to be very alert to any suggestion of anything bad.
That's how many of those people actually make money. You can count on fear as a pretty bankable emotion. It's unfortunate for us longs who want to do good and invest.
A huge beating and not a lot of volume. Yesterday there was quiet a lot of volume, and it barely moved. Today, not much and it's moving quite a bit. Probably not much buying at this moment yet. Day traders getting out to avoid being trapped back in.
This is something you would not dare say in a column, but say on bulletin boards. I think it speaks volumes to the nature of your columns and your approach. The only reason people wouldn't sue someone for that kind of libel is that it brings more attention to the slander than it's worth.
But the more you write such things, the more you discredit yourself.
Adam Feurstein:
1. I doubt it's a true story that he lost "all of his money" on Enron;
2. If he did, then he is far worse as a prognosticator of investments than I thought. I saw Enron coming from many million miles away.
This company has absolutely nothing to do with "ENRON". More of Feurstein's nonsense. And when you give his nonsense, any discussion at all, you revive the lie that he spread to ensure that false fears and nonsense would keep capital away and make his predictions about "small companies" correct.
He's an unsavory character who, rather than cleanly protecting our markets, represents exactly what is wrong with them.
This is very funny! Really! The wheels are slow, but I suspect you're and the crew you connect to are the ones.
I doubt posting on bulletin boards, whether under your actual name, or others, is really smiled upon. It's not illegal, but not really kosher either, for a "journalist." It's a kind of activism that is intended to bolster your reputation by making a prediction, seem real. And they are predictions, according to your own posts that originally are not based upon the frauds you frequently allege, wrongly, but upon your flawed research paper based upon a flawed version of the long, mostly discredited, "efficient markets" theory of investing, which of course was so great at predicting the financial crisis of 2008.
Hi Evaluate,
My apologies, I rushed my answer then, as I was not in a good situation to post at that moment.
I was trying to get AF to respond and give us a link to his past "prediction" that he is claiming was exactly on point. I'd like to see it. But thanks for your question as well.
I agree that they are somewhat vague in their PR, though they talk more about Direct than DCVax-L, and they are focused on Phase II. In this instance today, it was a Phase II for DCVax-L, so I think your assessment, in hindsight, is solid. But I want to see AF's prediction.
As to whether it is with BP and Direct or not, I think people also read that PR in the context of having seen the video lecture or talk that included Dr. Prins discussing their potential combination therapy prospects, and that they had certain intentions.
I agree that they implied that they were working on approvals to proceed previously.
Again, despite the negativity for all things American regulation, versus any other jurisdiction in the world (with socialized medicine, by the way) as being good... which is not really consistent (not you, others), I think the cancer moonshot program is why some things seem to be moving smoothly and why I think expediting measures are occurring earlier than they might otherwise, in a product development cycle like this, in the past.
On your other points, my apologies but it's late so I'll just get to each point:
1. UMC could be a "party". There's no reason to assume not, that I can think of.... They are the sponsor of that trial, and MSD Sharp... is certainly potentially a party. I don't see an issue there.
2. I doubt they would announce this if they did not know to some degree, already, that they had a receptive ear from the relevant manufacturers. A law firm would have potentially smoothed that, but I expect that they've been focused on this for some time.
But again, I was really just focused on getting that earlier prediction from AF, or so he said. Thanks for taking a moment to exchange some thoughts.
1. Could you link to the post Adam? I'd like to read exactly what you, in fact said.
2. This trial was unanticipated by you and everyone because it involves DCVax-L, is in Germany, and involves colorectal cancer. It's not a part of the original PR, a few months ago, which was for the DCVax Direct product. That specific information that was PR'd has not ever been pulled back.
So I think you're just bs'ing here that you know everything. We know you don't know everything and you're not much better off than an average investor, and maybe worse off given that you've got to protect your reputation and past predictions every time something unexpected happens.
But if you'll just present that link, that would be fine.
Thank you very much kind sir!
Thanks Smokey21! Combo Therapy link, plus data charts.
The most famous of the shorts, AF, believes in efficient market theory, a now discredited theory. His biggest claim to why he thinks he knows what he is talking about is an outdated, poorly conceived, and irrelevant paper he wrote many years ago about companies that are quite dissimilar, as a group, in a class that is too broad to be illustrative, from an era that is not representative in terms of the kinds of companies and the kinds of technologies being explored, nor in terms of the nature of how such companies are advanced in this modern era.
He bases absolutely everything he says on nonsense, that I doubt that he even believes, but it allows him to claim some reasonable, though outdated, justification so that he can't be prosecuted for his mindful manipulation of stocks, I believe, in conjunction with other interests. This is all just my personal opinion.
Again, the cancer moonshot program is incredibly high priority stuff for every agency, especially the FDA and NIH.
NWBO is completely and absolutely in the sweet spot of the program and the kind of treatment that would be highly prioritized, without question. I've posted some key excepts on some programs, not all of them, in my previous post to this one.
Though I have never discussed a specific company with anyone, I know people at a very high level, involved in ensuring that program is effective. I have discussed what the aims of the program are and what they intend to do to make it happen. The fact that no one here discusses it, shows how little anyone actually follows it, which is a bit stunning given the focus here.
This is historical moonshot level focus, and it is NOT going to go away because Trump is coming in. He may try to take credit for it, but it's a permanent fixture until you hear otherwise. It has bipartisan support. The easiest parts of it require no money, just focus and expediting procedures. People at all levels are dedicated to this goal, because most everyone thinks it is reachable. And people think it is reachable because of the amazing things happening in immune therapies. NWBO is one of the central companies in this field. GBM is also a big focus.
Hard to not get the big picture here. I don't know anything specifically, but absent their trial really flaming out, I think one should expect that the FDA is giving them lots of attention and focus and wants to expedite this to reach one of the most important goals in biotech (at all levels, government, industry and academia) at this time. MOONSHOT!
Key take home points to add:
1. Combination therapies are prioritized in the moonshot program... what has NWBO been talking about?
2. All the big pharma companies are participating. What does NWBO talk about? Combo therapies with big pharma. Who else do you hear talking about it and where is much of the buzz right now in regards to immune therapies for cancer? Checkpoint inhibitors anyone?
3. What is considered the singlemost exciting area of study in cancer right now? Immune therapies. What is NWBO involved in? Key area of immune therapy, in the heart of the sweetspot, not just one mechanism or another, or an aspect of a mechanism that happens in some patients with some sliver of a manifestation of the disease... DCVax is aimed right at the heart of the immune system response. Even Tcells are more narrow and more focused, though there are really amazing things happening at those companies as well.
Does that mean that they will be seen to benefit from the program? No, I think it's all behind closed doors. What you will see, if they are successful, which still needs to be shown, is that they will have the opportunity to likely accelerate programs, they will likely have the opportunity to have incentives of some very encouraging sort, to do combination therapies. Moreover, many big players will want to be seen in the mix, applying their therapies to get to the goal as soon as possible.
So ignore that program, and you're not really seeing much that is actually going on in this space. It may not be getting a lot of noise right now, but it is happening, behind the scenes and at fundamental levels.
The FDA and NIH both want data, by the way, and they want companies to share data more openly. Does that mean it is happening here? It may or may not mean that... but that's an important goal of the program. I do think, for combination therapies, it will be critical. Everyone is talking data, and NWBO used a data set to compare DCVax direct. They used a new measure that shorts laughed at, but is part of the new way things are being analyzed. Data intensive comparisons... All the signs and hallmarks are there.
Please list the factors that would lead you to this specific conclusion at this moment.
Well, that might be bad, or it might prove lack of fraud. When you have two parties dealing at arms length, it's hard to work through those details after the fact. A deal is a deal, and the main way that would be easily and quickly undone, would potentially be if they were NOT negotiating at arms length.
If they are negotiating at arms length, then the resolution would have taken time, and not necessarily been to EITHER party's liking, though clearly NWBO has the cards to some degree, because if they go out of business, that is a disaster for the supplier, and if they get raked so badly they can't function, going forward, say goodbye to a lucrative future business for Cognate.
I think the challenge for both parties was working through all the details to replicate what they had, to have recourse and other details worked out, and not to put either party at so much risk that unintended consequences might spin things beyond either party's control if they were making progress and prospects look good.
But certainly, it could be that they took longer than was appropriate. I think that indicates clean hands, arms-length transactions and a difficult situation out of which to negotiate themselves.
No matter the case, I think the plaintiff most likely settle in that context, and hopefully most or all of it is covered by insurance, if that is possible.
I would suggest rather, because they were allocated stock, in lieu of cash payment, and were required to hold those shares and not sell them, that the MFN status clause was ONLY intended to ensure that they were able, given the promise to hold the shares and not dump them on the market immediately, be able to get the same amount of cash that they had been promised by the taking of shares instead of cash.
This is based upon my own suppositions and experience. I have never spoken to them, and this is only my basic opinion, which others likely may very well, reasonably, disagree. It's speculation.
Therefore, while it (the MFN clause) ultimately, because of the stock price collapse, became untenable and needed to be restructured, I suspect the business judgment rule, and very likely clearly good intentions, will overcome any claims of fraud or self-dealing that have been asserted. Yes the companies are related, but hopefully they observed basic niceties that should insulate them from such issues. That's not always absolutely certain with these tiny companies and entrepreneurs, but usually, litigation goes on for a long time, ambiguously, until parties settle without accepting certain points, most likely.
I think it's very clear, at least to me, what the purposes were for certain clauses and restrictions on those shares, and how it went astray. And the transactions allowed the company to avoid deleterious dumping of their stock immediately upon payment to Cognate, onto the market, i.e. instant market felt dilution and further suppression of the stock price. The only way the shorts could get them, because those transactions WERE fully disclosed in the financials, was to allege, falsely I believe, that there was some improper purpose. When the transactions are duly executed, and are fully disclosed, usually, they have a fairly wide margin to go, especially if it benefitted the company and kept them in business longer. Effectively, one could argue that Cognate is subsidizing NWBO. And shareholders on either side could argue one way or the other, but it's not uncommon for suppliers to do that in order to create a bigger, long-term opportunity ahead. Plus, NWBO I understand, is not Cognate's only customer.
If they have good counsel who can explain their business purposes and convince that they were completely within reason of the business judgment rule and no one intended any transaction to be fraud, but that the ultimate issues arose by the aggressive shorting of the company, I suspect there will be protracted litigation by the plaintiff, if they have the cash to go on forever, or they will settle. Of course, if there were an allegation of fraud, one would have to prove more than just that there were transactions between affiliated companies, and I suspect that will not be easy when the clear result is NWBO was able to engage in trials largely without cash, and Cognate was willing to provide those services, clearly priced, and reasonably priced, at least on the initial cash basis, with the expectation of receiving fair payment, if they held the stock and did not liquidate immediately.
I expect, ultimately, a reasonable, settlement to make that case go away, but it's possible they could get it dismissed entirely. It's always hard to say on litigation to some degree as it's often a crap shoot and participants, including judges, are often quite thick when it comes to understanding basic financial transactions.
Cancer Moonshot. Regardless of what is NORMAL, the Cancer Moonshot program is intended to cut red tape and get treatments that are potentially strongly efficacious to patients in a much faster period than has been the case in the past. Their goal is by 2020, and clearly they'd like to see it happen sooner. The FDA personnel, and committees are not likely to change, though of course the top appointees may change. This program has extremely broad, bipartisan support. Everyone hate's cancer. So I doubt it will be problematic to keep this going, though clearly if HRC had one, there would not be a single doubt.
Among many initiatives, these are just a few to highlight. There are others that also may help to expedite trials...
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm509063.htm
Sure, but if you had access all the back end data from everyone, which the SEC does have when it is doing market surveillance, and you matched and focused on shorted companies that are discussed in certain forums, you'd probably would see the patterns with the help of just a solid computational analyst at any investment bank. You'd build a model to analyze the data, and plug it in. I think you'd know fairly quickly and easily who is coordinating... and then you'd have some basis to look deeper.
I agree Sentiment Stocks. Seems to me lots of speculation is creating the impression, for some, there has been confirmation of timing, past the date in the clinical trial listing.
Perhaps there was some encouragement to not think things will happen quickly, but I don't think it crossed the line suggested in the post to which you were replying.
Hi Doc Logic. I think your suggestion regarding what the intention of certain very driven shorts, is most likely true. It's a protection and acquisition racket. They may even very likely help generate returns for poorly run funds and less than competent money managers who need to produce returns, and can't figure out how to do it without breaking the rules.
The bulk of those in the dynamic / impromptu "wolf packs" are just people and other funds looking to ride the waves of people who are relatively credibly calling short opportunities on social media, and then they make it happen.
I think there may be some outing sometime soon. Certainly I wouldn't be surprised.
As for reserving information in the context of lawsuits... anyone with a brain knows that that is often an issue, particularly when the lawsuits are just excuses for short based fishing expeditions.
Whether it is the case in every context, is not always absolutely clear. Counsel almost always advises extreme caution which can often be much farther than most of us would want. It would be a reckless manager if they did not heed counsel's advice, even if they intelligently disagreed, from time to time and found additional counsel to determine if they have the full picture. However, in a given litigation, one typically defers to one's chief counsel on the matter.
Anyone discounting that this is a real factor, with regard to some matters of disclosure that are not otherwise required, whether always applicable or not in a given situation is not clear, is simply not sincere or rational and is seeking to create an impression merely with a dismissive tone, rather than a real and logical and governance point that is relevant to any manager. Trolling for reckless reactions, usually doesn't work with the companies involved, though I guess it can be a way to convince investors that something more is afoot, in many instances.
That's nonsense. No one is saying that. But people know when the shorts are heaping on the abuse. Sometimes of course they are trying to ride an obvious wave, and jump on it and push it down harder... that's just how many people behave. They are maximizing their trades by helping them along.
Sometimes going further than they should or what is legal or ethical, and sometimes it's just ordinary, interest based cheering for the bad result and a bigger drop in share price.
Hi Doc Logic. Thank you. I agree, yes, you are absolutely correct, I would bet.
I would not be surprised about much of anything. I've been around on the BB's for a number of years now and am familiar with many of the shorts and how they operate. My view is that they are a generally disconnected bunch, but they have lots of ways of coordinating that make it difficult to track insider trading (focusing on hedge funds) and shorts (individuals and hedge funds) to see coordination, though indirect indicia of coordination, I understand, can be assembled, with the right back end access. I understand that the SEC may have been in pursuit in the just ending administration. We'll have to see how that fares in the next administration. It's basic 101 securities fraud, just with a technology angle and more complex sleuthing element.
By definition the "wolf pack" is constantly morphing and changing. There is a group of people who are hungry for short deals, and opportunities to feed off of a kill that any one or group of then can bring down. That's how wolf packs work. There is no core, necessarily, though there may be some core shorts in any strategy against any given company.
In the large cap context, you typically have an identified fund and fund principal who comes out and OPENLY identifies himself. In the small cap context, these funds and the people who go after these tiny companies that are usually trying to cure an incurable disease are villains of the first order. They generally speaking, don't step forward to identify themselves, as been shown by the nature of the standard game of founding a fake research company, hidden behind anonymous website domains and fake information. There is no reason to do that unless you have something to hide. Real people with REAL claims step forward and take the heat.
Wolf pack members mostly don't.
Now let me say, there are twitter accounts with identifiable people who participate in these games. Those people imply, by their tweets that they are not behind these efforts, but we all know how trolling works, we all know how disinformation works in the modern era we just saw prime examples of it from the recent campaign where a panoply of villains and foreign players tried to influence the US election, illegally I might add.
There is a reason people go out anonymously, to attack and destroy something. They are afraid of being found liable for slander and libel. But more importantly, they are afraid that if they are known, then information about them, about what they trade, their relationship to other entities, investors and players will be known, and they could be pursued by the law. Anonymously, and using nominees and stand ins, straw men and straw companies and straw websites, they insulate themselves, just as using straw plaintiffs that engage law firms that benefit from the game, is a whole other form of activity that is highly destructive and likely to eventually be blown up by some serious investigations, whether here or over the course of investigating a number of companies at once.
Really? Very interesting. Tell us more.
Yes, they're a bunch of disconnected yahoo's who have very little real knowledge. Not really the smartest bulbs in the room.
I doubt their prediction had anything to do with "Clinton's defeat". Nothing at all.
But, I do think this has a substantial chance of popping soonish... and if your timeline is the one, I'm happy to see it.
I think my original post pretty much said the same thing... no problem for NASDAQ because they can do what they need to do to get it done. I don't expect that to be an issue. NASDAQ doesn't get in the way like that, in my experience.
I would avoid that investment. I hear it's a scam of a publication and that they get their readers by torturing small cap investors by feeding their investments to the wolf pack shorts . . . which are not monolithic, but do exist as an aggregate of many short players, coordinating via social media to make easy money by spreading fear and destruction in relationship to tiny companies that have few resources to fight them, or to raise funds in an appropriate manner by refuting every rhetorical argument that might be partially true and fundamentally wrong.
Anyone who thinks they (the online shorts) don't know each other and follow each other, online, is about 30 years late to understanding the marvels of modern communication... and the shorts are not late, believe me. They know exactly what they are doing, individually, and for each one. That's all that matters. It's nebulous, but it is a real thing.
That is all very reasonable.
You guys are very rarely right, and I suspect this time, consistent with past experience . . . you probably won't be right again.
Not that they don't have substantial risks ahead, but it's just not that market and smart managers, with technology like they have, even with the issues outlined, usually have a variety of options, not always perfect (though they are coming up on some potential game changing news, which if good, will totally change everyone's calculations), that can be utilized to fix just about any situation like this....
The numbers you're describing are the value of a highly priced Manhattan apartment. Surely there are interests out there willing to put an apartment down (for them) to cure cancer... They just need to be speaking to the right people. And hopefully their news is as encouraging, and good as the longs hope and expect.
But to assume they're always bankrupt and always failing... it's a good gig if you that's your gig. Fear is an easy sale.
I doubt the NASDAQ would not accept a valid vote of shareholders.
Anything is always possible. But it seems unlikely.
Such a "plan" with the GOP in charge, means NO REGULATION. That's what we had leading up to the financial crisis under W, and the S&L crisis before that under poppy Bush.
It's the tried and true way to inflate a bubble, ride it up, step back and watch it pop, take everyone's assets and do it again. Great deal if you're in charge. Trump knows an easy scam when he sees one.
No, he has explicitly argued against financial regulations including but not limited to, Dodd Frank regulations.
This is something we agree on strongly iclight. Total disaster.