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.
Thank you for letting me know!
I haven’t seen any posts since this one. I just wanted to check to see if the board has been quiet or if my app isn’t working. Thanks!
Does anyone have any thoughts, insights or theories regarding the price action? Is this just short covering?
Thanks!
How do you think the pump and dump is being done? There has been no news, so I wondered how the buyers are getting sucked in? Thanks!
Nanotoday, I would say that your response continues in the spirit of civil discourse! Thank you for that!
Old news!
I agree in general, but would add that at this point, I believe Nano is in desperate need of a quick succession of substantive PRs. The trickle approach just isn't working anymore. Longs want to believe things will work, but we can't sustain ourselves on faith any longer. The Good Drs need to implement a real strategic communications plan which will clearly communicate substantive progress and the way-ahead. Teasers are having the opposite effect. People now look at what hasn't been said rather than what was said. It is too easy to create doubt. I don't think this is by intent, but unfortunately, it doesn't much matter in terms of the net effect on the SP. What we don't need are any more press junkets which talk of what might happen. I cringe every time hear about one.
Are shareholders limited to one question each? I have not submitted my proxy.
I am unclear as to the source of this message. ZincFinger used to post to this board. Was this a personal message that he sent to you? I've checked his profile and this was not posted by him. I apologize if I missed the obvious. Thanks!
Lose, I appreciate your distinction between constructive criticism and malicious comments masked as criticism. While I am one of the "longs" I try not to wear rose colored glasses, and there have been times when I fully agreed with questions posed by the original poster. On those occasions. In this particular thread, I suspect it is difficult to respond in earnest given the majority of the original poster's comments tend to be born vitriolic and rhetorical nature. If this is a genuine question, I would likely cite some previous solid points that have been raised and never answered.
Those sound like reasonable questions to me. I hope we get some clear answers.
I think you make a very good point. The Ebola situation is already a crisis, and by tying its fortune to this crisis, NNVC will be facing an acid test.
I agree wholeheartedly!
Leif, for what it's worth, I'm in agreement with you. I think that our company will continue to suffer from bashing until such time as it produces a succession of progressive good news. By "progressive", I mean news which builds on the same story. Thus far, I think our company has put out a lot of good news stories, but has yet to sustain a succession, particularly a timely one. When the release of PRs is characterized by a regular cadence, things will move the right way. With that said, it would seem we are entering a time when we can expect the company will soon be able to produce a steady stream of substantive good news. In the meantime, I can't completely dismiss the comments from the critics as noise.
BK, thank you very much for the comprehensive reply!
As I read through this thread, it seems that if we agree that Federal funding is required, then we should discuss the prospects of such funding. It seems to me that now that Ebola has landed in the US, the Federal government has an imperative to act. Now that Ebola has arrived, sadly this creates a financial incentive
I want to know what equipment is on backorder, how long, why and most importantly, what's being done. We're burning daylight, not to mention precious cash. This is of no minor concern since Theracour's exit clause allows for insolvency. If the company fritters away valuable time while bemoaning equipment backorders, Theracour's will not shed a tear, but we certainly will!!!
Rawnoc, your questions strike me as simple and straight-forward. I'm interested in seeing a PR that answers them. I have become concerned with the company's apparent susceptibility to "chasing the bright and shiny object" effect. To me, this is tantamount to watching "kid's soccer" because they tend to run to where the ball is rather than where it's going to be. In this case, the company needs to make a plan (I.e. Fiucide) and stick to it! Otherwise, as you've noted, the company will never get anywhere.
While I generally find your posts to be devoid of substance, I do find your points in this post to be reasonable. Ultimately, this remains a story stock. There is only way to prove whether it is you or the Longs who have it right; which is to see a steady stream of PRs which reflect actual progress rather than future intentions. Time will tell.
Also, I am curious to know why the company needed to raise more cash under the preferential terms described.
A fairy tale begins with "Once upon a time..." and a sea story begins with, "This ain't no sh_t!"
I do remember. I am perplexed and mildly concerned about the terms of the deal. Specifically, can someone help me understand why this benefits the company. 10% per annum seems to a a rich premium for someone who professes great confidence in our company. I am concerned that this sends a mixed message. If this is the case, then this is a good example of how our company shoots itself in the foot. At the moment, we are still a "story stock" and we can't afford to have any stories that even suggest that our officers are not acting both wisely and properly. I also would like to know why our company, which has previously stated that it has a sufficient cash position, felt it was worthwhile to raise cash in this manner and under these terms. Lastly, how does our company assure new investors, along with current investors that our officers are recusing themselves from decisions to manage to appearance, as well as any actual self-dealing. I see no direct evidence of this and give our officers the benefit of the doubt, but the unfortunate reality is that appearance usually equals reality in the court of public opinion.
For what it's worth, I've been long since 2007 and continued to accumulate over time. I have great faith and enthusiasm for what the company seeks to do and very much want to see it succeed both for the good of humanity and our financial well-being. I would appreciate the insights of those wiser and more knowledgeable to help me understand and feel more comfortable. Thanks in advance!
Much appreciated!
I think that when you're on point, you make very good points and pose reasonable questions. When there is cheering over a drop in the SP, it becomes more difficult to see the meaningful points and starts to seem personal. I appreciate the loyal opposition and hope it serves to help keep everyone focused. The hard questions are the ones that need to be asked.
This kind of post portrays a personal bias rather than a clinical observation supported by facts. It's too bad because this takes away from the meaningful posts. FWIW, I think "loyal opposition" is crucial, and although I'm long, I do value posts that help maintain perspective and challenge "group think".
Thank you for the comprehensive reply! What started as a rhetorical question ended with good info actually being provided.
Isn't this old news?
Malibuman, thanks for the info!
Thank you for the analysis. My knowledge of options is fairly rudimentary, so Forgive me for asking what may be a simple question, but is there any way to determine the amount of naked calls? It seems this would have some bearing on the impact of the disparity.
Thank you for clarifying my understanding with respect to the orphan drug status vs priority voucher. However, substituting scheme for scam doesn't change the intent to imply criminal conduct. I would be very reluctant to make such a statement without clear evidence. FWIW, it seems to me that to do so without evidence risks being accused of libel.
I would caution people on using the word "scam". That implies criminal attempt to defraud. Unless one has clear evidence, I would suggest a more reasonable and responsible use of language. I have seen no credible evidence that any past testing has been faked. Similarly, the FDA seems to feel there is something worth pursuing for it granted the priority voucher, which is estimated to be worth several hundred million dollars. In this case, the proof will be in the pudding. If it fails, I have not seen anyone offer any evidence to suggest the principles knew it would. It anyone has this kind of evidence, go to the SEC.
How many "biowrecks" have you predicted? What were the names? Can you actually prove your 100% record? If so, I want to subscribe!
Good question! Let's hope that's the case. Does anyone know the current short interest?
Old news that has already been the subject of previous posts.
Wow, thank very much for taking the time to craft such a detailed response!
I like the idea that the Short Sellers are paying interest while wondering how fast NNVC's pps might move up. It. I don't have experience with short selling, so I'm curious to hear from others as to how much pressure the interest expense adds to their decision.
Thank you! It will be interesting to see the next update.
Thank you for the insights. I was wondering if you think any of this accumulation is due to shorts being covered? To that point, do you have any idea as to the current short interest level. Thanks in advance.
Bloomvest, your statement constitutes a direct accusation. The word "siphon" has a specific negative meaning in this context. If you are accusing one or both of something, them "Cowboy Up" and make a full accusation. Hiding behind innuendo is cheap and shameful. An allegation such as yours requires substance to be considered credible. I recommend that you either provide the group with direct, specific, timely evidence to support your accusation or you retract your statement. As it stands, it is inflammatory.