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.
More than anything, her caution there says to me she reads the critics, when she is attacked, whether in blogs or newspapers and probably even, from time-to-time, even bulletin boards. I would guess she is anxious as hell, given the nastiness. I just think that is doc talk for I'm just a doctor, I can only tell you want I see, and I make no promises that the trials or anything else are perfect. CYA.
But I disagree that it's the primary reason for the stock price drop, or that she was malicious or even did anything entirely surprising, despite the frustrations here.
The bipartisan efforts, the current head of the cancer efforts at FDA, the cancer moonshot work that has already been done and is continuing, have all laid the groundwork, IMHO, for this to be approved if it approaches anything near or is even far less helpful, IMHO again, what Linda Liau described. All just my personal opinion.
Of course everyone often covers their asses, and if there are ambiguities, things can get delayed. I'd hope not, but I put that out there because there are ALWAYS unknowns with every possible effort. And I'm sure there are unknowns. Also, if the halt was for reasons that we have not yet speculated about that pose a serious concern for risks with patients, but that also seems unlikely to me, and again, of course this is all just in my humble opinion.
I doubt that would happen, for many reasons having nothing to do with this company, the personalities or anything specific here. Maybe if he won his 100M playing the lottery. Otherwise, I don't see it.
I saw no malice in her move. I understand your frustration, though I think you misplace the reason for the price decline. The offering did that. I think your assumption of her motives just seems completely unlikely Al4door. Just my opinion.
I agree with you 100%.
I did not know about the conspiracy theory, but since it was funded with shares prior to Phase V, I'd say that Phase V is the one who put the company at more risk, rather than less (by causing the restructuring of those transactions from shares to debt), though of course, she had a controlling interest that way and could prevent a cheap, aggressive "short and buy move", which happens with these hedge funds being the vehicles of aggressive, offshore big pharma types, typically non-US firms.
For me, the cheap buyout is always the big risk in holding long on these tiny but very promising biotechs. That's the easy, and most likely play by the hedge funds, colluding with outside interests, and the one the longs fantasize about but is often a sucker's play. I believe it's the chief reason they almost always attack senior officers and major principles. They weaken the strongest links first... then go for the jugular. It's a big reason why I think any long should always ensure that their average price is as low as possible. It's costly though, but tax benefits accrue.
Agreed Kabunushi.
For China, et al: You have a very volatile company in terms of value. 40 million right now. China wants them to borrow 10 million when they have an 11 million note about to come into a refinancing situation, so that's 21 million at least, maybe more, based upon no revenue, no cash on hand, and to forego equity financing that she can get.
Equity financing secures the interests of all shareholders. Yes, it's dilution, but debt holders get the company if she fails to pay. And, as I said in another post, she has no more information that Linda Liau, and probably less, and no one knows what the FDA will do, even if the results are extremely encouraging but the data is not perfect.
Back seat drivers usually are not the best source for information.
If LP took that advice, that would be about as idiotic as I can think of, and I'd want to remove her. That's definitely a way of stripping shareholders of their equity, and taking the company away from them for cheap. If she and her husband bought it out of bankruptcy, that would be a nightmare.
And, I agree also, people with 100M aren't all liquid, they usually have most of their money tied up elsewhere. They don't bet the farm, and entrepreneurs at this level rarely need to do so to have a substantial equity stake. So even from a personal finance view, that advice makes absolutely no sense for anyone involved, except maybe debt purchasers who know they might be able to extract ridiculous interest terms on such a high debt to equity level, and then kill the company and steal all of the assets and resell it to BP for billions.
Nonsense. They already have a loan coming due and have to roll that over if they can. Completing the financing that they needed, and which was already in the works previously, is a lower risk and more proper thing to do.
If this were the case, then CPXX, after excellent Phase 3 results, would not have done the same, pretty much knowing it was going to become a billion dollar or more company very shortly. Yet they did, and hedge funds ate that stock up, eating many times the outstanding share count, day, after day.
Still, it didn't multiply the stock value, by the way. Investors are pretty darn clueless, but you don't leverage these companies to the hilt because crap happens and that's a sure way to create bankruptcy if the unexpected happens.
No one does that... if they can avoid it. Debt holders get the company. Shareholders are screwed. That is just a stupid, stupid thing to do.
Yes, thanks, I backtracked and saw. RKM, Excellent post!
Thank you both for your efforts to bring it all out!
Well put Flipper44!
Drama on bulletin boards is often seen where there is none in reality. I don't think this drama plays at all.
Did NWBO transcribe or record? Many companies don't.
Agreed Marzan. I'm certainly encouraged. But I've not been in this long enough to be as tense or discouraged as some. I recognize my newness here, makes being relaxed a bit easier for me. I'm just excited to hear the results asap, and I pray and hope and expect, to some degree, that DC vaccines generally are being validated and this will be a major one. Obviously, everything I say is speculation.
I'm just speculating colmar, but that's my experience with end of year transactions and news generally in a corporate space. There's no attention this time of year. Though RKM rightly says, if they have the data in hand, they have 3 days to PR it if it is clear and there is no analysis to be done. Even to say they have it is a big event that likely gets announced very quickly.
I didn't say you said she owned the stock, I was trying to get you to see it from her perspective.
She did not actually ruin the momentum, I think. One thing, was wow, why was this site down during those days? Strange right?
But I think the key thing going on, and again, I said this elsewhere, and this is not rocket science, but we have an offering at .35. When that happens, your price goes to that level. I think it was inevitable that the offering would be at either 1) the price previously offered to investors; or 2) below that price because we had just moved to the OTC. The fact that we were just about to cruise over $1.00, seemed unlikely to change that, though I know it seems odd. I think they already had that deal priced. There was no clear reason for the trending up there, and yes, her comments re-established some doubts. I would also consider that purchasers of the new shares had reason to emphasize the negative as well, so they could buy in cheap, though of course there is no evidence of that...
But at this moment, there was no reason that they would pay at that level when the price trend, without substantial news, might not be sustained. The buyers might've backed out, had that trend continued, thinking it was due primarily to that one press release about the trial coming to completion, rather than having been halted and never completing. I think buyers, in that context, might've been more cautious to complete the deal, despite the "momentum". That's the reality. Everyone wants something for free or as cheap as possible. Whether it's towels or shares.... it's all the same to a lot of folks.
Hang in there!
You're right. I don't think she even had much to do with it. When you have an offering at .35, the public price is going to go to that price as well. That sets the value. This is not rocket science.
Hi RKM. Great post and I agree. I like to increase my holdings on declines and trade out more expensive shares with cheaper shares. You have to be mindful of the tax complexities in the US, and rotate over the right period, but if you've got other gains to offset, it works out very well.
Fund managers can't really do what we do most of the time, because that would make their trading look disastrous, meanwhile, for tax purposes, that's often a fantastic strategy for deferring taxes and reinvesting gains, and building a larger and larger, diversified portfolio. Though I like to concentrate, to some substantial degree amongst a few key companies that I like the most, for a variety of reasons that I won't go into here.
I don't agree that the Linda Liau video changed it all. Though she was distancing herself from the FDA process, which clearly she worries about, she is also saying that they trial clearly demonstrates efficacy, if you look at the entire picture, and demonstrates excellent results.
I suspect, rather, the price came down because the market knew the offering was inevitable, after the delisting; that the price would likely be a discount to the previous offering price, because it's now OTC and not NASDAQ, and no results are available yet.
That's the nature of things. It will take a bit for the price to recover from the offering price. If you see, basically, the price is hovering around the price of the offering, barely moving right now, because on a daily basis, this time of year, no one is paying attention or doing anything. That will change, I expect, soon enough, just based upon expected milestones and the end of the holidays.
Interesting Sentiment. But this is a group that did very well in the side arm eventually, at least outside of Germany.
Thanks. I would definitely not say that for myself.
However, just about everything comes to a halt this time of year, and if the CRO's have to rely on other partners to respond, you can bet that won't be until January. People are rapidly departing the office for the holidays. The personnel left are there to manage emergencies and daily basic business, typically with a fair number out. And even with the people there, think about it... there's not a huge amount getting done now. There is work, but it's limited to the basics.
I think they don't hear back until early January, and even then, the answer may be insufficient events to end the trial. We just don't know... though that is very encouraging (for serious, not yet frustrated longs, but not for the stock price, and great for shorts).
We should all be happy that people are living forever. Wouldn't it be amazing if inadvertently, they gave people these treatments and they became immortal... :)
Just kidding.
She doesn't own the stock, she owns her own situation and reputation. The more emphasis on NWBO, and the attacks that the company faced, the more anxious any scientist would be to distance the validity of their work, from that other unpleasant stuff. She didn't even mention that stuff, really she's worried about the FDA not seeing something that she sees through her daily practice, and being burned by all of it. I think she and her colleagues know what they have, and just worry that it has not been or won't be demonstrated clearly enough to validate it because of complexities introduced into the process via the politics of trials. Her answer, in one context, not both, was kind of driven by a political / ethical question relating to allowing patients in the placebo arm, access to drugs.
So, I don't blame her, though I agree, she effectively sabotaged her own work, with her efforts to protect it, by undermining, inadvertently, the finances of the interests trying to advance it. Obviously, it was not intentional. She's just speaking her mind. It's frustrating, but the world is complicated and most people don't know how to act, when they are in such circumstances, except, possibly in hindsight, if someone can effectively show them... and even then, mostly, people are fairly incapable of managing change and all that comes with it.
I don't blame her. It's a part of the nature of the world these days. Very frustrating, no doubt.
Awesome! Thanks for doing this for everyone!
Actually, they say the updates usually take a couple of weeks... then they say, contradictorily, that they HOPE to make a further update announcement in APPROXIMATELY the next two weeks.
My view is this, and I have not been waiting years for this update, but they should not have included that "next two weeks" estimate there, which contradicts the previous sentence.
Clearly it's a complex process. Moreover, updating that they don't have the information yet, isn't really that enlightening and it opens them up to the charge that they are releasing unnecessary press releases, which is also problematic when you're completing public offerings.
I think that was just a really poorly drafted PR, and to take it literally, while reasonable at some level, is probably not a worthwhile investment of time. This data is coming, they've requested the updates, from external parties, and those updates will take a while, and the return may simply be, that we have not enough events.
Maybe then, they give an update... but even then, they no doubt will be pilloried for it. The only way they win, and even then, I'm sure they'll be attacked, is with excellent results.
Basic information is in your disclosure docs.... I'm afraid you want the science to hurry up... and the patients to hurry up and ... and those things happen at their own pace.
Looks like some are really talking these shares down to get more shares before the end of the year... Always interesting to watch.
How far down do people think they can talk them down? Maybe .25 or lower on low holiday volume and inattention?
That's what it looks like to me from here.
Or will the shares go up, unexpectedly?
The games are always fun to watch.
I bet that their key person or THE key person for this, was likely at the ASM.
Well, this was a PR on the hope to get to the necessary "events" to finalize the trial, in a couple of weeks and the "hope" to make an update in the next two weeks.
http://www.nwbio.com/nw-bio-provides-update-about-phase-3-trial-of-dcvax-l-for-newly-diagnosed-glioblastoma-multiforme-brain-cancer/
Nonsense. We just got the update via the ASM. There was no promise the trial would be completed in 2 weeks and we'd get results.
Just got here not that long ago. I have a range of investments, but none with the amount of fake news this one gets, and the interesting chatter. No addiction here though. I could leave easily enough, and I like my other investments a lot. This is just one of a range. Fun to watch though. No lack of shareholder / bulletin board driven drama.
Oh, and I've been watching this without buying since 2007 or 2008. So no addiction there.
That's not correct either. But he has other obligations than to deal with us, bulletin board chatter, rumor mongering in press more interested in celebrity wall street/city of London terms than real information about investments.
Biotech firms tend to have challenges and issues and it's why the smart money often waits until it's obvious before it flocks to these companies. Early investors get to deal with the volatility, shorts, fake news, boom and bust, and if we pick well, we can be handsomely rewarded, despite the losses in some places.
We'll see how this one pans out, but I've been buying more recently, so, for me, it's still a pretty exciting opportunity, and I never bought when it was up there, because of the shorts and the fake news attacks.
This is not a pink sheet. They are in full compliance with their reporting obligations.
He didn't give it to them, it was the money in his funds that were invested. I doubt he can buy more, and I doubt conversations, at this time, will lead to another investment from him. His job is to manage his independent funds, according to the investment objectives of those funds. His duty of loyalty does not extend to you, me or NWBO or any shareholder of NWBO. I know people have a hard time understanding that distinction, but that's the reality. He shouldn't be involved, it's not his job to be involved, and he should not get special updates that no one else gets, no matter how much he owns (he is not allowed to own a controlling interest typically as a regulated fund). If they give him info they don't want to give us, that's a Regulation FD issue, unless it's a private transaction of some other sort, and typically the funds don't do that and that would have to come through some other vehicle, but would lead to questions about his objectivity, to which he has already been subjected by the press, especially the London press.
Not true, NWBO had 30% institutional investment on NASDAQ. Many tiny biotechs have less or more. It was not an unusually low amount from the stocks I routinely look at, not all distressed.
Some have incredible coverage and institutional interest even though they have barely started Phase I, many do not and they have very transparent management, no shorts pursuing them, and excellent prospects.
Your assertion here is simply not correct given what I see for these tiny biotechs.
And, given that NW has generally stayed heavily invested, despite the noise around here... If what you said was true, he'd have had to have divested.
Yes, and it was disclosed in the disclosure documentation. It just was not yet an 8K event. It's just communication with a related regulator at this time.
It's an investment bank. The purchaser is not the investment bank / underwriter, it is whomever they placed those shares with. So no, you likely won't see who owns it. That's their client list. Could be a variety of clients.
As to what the holders do after that, it's never clear, though the company's float has very large holders already. Not all of the float is on the market. It was important that the price was around where the offering was yesterday. That's how it always works, unless you have the Phase III positive news already out, and then it goes there, but trends up strongly anyway, because demand is virtually unlimited. That's not the case here at this time. We are awaiting news, one way or the other. So it's not surprising that the public price mirrored the offering price.
Dr. Liau said a lot more than the quote that shorts like to talk about... Her complete comments are more consistent with MD's points.
I agree with you. No matter who the approvers are, I feel there is ultimately going to be a positive decision assuming the TRIAL evidence backs up the expectations. However, also, no matter who the administrator is, they have to follow the law. I'm confident NOW that those people will be excellent scientists who want patients to get the best possible treatments and cures, and that they will do what is most appropriately rational and legal, ultimately, though if NWBO has to spend some time marshaling evidence and making a good case, that will ultimately benefit everyone also, as they'll have to prove the benefits. And the care that goes into that work will ensure that patients, ultimately, get the best care, based upon the real scientific results of the trial, not just broad guesses and hunches that don't refine the science to ensure it's utilized in the best fashion.
So not sure why this is directed at me. I'm a current investor and clearly believe both in the product, and that the FDA and people at NWBO (and all the companies working toward better, innovative treatments and cures) want to see this work out and that's why we have the cancer moonshot, that's why we have the 21st Century Cures Act, just signed, and it's why this effort is fully bipartisan. It's also why there are already combo therapies in trials, even though DCVax is not yet approved and hasn't finished it's Phase III. It's pretty obvious things are moving fast and large efforts are being made to get this approved and to patients asap. The wait is due to the nature of the trial previously proposed, with endpoints previously proposed, and the nature of vaccine / immunity treatments of this sort, that take a long time to prove and sometimes are therefore challenging to establish.
However, the key phrase in much of the literature for the Cancer Moonshot is about having a cancer VACCINE. I think it was pushed forward with these very notions in mind, for treatments exactly like this one. I think Beau Biden, was a big part of the inspiration - he died of GBM. And also Ted Kennedy, who also died of GBM.
This is just about Beau Biden, not necessarily above cancer vaccines:
https://www.fredhutch.org/en/news/center-news/2015/06/beau-biden-treating-brain-cancer.html
Solid news sources do crap stories from time to time. That journalist clearly did not get a new story, and he's done it before. NW is a person of note, and rubbing his nose in the old story certainly has it's clickworthy aspects but we all know that many publications are in trouble right now. The Guardian was asking for donations this week on their website. Newspapers are struggling, and they knew that story woudl generate clicks.
Troll food.
I did not say that the executives don't know what the request might be about. I didn't say they did. I said you don't know what it's about and it's clearly not currently a criminal investigation or they'd have received and had to PR the receipt of a Wells Notice, and that's not what happened. So, your suggestion that they know it's something serious or that they need to tell you something or anyone anything at this stage, when it's just communications back and forth with the SEC, even if they are asking about something, unless it's material, they have no duty to PR it beyond what they said. Just because you're dying to know so you can turn it into a huge event, or people you know could, is immaterial, at this stage.
Changes right now, in FDA political appointees, I doubt will have anything to do with the approval, in the short term. But the current team is quite good and quite receptive, I understand. I wouldn't politicize it. Assuming good results, even if challenging to prove, will be met receptively, whoever is there. They'll deal with the issues and get it to patients assuming blind result demonstrate efficacy and results as Linda Liau expects.
I hear you, but I really dislike premature sales. I think things will get much better once they validate DCVax-L with Phase III results. It's never fun up to this point, and then things change, assuming they go well. If badly, it's never clear.
I disagree on those points being related to this... we have no idea.