Yes, exactly. Because a R/S means the market cap changes. </sarcasm>

Well, that seals it then! We won't be consuming any juicy news during Lent and the stock price will be resurrected by Easter. By the time Pentecost rolls around, we'll be able to spread the good news of DCVax's success!

Can you explain the “year-old” data argument? Why would the age of the data matter if the results support the effectiveness of the science? If today’s data are so much better, would they be rendered impotent if they were only published next year?

I guess what I’m asking is: is the value in the publication really the age of the data, or rather the message it communicates? Would seem to me the latter far outweighs the former, but I’m open to being swayed here...

Interesting post, flipper. What would be in it for LP? I forget the numbers, but I don't recall Cognate being a standalone majority shareholder of NWBO. Even in a hostile takeover, wouldn't LP, Woodford, retail investors have to agree sell their positions before Cognates owners could strong-arm their way into taking NWBO private? In some ways, doesn't the transaction offer greater protection in that LP's interests are now more exclusively aligned with shareholders?

Honestly, why is it NWBO's responsibility to explain why another company's corporate ownership matters to their shareholders? For a company under attack, I can see the reluctance to even get into this conversation. That same logic applies to explaining LP's relationship to Cognate. Any affirmation of benefit could easily come back as retroactive criticism for the fact LP was affiliated with Cognate up until this point.

Nope, it's derision, mockery, satire. Whatever you want to call it. I just call it mean spirited.

Happy Valentine's Day!

I was referring to the part about an "additional" home run, but your highlighting is well noted.

I guess if I had to stake out a position it would be that there's a lot of reading of tea leaves here that is trying to determine whther the home run discussion confirms existence of positive results. Your first quote doesn't do that, I don't think -- or at least doesn't meet my threshold. It was mentioned in the context of the rationale for waiting longer for data lock. Separately, saying "additional home run" in the second quote could seem to confirm positive results, but it was said so devoid of the all-knowing wink or nudge that, to me, it defaults to being a slip of the tongue.

I was there. Please read my comment again. The difference we are quibbling about is between "already" hitting a home run and "additional home run." These are different concepts. She definitely mentioned home runs, but saying "already" hit a home run would have created buzz in the room and I'm nearly certain she didn't say it.

I was there at the ASM and I can say with near certainty that she never said that they "already" hit a home run. If she had, there would have been audible gasps (or cheers) in the room. The comment, which I believe is from barcode, is the mention of an "additional home run," which merely implies that there is a home run that has already been achieved. I suspect, though he doesn't say it, that barcode used a recording device to get a transcription to produce such an accurate quotation. (I won't put him on the spot lest he should fear any legal ramifications.)

I'll caveat this discussion by saying that she was speaking off the cuff and that saying "additional home run" wasn't done with a wink and a nudge, though it could have been an inadvertent letting the cat out of the bag as to her true feelings. Nothing about the condition of the home run seemed concrete, but I would lean toward believing we got a window onto something with that rhetorical slip.

Potentially, if they're feeling particularly altruistic. Their warrants have value so long as they are in the money. Exercising them would mean committing capital (and thereby now putting it at risk) by turning it into stock. While, yes, this would potentially help stave off dilution, the cost of dilution to them is distributed among all shareholders, whereas exercising the warrants and committing capital represents a far greater cost if things don't go well. I'd venture to say that the people who are most likely to exercise warrants are those who are happy with a 50% return off of a ~0.20 warrant and want to turn around and sell it. Longs are more likely to hold on to their warrants for however many more years.

Nothing was mentioned about $12 million, as far as I can recall.

It seems certainly possible that more dilution is on the way, but there are a couple other influxes of cash that may help stave that off. First, if the SP stays steady (or goes up), we could see some exercise the lowest priced warrants (admittedly, that's a low-probability occurrence). Second, something that hasn't been mentioned anywhere for a while, is taking out a line of credit on the Sawston property. There was much discussion of this back in September/October when the news about the renter was revealed. I wouldn't be surprised if build-out by the renter is nearing completion. Thus, a new appraisal and mortgage on the property could represent a significant amount of capital that keeps the company chugging along without further dilution. Just a thought.

I've been mulling over some additional thoughts re: the ASM, namely some "intangibles" of having been there in person. There's a thought for the bears and a thought for the longs here. These thoughts are my own and are only based on my reading of the social cues at the meeting.

For the bears:
Management seemed keen on limiting the number and quantity of questions. LP only wanted to do one round of questions (1 per person), but we only ended up getting somewhere around 8-10 questions (total) out of the couple dozen people there. In other words, we never got to a second round of questions because not everyone even got to ask their first. She also said a couple times (after about 60 minutes into the meeting) that we "really needed to wrap up." I find it unfortunate that on a Sunday afternoon management really wanted to wrap up the meeting so quickly. I wouldn't say that's a red flag, but it did make me feel like they wanted to make sure they didn't expose themselves to revealing too much. Perhaps that's a long position in disguise, but it did leave me feeling a bit like they didn't value the concept of public response to questions.

For the longs:
Management seemed earnestly sympathetic to the exasperation that some longs no doubt feel. They seemed frustrated by their own situation and motivated to get out of the beaten-down state to really prove NWBO's worth. LP gave long, coherent answers that directly addressed each person's question to the extent that management seemed prepared to reveal. Management didn't do anything to steer questions in a particular way or otherwise direct the conversation. In addition, I was heartened by the *absence* of some of the vociferous language seen on this board. The only negatively framed questions were ones of disappointment, but not of faltering commitment on the part of shareholders. This tacit support from those in the room revealed to me that interested parties (shareholders) are not as divided or "up in arms" as the posts on this board might suggest. I will also add that questions were pretty slow to appear -- LP never had to pick from 5 people raising their hands, but rather that she'd look around the room inviting the next question and someone would mount the courage to ultimately raise their hand and then ask something.

The only totals we know were that 64.42% of shares cast proxy votes (plus one person at the meeting). All measures passed and the results will be provided in an 8-K within 4 business days.

Please please please understand that the timeline about spring is entirely my own based on what I inferred from LP’s description of frequency of data updates from the actual trial sites. That is my interpretation of what seems like a reasonable decision making timeline, but no such markers or timelines were presented by management. So do not read so much into it.

No. I didn’t catch anything. Also, I’m pretty certain there was no comment on selective attendance at conferences. I didn’t have a chance to chat with the BODs before or after the meeting, so others may have additional insights from side chats.

FWIW, I came away heartened by the meeting despite the lack of much new information. There are certainly more new clues to inspire optimism. LG and LP both seemed pretty bitter about the terms of financing. That’s reassuring about their shares values in that department. That said, if NWBO doesn’t lock its data after this spring’s update, it will definitely be another year IMHO. If that’s the case I’ll likely sell and then hop back in 6-9 months later (barring any other developments) given the likelihood of further dilution.

Yes, I was surprised by how committed he was to the position that nefarious action was indeed happening as well as his intent to have some kind of response. His comment also included something to the effect of “we need to operationalize the information we have so that shareholders can be appropriately compensated for their patience.” It wasn’t “compensated” but a word like that, which I can’t remember.

Man, I really wish there had been corndogs. Yes, I’m willing to burn one of my 15 daily posts to long wistfully for some county fair deliciousness.

Additional insights. I’m sure I won’t do LP’s answers justice, plus I’m doing this on my phone. Sorry my posts about the meeting have been piecemeal. That’s the downside of trying to convey this quickly via mobile device.
- LP didn’t say whether 233 OS had been reached but clearly said that was a floor for data lock, not the trigger for data locked, and described at length the benefit of a long tail.
- No details about the main thesis/results of the manuscript and they are not permitted to share the journal name either.
- Cofer Black said that he was “appalled” by the level of attack NWBO has experienced and is collecting data and insights to operationalize a response of some kind. Very vague as to what that would mean. Cards close to the vest.
- The IP discussion was interesting though out of my league. Most promising thing I latched on to was the claim that many of the parents NWBO owns are process improvements that set it apart from other failed DC treatments (Dendreon).

Meeting ended. About 75 minutes total. I had to head out.

I should add that she specified there were 65 authors. The other insight into the P3 trial (that was new to me) was that they do a data refresh each spring. While she didn’t commit, LP seemed to suggest they’d do that again this spring. I’d suspect that any initiation of data lock would be subsequent to that data refresh. So if it’s not after this spring, then I would say it probably won’t be for another year.

Nothing major so far at ASM. Questions include:
- negative news following ASMs: will pattern recur?
- is Mgmt still enthusiastic?
- what’s the prognosis for the manuscript? LP: process initiated in summer, submitted to journal in fall, but still in the works. Will only be on *blinded* data, so preliminary findings.
- when will mgmt decide to unblind?
- intellectual property issues
- cognate and COI issues
- Cofer Black, what have you seen?

I disagree. If you don't think the trial (i.e., the scientific process for validating the scientific validity of the drug) is relevant to the current price or the valuation potential, then you're being led by your emotions regarding management. Trial results, which are entirely scientific in nature, can make or break this company. If you believe in the science, and thus that the results will bear that out in impressive fashion, then you'd be hard-pressed to say how management could squander a golden ticket. That they bungle the lead up to it (as they have done), then sure. But to assert that the ticket itself won't be gold, that I cannot agree with. Management may lie, but numbers, once released, can't.

You're not suggesting Uncle Rusty goes and kidnaps LP or LG, I hope. :-p Anyhow, it's the long-time shareholders who have been held hostage recently, not the management team!

Contribution limits still apply if you're *recharacterizing* 2017 contributions from a Traditional IRA to a Roth IRA (not sure but the deadline may have passed for that anyhow). But the odd thing about what the rep told you is that the limits are the sum of all contributions to any IRA, so there wouldn't be any new risk of exceeding the limit. Regardless, re: a conversion from a traditional IRA (or from a 401k), there is no limit on conversion -- that's the bottom line.

Re: the 5-year clock is the calendar year in which the asset was converted (or invested) in the Roth account.

Separately, for those who seek to retire early, like myself, you can use the IRA conversion ladder strategy as a way to tap 401k and IRA assets before reaching retirement age and without getting charged a penalty. It's also a good way to keep the cost of conversion to Roth as low as possible by spreading out the conversion over many years. That ensures you maximize the conversion being taxed at lower brackets. More info on this strategy: https://www.madfientist.com/how-to-access-retirement-funds-early/

Maybe this goes without saying, but be sure you're tax diversified when planning for retirement. There's no point in paying a 25% tax to convert now, only to end up with the major bulk of your next egg in Roth accounts in retirement. Hanging on to a Traditional IRA/401k that would only be taxed at 12% when withdrawn would be the far better choice. Just run the numbers before committing, that's all.

Are you suggesting one hops into a different type of account? Seems like a stout recommendation. Hopefully our losses won't last much lager, either.

It’s a typo that’s on draft.

Jammyjames — how does the crossover effect attenuate some of the risk you perceive from other trials that were longer living when blended, but failed when unblinded? Did those other trials that were promising at first glance have a similar crossover component, let alone 90% of patients receiving doses? As others have mentioned, it seems that approving DCVax on OS is likely going to be depend on comparing to historical controls rather than to separate arms within the trial.

Where are you seeing any language relating to insiders buying? Form D lists the officers and directors, and then provides a summary of capital raised from the latest offering. From what I can tell, that's pretty much it. The $880K is the total raised by all those (ordinary accredited investors) participating in the offer that closed 12/29. This is just concluding paperwork, not a massive reveal.

When you mentioned a second tumor resection and DCVax treatment that got me thinking a bit more about the genetic implications. As a scientist, I wonder whether in patients receiving an initial treatment DCVax-L and who experience a recurrent tumor, whether the recurring tumor is as genetically heterogeneous on average as that one found in an initial diagnosis. In other words, do we see genetic markers A through H in Tumor 1, but then only genetic markers A and B in Tumor 2? Could that be an indication that markers C through H were effectively addressed by the immune system?

I'm curious what kind of evidence there is on that front and whether biopsies of recurrent tumors (while tragic) could provide insight into DCVax's efficacy. Just musing...

That may very well be the case, but note that aeKusterer also posts on Twitter (and posted the same video). https://twitter.com/aekusterer/status/950574567843536896

Dan88 was talking platform potential: in other words, DCVax-Direct. While you're right that approval of L alone won't likely take it past $5 ps, the speculative aspects of the platform for all solid tumors could drive valuation well beyond that. We're talking about a much broader market if investors (or BP) are willing to extrapolate beyond GBM. That's not to say that it would happen if L gets approved, but it certainly is more of a possibility post-approval than if L fails obviously.

Except Cognate really didn’t make their millions? Or at least far far fewer million than they had billed. Unless you think the stock is worth something, or course.

Thanks, anders. I'm not about to drop $5,500 just to read the report, so I can't speak to its validity. But there's a big question mark in my mind as to what that "market" number encompasses. Does that include surgery, radiation, and Optune or other treatments? Where does the threshold for inclusion/exclusion for GBM-specific treatment begin or end? That level of murkiness makes it a lot more difficult to use it as a basis for estimating potential revenue and by extension (for your purposes) market cap.

I'd sooner advocate using a "bottom-up" approach -- how many people could be using this product and at what cost? To me, that sounds like a much more transparent way of estimating revenue than a "market" number whose calculation methods and composition are opaque. At this juncture, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree, but best of luck to you.

Thanks for the reply. Before trying to unpack your comments, can you just tell me where you're getting this $1.15B from? It seems seriously low -- like orders of magnitude low. Especially if you say it's worldwide. The U.S. alone has ~16K GBM diagnoses per year. If that spending were just in the U.S. alone, that would mean ~$72K in expenses per patient per year -- which (at only twice the price of the hospital birth of my child) seems really really low for treating a deadly cancer. I mean, heck, NWBO can sell its vaccine at $100K to just 10,000 patients per year in the U.S., we'ere looking at $1B in revenue per year. And that's not even considering the impact from the international market. To borrow a now-antiquated phrase -- this seems like fuzzy math.

Anders -- I typically respect your posts for their insight, but I've got to say this latest one about market cap really seems to confuse a lot of issues together. For one, the current market value of GBM products & services really doesn't tell us much about the potential revenue from this new SOC technology. Current prices don't dictate what a newcomer to the market might *earn* from a game-changing product.

Second, it really seems like you're confusing current market and valuation, which, while related, are not a 1 for 1 correlation. On its face, this doesn't pass the smell test: what about debt? future growth/decline of the market? Assets? EARNINGS?! But even more simply, revenue simply doesn't equal market cap. Just look at Amazon, which takes in $135B a year, but is valued at $580B. Apple has $230B, but valued at $890B.

Long and short of it is that potential valuation in 2018 and beyond is far more than just a estimating 80% of GBM sales in 2017.

Yes, but that’s a very simple calculation of the price x current outstanding shares. Yahoo doesn’t consider the effect of the preferred share conversion or the full execution of outstanding warrants. If we assume that all of those shares are baked into the current share price, then our market cap calculation should be:
MC = share price x ( outstanding shares + all shares acquirable by warrants + common share value of preferred shares)

Gosh, those are pretty bad odds. There's a lot of territory between the bankruptcy and home run so the 95/5 doesn't ring true to my ear. I'd put it at somewhere around 50/50 with one of the 50s encompassing everything from razor-thin approval to home run. As the Bohsie analysis (and others) show, the math of the blinded data really can't be argued away. Survival is survival and that bodes well. The negative X-factors are the effects of pseudo-progression and finances/further dilution. The positive X-factor is any foreign approval that may view things differently the FDA.

It's online. http://www.cellandgenetherapyworld.com/cell--gene-therapy-world-agenda

NWBO isn't listed as presenting, but the Cognate CEO is leading a roundtable on Tuesday 1/23.