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.
hahahaha, great posts to finish the week.
I will take a moment to pause and reflect in the small positive movement in the SP today, and remind myself that because of the uptick there is less money in the short NWBO accounts today.
Today was a good day
Correct, by having a contract fee he can remain independent. Think of all the big four auditing firms, they are paid on contract. That is how they can remain independent and receive payments for their services.
The services/procedures will most likely be agreed upon prior to the contract.
It will most likely be a contract fee, so that he is not on payroll.
Thanks for the laugh, I needed a good laugh
Send it to Linda, not the board
Clearly AF did not have any conversation with anyone from NW's team, AF's piece is fiction. That's what he is good at, making fiction seem like fact. That and regurgitating other people's "work"
I agree with the other poster, NWBO get Leary in there ASAP and get the investigation over with.
I do not anticipate any data from NWBO before Christmas. I would very much appreciate that this matter is closed before the end of the year. Even as I write that I am not holding my breath.
I thought the worst was behind us, but my perception right now is very frustrated....for as the song goes "waiting is the hardest part"
How many times have you asked management your questions?
I have asked some of these questions, management did reply to shareholder inquiry's about the most recent trial matter with a separate SEC filing.
Let's not mistake a shareholder proposal with a gun, a shareholder proposal is not duress like a gun is.
and in investing past performance is no indicator of future performance
Austin your posts assume malfeasance by LP because she owns both companies, and because you assume that, you assume that it's bad. If it turns out to be true malfeasance then you are correct. But for a moment suspend your "assumptions" and recognize that it is possible that there is no malfeasance by LP and the contracts are equal market rates or better? Then in that case we are very lucky to have cognate. Also just because a member of management happens to own a vender does not preclude the company from using the vender. This will be one of the issues that Leary investigates. If upon investigation it is determined that there is nothing detrimental to shareholders big and small by the contracts then will you acknowledge that we are lucky to have cognate? For example if it is determined that LP has been siphoning off funds for the sole benefit of cognate and herself (and again, that will be reviewed by Leary) I would acknowledge that your point of view is correct. Until then you are assuming because you have no proof, only conjecture.
Next picture will be of a gofundme page stating "I lost my house shorting NWBO I thought my stop loss was iron clad...it wasn't. Please help"
Just like Campbell with KBIO
also if it is any consolation, I bought more shares today. I think we retest $5.50 in the next month or two. In the next 4 moths or sooner I think we will test $8.
If we have positive data updates on L, double my estimates at a minimum.
Or let's say a 1.2-1.6 billion dollar market cap, for starters, right now.
With confirmation of any of the outstanding matters, increase that figure buy 500 million to 1.5 billion of market cap based on the matter:
German HE
UK PIMS part duex
Lifting and details of temporary halt of screening
FDA approval
Additional funds picking up shares (through Ondra)
Partnering with another Big Pharma
Technically we need to break past $5.50 (50 day moving avg), then we need to break past $8 (200 day moving average), then $12.55 (52 week high, also just short of a $1 billion market cap with current shares outstanding).
She had a choice, although of the two options (agree and disagree) it would seem that she did not have a choice.
Do not think that she could not have said no, she could have. The consequences would have been terrible, but she could have said no.
I will give up the short argument when the shorts cease to spread their falsehoods so garrulously. I am also a frustrated long investor, I argued for the independent CFO a long time ago, now my qualms are being answered, in a positive, independent, financial expert, kind of way, I do not have unbridled optimism, but a positive update is just that.
I am optimistic that the independent director will implement positive changes and look after shareholder value in addition to a team that has also been looking after shareholder value (albeit in a particular way). I think he will add value to operations, transparency, and validity.
I also understand that shorts will not stop and just argue "rubber stamp" as AF did this past weekend.....pattern?
Afford, your negativity continues despite the fact that they are working in ACCORD with the shareholder inquiry, they detailed that they have had a independent financial team operating as a CFO since 2012, and that they plan to move forward with the additional independent financial expert board of director
to which the short replies ....."rubber stamp"
I see a pattern
What would make this positive would be a response from NWBO management stating that they plan to proceed with NW suggestions.
Look how fast the board moved when Martin Skrelli took an activist position in KBIO, the following day he was named the CEO.
NWBO Management make the most out of this opportunity and be quick about it
I could be good for the SP if after the review, there is nothing material found. Then the question of is there impropriety will be put to bed.
I there is something found then it will be addressed as opposed to continued.
The more I think about this SEC filing the better I feel about NWBO. NW is going active, to make sure that shareholder value is maximized. Where there was lack of independent financial expert board members, with the acceptance (NWBO should accept)of Leary, there will be an independent board member. Where there was possible lack of integrity, there will be integrity.
Where there was passive NW before, there will be active NW after.
If there was anything untoward it is highly likely that it will be found and addressed.
And for those who present the argument that the company is shielded from independent auditing/qualified CFO will now be put to rest.
As a shareholder I agree with this update, I would argue that most of the investing community would agree with this move.
I can only imagine what is going on behind the scenes, but it would appear that the direction is forward, with a independent board member with a spectacular financial background, and upward.
It would appear that you have a valid point.
NWBO management can we have some sort of press release similar to that? Can we have some details as to what is happening right now with the trials?
Or better yet, maybe she did have conversations with her sister and was unable to sway her own sister (this hypothetical sister seems pretty bright to not listen).
I think of the CLDX shareholders who have been beaten down this year and the incredible shorting they face and I think of us here at NWBO. We have been just as beat down as they (CLDX) have. Their shareholders just received a nice fuzzy warm PR with data and substance today, Please NWBO can we have one as well?
I think I may write a letter to Santa Klaus....and no that is not a typo.
NWBO, CLDX just dropped data on phase 2, and it is promising. Can we have some data? Can we have an update or clarification?
Just in case NWBO Management is reading, let there be a PR update with substance and data to clarify the matter at hand, and direction moving forward.
Please
Yup, another Monday morning bio tech research scientist! Ha, I am laughing as I typing this because it is so ridiculous that there is such a person out there.
"Monday morning.....it's not just for Quarterbacks anymore."
TPIV and NBS.....oh wait is NBS still around?
Exactly
correction he was "not" on top of his risk.
I don't. The comments at the bottom of the article are aligned with my thoughts towards his activity.
He was not conservative, he was on top of his risk, he earned that outcome.
That is certainly what it feels like "game playing". Ohh NWBO management let there be an almighty PR of progress and data.
Have you been in the board rooms of bio tech hedge funds who participate in short selling positions? I can assure you that those board rooms do care very much how to shut down small bio techs.
Sentiment, you know facts and reason have no sway over Schnoozer. Thank you for your tireless work it is appreciated.
I second that great find Asta,
Also let us not forget what recently happened to the CLDX GBM trial and the FDA rebuttal of OS use for AA in a small population trial.
Good thing we track both PFS and OS and we already enlarged our trial. It would seem that from the perspective of the trial design ours is quite formidable.
Furthermore, the whole conspiracy theory used to discredit longs as fringe groups who are just uninformed masses of sheep has been discredited completely by the recent Martin Skrelli dust up.
It is not a conspiracy that there are dedicated short funds that implement nefarious tactics publicly and privately to further their interests or lack there of.
It is fact, it is not a conspiracy.
What is a conspiracy is that numerous short groups get together to work in concert to magnify their effects, that is called a criminal conspiracy.
That is fact and it happens every day.
That is what I fear. The amount of time and energy spent spreading FUD is only what we see, and probably far less than what they (FUDsters) do behind the scenes.
The behind the scenes matters are truly despicable. For example look at the recent Martin Skrelli matter. He would submit shoddy "research" to the FDA to stop clinical trials in companies that he was shorting. The shorts playbook follows companies through their whole life cycle from development to commercialization. Once they have a target they do not stop ever, data will not stop their pursuit.
If we get to FDA approval then next piece of FUD will be along the lines of poor roll out (management follies), or poor adoption (doctors don't want to prescribe it and patients don't want it), or something else, and all the above.
They are in a truly filthy business. I hope they reap what they sow, and we all know what they sow.
Maverick, I meant no offense. Just a legitimate question, as I find your post interesting, and I am trying to better understand what you are implying.
Also I recently removed myself as moderator as I no longer have the time to actively moderate. Work is extraordinarily busy right now, and I cannot spend much time here. I do check frequently though.
Lets assume that no one can find an example, your point is?
Was just reading last weeks Barron's article, and I noticed the following information
"The Tufts Center for the study of Drug Development reported a year ago that the developing a new prescription drug that gains marketing approval carries average direct out-of-corporate-pocket costs of $1.4 billion (including the cost of drugs that fail) and opportunity cost of $1.1 billion (including the time value of money invested for an average 10 years of development)"
For all those that argue our trial is taking too long, it appears that we are at roughly the average mark, and cost wise we are below the average mark
Food for thought.
Flipper, thank you again for the reminder of the paragraph listed above the post you mentioned, very interesting, I did not know that. I would chalk that up to the hopeful column that the 149 is powered that strongly, as well as hoping the results at 149 are that strong.
Flipper, thank you. Also thank you for sourcing your post about European sites.