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 really wonder if things haven't played themselves out in a manner the company wanted. To begin with both reverse split packages the company proposed were so bizarre they practically guaranteed being turned down, especially with a provision that if not voted it was counted as a no vote.
It just might have been their intention to have it play out in such a way as to have the stock up to something like the dime to quarter range, and then perhaps ask for something like a one for four, where investors might willingly go along. I'm not saying that even that is necessary, it isn't, the O/S isn't really that excessive today, and with a reasonable share price they can bring in needed funds, or partner at a substantial financial gain once they have proof that the cream works.
I had certainly doubled my position earlier this year with the intention of selling off the half of the shares that I paid substantially more for. Now I'm not doing that, but will sell enough to give me some tax loss for the year. As of now I don't intend to sell until Tuesday as a market order, I do have a limit order in place at substantially above the current price. I did confirm with Fidelity that a trade made in that way is all that's necessary to establish the sale this year.
I frankly am getting rid of some cannabis stocks I've owned that are now worth practically nothing, but after the patent grant OWCP became one to hold, and perhaps even add to. It may be awhile before we see it at new all time highs, but at least now that vision has been restored to the company. Additional patent approvals and clinical trials will determine just how far it could go, or at what price it might be bought out for.
Gary
Options often don't vest immediately, but they still are part of the package. A decision to leave before they vest would leave the executive without them, but it doesn't mean they weren't in the package in the first place.
Frankly I'm of the belief that the executives in general are greatly overpaid, mostly by the option package, but as long as the compensation committees and BOD are essentially made up of executives, all who want to see similar compensation from their companies, it's unlikely to change anytime soon. I suspect that if the executive incentive package was in any way tied to the gains made by employees, employees would gain much greater annual increases.
I frankly never could understand the idea that a country was socialist or communist and yet so many very wealthy people came from there. It's said that if all his wealth was revealed, Putin would probably be worth more than anyone else in the world.
There was far less greed when I was a kid and people who were the highest earners paid well over half of each dollar they made to the Govt. Now these people fight to not pay taxes at all, and many pay less on a percentage bases than the average wage earner. I was fine with lowering corporate tax rates, but with it, I believed all sorts of loopholes should have been eliminated, that didn't happen and some of the most profitable companies in the world pay no taxes.
If it were up to me, the entire tax code would be thrown out, and we'd start from scratch in a much simpler way. I don't believe the whole thing should be more than 100 pages double spaced in 12 font and at no more than a tenth grade level. Then it wouldn't take a staff of tens of thousands or more to administer, and the tax laws would be so simple you couldn't get bad advice from the IRS. As is, if you follow the advise from the IRS and are audited, if the advise is wrong, you still pay including any penalties they tack on, the laws are so complex even those administering them don't understand all that's in them.
There is no doubt that LP and others in management here are wealthy, but their wealth is minor when compared to the wealth of other key executives. The key isn't how much they're worth, it's how much wealth they can help shareholders to make, as long as those numbers are good, I'm fine with whatever they earn.
Gary
That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying that part of the entire package they offered him included the options. Having options is as big or bigger in terms of awarding people with incentives to grow the value of the stocks. He'll have a sizable holding in the company once the options are exercized, but they'd be worthless if there is no success.
I have no problem with key people earning options rather than buying stock, in many cases key people are prevented from purchasing stock much of the time as they have inside information on what's happening. Certainly there are times when they can purchase, but it's never announced that company personnel may now purchase stock, you know they can if they do it.
I know in IMGN when options vest certain executives either cash them all in immediately, or at least in sufficient numbers to pay for the entire purchase, they're purchasing them at a substantially discounted price. Some people are concerned that they're selling, I'm not as I also know they're holding a lot of shares. A former executive sold much of his holdings, not because he didn't believe in the company, but because he was advised not to have such a concentrated position.
I believe people place too much emphasis on executives buying, or selling stock. An old broker friend of mine pointed out that like any of us, they do things like purchasing homes, cars, putting kids through school, etc and may need or choose to cash in stock to do so, likewise when they purchase it may be for the purpose of gifting the stock to a friend or relative. Most executives receive plenty of stock options in their incentive package, they'll be very wealthy if they make the rest of us wealthy as well.
Gary
I frankly don't understand the concerns about Cofer Black, or anyone else who holds options, rather than owning shares. The options are an indication that the holder believes in the company, and will take the stock when the price is sufficiently higher that it can be converted with little or no cash out of pocket. A good options package is often worth more than a higher salary package, but fewer options, if you truly believe in a company.
As for Cofer Black, the man has connections, I believe that's how he benefits the company. I suspect that when he calls, most people will answer the phone.
Many years ago my father had a sales agent who formerly pitched in the major leagues, he didn't always get the sale, but he almost always at least got in the door as people knew his name. It was also impressive when he'd take customers to major league games anywhere, they'd go in the dugout and many of the current players would greet him. I don't believe most knew him, but I think they were alerted he was coming, and it's like a fraternity, you're treated like one of the boys, and in the future today's players know they'll have the same advantage. Customers were always very impressed. I believe much the same occurs when you get a call from Cofer Black.
Gary
It's sad. Years ago I was a juror in a wrongful death case where the patient presented with a 107 fever. The Dr. wanted to do a spinal tap, but was told to stabilize and transfer the patient to the insurers hospital, it took him several hours, but he did so. He didn't administer an antibiotic, as he knew it would throw off a spinal that they would do on arrival. The patient was septic and passed away shortly after arriving at the insurers hospital. If you used a dart at a board with all the antibiotics available, any one would have prevented the death.
The Dr. at the admitting facility didn't do what was right, as they previously hadn't been paid when they did, and they were told to accept the insurers guidance which was coming from an accountant there. It turned out the patient had a history of illness all her 8 year life, but a relatively cheap test had never been run by the Doctors for the insurance company, which would have shown she was born without a spleen, a very rare condition. In the end, the Jury made a substantial award with the majority coming from the insurer, but both had some guilt. The doctor at the admitting facility attempted to do what was right, but essentially accountants at both facilities had more to say about what he should, and shouldn't do then the medical staff.
One of the things I really like about City of Hope is they seem to do what's best for the patient, than they fight if necessary to get paid for what they do. A few prescriptions they wanted me on took a few days to get approval, but they never substituted to something the insurance company demanded. As the patient they never really told me of the problems, I just knew it would be a few days, and that was how long it took.
I know of at least a few cases where personalized medications were made there, including modifying T-cells from the patient to fight a particular form of leukemia. My treatment has shown no sign of the leukemia since stem cells were given about four and a half years ago. Potentially I could come off chemo at 5 years, but yesterday in discussing it with my Dr. I probably won't, but perhaps will cut down. Before the stem cells my numbers bobbled, it concerned him enough to believe that even after five years they might do so again. He assured me their were better ways of treating me today if I came out of remission, but he indicated it's not something he wanted to put me through, so I'll probably err on the side of caution.
Gary
I am a Democrat, and I support the idea that healthcare costs must come down, but I don't understand precisely what Medicare for All means, and I believe it need an explanation. I do have Medicare, but I also have insurance from both my prior employer, as well as my wife's, we're both retired.
All the people I know on Medicare are still associated with some hospital group, etc. In my case, most my Doctors are associated with Cedars Sinai or City of Hope, but I can go elsewhere. I know many who are in an HMO, mostly Kaiser Permanente, they have hospitals and other facilities in many places. I have not heard any politician say what happens under their Medicare plans to such organizations.
If the Public Option takes over for the insurance company, what happens to all the facilities like those owned by Kaiser Permanente. Friends of mine are retired doctors with Kaiser Permanente, they essentially own a part of the company, and their pensions come from that, what happens to them and all the people who work for Kaiser.
I'm not suggesting that Medicare for all can't work, it just must be better defined, and I believe they have to address all the existing facilities involved in healthcare. I suspect that if Medicare for all is implemented, their will be work for all the Doctors, nurses, etc, but a lot of accountants will be out of work and while that works for me, something needs to be found for them to do.
I believe that if Doctors were allowed to make decisions without accountants standing in the way, we'd all get better healthcare, and costs would go down for not having so many accountants and reports the Doctors need to fill out, but the patients would be better because they'd get the best drug for their problem, rather than the one the accountant told the Dr. to use first. I certainly believe that Tort reform is needed as well, legal issues should be cut way back, so attorneys would also need to find other work.
My Doctor's office is rather old fashioned, several Doctors work out of the same suite of offices, and you cannot believe the amount of paperwork piled up everywhere there, as they've not computerized their practices. Some of that paperwork is no doubt what must be filed with insurance companies, other gives them the technical information they need, regardless, they need to use the computer far more and save the trees, but if Medicare for all is implemented, much of the paperwork needs to go away if they really want savings.
At City of Hope it's just the opposite, my Dr. has all the information he needs in the computer, including most of the lab work run on me roughly a half hour after my blood samples have been taken. You don't mind waiting to see the Dr. when he gets the up to the minute information, something that doesn't occur at my internist who'll call when he gets the labs and sees something to look at, requiring another visit. When I leave COH I have a printout of my labs, all my medications, etc which I can share with other Doctors and sometimes avoid further blood tests.
I believe much can be done to streamline medicine, perhaps one of the easiest changes would be having the lab work done before going to the Doctor's office at some local center, I suspect many drug stores could do it with minor changes. Then before you ever arrived at the Dr. Office the results could be checked, and the whole examination would be simplified. I don't mind waiting at COH, but it would be even better if I went into the local CVS the day before my appointment and went directly to the Dr. on arriving there, instead of going to the lab.
Gary
Bill,
While I agree with you completely, I don't believe anything of real significant's will happen until political funding is dramatically changed. How many billions do BP and other healthcare related organizations pay to fund our politicians. A President may be able to tweak the system, but real change can only come when Congress, as well as the President, isn't being funded by the people we'd have them legislate against.
Personally I think the greatest waste in the world is funding politicians, you might as well just burn up the money. Political campaigns should involve a series of public debates, and they ought to be done over a matter of a few months, not years. Politicians need to be in Congress when they're in Washington D.C., not in the Office Bldg where they spend most of their time raising funds, something they cannot legally do from their official offices in the capitol.
Of course this would eliminate PAC's of all kinds, accept they could present proposals to the voters, and defend them in public debates where both sides would be represented. TV and other media would be limited to reporting what was said, no commercials. I suspect the cost of a lot of things, not just healthcare, would come down.
It won't happen, but we'd have a much better world if it did.
Gary
I doubt very much such a ratio would be used, but an R/S isn't beyond the possibilities. I believe when the unblind we'll see a share price of $1 or more. At that time I don't know that investors wouldn't go along with something like a one for four which could put the company on the Nasdaq, as well as giving them far more flexibility in partnering. Actually even a one for two could be sufficient as the partnership should move the price at that time well over $4 if we had the 1 for 2 before it.
Long term, I don't believe it's necessary, but it could be desirable to move to the Nasdaq sooner, but really not that much sooner. With our current share structure, once approval of the vaccine is anticipated, even without a partnership, a market cap in the billions is very possible, so we should at least be close to a Nasdaq listing, and we could be on the AMEX if we choose.
I believe the key is unblinding and watching what happens, it's very possible the data is so compelling the $4 price is achieved immediately and sustained. When this trial is unblinded, I believe a lot of people will want it in their portfolio, likewise Institutions, no telling how high it may go if that is the case.
TSLA currently has a market cap of over 77 billion dollars, to the best of my knowledge they've yet to make a profit. I like the car, but I'm unsure if they'll ever be profitable. The perception is that they're successful, and that's what has the stock where it is. I believe once trial results are out NWBO may be perceived to be very successful even if it hasn't yet occurred. Perception is often more important than reality. My favorite comparison is IMGN and SGEN, I believe the difference between the companies is largely that SGEN is perceived as successful, while IMGN is not, if you look at their technologies you might conclude IMGN's are superior, certainly close, but that hasn't mattered. Look for yourself, see if it's just my opinion.
Gary
I would be slightly surprised if they PR unblinding. In other companies the first investors knew a trial was unblinded was when top line results were announced. I really can't say how long it takes between unblind, and top line data, but suspect it may be weeks.
In other companies they've given much the same sort of guidance that NWBO has in essentially giving the status of the trial as being near the point of unblinding. In some cases the trial results were positive, in others negative, but it really didn't matter, the company did it essentially the same way. Once the top line data was revealed, the company generally announced a conference call and webcast to discuss the data and the direction being taken from there.
I would hope that if such a conference call is announced it happens after at least a few hours after the TLD announcement. I say this because on more than one occasion that wasn't the case. A release was put out at 8 a.m. EST, and a webcast was conducted at 9 a.m., as a West Coast investor all was over before I ever got out of bed. As soon as I looked at the quote price I knew something was up, but I was hours behind before I knew what. Companies used to do such things after the market close, but Analysts are largely on East Coast time, and they prefer not staying after the market close, so most such presentations have been scheduled before the open. Admittedly, even when I know a call is coming at 6 a.m. or earlier I'll usually choose not to get up for it, but it's nice to at least have the choice, and on occasion I do set an alarm and listen in live. Hearing the webcast after the fact isn't nearly the same, as by the time I've heard it I've already read the impression of others at cites like this one.
Gary
A little retrenchment after recent gains is normal, hopefully we'll build back up shortly. I believe that we're soon to get news of a partner for IMGN853 as the new trial certainly quickens the path to approval. I hope that IMGN sticks to its guns about keeping the U.S. to itself in any partnership, they need to revenue that wholly owning a drug should bring, rather than royalty and milestone payments they're tempted to monetize.
If such a partnership were announced, I would not be surprised to see double digit prices again, and $20's or more as trials reached their conclusions, probably in 2021.
Happy New Year's all,
Gary
While I certainly am curious about Black's involvement with the company, I'm not overly concerned about it. I suspect that someone told him about what was potentially a very good thing, and when he investigated it, something he's certainly capable of doing, he wanted to get involved.
I have no doubt that he has all sorts of connections all over the world that potentially can benefit the company. It's not that he's a scientist, it's that he's know practically everywhere. Certainly there was a time when he didn't want to be known, but clearly now he does, and I believe he can be of benefit to us.
Happy New Year's all,
Gary
It's perfectly normal for stocks to retrench after substantial gains, and that occurred earlier today, now we could be set to go substantially higher. Something else that's occurring right now has to do with the personnel found at brokerages, MM's, etc. for the most part senior management is on vacation, and probably will be through at least New Year's, if not all of next week. That being the case, my old broker used to say, the kids are in charge of the store, and they like to play.
I believe that if our cream is effective, we're dramatically under priced, but if is a huge word even if only comprised of two letters. It's up to the company to prove that their pre-clinical work is valid when actually used on people. While I'd be surprised of no one has ever tried it, or a very similar formulation, but it's not documented. I'm hoping the Phase 2 is not a blinded trial, if that's the case we could routinely see updates of what's happening.
I don't believe the company has ever stated they believed the cream is the cure for psoriasis, I'm unsure if any of the drugs with all their negative side effects cure it if their use is stopped, but it should greatly reduce the psoriasis while it continues to be used. The same is probably true of treatment of acne, etc.
Back when I was a kid I routinely saw a dermatologist for acne, much has changed in the past 50 years or so and while treatment is better, they still don't have a cure. I believe our cream may be a good treatment, but again not a cure. The reality is, it doesn't have to be, billion dollar products often don't cure, rather they control, and that's equally true for diseases as deadly as cancer and those as much a nuance as acne, the flu, or a headache.
With a little over 2 days remaining in the trading year it would be nice to end at or near highs. I certainly still intend to sell a few share for a tax loss by Tuesday, but it's far from my total holdings, and I'm happy not to have sold it previously at much lower prices. I don't know that next year we'll see new all time highs, but if some efficacy is seen in some of the earliest patients in the Phase 2 Trial, I certainly believe over a dollar possible in the coming year.
Happy New Year's all,
Gary
I would certainly hope that anyone in management of a BP would understand the potential of vaccines that benefit cancer patients. Thing is, it can actually work to their benefit, not their detriment. Why? Because by themselves the vaccines have benefit, but alone they're not curative. I.E. if patients on the vaccine are living substantially longer, by producing drugs that have synergy with the vaccine you have the potential of greater sales than with current SOC products.
I do believe BP will eventually attempt to buy out NWBO, but if they buy in by partnering, it may diminish the likelihood of a buyout by anyone but the partner.
I believe that things could happen rapidly once the trial is unblinded, if potential partners or buyers have confidentiality agreements in place, they will have access to the raw data even before top line results are released. That's not to say a partnership will occur that rapidly, it does take time, but it could largely be structured by the time top line results are released. If I'm right, and a partnership occurs, say by second quarter of the year, it will be the partner who largely is responsible for the BLA which hopefully would be filed before the end of the year, perhaps even by the end of the third quarter.
Depending how the partnership were structured, the partner may, or may not have an ownership position in the company, if they do, they would no doubt also take some responsibility for the advancement of DCVax-Direct in trial. If they don't, the money they pay NWBO for the partnership will no doubt fund the new trials. I rather like the partner having an equity position in the company, and ideally some shares come from the company, but more come from investors who tinder their shares at a price established in the partnership, which almost immediately sets a new trading range for shares in the company.
Gary
While I agree with you completely on AF, I believe the market itself is far worse as companies make money bringing other companies down. I don't know what the statistics are this year, but a few years ago I read where the top ten hedge fund managers bonuses were nearly a billion each. To them it doesn't matter how the money is made, and much of it is made on the short side, occasionally taking company's all the way to bankruptcy.
I'm old fashioned, I believe that stock investments should be for appreciation, but clearly that's not the market today. I don't know if can ever return to the way it once was as it was pointed out to me, if it weren't legal here in the U.S., trading would just move to a country where it is legal.
AF certainly works with some who're looking to short, but so do so many others, some who in fact may be posting here. In the case of AF, when the results come out, don't bet that he won't try to make it sound like he always believe in NWBO and its vaccines.
I'm not a fan of any analyst that will lower the rating on a stock once it's target price has been met if the stock isn't evaluated and a determination made that it doesn't have further to go. When an analyst sets a target of say $15 on a $10 stock, and rates it a buy. Then the stock suddenly reaches $15 and it's downgraded to a hold, but the stock continues up to $25. The analyst will say he got the gain from $10 to $25, while most clients will sell at $15 to buy into the new buy rated stock. My point is that most people who follow Analysts take a downgrade from Buy to Hold as a reason to sell. I'll respect the Analyst who looks at a stock that makes the target and determines the target should be raised, not simply lowering the rating to Hold.
From a quick look at the board today, the shorts are panicking. I would suspect that the brokerages they're working with are calling them routinely, and it won't be long before they are forced to square accounts.
I believe that investors here really need to look at the potential of OWCP. Look at the market cap today, what should it be if trials demonstrate that the cream benefits people with psoriasis, acne, etc. I believe it should be in the hundreds of millions or substantially more. If it were a half billion, it would be 50 times what it is today, and that would just be a good starting point.
The point is, just on the strength of one patent, this stock has a long way to run as long as the patented products work. A trial is scheduled, so it won't be that long before it's determined that it works, or not, though a much longer trial will probably be necessary for approval by the FDA and other regulators. While it's very possible the product can be sold without regulatory approval, with it insurance may pay when it's prescribed. I believe well before any of this occurs, the cream, or the entire company will either be partnered, or purchased, and it will be up to those who do it to determine what the marketing strategy will be.
Gary
I believe some of my posts have been misinterpreted if people here don't believe I thought we could be bought out at $20 or more billions. What I've been saying is a BP or other won't pay $20 billion for a company with a market cap under about $10 billion. They may agree that $20 billion is a fair price, but their stockholders would kill them if they did. So what do they do, they either wait for the stock to reach a market cap of $10 billion or more, or they assist in getting it in getting there, perhaps with a partnership. The point is a BP wants it's investors to agree that they are getting good money when the buy another company, they may know the company is worth $20 billion or more, but the world needs to see it that way. If the market cap is at least $10 billion or more, then they will consider a $20 billion offer.
Today their may be some BP's looking at NWBO, but they know what the company wants, so they wait for results that will get it to a range where they can offer it. Once we have news, when they're ready they'll push the price to one which justifies a buy at NWBO's price.
Gary
No BP would ever consider a price that is more than a double of the current price. It's up to the news and perhaps a partnership to take it at least half way there, then a buyout is possible.
Gary
No it got voted down.
One reason they gave for it was the price below $.01 would cause them to lose the OTC listing, that problem will be gone when we're above $.01 for ten days running, I believe we're getting close if it's not already happened.
With one patent coming through, and hopefully more in the future, I believe we'll continue to move up as long as the company advances into the clinic. Of course it's what happens in the clinic that determines what the patents are worth. If in fact the cream works on psoriasis and other skin diseases, I believe you could move the decimal point a couple places to the right, and then some.
If they get the patent for the sublingual tablet, and it permits multiple formulations administered in this way, I believe that it could become the preferred way to administer all sorts of cannabis formulations with none of the problems found with smoke, vape, etc.
Gary
The last couple days I had put in sell orders to take the tax loss I mentioned I planed on, each time as the price approached, I cancelled and raised the price. All that matters is selling by next Tuesday. Tomorrow I see my Dr. at City of Hope for a quarterly visit, so I'm gone most of the day, in fear that I couldn't adjust the price again I doubled my price. I wouldn't mind if it hit, but if it comes close, I'll raise it again before the open on Friday.
I do believe that many of us fail to see the potential here. Someone actually bought the stock for roughly $.007 a week or so ago, that person now has nearly a 400% gain. In reality there is no difference between a stock rising from $.007 to $.028 and $7 to $28, or $70 to $280, it all depends on how many shares you buy, the percentage gain is the same. I know of few shares that move from $70 to $280 in weeks, or months, but it often occurs in years. $.007 to $.028 in a few weeks is rare, but certainly far more common then if the stock were ten, one hundred, or a thousand times that price. I certainly wasn't a buyer at $.007, but hindsight is always 20/20. I cannot remember precisely when we were above $3, but today we have reason to believe it could happen again. It won't happen this year, perhaps not next, but who'd be unhappy if it took 2 to 5 years to happen. I believe anything is possible if we get more patent approvals and/or positive clinical trial results for products where we own the intellectual property.
Gary
Thanks, I too believe in the people, but don't know them nearly as well as you. I hope you'll post here more often.
Season's Greetings,
Gary
Material events are generally when you get paid, investors think a lot of things should be material events that aren't. That doesn't mean such events can't be announced, but true material events must be.
By the way, I'm not a big believer in barchart, or other technical indicators that aren't news related, but I did note that IMGN was 100% buy, we're 100% sell. I noted elsewhere that I believe the greatest gains occur when a company that's 100% sell moves to 100% buy, I suspect that top line results will bring that sort of move. Here's a link:
https://www.barchart.com/stocks/quotes/NWBO/opinion
As I see it, the next big material event for NWBO could be a partnership, that would certainly be a material event. After a partnership occurs, their very well may be defined points at which the company meets a milestone, and that triggers a payment, they would all be material events. Not all partnerships are structured that way, but it's very possible it will be.
Gary
For those old enough to remember, Will Rodgers had a simple rule for investing, it was BUY GOOD STOCK.
He went on to say if it went up, good, if it went down, better. Remember you already determined it was good stock.
I can't really say that most here currently believe it's a good stock, but at some point we did, that's why we bought it. Personally I believe it still could be, and yes, I did buy more some time ago at about the current price. I will sell some to establish a tax loss on some of my most expensive purchases, but my average isn't anywhere close to the dollar I-G would have people believing in.
I-G said we'd never get patents. Certainly it's taken longer than anyone thought, but we've now gotten one, if we get more, great. If we don't, we still could be fine if the cream works. It's now time for the company to prove that the product works.
Current psoriasis meds that are taken internally have some really nasty side effects, topical's may help, but not very much. Our cream may not be curative, but if it helps more than other topical's on the market it certainly should be a big seller, especially if it can be prescribed and covered by insurance.
I really have no idea if at the time the company proposed the reverse split they thought they'd gain patent approval when they did. Had they known it, it was a foolish proposal, and totally unnecessary. The question is where does it go from here, and as I said in an earlier post, I believe at this point in the company's development a market cap that's ten to perhaps fifty times what it's currently at is warranted. Where it goes beyond that will be dependent on trial results, and other patent approvals.
Gary
Rufus,
I believe anything is possible, but we need clinical confirmation, or at least anecdotal confirmation. One beauty of treating psoriasis is that photos can speak for themselves. A picture of someone suffering with the disease before treatment is initiated, and a few weeks or a month or so later showing dramatic improvement would probably sell a lot of cream, even if it didn't have FDA approval. There may be laws preventing such photos from being used with few people tested, but if done under the control of a clinical trial, they could be convincing.
The thing is, what should the share price be knowing we have the patent, as well as plans to try the cream in a clinical trial. I really can't say how high it should be, but I believe over $.05 is very possible, perhaps a dime, or even a quarter is possible near term. Long term, what would it be worth if clinical trials proved the cream worked on a variety of skin diseases. To me, I believe blockbuster sales would be possible, i.e. over a billion annually. Right now our market cap is under $7 million, I certainly believe that ten times that is warranted if anecdotal proof of efficacy is seen with the cream. If we had clinical proof of efficacy, one hundred times that would be fair, and by clinical proof, I'm speaking of promising Phase 2 results, not what the regulators would insist on for approval. Approval would almost certainly take the market cap to billions.
Market cap, not share price, is the way companies should be measured. Look at practically any biotech where approval is anticipated in a year or so and the market cap is likely to be near a billion or more. Post approval it normally reaches into billions. Certainly by the time OWCP has an approved drug more shares will be issued, perhaps even double or more what's currently outstanding.
We currently have over 250 million shares outstanding, if the share price rose to $.25, and if management wished to do a small reverse split, one for five or less, I could understand that, but nothing like the one for up to seven hundred that they proposed. I frankly see no reason the existing shares need to be brought significantly below roughly 100 million shares so one for two or three really works for me.
The point is, if the cream works, even without a R/S we should be trading above a dollar once we have proof it works. That's really all that's needed to eventually move it to the Nasdaq as trials move it to actual regulatory approval. At some point a BP or other company who can distribute and sell product worldwide, or regionally, will partner with OWCP and fund the additionally needed trials.
Gary
I believe you're right, getting in before TLD is a great investment opportunity. The funny thing is that while small investors make the greatest percentage rewards getting in this way, history also shows that Institutions make the biggest dollar gains, and most of the time they won't invest until the share price is $5 or more.
For an individual investor who gets in say at a quarter, and sells to an Institution at $5, they've earned twenty times their original investment, but think of the dollars an Institution makes taking it from $5 to $25, it's far more dollars, though it's only five times their original investment. I'm certainly not saying don't sell, but I'm suggesting don't sell everything just because Institutions want to buy it. Of course if their is a buyout, it's out of everyone's control, we'll be well rewarded, but the only choice will be either taking the cash, or stock in the company acquiring it if that's an option. Personally I'd rather have my money in small biotech's capable of explosive growth than a BP, but with enough money, it probably is smart to have some of both.
Gary
I certainly could be wrong, but I don't believe the company will announce unblinding, nor do I believe that they'll say when they anticipate top line data will be announced. Perhaps some may know, and volume and perhaps price may do something before it happens, but I suspect that it will suddenly just happen.
Here on the West Coast I generally don't get up until roughly an hour or more after the open. I'll know somethings happened when I look at my stock quotes, and without looking I'll know they released TLD. I normally check quotes on my phone, once I see them, I'll probably head to the computer to learn more, though I can do it on the phone as well. I simply prefer to post using the computer when I can.
I cannot say that DI won't give people a hint at what may be happening, I just don't believe the company will issue a PR before TLD. I doubt it will happen before January 6th, when brokerages, MM's, and Institutions are all essentially back to being fully staffed. I would expect the news to drop before the market open. I don't know if such an announcement might garner an invitation to the JP Morgan Healthcare Conference, should it happen before it, but that conference essentially kicks off the year in the healthcare area, others follow, and once results are announced I suspect the company will be speaking at many of them.
Gary
Please don't use me as an expert, I'm just trying to apply logic, and to me it's logical to want to present the complete data on the Phase 3 Trial at ASCO. I've only been invested a little over a year, I've just read about all the things many of you have experienced that clearly frustrate most investors, at least in this company, but I've witnessed much the same in other companies. I certainly believe that LP is feathering her own nest well, but with success it will benefit all who stay with her. From what I've gathered, she was very well off without NWBO, so with all she's done, while ultimately having great financial benefit to her, without it the company might very well have folded, or needed someone else to go to similar measures, so I'll not put her down for keeping the company in business.
I believe that Dave is being sincere in telling us what he can, and is careful not to commit to something which may not happen on schedule. I believe all the company is saying should happen will happen in time, but clearly not everything happens as quickly as they, or investors, think it should. I do believe the SAP is done, so at this point the company, not others, should be in control of when they can release top line data, and when they can present it for peer review.
January could be a great month for investors if I'm right about ASCO as I believe at some point in January they will release top line data. It may already be unblinded, that's something most companies don't generally announce, and I suspect that's the case here as well. Summarizing all that's happened in over a decade in trial into a matter of a few paragraphs is something that needs some time to get it right. In reality, most such releases, even for drugs which have no trouble gaining approval, may not seem as optimistic as the results really are because the regulators, both SEC and FDA, abhor what they consider hype. I would certainly hope they tell us how many patients remain alive, and that they update the prior figures given for the top 100 by Dr. Liau. I would also hope they draw comparisons between historical data and what occurred in the trial. Because of the cross overs, I really doubt that they can accurately say what would have occurred had the entire control been run without cross overs. In reality this trial permitted most in it to gain advantage of the vaccine, and I suspect that those who didn't choose to may have passed on before they had the opportunity. I wouldn't be at all surprised if every patient still alive received the vaccine either up front, or on crossing over. That's the sort of information I hope we'll hear in top line data. When the company presents at ASCO or other peer review opportunities you'll see a variety of better technical information, probably several different K-M plots, etc, but it won't be in the top line data.
Gary
You're correct, but how much cream would be sold if it's sold as a drug by prescription, rather than OTC. Plus, if approved, it should be able to be sold everywhere, while in that it contains THC it would only be able to be sold where cannabis is legalized in cannabis stores.
The point is that, without clinical trials it could probably be on the shelves where it's legal today, with zero proof of efficacy. The company want's to be a cannabis based biotech, and biotech's don't sell unproven products. If in fact they have FDA approval, I suspect they'll also be much better positioned to go after other look alike products for patent violation, even if they're not exactly the same.
Gary
I certainly hope you're right. While I still fully intend to sell a few of the shares I've purchased to establish a tax loss, I've moved up my limit price twice in the last few days, and won't hesitate to move it up again before I sell for sure on Tuesday. At this point I'm keeping far more share than I originally planned, and who knows, perhaps before the end of next year they'll be very profitable.
While I certainly don't believe an FDA approval for the cream is possible next year, I do believe that we'll get information demonstrating that it's worthy of approval then, and we'll have a path forward to approval by the end of the year. If in addition we get other patent approvals no telling how high the stock could go in the coming year.
Season's Greetings,
Gary
I've been involved with several biotech's over the years and I cannot remember a single one where investors felt they were getting all the information they should. I'm not saying NWBO is perfect, but it's not that different from most in biotech, and a lot of other industries for that matter. About the only company I've seen that provides an excess of information to investors is on the Pinks, and routinely is pumping up the price, and selling more stock. I know some here believe in CVM, but I find them to be one of that type of company and will be very surprised if their Phase 3 Trial leads to an approved product. Frankly I believe it's been 20 years or more since I made a small investment in it, at the time it's symbol was HIV and the very same drug they're testing today was being touted as the solution to AIDS, they changed the symbol when that failed.
I read a lot of technical information here, much that goes over my head, but what I believe is undeniable is all the people who're alive in the trial. The FDA may not see it that way, but I believe people living with diseases considered a death sentence is the biggest reason a drug should be approved.
Gary
I believe that much may depend on who's treating you, and how much they fight for what they want. As a patient at City of Hope, I don't know of any test, scan, drug, etc that was denied after COH worked with whoever was necessary to get it authorized. On a few occasions it took a couple days for an authorization, but I got what the Doctor wanted.
My internist is offering concierge services, if you pay for it, he'll include fighting the drug company, and other things for what he'd like for the patient at no added charge. If you don't go for it, if he prescribes a drug, and the insurance turns it down, he'll fight for it at an additional fee, or he'll prescribe something else that they may go along with without a fight. I was recently prescribed something new, but he indicated a genetic was acceptable, and as fate had it, a generic just became available, no fight. The druggist questioned whether the prescription would be authorized until she found the generic, then it was no problem.
I mention this because I think it illustrates what's wrong. To begin with, the company originally supplying the drugs could price them lower if they knew they'd maintain patent rights longer. Secondly after all costs and a reasonable profit was achieved they would lower prices somewhat for even longer patent protection. In short, if prices came down sufficiently, many drugs wouldn't be challenged by generics which in the long term would benefit the original developer. Overall cost would go down, but companies would be as or more profitable than ever before.
Gary
There really isn't any reason for management not to play it straight from here, all of them hold substantial portfolios in the stock, what could be better than legitimately hitting a ten to one hundred banger with the news that should be upcoming in the not that distant future.
I certainly agree that management has done some bizarre things to keep the company viable, but sometimes such action is needed to do it. Could others have done it differently, certainly, but it's hard to say whether they'd have done it better or worse. If the trial news is as positive as most here believe, we'll all be well rewarded, and that naturally includes those in corporate management, and perhaps employees if they've invested in the company.
It's easy to criticize management, it's somewhat different when you're the one making the decisions.
Happy Holiday's,
Gary
You certainly could be right, I'm no expert about such things, but if true over 4 years after the treatment was initiated, it may predict that it's still working. I would suspect that many patient 4 years or more after initial treatment are in reasonably good health, but we all know that while cancers may be considered cured after 5 years, they frequently return. It's sad but the word cure is probably less frequently used, in remission is probably a better way of referring to a cancer.
Happy Holiday's,
Gary
While you may be right, I wonder what sort of surrogate endpoint would be necessary when all patients still alive in the trial have survived for at least 4 years, many much longer.
I would think that all current survivors would be evaluated either by the clinicians or their current doctors to classify their current status. I think they could be put into a few broad categories. One would certainly be those who appear to be a no current risk as no cancer can currently be found. Another would still have discernible cancer, but no progression observable. Others would be progressing, and some may be in hospital or hospice care and considered critical.
Perhaps if you had all this information you might be able to predict, for instance, where the median for the Top 100 would end up, but then you could probably look at the Top 50, and that would keep advancing. We really have little or no knowledge about the living, if most of them essentially are in complete remission, that median for the Top 100 could exceed a decade by a decade from now. I don't know that they'll look back at the trial after that much time, but it would be interesting to learn what they'd see if they did.
Other than the current status of all those still living, I don't know that they have much they can estimate. I wouldn't be surprised if many of the Top 100 lived to the point that it wasn't GBM that ended their lives.
I certainly don't know, but for discussion let's say that 50 of the top 100 are in complete remission, no cancer can be found. If that were the case, how would the anticipated life span of these people be figured. I don't believe the K-M plots have a provision for noting that certain patients seen on the plot are in complete remission and potentially could live decades longer. In reality, these people could be spread over the entire curve beyond 49 months from its origin.
Happy Holiday's all,
Gary
A very Happy Birthday Captain,
I'll be 11 years your senior toward the end of January, I believe by that time we'll have the top line data so they can include them in an Abstract for ASCO due by February 11th.
I believe by the time you turn 67 you will be thrilled with your investment in NWBO.
Gary
I'm not praising dilution, but if that's what keeps companies alive, and sometimes flourishing, it's acceptable to me.
I've been involved in IMGN essentially since it came public, and have watched SGEN from the time it came public. SGEN freely diluted while IMGN was much more restrained on using shares. I still believe IMGN's technology to be equal to, or better than SGEN's, yet look at the share price and market cap difference. SGEN clearly built on the capital it raised, while IMGN failed to do so, monetizing what assets it had. I still believe in the future it will do better, but it was a big mistake not investing in SGEN.
Perhaps it could have been done differently, but if in the end NWBO has a multi-billion dollar market cap, investors should do very well. Without the dilution it's doubtful they wouldn't have gone belly up, I'll accept the dilution.
Gary
Thanks, while I felt there were examples of this happening in the past, I didn't have one to cite. There is no reason to believe it cannot happen here.
Most of the stocks I've invested in had investors critical of management, it's not something exclusive to NWBO. In most cases I could agree with at least some of the criticism, yet in the end the management did keep the company alive, and sometimes, that's the best thing they can do while developing a winning product. In some cases that product never comes to fruition and the company's left worthless, but it can go the other way as well. The CEO who months earlier was highly criticized becomes the toast of the town as investors make a fortune.
Our CEO may have done some bizarre things to keep the company alive, many may have done it differently, but in the end, if the DCVax family of vaccines prove to be successful, all who hold will be well rewarded. Certainly our CEO and other executives with the company who've gained many shares as bonuses will do very well, few investors will have done better. The point is, investors will have done very well, and that's all that matters to me.
Frankly the CEO's I'd put down are people like the leadership of the Big 3 automakers back in the 1960's, 70's, etc that permitted American named products to become clearly inferior to the foreign competition, even when the foreign cars were made here in the U.S.A. Many of those people made fortunes while their companies needed Govt. support to remain in business years later, they sewed the seeds of that failure.
I admire people like the founder of Federal Express who at one point couldn't make payroll. He took what assets he had to Vegas and got lucky enough to make payroll. I don't know what he played, but clearly he played it well, and kept the company alive. It had to stay alive before it could thrive. Our CEO has kept the company alive.
Gary
It's all relative, a company with a billion shares outstanding can still have a market cap going into the hundreds of billions or more. Apple has over 4 billion shares outstanding, they're certainly not a failure.
What if the DCVax family truly works with multiple cancers, if the company remained independent, can't you see it having a market cap that's over $100 billion some day. I don't know that it will remain completely independent, but I think a BP partner could emerge and keep it that way.
Let's get the unblinded results from DCVax-L and some more data from Direct and then maybe we can better access what we believe the company could be worth after 1 year, 5 years, and perhaps 10 years.
Of course few shares work as well, just look at Berkshire Hathaway, but personally I prefer something I can purchase by the hundreds or thousands of shares.
Gary
For all who believe the next two weeks are business as usual, I really believe you should consider that many companies close between Xmas and NY. I was told by a broker decades ago that while the markets are open, most senior management take vacations, and as he put it, the kids are allowed to play. Sometimes the kids do like to move certain stocks, you just never know for certain what they'll do.
I would suspect that if NWBO is in the process of unblinding and summarizing the data, many who would be involved in the effort will probably be taking off at least some of the time in the next two weeks beyond the two holidays themselves. Note the stock market closes early on the 24th, but not on December 31st. As I understand selling for losses or gain, you can do it right up to the 31st, it's when you declare it that will count, even though the transaction isn't necessarily recorded the day you initiate it.
Perhaps the company will surprise us, but I'm not counting on it. If some of the junior stockbrokers or market makers decide to play with NWBO, no telling whether they intend to move it up, or down, but without real news, they won't move it that far. I don't believe many investors will be selling for tax losses based on this years prices, but if you've owned it many years, and need a loss, you might do so, but remember to wait 31 days to buy back in, based on the wash rules. Whenever I do that with a stock I really wish to keep I purchase as much as I wish to sell before the end of November, then I can sell at the end of December at no risk of being out of the company should good news come in January. I wouldn't want to be out of this company in January.
Season's Greetings all,
Gary
I think if you check back far enough you'll see CVM has done reverse splits a few times, also that the drug in Phase 3 has been used in many Phase 3 Trials and failed many times before, I'll guess it will do it again.
CVM simply does a find and replace all the paperwork they issue and now they're testing their drug in a new disease rather than the old one they previously issued the paper for. The FDA is fine with them spending the money as they wish as long as their drug is safe, which was proven years ago. As for effective, sadly it's still a drug in search of a disease, maybe this time they found it, but I doubt it.
Gary
Please correct me if something I believe here is wrong. I believe that for each patient in the trial they already know what patient population they should be put in. I believe they know how long they lived before progression was noted, and for those where they could differentiate, was it pseudoprogression, then actual progression if it later occurred. If they passed on they know when. They also know if they did receive the vaccine by reaching the second round of treatment as a crossed over patient, or not.
What they don't know is who initially received the vaccine, and who didn't. When they unblind the trial they'll learn who received the vaccine from the initial treatment. They will also want to verify that all who were living the last time they checked still are, or if anyone has passed away, and if so when.
I believe at that time they'll have all they need to announce top line data, as well as to create the full documentation of the trial. I would think that it might take a few days to attempt to communicate with all who're still living in the trial, and perhaps one or two might initially be called LTFU in order to announce TLD, but they'll be found by the time the complete data is reported. In short, TLD is a few paragraphs which describes in summary what they see on unblinding the trial, it certainly can conclude that patients had a substantial benefit, but it won't tell people all they would like to know, that comes when all the data is presented for peer review at a conference, like ASCO, or in a major technical publication.
In short, after unblinding I believe it could be a week or two to announce top line data, but I cannot see a month or more, as some here seem to think.
The unblinding might be occurring right now, and if so, some of the clinician and patients alive in the trial may be on vacation, so that could add a little time, but if that's the case, they'll be back shortly after New Year's. I believe that before the end of January we could be much happier investors.
Happy Holiday's all,
Gary