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 agree. He’s not intentionally one. It’s his preoccupation that makes him not so nice. Bashing a company like this one, as he does, is not something a nice person does.
Is that supposed to be good?
You still want to pick as best you can, and keep your money invest prospects, so keep evaluating. But ups and downs are often about timing rather than long-term prospects and about temporary noise. So you have to learn to evaluate the full picture with regard to each company you are following and that is in your portfolio, as well as what makes sense to do with regard to rebalancing or removing prospects, sometimes only temporarily, and sometimes permanently from your portfolio.
I do not like to be in too many companies, because it gets hard to keep up. But a portfolio approach, in my opinion, is a better strategy, long-term, for managing risk. Single stock long-term portfolios are just way too risky.
So you just said she is smart to have a fail safe though manufacturing your product efficiently is a good thing and she now has created multiple companies that can do so... and then at the end you call her an idiot... i would guess that her flexibility and capability to stay flexible must really irk shorts, particularly those who play at not being shorts.
You poor thing. Is that you AF?
The FDA has clearly reevaluated that notion and is advancing cancer cures. It is called the 21st Century Cures Act and the science of oncology trials is advancing. That you’d like to go back to 1970’s thinking to make your point is duly noted. But you’re shouting into the winds of progress, old man.
I have been here for some years with no r/s, I am up many hundreds of percent. I have seen management regularly directly invest their own monies to keep the lights on and keep it going, and yet get attacked from all sides for doing so.
What’s more, that multiple trials took as long as they did to validate what will likely be a revelation and revolution in cancer treatment is not at all surprising.
What is really impressive to me and the reason I invested was the incredible and baseless attacks of shorts driving down the price so that I could get in here at dirt cheap prices. Thanks.
That you’re still here, may be an indication that all the things you try to use to undermine the company, HAVE NOT WORKED. You should be discouraged as it seems that your intense 24-7-365 effort, for years on end, has not resulted in being able to steal the assets for cheap yet.
You’re too funny!
I know you think I am some character called BioHarm, and keep posting as if I am. He or she must find your posts the same way I find them... Not very informative. But I do not know this poster. Maybe we should get together someday and trade notes on how ridiculous and conspiracy minded as I recall, are your posts.
But hey, that is neither here nor there. I am not this person and do not know them. I only post under this single ID. But you know, a person who suspects other people are posting under multiple ID’s maybe that’s what you do. I pay here so I do not need to do that.
Anyway, your notion is nonsense and companies that sell too early are facing problems. They may sell for what looks to you like a good price given their valuation at that moment, but usually they are facing some challenge that requires the assistance of a larger company for them to progress their technology. This company was able to innovate and move forward despite many hurdles erected I have no doubt by shorts who likely work in conjunction with their larger portfolio companies.
If they succeed they will potentially be worth a lot more than they would have been if they had sold at Phase 2. And if your notion is that your back seat, after the fact, driving is at all relevant at this stage, let me assure you... it is not.
Imminent news would be convenient given the pending approach of holidays, but of course still depends what the holdup is... if they have no control, then probably not. If they do have some control at this point, this next week would be a good time to drop great news before the distractions of Thanksgiving week.
The new tactic for shorts is to take the excitement from what looks to many as evidence of potentially substantial efficacy for DCVax-L that will likely be further assisted to expand efficacy both to more patients and to improve the efficacy for patients already helped, by creating additional combinations, and making that sound “bad”. Again, trying to make it seem like DCVax-L is grapefruit juice and it just needs the other drugs to be effective because it’s really just the other drugs.
Again, this is a tired extension of past posts that are not true, but get people discussing the topic on those terms... which then per their goal, makes the show seem to be the combination, not DCVax-L right now.
The subtle nature of their tactics seem to be lost on many retailers who traipse down these rabbit holes of distraction intended to muddle the narrative and suggest all manner of disappointments and to detract from the current and real focus of the trial and the expected narrative. This retards price appreciation and confuses newbies coming to the boards to figure out if there is anything here.
They are literally trolling for dollars...
No one actually knows if PFS was muddled. I actually believe otherwise, but that is neither here nor there. I believe it would have taken too much work and time perhaps if it turned out to be confusing but I think they would have found otherwise, but who needs to go that route when they could focus on the more important gold standard for cancer trials, survival rates.
These guys want you discussing old and useless things instead of discussion what is really going on. They hijack the narrative and create false controversies to confuse any new investors. That is the whole point of these social media strategies perpetrated by shorts and hedge funds. They know retail is easily influenced by fear, and manufacturing narratives and fear is easy. And that crates money for shorts.
It’s a very simple equation. Also, undermining these companies accelerates dilution, which is like a law of gravity for microcaps. And that’s why a certain challenged journalist whom we al know is beloved by shorts. They are literally running money from the pockets of retail and from the treasuries of these companies, directly into their own pockets.
It’s easy to understand what they are doing and why. They can also buy in on success, far more cheaply than if these companies naturally gained in value based upon their actual stories.
The notion that shorts are shareholder advocates is the greatest scam on Wall Street. It’s easy money for “hedge funds” is what it is, and at the expense of retail investors who do not know any better.
Your point is clearly refuted by the 2017 Federal Court decision dismissing the same claim. Are you asserting that a Federal judge LIED in his opinion?
These assertions are litigated on bulletin boards because shorts were shut down completely in the courts. There are no rules of evidence here so you can say whatever BS you’d like.
Court decision:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9XkDkpumQZSNklfRHVoUU10OVk/view?usp=drivesdk
These are ridiculous posts. Tiny biotechs are all over the place. There is no rule of thumb on this and anyone who posts this garbage is just messing with people. You should know better. Again, your post is for newbies as I know you know better.
Actually, companies that can’t move forward but may have something most often get sold for cheap then. Your notions are ridiculous. But you just post these for the newbies anyway.
No change. All of her clients are still in it. But she has already said that.
Why would anyone except another writer at his publication, who has to do it, want to associate with that low life? His poor little ego is so tied up in dumping on this company, they’d just be feeding him more things to attack. His ego requires that NWBO fails and he has shown no ability to adapt to another reality. He’s an immature child, whose ego depends upon being “right”, even when he is horribly wrong. And in that context, he is not a journalist. All my personal opinion.
Well done.
Thanks. good luck and I hear you. I really am not commenting too much on the company. Without real news, it’s really just to chat with fellow investors.
Happy Veterans Day!
No worries. Just trying to suggest ways to think about managing the risk. I go for big plays entirely in my portfolio. But I think managing risk, both time risk and total loss risk, is easier when you have a few companies in your portfolio. And you can grow the pie and lower your transaction costs rebalancing when you have some time differential in terms of stocks doing well and poorly. I buy when the companies I like are doing badly in terms of value. After I’ve done my diligence, red means buy, green means stop.
I try never to chase.
I try to be early. Patience in a good company, can pay off well. Traders have no patience. That’s their disadvantage. They can’t have patience usually because they are literally trading to pay the rent, for income. I do not trade for income.
I try therefore to maximize my advantage.
Vegas is fun. But no one stays wealthy long if they invest like they’re in Vegas. One big ride and some will be back for more, and they may still believe that all or nothing served them well.
Once the risk is off, I don’t diversify just for the sake of diversification. Get a good bit of the ride first, I think. But if you’ve been diversifying, definitely it makes more sense to have a few irons in the fire. If one goes out, and you have everything there, it’s a disaster, for most people. Some people have parents or others to bear their losses.
But for people who think risk of 100% loss is in any stock they are in, diversification is the rational approach to balancing risk against potential return and it also lets you take profits and losses to offset them, when you rebalance your portfolio. You don’t have to buy 25 or 50 stocks, but a handful that you can manage and use to manage tax liability, is a good practice.
After the risk is off, people sell too fast. They seem to think they are buying a commodity, not a company. It’s a traders mentality. That is when it becomes a rea financial instrument and you calculate the potential value and you watch fir it to either achieve the expected return or you rebalance.
So I was not going you advice, that was for GGB. He apparently has this whole elaborate bear case suddenly. The appropriate approach for someone with his mindset is not to be putting all of HIS eggs in one basket. He can hit himself in the head later if it succeeds, but at least he will not have had the full downside risk of it turns out as he suggested in his post. People should not post things they do not actually believe, so I am assuming he believes in the somewhat intense anxieties he expressed. The appropriate move is to diversify.
But it’s also a good practice generally, as some stocks can take forever and some stocks pop early. Look at that FATE! I bought that at $1.30’s. Didn’t expect it to rise so much so early.
Diversification is good. But pick the best companies you can.
Hi Sukus,
I am not talking about taking money out after the risk is mostly out of the investment. That’s when you take the ride you’ve waited fir diligently. Assuming there is good news on TLD.
I’m talking about managing risk when risk is maximal. Once the risk is off, taking your money out and putting it somewhere riskier makes little sense.
Someone like GGB seems to not have faith in his investment. The point of having a portfolio is you can manage the profit and loss and tax consequences, reducing transaction costs, and all of your eggs are not in the same basket when risk of total failure is a good possibility.
Once a company has a successful trial, and announces results and there is an initial pop, I generally don’t think selling ASAP is really the right move. Good move for a trader, not an investor who assuredly thinks there is real value to be realized, or they’d not have invested in the first place.
That’s just how I see it. Once you remove dollars at $3, to “diversify” at that stage, you’ve got to put those dollars back to work. And you may be losing out on the ride, while now picking new investments that are also 100% risky again or have a much lower return.
If you’re paying off your debt or something, and want to have that resolved to have the peace to let the rest ride, that’s different. Then you actually are reducing a real risk of sorts.
Any tips on the orange juice crop this year Mr. Duke?
Diversification is always a good idea. I hope you’re not in NWBO 100%. But, having said that, I do not say it because I agree with the bearish case you presented.
It’s still pending, but hopefully it gets approved or is close. It may, in fact, be a unique way of dispensing the two, and it could be patentable.
However, it also could be what I’d call a blocking application, intending to make sure that no one else gets a patent that affects their freedom to operate with combination therapies. Subsequent applicants would have to prove that their application is substantially different than this prior application.
That’s an irrelevant argument, but a nice to have. They should not humor AF. This is a rathole argument. The answer is not the point. It’s not critical. Checkpoints are another drug. Those are patented. Combinations are usually patentable if you have a very particular and inventive mode of dispensing the combination.
But that is a distraction. It is meant to deceive unsophisticated retail, and maybe others, by suggesting they can’t use the drug as discussed by Dr. Liau. That’s not even a possibility as long as both drugs are approved.
These arguments taking people fown overhyped fake ratholes are intended to suggest something is wrong, when nothing is wrong. And to distract people from discussing all the positive points and put them on their heels and on the defensive. That AF engaged and initiated such debates is testament to what his mode of behavior and his motives in these attacks are really about. He’s a journalist so he understands the communication strategy upon which he regularly embarks.
While he has free speech to have such debates, it reveals the pattern of a seriously bad actor in my opinion.
Dude, you know no one can patent a cell. Manufacturing and process patents, broadly stated are where the protection rests with cellular products. The notion that they are not actual patent protection is standard short noise. I’ve heard and read this crap with every cellular technology company out there and in the end it has always been a bogus claim by shorts playing on the ignorance of retail and then also playing word games.
Nonsense. They’d disclose a whole lot more than that and you know so. That would be an 8-K event. You know it too. Quit the FUD.
Yes, you can’t revolutionize an area of science with mediocre timeliness. Anyone can hit timelines if what they are doing is not all that amazing or interesting. They have to get it right. I agree 100%.
I agree with your post. Well said.
Same posts...
I’ve seen your posts elsewhere...
Not true.
Exactly!
There are more people here than ever, but nice try.
I don’t believe much of what I read here. People have a tendency to fill any ambiguity with what they really think themselves and then to attribute it to the company, which is often quite obvious.
Exactly right Poorman. But people are desperate to make their man see relevant. Of course we would want to buy any vaccine if it proved to be effective before others did, but that promise was entirely conditions and to our benefit, not Pfizer’s except that they knew, IF effective and not otherwise, they had a sizable buyer. But there was never a guarantee that their vaccine would be most effective or first. It was the Germans, I believe, who effectively funded the venture that Pfizer backed. And you know who hates Merkel.
Pfizer Vaccine’s Funding Came From Berlin, Not Washington
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-09/pfizer-vaccine-s-funding-came-from-berlin-not-washington
https://www.fiercepharma.com/manufacturing/biontech-curevac-bag-745m-german-funding-for-covid-19-vaccine-hopefuls
https://medcitynews.com/2020/09/biontech-gets-more-than-444m-in-funding-from-german-federal-government-for-covid-19-vaccine/
Academy award...
Your acting is great.
This is how codevelopment works. The originator has rights to research and continue making it, but generally all improvements are assigned with the original rights, obviously with a promise to monetize the drug and deliver royalties.
I think people trying to raise the UCLA add on combination studies, as if they raise questions, are just looking for more smoke and mirrors to throw up and confuse people who are not familiar with typical arrangements and might be easily confused.
Schwab too!