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.
haha, every bit helps. My 625 looks like 5 when you compare it to woodford and some institutions.
I will say that I own more than some of the institutions on record per Nasdaq's website
I picked up an additional 625 shares today
It is built into their cost of doing business, just like bribery abroad, Libor fixing, or Wal-Mart setting wages so low for certain for employees who work full time yet have to live of government assistance to survive.
Linda if you are reading this, get some rest. Knock'em dead tomorrow!
(for the record I don't think Linda is reading this board)
Great post
Yahoo's chart was clearly incorrect for a period of time today. They initially had the volume listed (where I saw it first) then the volume was gone.
I went to Nasdaq's site to review their information and the volume was there at the same time 10:39
Later after reviewing yahoo's site the volume was (and remains) there.
I was reviewing the press release, then reviewing the daily chart on Yahoo. after 2 minutes the volume at that time was removed. so I went to NASDAQ's site to review, and it was there. Now the volume spike is back again on Yahoo's daily chart.
This type of activity happens all the time in the markets across the whole spectrum.
Some is illegal, and it happens often. There are not enough market police to catch them all.
well someone had at least 18K share trade at 10:39 am (1 minute before the 10:40 PR from the new attorney)
Yahoo's site chart had the volume, then removed it from the daily chart.
I went to NASDAQ's site, low and behold
0 $ 7.73 100
10:41:20 $ 7.736 322
10:39:45 $ 7.72 100
10:39:45 $ 7.7205 100
10:39:01 $ 7.71 18,001
10:39:01 $ 7.72 100
10:39:01 $ 7.73 100
10:39:01 $ 7.73 100
10:39:01 $ 7.73 100
10:39:01 $ 7.74 100
10:39:01 $ 7.74 100
Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/nwbo/time-sales#ixzz3lorzzVDF
NWBO's villain position was filled years ago by AF.
Funny you bring up Salem witch hunts as they pertain to AF from Massachusetts. He certainly has a grand stand to voice his uncertified, unverified opinions on everything pharmaceutical.
Look everyone NWBO is nothing more than grapefruit juice, said no doctor, said no researcher ever.
Who is AF if he is not some little schoolgirl with a grand stand?
I was thinking of this analogy the other day, your post caused me to air my thoughts on the subject matter.
Yup, I am aware. We will need very convincing data and/or multiple updates for a continued period if we are to start a new upward trend.
I hope that is the case.
I would very much like to fill the gap above the current price that has been left open since August 21st, 2015.
To those who have been here long enough, remember the days when we first heard of the German HE news and the price action/volume that day, and second day? Remember the day when the direct data was first PR'd and the price action/volume that day?
For those of you who remember those days, here's to another day like that on Wednesday.
Wouldn't that be grand!
To those who do not remember, we had break out prices and volume. German news resulted in 30%+ one day followed by a consecutive day of another 30%+ day.
Direct data release was another 20%-30%+ day with break out volume.
This is an example of my "Hope" outcome for Wednesday
My "Expectation" outcome for Wednesday is +/- 5%
That may be the case with ARGS but let me tell you another story about ARGS. A brief review of their message board resembles much the same (as all biotechs do) shorts are bashing and pumpers are promoting.
From a technical prospective ARGS chart is far more terrifying than NWBO for the following reasons
1. The GAP below the current price is still very much open. Most often gaps are not left open. that means that the price has a high probability of going back down to the gap.
2. The MACD is flirting with a top, or very close to signalling a sell
3. The Stochastic indicator appears to be close to signalling a sell.
The fundamentals of what you stated may be true, as I did not spend much time looking through them, but with a cursory review if you were looking for an entry point you will probably be able to find a better entry point in the near future.
I don't discredit forensic accountants or auditors, my point is they just focus on one area and do more tests. A capable accountant could do the exact same tests.
When I say tests I am referring to auditing tests of accounts and controls, not certification tests. Although forensic accountants also have certain certifications as well.
Koman,
Your quote does not answer the question, it actually backs up what I claimed when I stated that purpose must not be negative.
If you think the probability that woodford or woodford's agent did not stop by hq to meet with NWBO management and perform due diligence on their books before investing more than $120 million is less 50% then you are fooling yourself.
And no a forensic auditor would not be required, to gleam additional details. A capable accountant could do the same job.
I thought your condescending response was humorous though.
Alright koman,
To provide clarity to your confusion under the Revised Model Business Corporation Act of 1984 a shareholder has inspection rights.
Under the RMBCA, shareholders and their agents have a fundamental right to inspect books and records that may not be limited by the articles or bylaws. Inspection must be at a corporation's principal office during regular business hours. The shareholders must give 5 business days' written notice that states the purpose of the demand and the records to be inspected.
Inspection must be in good faith and for a proper purpose, involving, for example, corporate financial condition, the propriety of dividends, mismanagement of the corp, the names and addresses of other shareholders, election of directors, a shareholder suit.
An improper purpose is one that does not relate to the shareholder's interest in the corp. Improper purposes include, harassment of management, discovery of trade secrets, gaining a competitive advantage, development of a mailing list for sale or similar use.
I bet you didn't know that koman. Maybe you should stop following pyr's every word. Who knows you may even make some money.
So the trial is going to succeed now? If the trial is going to succeed by increasing PFS, OS and quality of life above SOC and their process takes less time than prior vaccines, with a standard procedure, why then do you argue that an investment in NWBO is not a positive risk reward situation currently?
For the record I do think it is a positive risk reward investment right now. I have increased my position roughly 20% during this recent pull back.
Which by the way, we are still up 40% YTD.
Pyr, you are correct that financial information won't tell you if the trial will succeed or not, but it will tell you information about the company. That can provide insights about the trial.
You can not tell me that you can ascertain the outcome of the trial. You do not know the outcome of the trial.
You try so very hard to make that claim yet you cannot. Only the data can.
Nice try, maybe next time pal.
Pyr honest question, have you gone to NWBO's headquarters and requested review of their financial statements as a shareholder on record who does not plan to use the information for negative means?
If you have not done that then you have not done as much due diligence than Woodford.
You would also need to be a shareholder on record, which you have stated you are no longer holding a position here so you would not be allowed to request their detailed financial information.
The information is not insider information it is just information that they are not required to file to comply with SEC filing requirements.
So there you have it pal, if you cannot answer yes to my first question then you have not done as much due diligence as Neil Woodford's team. Nice try though.
Will review and follow up later
thank you
There will most likely only be a counter suit (or suit against the preying FUDsters) upon approval, when management has the kinks worked out of processing and the time to spend attacking the attackers.
It is a pleasant thought to think we get approval and go on the offensive
Further more if in fact the news is bad, and management claimed in a pr that the news is good. Then that would be the basis of claim for a lawsuit. They know the law, they are not going to open themselves up to liability with a claim, for if the news is bad then goodnight NWBO, for the lawsuits would bury this company. I just do not think that is the case here. I could be wrong, I just do not think I am here. I only risk what I can afford to lose, I would not be happy. Again I do not think the news will be bad.
I think we get financing and maybe an update of IA/German HE. I would love AA, but that seems to good to be true. I hope I am wrong about my perception that it cannot be AA.
I increased my position by about 15% total over the last week and today at the close.
Just noticed someone on YMB post this, thought it was relevant and worthy of a post here
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150831120316.htm
Hot off the presses!
My thoughts are that there has been a lot of time that has passed since the recording of the 6/30/15. I find the increase of shares held by institutions relieving, as a rebuttal to one short argument of "how come there are no institutional owners?".
What I don't know is what the tutes have done since then. on August 21st 4 million shares traded, the single largest volume day YTD. We do not yet have short interest data for that date (last date on record was 8/14/15) to confirm if they were closing or shorting more. I don't think the shorts would have access to an additional 4 millions shares to short, or if they did they probably would spend them all on one day.
My question is, who was selling that day? Shorts were probably buying in some of their short positions to lock in profit. Weak retail probably sold, but I don't think there is that much weak retail holders. If I had to guess retail holdings I would say collectively we hold 7-14 millions shares (roughly 10-20% of the shares outstanding). If that is the case then 4 million shares would be roughly 57%-29% respectively of the retail position.
That was my thought as well.
My next question, is there a time frame where the regulators must respond by?
Was asking myself the same questions, turned this up
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK286004/
Not much time to read thoroughly though, will read in detail in time.
Oh and by the way had you sold when the MACD indicated a sell signal you would be sitting pretty right now. I am not selling my shares, that is my problem (or reward, time will tell).
Ready I understand your not so subtle jab. Yep the MACD has not crossed over. I was/am watching it. I am not 100% perfect, and in fact I have on many occasions expressed that technical indicators/trading is not the end all be all.
I use technicals for context. Have you changed back to a pumper from a basher?
I use the word intent because that is one of the hardest hurdles to cross with burden of proof when purchasing stock on a secondary market.
If you would like to know more about what I have claimed and would like to verify for yourself I will direct you to the SEC act of 1934 that regulates transactions in the secondary market (we all bought our shares in a secondary market, primary market is when you purchase shares through IPO). In particular look at section 10b and 10b-5
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/securities_exchange_act_of_1934
Any short care to argue this? Like I said on YMB what happened to the ambulance chasers last year? Why did they fail?
That comment alone would be used against them if they were submitting negative data for review and would be the basis of proving intent to deceive for a lawsuit. As we all know they come from a legal background and would be well aware of the repercussions/liability from a comment made like that if made with negative/bad news in hand.
Food for thought for everyone.
Pyr I was just rereading your article from last year again and thought to myself how close you are to reality on a particular point of your article.
Given the choice to subsidize one or the other (insurance carriers will not bear the burden of subsidizing two novel therapies for the same indication), insurers and doctors would certainly choose DCVax-L over Rindo. Also, should data indeed show such an improvement over SOC, the Ph III DCVax-L trial would be halted mid-2015, and a BLA filed. CLDX has to wait until at least early 2017 to learn Rindo's fate. DCVax-L would have been approved long before CLDX receives top-line data on its Ph III trial (let alone begin the process of filing for approval, a process that can take upwards of a year)
Would early August constitute a mid-year halt?
How eerily accurate with CLDX prediction of 2017 as their AA was just postponed by the FDA for their small size and OS primary target?
I chose to remember this PYR and not the new one who appears to influenced without full disclosure.
Also my questions are rhetorical. NWBO is temporarily halted in mid 2015 and CLDX will not see their trial finalized and reviewed anytime soon, 2017 may be accurate.
The most recent quarterly filing had something to the tune of more than contracted for not more than capacity.
you can also see in prior SEC filings where they indicate the capacity for production as well as presentations.
Rest assured that when the regulatory filing is complete management will relay the details. I will patiently wait for those details of this trail.
That actually provides me with a great deal of clarity. I thank management for the follow up.
Here is one of my emails to Les,
Aug 21 (4 days ago)
to lgoldman
Hi Les,
I am sure that you are probably receiving a lot of emails and messages from some not so happy shareholders. If I may present a positive point to take from today, now would be a good time to re-evaluate the NWBO/investor relationship moving forward. I am of the impression that moving forward some trust will need to be reinforced. I am of the impression that clearer communications and regular communications will go a long way to mending the fence.
I must admit that with the press release today, I am asking more questions to myself. recruiting vs enrolled? What are the details included in the trial information that are submitted for regulatory review?
It may appear to many that this could have been avoided if management had preemptively provided this information to not allow the charlatans to spin their web of half-truths and misrepresentations.
I have done a great deal of due diligence on NWBO over the span 2 years, and I am committed to NWBO. I only write to attempt to provide a possible solution toward moving forward with investor relations.
Respectfully
I thank all the other shareholders who have also written letters to management for clarification of the subject matter.
Valid point
It is on the leader board
AF is a contra indicator
Buy when AF writes to sell
Well, for what it's worth I bought more shares today. Here's to filling the gap at $8.50. Still looking forward to the September conference.