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.
I wouldn't read too much into this. It's easier not to be livid on green days because, hey, at least we aren't losing money today.
Because control is the name of the game and upward swings can get away from them if it attracts too much institutional attention. It's easier to scare people out on the way down than on the way up. See the "best ever GOG phase 2" flash crash for an example of when it almost got away from them.
They have been running it up and crashing it down, just not so wildly. Again, control is the name of the game so they do what they do delicately to mitigate any risk.
No, it isn't in their heads. There is plenty of evidence, not just here but all over the market, that foul play is more commonplace than most would believe or expect. And that's just based on the incidents that we do know which have been brought to light. It's likely just the tip of the iceberg. I hate to say but defense of the contrary is worthy of almost immediate logical dismissal.
Frankly, and I mean no offense by this, I've met too many people who try to leverage their "experience" to prove their own argument. A surprising amount of them are grossly overconfident while provably knowing little about the subject at hand; some of them are blinded by their experience and consider it to be general, when it is in fact specific; some of them are plain lying through their teeth. Most people I've ever met don't know anything about anything and I wouldn't trust them as far as I can throw them.
You're still new here, I recall. Pay attention day-in/day-out for a few years and you'll see some things here that will really make you scratch your head.
Advantage: swaying sentiment by obscuring activity and exploiting the "rules" to twist perception.
The market is inherently sentiment-driven. That makes this a powerful tool, provided you have the necessary grip on the ticker.
I don't agree with Ig on a lot of stuff, but this holds water and is a pattern I've observed in the past.
Next reporting period will have a snapshot of short interest well over 10M, even though it's likely to come down during this week and possibly next. The disseminated snapshot showing well over 10M will cause more angst and hesitation for anyone who isn't in tune with the trading history on this ticker and who isn't aware that the snapshot is two weeks old when released.
That period between snapshots also allows them to happily mess around in the interim and then quickly place the short interest wherever they want to in the days leading up to the next snapshot. And on and on.
It's a perversion of painting the tape -- one could call it painting the short interest tape.
It doesn't always hold, so I've never taken it as gospel. But it still provides a veil for activity which certainly, certifiably, definitely, absolutely 100% guaranteed is in every hedge's playbook even if it isn't used every time. It's one of the most easily exploitable things that can be done if you're in control of a ticker like they are here.
It looks like Advaxis switched media company at the same time that DOC left. The last PR by the old company was the "change in leadership" one. Anyone know if that typically means anything?
Not going to venture into slander land, sorry.
It's pointless to guess and it doesn't matter anyway because it doesn't change anything for us.
Can you let me know who those handful are if you're so inclined? It's fine if not, I understand. More information is always better. PM is fine if you'd like (if that's a free feature, I don't know).
The issue with your assumption of honesty is that it's based on second-hand information that can't be verified. Even if your sources aren't lying, that response by DOC is the only response he could possibly give from his own perspective. What is he going to do, say he quit and then have to come up with a reason? No -- why give more information than you have to?
Agree it could have been unplanned, but like I said that could have been a personal decision by DOC based on his assessment of personal risk.
Gant, thanks. I'm happy to discuss this, but in order for it to make sense I'll need you to seriously consider my initial theory for a moment.
DOC is a lawyer. Not just any lawyer, but a criminal defense lawyer. That means that he knows quite a bit about the law and what can or can't be done and the levels of risk involved.
The theory involves a plan that includes activity that is very much illegal. Adage came in under DOC's purview, and the short scheme was initiated. The plan all along has been to directly or indirectly issue 10M shares to them to close out this short position.
DOC is not that old -- certainly not as old as Lombardo. Do you think DOC, knowing what he knows about law, is going to risk spending the rest of his life in prison? Absolutely not. He left either as planned, or as dictated by his assessment that he could get in serious trouble by sticking around. Notice the oodles of free cash he got on the way out. It looks like a penny for your troubles at best, and a bribe to keep quiet at worst.
So what do I mean by "as planned"? What likely happened is Lombardo has been made the sacrificial lamb for the upcoming placement. Lombardo may not even be aware of this short scheme arrangement, which gives him plausible deniability.
Dude. Ugh. This fixation is 100% counterproductive at best and looks like misdirection at worst. Blame everything on Dan the boogeyman.
The con-men are still here. Dan was nothing but a figurehead and had to have the approval of the BOD to do anything major that he did. If you're going to blame Dan you need to extend that blame to the BOD.
It is odd isn't it? I shared my thoughts on exactly this in the past: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=133735153
Tldr: Adage was using these purchases to pump during the run up to $30 all the while building the short position that's been parked here.
People will tell you Adage doesn't short or their "sources" say Adage isn't short or doesn't short. But people also lie, especially when it comes to money, and people are also naive. What better way to mask your activity than have everyone believe you don't do something? Even if they aren't short themselves, they could be doing it though friendly hedges and subsidiaries thereby exploiting reporting loopholes.
I'm not asking you to believe me or prove it right or wrong, and I never have. I've asked only for reasonable ideas that tie together everything that we know about the history of Advaxis ever since Adage bought in, such that what we've seen transpire makes sense.
But back to China/J&E. First, nobody has disputed it because nobody can. Let me ask you these questions.
1) On their knowledge. How, exactly, did they learn what they did? Does anyone actually know? How did two random people on the internet seemingly learn so much about the specific, intricate mechanics of drugs that were not only still in clinical trials, but were barely even in phase 2?
2) On their disappearance. Why, exactly, did they disappear? In China's case, absent reason, and in J&E's case, absent a GOOD reason. I don't buy "oh no my feelings are hurt" when you have skin in the game and can share knowledge that boosts the value of your skin. Why did they disappear shortly after the 10M short position was established, when further strong buying would have scorched that position, i.e. when they were most needed? Does this not sound like the characters of J&E and China were a liability, i.e. "we need to kill these characters because they have so much power in the community that it could be disastrous if they slip up"?
3) On their words of warning. Do you find it suspicious that in combination with their questionable disappearance, they left us with such helpful words of warning such as "watch out for the share grab"? Does this not also sound like "the price is going to go down but it's OK, keep on buying hehe"? Viewed in this context, does this not sound like a brilliant leveraging of established trust to generate hope for months and even years to come?
I fail to see how this isn't a compliment, maple, considering I'm not here to fool anyone. I'm glad you see that I don't have their "experience".
I am absolutely balls deep long and I really, really wish I wasn't. I'm not willing to take the loss down here because I'm stupidly hoping at least one of the upcoming catalysts brings enough of a spike to bail.
Why I'm doing what I'm doing:
1) It would be nice to throw a wrench into the scheme or at least make them worry. If we see a major dilution at $5.00 and the short interest disappear shortly after, you'll have a colored picture of what most likely happened already. I hope they go to jail or worse.
2) If this situation were to balloon into an SEC investigation or similar in the future, I want these theories to be floating out in the ether so they're found and no stone is left unturned. Again, I hope they go to jail or worse.
3) It makes my blood boil to see people, especially newcomers, taken advantage of by cheerleaders who have been wrong every single time in the last few years. If they're doing it deliberately, then see reason 1. If they're doing it accidentally, I want the newcomers to have a full picture of the ups and downs before they have their money stolen from them by crooks. Again, I hope they go to jail or worse, and if not I would love to cause them the greatest financial damage possible.
4) Even if the theories aren't true, at this point I'd rather just let them get to the price they want so they can close out and friggin' leave or whatever else. This cycle is being directly sustained by purchases. Time is money and our money is sitting here doing nothing while they play games. Enough of this.
Sigh. They don't want to cover. They've had years to cover. We were here once before at 5.21 and they made no effort to cover. Here we are again, and they are still making no effort to cover.
If you are a true long and you are buying, they are playing you. Be wary of another run-up in the next week or two going into the next conference. Don't be fooled.
OK, but what if the salesman is the thief?
Regardless, the combination of internet anonymity and no transparency or accountability by the company will always give rise to this situation. The company has nobody to blame but itself for that, so yes, I would say it is the salesman's fault.
No, they want buying, sorry. Years of trade history to prove it, the last few weeks being the latest example.
But keep telling people to fork over their cash for free in these short-term windows while their long-term scheme to get out via dilution plays out.
You know why buying demand is dry? Because institutions have to think outside the box and they almost certainly arrived at the same conclusion.
No it wouldn't. You'll find your buys underwater soon enough and I guarantee that because it's obvious at this point their strategy revolves around using peoples' own buys against them, indirectly scalping a few cents off each share of your purchase via their cover/short recycling methodology.
Stop buying. Don't sell what you have, but stop buying. No trade activity => no profit from recycling => it becomes unprofitable to remain short.
Still waiting to see any semblance of redacted proof for these suicidal buys. I've asked a few times now over the last couple of days. I'm even leaving the door open to Photoshopped proof, lol.
If by your own admission you're so sure there won't be any dilution, then you have no reason to worry about them laddering the price down if you don't buy because that only impacts the company's ability to raise capital. No dilution and you're not selling, right?
And if they did ladder it down, that would also mean you get to buy more at a lower price later, no?
This sounds like another half-measure consolation prize. I for one don't care about any impact on future revenue that doesn't yet exist and is contingent on approval. Say we don't get it. Then what?
I'd gladly give up 50% or more of the long term value of ADXS in exchange for the best chance of making investors whole today and a fresh option to bail without a huge loss without clouded judgment. If that means a big upfront cash event and even 0% of future revenue for a franchise, I'd be 100% fine with that.
I reviewed the Reg SHO data back in late July and there was no evidence that there has ever been any naked shorting here in any substantial quantity, at least as far as fails-to-deliver. In fact, there was generally very little FTD at all. Contrast this with DNDN where naked shorting took place -- stratospheric FTDs.
I haven't looked since then, though.
https://www.sec.gov/data/foiadocsfailsdatahtm
I'm not sure if there's a more convenient place to find a dump of this data for just one ticker. I had to dump several months worth of files into Excel and filter for just ADXS.
They do this to mask covering activity. They drown the trade data in so much back-and-forth noise that you can't make heads or tails of the actual net movement.
The result is that some people sit there assuming 2-3 million shares were covered based on volume but I guarantee that we're sitting around 10M just like we have been for years. Of course that doesn't stop certain individuals from foolishly or deliberately spinning it to look like covering is happening and that things will turn out OK.
The pump of the last week or two was a cover/reload operation used to create ammo for this latest drop. This is evidenced in the short interest report which saw a decline of 250k by 8/31 and realistically several hundred thousand more between 8/31 and 9/8 (the last day before the 10Q). Those covered shares have certainly found their way back into the market this week, hence why I say we're back at 10M right now.
"Gift"
Investors are tired of hearing this. A gift would be the company actually doing something that generates some appreciation or even a wet fart from the market that doesn't dissipate in a day.
And no, it makes perfect sense. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be difficult to achieve in practice because it requires collective action. There's so little volume on up days (see last week for examples) that if retail were to stop buying it actually could have a substantial effect on profitability. Those up days are the days buying should be avoided.
Also they can ladder it down all they want if they're the only ones buying. No harm to anyone else if they aren't selling. It's not like they aren't laddering it down all they want as-is, so the only detrimental effect which is on capital raises is null.
You'll argue against my point regardless of course.
The herd can buy 40% more shares than they were able to last Friday.
And they can even choose not to.
I envy the herd.
Not that they're happy about that themselves either, most likely.
Let's see some redacted proof, please.
Reasonable people have probably been negative for quite some time; I know I have been. And there have been plenty of skeptical views expressed over several months but they're constantly met with derision and short accusations, and the most sensible of them are quickly buried under a flood of posts by what are almost certainly fabricated personalities that spam the board with feel-good speculation. That speculation has not been just baseless, but has turned out to be false and damaging for investors at every single turn.
You believe that? By your own admission Dan is the most untrustworthy person to walk the earth.
Of course he would say that. It's the only thing he could say. What's he going to do, throw the company under the bus and implicate himself in any wrongdoing?
Forgot the fat chunk of change he took on the way out the door? Sounds a lot like "here, keep quiet about what we've asked you to do, please".
More misdirection from team pump regarding Dan. There's no proof that Dan was fired at all, let alone fired for reasons the board must have approved.
More likely Dan left of his own accord following a particularly gruesome ask by Adage and/or the board that broke the ethical camel's back.
Dan's a lawyer, you think he's going to catch himself up in some nonsense that'll land him in prison? Hell no.
What they should've done was not spread themselves so thin to begin with.
Do you ever bulk order 10 of an expensive item on eBay without even knowing for sure if they're any good? Because that's what management has done here. With OUR money that we entrusted to them.
Now throw in biomarkers as another avenue to burn money. I wonder what the next excuse will be?
They should be in jail and it's a shame they aren't and won't be.
Anyone who's paying attention and cynical enough to view their investment objectively in the context of human greed can see that something isn't right and hasn't been for a long time.
Good luck proving anything other than incompetence though.
Should have known better than to risk money on something formerly named "Great Expectations". Yeah real great.
The ~20% appreciation that occurred over the last couple of weeks, which itself followed the dump that corresponded to the pump during May and a little of June. And of course that was after the dump during March and April, which was preceded by the Sellas pump.
Each one designed to dump harder than pump, progressively trapping more and more legitimate buyers.
A ~60% retracement fueled by hype going into a conference counts as a recovery now? Here I thought we needed to end up at least where we started for something to be considered a recovery.
That wasn't a recovery. It was another in a long line of pump and dumps, nothing more, nothing less.
I'll give this game a go.
The volume today was real longs and tutes selling, coupled with substantial re-shorting and some HFT. Notice the short interest that came out today, about 250k lower as of 8/31. Consider the activity from 8/31 to 9/8, which probably accounts for another several hundred thousand short shares that were covered. Let's say another 250k or so. That leaves 500k shares unaccounted for from the 10M pool that has been maintained for years.
Now, drop all of those covered shares back in. Here we are.
It never becomes a no gainer because they can continue nudging it up and down and making money both ways. See the last few weeks for an example. We tanked to the high 5s (shortshortshort!), then retraced on minimal volume (gentle cover/pump), and now here we are again in the 5s (shortshortshort!).
How much of a gain? Subtract the difference in volume on the way up and then on the way down.
It never left. :(
I was just taking it easy while the most recent pump-and-dump played out. It has turned out this way about a dozen times now over the last 2 years.
You can make a technical indicator around this pattern, I'm sure.
"Guys, I'm seein' a classic ADXS Rope-A-Dope pattern on the 12h."
Absolutely do not understand the ongoing obsession with Dan. At this point I'm 100% convinced it's a misdirection tactic. The BOD is inherently complicit in whatever Dan did at best, and directed him to do what he did at worst.
Still looks to me like we're on track for a 10M share dilution at roughly $5.00 so that our short owners can close their position.
Simultaneously being owned (puppeted) by someone who has sold the company short, and not owned because it's sold short. What a weird state of being.
Can you provide a redacted image of your 5000 share buy? I simply can't believe anyone would add to an existing position at this juncture.