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.
It would be good if you didn't intentionally misinterpret what I'm saying. They have PRIVATE buyers of their shares.... obviously YOU and I can't buy them.... and not because I wouldn't buy them at .38. They are not on offer to me.
True. :)
Correct, however, not a huge deal, and YES, it does mean, if he buys in, there is MORE demand than there was when it was just one single investor... and that investor cannot get the amount of shares he wanted. Up the price, and the buyer with the option might decide it's not tempting enough... or not. More demand... is a good thing. It's a right, and a right of refusal, but it seems like it may very well be a right exercised.
He can't prevent them from offering shares if he REFUSES to buy. he has a right to buy in, but if he chooses not to do so, the offering moves forward.
(b) Within five (5) Trading Days after the closing of a Subsequent Financing, the Company shall deliver to each Purchaser a written notice of such Subsequent Financing (“ROP Notice”), which ROP Notice shall ask such Purchaser if it wants to exercise its right to participation in such Subsequent Financing (such additional notice, a “Subsequent Financing Notice”). If the transactions documents for the Subsequent Financing are not publicly available to the Purchaser, then upon the request of the Purchaser, and only upon a request by such Purchaser made no later than one (1) Trading Day after such ROP Notice, the Company shall promptly, but no later than one (1) Trading Day after such request, deliver a the transaction documents for the Subsequent Financing to such Purchaser.
Exactly! That is the real point.
It's a good problem to have... everyone wanting your shares.... while they can get them.
The issue is the rights of previous investors to buy in at the same terms. It's not a problem when you have that kind of demand, it means they have investors who want MORE of the company, and that ups the price for anyone else to buy in... it's like anti-dilution protection for those previous buyers, and they get the same price. It means newbies get less...
I hardly see that as an ongoing problem.
Item 8.01. Other Events.
In regard to the registered direct offering announced by the Company on October 21, 2016, the parties have mutually agreed to delay the completion of the transaction while the maximum number of shares that may be sold and the allocation among investors are confirmed. The number of shares the Company may sell is limited in certain types of transactions pursuant to Nasdaq rules. Determination of the number of shares may involve analyses based on circumstances of the current and prior financing transactions. Certain investors from prior Company financings have a right, for a limited period of time, to participate in subsequent Company financings for up to fifty percent of each such subsequent financing. Such participation rights would apply to the registered direct financing announced by the Company on October 21. The number of shares which the prospective investor in this financing desired to purchase and the number of shares which the prior investors would have a right to purchase may exceed the number of shares the Company may sell in this type of transaction. The Company is in discussions with Nasdaq to confirm the maximum number of shares that may be sold. The Company plans to proceed with financing once this determination has been completed. The Company will make a new announcement at that time.
I'm sure there are people who would take this kind of job, and they probably are pretty decent. But usually it takes some shares, and the expectation that they are joining a potentially very successful venture. While some may not agree with that evaluation others very likely will, and there are always hungry folks looking for the next opportunity.
As I said however, they may also be saving this for a JV partner opportunity, where a senior management role is afforded to that partner. It's also possible to consider some intermediate role with a less experienced person, on a trial basis. I'm sure there are people who might step into that kind of an opportunity.
But, management has the plan, and I'm just making some suggestions. I'm not overly critical on this point. No doubt it would be good to have a person in that role, as a control person, to avoid mix-ups, manage the capitalization and cash flow issues and keep them prudent and aware of potential pitfalls. Less experienced people are not always the best in that context. You tend to pay for more experience, though also, one might go with someone closer to retirement, and looking for a new challenge, with lots of experience and an opportunity to end a career managing as a CFO in a company like this one. There are lots of ways to skin a cat.
More likely, the initial direct investor will not get as much as he wanted, and also, potentially the market for the shares is greater than anticipated, given the increased demand, so the discount might very possibly be reduced.... When you've got competitive bidding, depending upon the circumstances, as this might be a strategic investor, the price should go higher and the inducing discount lower.
Yes, a CFO is the one who keeps tally and manages these details. It's an important role, but of course increases the burn rate. In this context, they caught it and I still think it says, overall, there is a lot of interest in the offering, and I personally discount the shorts saying SHORTS want the shares. That's just the shorts making absolutely everything negative and dark, which is their job. But while they occasionally have a moderately good point, it's rarely as substantially problematic as they suggest by their negativity. Glass half-full, or half-empty... the glass is the same, it's just the perspective that changes.
I'd certainly like to see them get a good CFO, but there may be partnering and other opportunities where that comes into play. Management is driving, and I'm not particularly bothered at this stage. It will work out, and I think signs are pretty darn positive at this stage, or at the very least, extremely encouraging. I'm looking forward to the coming months. Just the science that will become known, will be incredibly instrumental in advancing viable cures for many cancers, whatever the results here. I'm optimistic here though.
Everyone do your own due diligence though, these are just my own opinions and thoughts related to my own decision to invest my own funds.
It also shows there is more demand for the shares than was anticipated.
No problem.
Seems to me we're moving toward the next stage for the Direct Phase II program.
And, I think, as has been rumored by some credible voices and also indicated in company press releases, I suspect NWBO is on its way to pursuing some accelerated pathways with combination therapies and hopefully for the DCVaxL as well.
I note, when they appointed the SAB, just this June, they stated:
http://www.nwbio.com/nw-bio-announces-scientific-advisory-board/
BETHESDA, MD, June 13, 2016 – Northwest Biotherapeutics (NASDAQ: NWBO) (“NW Bio”), a U.S. biotechnology company developing DCVax® personalized immunotherapies for solid tumor cancers, announced its Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) comprised of leading experts in immunotherapies and oncology from both the U.S. and Europe.
The Company anticipates that the SAB will address a variety of novel issues at the forefront of immuno-oncology, including evaluations of new discoveries in basic and applied immunology, the growing interest in the field in regard to cancer vaccines, clinical trial priorities and designs for combination therapies, regulatory strategies (including accelerated pathways) and related matters.
Also, note, the small amount of warrants are ONLY for the Placement Agent, not for the investor.
I think you misread the prospectus, and prospectus supplement.
The prospectus supplement applies to this particular draw off of the shelf.
This prospectus supplement describes the specific terms of an offering of our securities and also adds to and updates information contained in the accompanying prospectus and the documents incorporated by reference into the accompanying prospectus. The second part, the accompanying prospectus, provides more general information. If the information in this prospectus supplement is inconsistent with the accompanying prospectus or any document incorporated by reference therein filed prior to the date of this prospectus supplement, you should rely on the information in this prospectus supplement.
USE OF PROCEEDS
If all of the potential shares are sold, we estimate that the net proceeds from this offering will be approximately $5,320,000 gross and $4,340,000 after deducting estimated offering expenses payable by us.
We intend to use the net proceeds from this offering for an upcoming Phase II clinical trial program.
However, our management will have significant discretion and flexibility in applying the net proceeds from this offering. Pending any use, as described above, we intend to invest the net proceeds in high-quality, short-term, interest-bearing securities.
S-2
USE OF PROCEEDS
Unless otherwise provided in the applicable prospectus supplement, we intend to use the net proceeds from the sale of these securities for general corporate purposes, which may include working capital, capital expenditures, research and development expenditures, regulatory affairs expenditures, clinical trial expenditures, acquisitions of new technologies and investments. We have not yet determined the amount of net proceeds to be used specifically for any of the foregoing purposes. Accordingly, our management will have significant discretion and flexibility in applying the net proceeds from the sale of these securities. Our plans to use the estimated net proceeds from the sale of these securities may change, and if they do, we will update this information in a prospectus supplement.
4
A decent reason to raise some cash BEFORE you might be getting any data.
While generally it's true that material info must be disclosed, with trial data, determination of "failure" is quite tricky.
I know of a number of companies where, the initial take of the market was failure, but upon more careful parsing of the data, in fact, certain patterns revealed themselves and indicated a home run, in fact.
So, just because someone can cursorily see some immediate result, it's not necessarily determined to be a failure without careful analysis, which can take time and needs to be carefully considered. Granted, if that analysis arrives completed, and the cross checking has already been done, and the company is confident there are no other ways to dice and slice the data, then sure, it might be prudent to immediately PR a failure. But I suspect, despite the contrary wish, companies are allowed the time to review, dice, re-review and consider data before they hastily publicize a "failure". Perhaps if they meet no objectives and measures, and it's very clear cut, and the trial was determined not safe. But by the time you're at Phase III, there is probably going to be some careful analysis still to perform in any trial.
I do agree, the longer it takes for them to review the data, one might hypothesize that that could be encouraging, though not necessarily. We don't know, until we know. On the other hand, I still find the information arm results quite compelling, and I'd really be interested to know why, if the Phase III results don't show equal or better results. It seems that would be problematic if it happened, and perhaps one might think unlikely, though anything is always possible. It would really be very interesting to determine the answer if that were the case. I suspect it won't be, but I'd want to know, before they released data haphazardly.
Sound logic! I don't think they care about sound logic of that sort. They're looking for what they think is easy money. Easy money is driving fear on the markets and plucking off good targets by driving investors out and away. It's like dynamite fishing. It's not a sport, but there are some people who look for easy, but dishonest work, because they are greedy. They don't really care about anyone else, but they can fake it.
Well, they may have decided to focus their direction elsewhere, concentrate on a success, and partner later, when there was more opportunity to get a larger payout. Hard for me to second guess them at this stage.
You can cast aspersions all you'd like, but you were not the managers, dealing with shorts and limited capital and having to keep focused and get the best option across the finish line as soon as possible. That's a difficult circumstance, and sometimes you deprioritize and things don't go exactly as planned. TO take every instance of such changes in prioritization as an indication of fraud or failure, is quite a bit of hyperbole. The fact is, again, they are where they are, and the outcome will soon be almost binary, though not necessarily so. Markets have a way of turning moderate ambiguities that may sometimes be revealed by trials into failures, and then reassessing, after the ordinary shareholders have sold, and turning them into successes. Hard to know what we will see exactly, but I'm fairly optimistic.
I can see the shorts have their knives sharpened though, and are proceeding forward with hopes of having a good meal.
Actually, they just rediced the shares issued and options, and MFN clause went Kaput for Cognate, and the direct offering has no warrants. I'd say it's a pretty clean set-up for the next stage, though it had to be done now, to avoid BK. You don't let a company go there, just because you're share price is still low. The notion that they could wait and do something else, before they managed those circumstances, that were related to the Nasdaq resolution recently, as well as advancing Phase II for the other program, shows a complete disregard for the necessary sacrifices companies like this make every day.
In my book, the additional shares, and dilution are a necessary issue for all these companies. When CPXX issued new shares in the low cost range, even after it was pretty clear they were coasting to approval, that was just a part of the deal. Shareholders didn't complain, and in fact, the share price increased upon the raise.
NWBO is not yet in such a luxurious place, but your concerns are simply not consistent with what is real and what happens. Expediency is not shareholder unfriendly, it's the cost of doing business, and it leads to a small amount of dilution that will more than be made up for in appreciation if things go well in the future. Going BK to avoid such events, is simply unrealistic and either shows a failure to fully grasp the reality companies like this face every day, or a disregard for it. Whatever the case, it's just reality.
It's not Vegas. The odds are no good in Vegas. The odds here are not as bad in my view, as it's based upon sound science and, ongoing, very encouraging results during different Phases of the trials. The probability is too high to be a gamble, entirely, on the science. The greatest amount of randomness enters when people manipulate the stock and work hard to prevent such companies from succeeding, as well. When a small company, that already faces quite substantial corporate and finance hurdles of various sorts, gets to this stage, it's usually a pretty decent sign, though obviously there are companies less likely or more likely to succeed based upon the science, and that depends upon one's judgment. Yours or Mine, I think people should rely upon their own judgment, not the judgment of others, in these sorts of matters, and in doing their due diligence.
And of course, some randomness always enters in the context that, no matter how great the fundamental science, sometimes we just don't understand the best way to use a given treatment, in the best circumstances, and in that context, if it takes more study, sometimes the money is not there. Failure is not necessarily the result of a bad effort, but a lack of follow-through, from a lack of resources, patience and capacity to keep an effort going. Shorts, typically don't help in that context.
Yes, wasn't the initial talk about the combination therapy trial partnerships really started by the scientists, at the University, talking about what would be best to scientifically have the best results with the vaccine? That was about the science, not a promise to investors.
However, subsequently, the company reported details that, honestly, if they lied, would be actionable. And I don't see anyone suggesting that they lied, only complaining that they have not signed such partnerships.
On the other hand, one can also imagine similar voices complaining about the timing, or details of such partnerships, whenever they are signed, because, whenever that moment is, it won't be to anyone's advantage, or I suspect that is how some would color most positive developments, no matter the reality.
I'd imagine, if the stock went up 10 times in a week, the same voices would be suggesting it is wholly unmerited, and must crash again. In that context, it becomes very hard to imagine such voices being all that interested in the real facts as they evolve, or in the good of the patients, or the science, in the long-run. But that's purely speculative on my part. Clearly.
Of course, your question was not directed to me, and I've only been getting in here recently and at very low prices. However, I'd say there are logical times and places for partnerships, and biotechs FREQUENTLY go down with this kind of awful volatility and the good ones that do that, still often succeed.
So, having watched that massive plunge, I have decided to buy as cheaply as possible, for the potential here. And yes, I believe them, and I'd wait to initial those deals too, if I thought the potential for good results was there, even if I did not know the results.
I think for shorts, whether they partnered years ago or now, there will ALWAYS be something horrible and negative to speculate upon that suggests that all is not as it seems and everything is a giant fraud. I expect to read those posts. Thanks for your thoughts and carry on. I find it all very amusing.
Thanks. Very helpful!
http://www.google.com/patents/WO2015069770A1?cl=en
Applicant: COGNATE BIOSERVICES, INC.
NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS
The Regents of the University of California
RevImmune, Inc.
It will be interesting to see what Liau and Prins do with their patent for the DC and CI combo. I think it will speak volumes.
I'd be interested to see if it's a fund. For instance, Franklin Funds recently took a substantial interest in one of the other start-up biotechs I'm invested in, and that one was tinier and much, much earlier than this one... at the early stages of their Phase I.
I'll be very interested to see who. In that other case, it was a percentage like this, and they did NOT require board representation.
I would not accept your description here, generally speaking. Again, it's the nature of the beast, capital markets, etc. Big companies were not the go to for these kinds of treatments, and they let small shareholders like us bear the risk, and typically buy when most of the risk has already been taken by little people like us.... hopefully they don't do so and screw us at the same time, which sometimes happens when they take these companies over.
As for the IP, I haven't done enough DD here, but I would be surprised if the licenses don't include all improvements, process and otherwise, to the technology. That would surprise me, and I'd tend to doubt that it wouldn't.
Yes, your link shows both of them on the patent which is exactly what I said. And what I alluded to was the outstanding question as to whether or not they will want a company with such uncertain financial footing and a track record of long delays and legal issues to be responsible for the execution of clinical trials to determine the effectiveness of their IP. Time will tell. Am I too skeptical?
Their stock was slaughtered, and so were shareholders. You've got to be kidding me that you didn't think that was very, very difficult for the company.
Granted, I'm not saying the FDA was wrong. But it was particularly difficult for the company and its shareholders. Ultimately, at least for a while, the volatility paid off for some. But it was not a company to go long on in 2007, unless you also hedged. The approval was by far, NOT EASY.
But the FDA, I expect, has learned a lot since, and so have the companies that make these treatments and create the trials that accompany them. I'm optimistic here, though I recognize that unexpected things happen in all of these situations, and one can't bank on anything. It's a risk, and with risk, comes both giant opportunities and the possibility of 100% risk of loss. That's the nature of the beast.
Provenge was not easy. But it was approved. The technology was too challenging then to make it cost effective. I believe we know a lot more now, and companies from NWBO to JUNO are out there with some pretty compelling stories.
Not my recollection at all. Provenge was approved easily after DNDN ran a proper trial.
You are probably thinking of the rejection from 2007. That was after a pair of trials with PFS as the primary and OS as the secondary. PFS was not stat sig, OS was. The FDA told them to come back with a properly designed trial that hits the primary endpoint.
No "harsh gauntlet" at all, just the FDA wanted proper trials as for all drugs. Not even all that long. DNDN ran the 2 trials that failed, the third trial that garnered approval, launched, expanded manufacturing , contracted manufacturing and went BK; al in the time NWBO has been tring to run their single DCVax-L P3.
It's the nature of the beast for these tiny companies. Complaining about it does not change the nature of the capital markets and how they treat these companies, nor does it, in truth suggest anything real about the nature of the challenges here. Let me say, I'm no proponent of markets being so intelligent that they know insider information or information that even insiders don't yet know with data.
I would not invest in companies like this if that troubled me. It wouldn't be worth it. Risk is real. It's ALWAYS real, even for the best companies out there. And even once they succeed, sometimes they don't succeed. If risk troubled me this much, I'd look for something nice and staid.
Giving away 10% of shares for pennies while alleged news in right around the corner, you mean?
Stocks plummet on the misinterpretation of interim data all the time. And many stocks I've bought after such misinterpretations, have risen substantially once the market, and, even the researchers, have more time to digest, parse and re-examine that data.
No doubt, there are situations where that does not happen as well. But to presume a short knows anything more than anyone else at this stage, is to be downright stupid. And AF, has been wrong, many, many, many times, too numerous to count. His job is not to tell real stories, but to try to maintain his reputation, mostly by tanking stocks in the short-term with convoluted, negative narratives.
That was also true in md1235's beloved PPHM's Sunrise trial. Even with the data published, all patients were living longer.
Alas, the trial failed.
And that was with survival as the primary endpoint, so " everyone is living longer" was even more important.
There as a reason that the day L Lieu made that comment, NWBO's PPS dropped 20% on very heavy volume.
And yet, just because it has been used in different, relatively recent financings, it doesn't mean it is incorrect. They have been delayed. Yet clearly they could have, at any set moment, raised more, as your post clearly indicates they have no problem, each round, raising what they need. Yes, this time they raised at a slight discount, but no warrants. Previously the discount included warrants as well, and as some have pointed out, the warrants allow for investors to get both, sell the shares immediately and hang onto the warrants - and they may even short when they buy, to get their cash back asap.
This time it is ONE institutional investor, which is a strong suggestion, I think, about what that investor's intentions likely are here, at this time.
We know from recent press releases, that things are coming to a head. Whether it's next month, or the month after, or there is a delay, it's what it is, but it's not a deal killer. They are showing respect to shareholders, including themselves, by raising in dribs and drabs, minimizing dilution, as much as possible, and looking to finalize and execute the best deal possible at the moment of revelation - assuming that they get to that point. End of story.
Trying to dramatize disaster, when there is none to be seen, at this moment, is the job of shorts. I recognize that is the reality. It's how you pay your rent money. You're usually living hand to mouth, or you're a tiny hedge fund trader, trying to hit a return target, to keep your job. Whatever the case, I don't take such desperate noise to sow fear seriously. I do look for great points to buy cheaply, exciting opportunities. Not every opportunity will hit, and when they don't, downside is limited. Speaking from experience, I'm pretty careful and I haven't lost yet on a long-term play, though I do take tax losses from time to time, on profits. When my stocks hit, because I pick them very carefully, the upside has a huge potential range to travel, even with the occasional buyout. I can be disappointed if the shorting has been a prologue to a buyout, which can happen, but it hasn't killed me yet. Thank you very much....
$5M obviously does not run trials.
Hell, they took an additional $3.75M new AP to Cognate 2 days ago. So they netted a bit over $1M this week. They are still running on fumes even with the new cash.
And that does not count the totally unknown liability they took on by assuming Adar Bays loan from Cognate.
The "it's so small they must have good news soon" argument has been used here on the last 6 financings.
So desperate to make anything stick.
I'm not currently buying my friend. I bought at lows. I'm enjoying watching you recklessly short, based upon noise only. This was a successful offering to ONE Buyer. Hmm, doesn't really fit your script. See how that works?
I have not been ruined by doing my due diligence, looking for good companies with good science that shorts attack, and playing the other side of that aggressively. Hasn't killed me yet.
You have a limited loss, if you use options, no doubt. But it still adds fire to the upside.
It's much easier to push down with fear, it's not a real investment, it's mere speculation, and making noise helps your position, because NOISE creates fear. But in the long-run, you're the loser.
Stop with this line of thinking already! Do you have any idea how many long holders just like you are destroyed by this "philosophy"? In the penny world almost all.
And your purchases sure do make shorts rich. If you weren't buying then there'd be no downside. See how that works?
"When I buy, it doesn't make you rich. "
I agree, and it's clear that they could have raised more, but doing it in dribs and drabs shows that they are raising the minimum necessary to the next liquidity event, as I see it. IF they just went for it and raised 20, 30, 40 or 50 million at a low price, I might've agreed with the pessimists, but it's clear this is being done in dribs and drabs, at least in my personal opinion, because they expect that they will generate liquidity by other means, in the not too distant future.
I did not blink when I saw this tiny raise. Without warrants - even better!
I won't claim to predict where the stock is going in the short-term. I don't believe in the intelligent market theory, or this would be much more highly priced, IMHO. The markets are driven by fear, and this is what shorts leverage to the hilt. Even fear of missing out, otherwise often labeled greed, is not always what it seems. But I also believe the shorts will be destroyed as they layer on at this point, if they choose to do that. That will only give us more steam to rise when good news comes, assuming, of course, that good news is coming. One can assume otherwise, and clearly the shorts do speculate that this is going down. I think that's very foolish given the current market cap. and investment here, and developing story.
Linda is clearly waiting on PIII data before she signs a deal for combo PII trials.
Like I said before I would have taken a deal.
But clearly she is very very confident about PIII update...
Thanks Sentiment Stocks! That's a great bit of color to add. I believe it, given the size of his investment, though for a money manager, again, that's a huge piece of an early stage company, when his portfolio is supposed to invest in stocks that yield a dividend, as a stated investment objective.
He may be dreaming of NWBO and his extraordinary part in its ultimate success, even as he wishes he could invest more... and maybe he will. It's always important to realize that a professional may not be able to act as freely as any of us, when we are driving our own vehicle, and have total autonomy.
Thanks for sharing that again! :)
Thanks Doc Logic. Interesting theory on his having confidential disclosures, but I doubt that would hold him from investing for a long time unless someone really screwed up. And from my own experience, that seems less than likely, but as I said in my points previously, lots of possibilities are available.
With regard to "averaging down". Great for individual shareholders or people trading their own money. Lots of great logic there. The issue is LIABILITY. While you or I might discount the Phase V report (including all of the implications and allegations therein and in other articles, and risks including delisting, liabilities and previously unsettled obligation to Cognate) and the decline in shares as a buying opportunity or an opportunity to average down, when you manage other people's money, with a very conservatively stated investment objective, averaging down in a company with the unfortunate press that was manufactured here by, I believe people with ill will, is still not always logical - given the constraints that might or might not apply, at any given time - now or perhaps previously or even on a continuing basis. We simply can't know from here what is constraining him entirely, until he chooses to act, either investing or divesting.
His non-action is not logically something one can logically extrapolate from (unless one has insider information) to a logical conclusion. That was the core of my key point, consistently. Why I'm having to write about why he SHOULD be investing, I have no idea. I'd love it.
My point is there are very logical reasons why he might choose NOT TO DIVEST (an action when you have a fiduciary duty in this kind of circumstance) and yet not immediately buy more, and from that, one can still feel some comfort, seeing him still invested, though it's not a buy, and it's not intentionally something communicated to anyone else - it's just an independent determination that he did not need to divest, from those facts. I think that circumstance alone speaks volumes, to a careful observer. It doesn't change the supply of shares out there, or tell the investor community, "Hey, I think it's good, coast is clear, you should invest!" - which is what many on bulletin boards are looking for. That's not his responsibility. His responsibility is not to lose money and make money following, for the most part, the objectives of his fund (as legally stated in the disclosure forms, contracts and policies that set forth the basis upon which people invest with him). As individual investors, we could think, but wouldn't it be better, if he believes what we believe, if he made some moves that gave everyone confidence? It would benefit his shares AND ours... there are laws around that and contractual obligations and potential liabilities if that were his primary objective. Plus he likely has various constraints that one could speculate upon that would make that a silly and not very professional thing for him to do, without more reasons to invest.
It's great for someone risking their own money, to be enthusiastic. We will just lose our money. There is no liability to other people, no contracts, no policies, no promises or statements about what we intend to do with that money. It's just us. The more typical move would be to DIVEST, for a fiduciary in these circumstances, if he took those other allegations 100% seriously. He did not divest. To me, that's a far stronger endorsement than further buys, though I do understand that ordinary traders and investors may not fully understand the complete nature of what I'm saying. What is commonly thought perhaps by people with a strong view here, is not always the best thing to do from a legal perspective, even if the money manager might generally be in agreement with your view.
And, in the specific context I was discussing, concluding that certain inactions led to a conclusion that he agreed with Phase V, was not logical. For him as a fiduciary, given the ambiguity, and given various constraints that affect his fiduciary role, his failure to divest in the face of all of that, speaks far more strongly to me, than his failure to buy more. He already owns a large piece of the company. They also have constraints as to how much of a percentage of a company they may buy, particularly if it doesn't meet their stated investment objectives, which in this case, I believe is dividend income.
Again, people can speculate all they'd like, I'm just trying to add some further information, perspective and details that should inform such speculative musings. I didn't say any one thing, I think it's a constellation of facts that could have, may not now, or may, constrain him from participating at the level people on bulletin boards think would be great and very helpful. I could post a whole host of hypotheticals that I'd really rather not post, incase he or anyone that works with him reads them. I'd rather not constrain him with visions of the possible risks he might be taking. I'd love to see him invest, I can imagine, from real, concrete experiences, why he might be sidelined, in very many ways, even if he is just as enthusiastic as every long on this board who eats, drinks, sleeps and mutters in fevered dreams, of NWBO's success.
Agreed! :)
Thank you so much Evaluate!
Thanks CherryTree, that is good to know. If you had the link, that would be great, but no worries if not.
More than a year ago now Linda Power said they had "well over" 300 enrolled . . . so it is at least 301 smile.
No doubt. I did not attack anyone, just made my point and someone suggested it was not accurate with a single, not entirely on point link. In fact, what I was saying lent credence to what that poster in theory is arguing, though not entirely, it appears on other points.
We agree on some very key points, but I'm not one who says I know that Woodford is itching to jump back in. Despite beliefs on the Form 4, I think we'll see it when we see it, if we see it. There is no way to know that for a fact will happen, and it's not going to determine the value here. More importantly, he never divested, and I think that tells the entire story. I think he is solidly committed to his original decision to invest, and his non-divestiture speaks volumes about his commitment to his decision, given the issues that a regulated fiduciary faces in this context.
But I don't particularly want to argue with anyone. Just not have my point disputed as not "making sense", when I have more than enough knowledge on the point to know that it, in fact, does make sense and represents a reasonable take on the question, though not absolutely the same point as another has otherwise been making. I did not seek out that disagreement, however. Just made my point on what I see as Woodford's solidness in terms of this investment, despite the suggestion of OTHER shorts that his not taking more steps to invest MORE was somehow possible to interpret as an endorsement of the Phase V report. I do not see that as logical, given what I know.
Thanks and I appreciate that. I agree with you. I did not start it by arguing that longs thought that, and I may be incorrect, but I think the initial conversation started with someone who is not a long, and TC suggested that the investment restrictions did not limit Woodford, and I think that is a narrow reading that might miss what a tough position Phase V put the company into with that report, though of course, they also pointed out a mistake that needed to be and was corrected, inadvertently being helpful, perhaps, in that context only.
My point is, you can't really conclude much from Woodford's fund not investing more at this or any time, while they remain holding and have defended their investment, generally. And whatever his constraints, which may be many, complex and legal in nature (having little to do with this as an investment and more to do with limiting potential liability - and maintaining focus on his fund's objectives), and therefore not obvious to someone sitting here, you can't conclude a lot from a failure to act again, meaning buy NWBO again or in large quantities.
I suspect views on Woodford's fund's recent Form 4, here and elsewhere, may not have a lot of factual basis as well. People look for things sometimes where you can't really find them. I think the circumstances have been challenging, though they are clearly looking up from where I sit. However, now that the company has addressed some key allegations, it's very possible he could possibly step in again, we simply don't have enough information at this time to know that he is interested in doing so, and that he has no further constraints to do so. We do know that he has held, and actively defended his investment. He may invest again, and that would be very welcome. But it's not dispositive of anything in any way, in my view.
Apologies to TC and any longs who thought I thought they were shorts. I didn't, just clarifying my reasoning. Thanks for the kind message.
You have a more optimistic sense than I do Do Due Dilligence. :)
I think he is so far up his own a$$, he has come to believe the stink he writes. I'd like to think he is smart enough to think otherwise, but these are just hit job assignments. I don't think he has any real curiosity or interest in any of this. I think he's just a paid assassin, because he has an audience for this kind of nonsense. I think he really believes he has insight also because of his very dated, flawed, market theory argument. I think he buys his own BS.
But if he is taking positions counter to his investment columns, while it might show he is much smarter than I think he is, it would also suggest fraud, no doubt. I think he's smart enough to avoid facts communicating the clear commission of fraud. No doubt, with the complaints about him, he needs to be careful.
I don't generally subscribe to the notion that the FDA is trying to corruptly stop smaller companies. While it's possible in individual cases that something may have occurred, as with any context of oversight by a bureaucrat, the process is quite visible and transparent, and I don't think it would ultimately succeed - in MOST cases. Clearly there may be a few cases at the margins, as a possibility. I simply don't see it from my own perspective, generally. Delays often happen for many reasons, many of them quite logical and reasonable, despite what investors might otherwise prefer.
That is not to say that there is not a place for these new legislative efforts to expedite and make the process more efficient. I welcome those efforts and I think they will be heartily welcomed by many, including patient advocates. I think there is some risk THOSE rules could be exploited at some date as well, but I hope and count on transparency and oversight to catch those circumstances, when they happen, though unfortunately, they probably will do so after the fact.