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.
So we disagree. Bogus lawsuits are standard practice for baby biotechs. A few naive retail shareholders may get scared off but really it’s just the latest cover for a trading attack. The stock did not even significantly correct when it was first disclosed.
The damage to the share price has been ongoing for years due to trading manipulation. Alzheimer’s results were hardly the cause of that. And they are not the subject of the case.
Yes, but how is that fact relevant to my point?
Damage is not done by frivolous lawsuits. They are just the excuse for trading damage to be done.
They have to survive a motion to dismiss first. That does not involve proof, it involves the sufficiency of the allegations of the complaint. Which are weak, hence the allegations regarding journalists’ opinions.
It certainly does matter. Such a case requires intentionally false material statements. It also requires proof that the allegedly false statement, if proven false and intentional, proximately caused a share price to decline if and when the falsity is proven.
And the citation in a complaint to the opinions of “journalists” is fluff that is typically added to try to bolster a complaint that is weak on factual allegations. It’s an attempt to insulate the attorneys from alleging facts for which they have no underlying basis.
When a complaint states the opinion of analysts instead of factual allegations you can usually bet that they are grasping at straws.
Trading volume: 34 shares.
No, it’s the market maker defendants in the NWBO lawsuit that are doing the manipulation.
They have won some based on share price alone but their thesis is far from being proven correct. I would suggest more the opposite. Eventually that fact will catch up with them. Same likely on NWBO. Likely it is the same parties manipulating both, I.e. the list of defendants in the lawsuit.
Well, you got one of them right. And apparently you are immune to satire. Congrats.
Ya gotta wonder what shorts are thinking with NWBO, looking at potentially imminent approval. Even if it was only a 33% chance, the risk-reward is pretty scary at .60.
If I was 65 I would play it safe. I’d invest 50% into AVXL and use the other 50% to start up a tilapia farm.
That is exactly what I was surmising.
Is there a reluctance to discuss informal guidance from the FDA, as opposed to formal guidance from the EMA? Serious question, not rhetorical. It seems to me that the EMA process is different in that you can’t submit an application without permission to do so? Is the FDA’s “behind the scenes” opinion considered to be taboo for public discussion by a company?
Glad you believe in yourself. That’s refreshing these days.
Then we disagree. As usual.
What might happen before one year? An accepted MAA? Partnership? Positive peer review? Schizo trial results?
Congratulations. And good luck now with your current tranche of short covered calls. I look forward to you repeating “nothing will happen til next year [hint: don’t buy shares before my calls expire]” a thousand times.
That warranty essentially just paraphrases the section 10(b) insider trading law.
I am glad of that as well. Pension fund beneficiaries who gripe about a year or two for their investment timeframe would be a real headache.
The reason that certain technical levels develop is that to an extent it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Basically, for example, short term traders worry that other traders are going to buy/cover at a support level and so the traders pull the trigger near that support level to avoid missing the opportunity. It’s essentially a form of FOMO.
I do not know. I am not qualified to make a prediction of what guidance the FDA will likely provide with regard to Rett. People here are mainly just guessing, based on whatever bias they have.
There are several ways. Spoofing, HFT, churning/laddering down (trading shares back and forth between colluding parties at incrementally lower prices to create the appearance that real trading is causing a decline), naked shorting, etc.
Fraudstein is just their disinformation puppet. He is not a trader or a coordinator of anything. It’s the mm’s and hedge funds.
I don’t care if it takes a year, or more or less than a year. Whenever it happens is fine with me.
Disagree. The AD results were strong despite missing slightly on one endpoint, with a superior safety profile, as Dr. Jin has explained. The EMA’s decision will tell the tale. Even if it is a 50% chance the stock is quite undervalued.
And while we are at it, the condescending “biotech experts” here who minimize technical analysis as “junk math” are naive academic types who live in a dream world. TA is absolutely relevant, in the short term, at least. There is no empirical (mathematical or substantive) basis for it but the reality is that traders are conscious of it and it affects their decisions. That is all that matters. The market is determined by the decisions that they make and their decisions are often guided by what they see in the chart. Period. It is not an objective equation, such as a physics equation. TA is why support levels and resistance occurs. If you think about it, there is no objective reason that these levels would occur in nature.
There are lots of condescending “textbook” experts here. On many levels.
K9, you are correct, but the baseless lawsuit is not the reason for the share price. It’s cover for the trading, which is the real reason. As usual.
“Information” manipulation is largely irrelevant. It’s the “trading” manipulation that has the effect.
The people who deny the manipulation are clueless, living in a textbook world. I worked on Wall Street for a long time, and I worked and drank with people who traded huge sums of money. I’m Irish. lol
There are several former professional traders here who know, and understand. And the “efficient market” naysayers are clueless. Or they are liars.
It’s really not. Was the run up to 30 based on nothing the result of manipulation? Of course. And those who shorted did well. The opposite of that form of manipulation could obviously permit a similar result.
Don’t bother with the “this price is accurate” argument. That view is immaterial to the premise that I raised. You have your view of that and I have mine.
If and when the “corrupters” can no longer pull it off due to contrary market forces you can make outsized gains starting from a manipulated share price.
The fictitious premise that all longs have a $30 (post-split) cost basis obviously has no basis in reality. You may as well assume that all shorts have a $480 pre-split cost basis.
True, shorts can sell long term, way OTM puts as a hedge. Although it’s less secure than buying calls, since with short puts they have no control of whether they get exercised even if they are ITM. The long put holders could just close them out. And if a squeeze happens to exceed the strike price they will of course not get exercised.
Really the only effective hedge that the shorts can use is buying call options. They cannot have hedged more than a small percentage of the short shares, due to the relatively low number of such option contracts that are currently outstanding. It is nowhere near 20m shares.
I surely hope Missling does not delay a potential FDA application for AD by even one week as some kind of strategy to possibly get RETT approval first. Assuming the FDA permits an NDA FOR RETT and AD. The voucher is chump change, and I’m tired of that whole issue.
Now, if he can somehow play out that strategy without any delay for AD—which is theoretically possible, at least, because of the fast track, then of course he should go for it. If they need the OLE data for the AD NDA then the strategy is more plausible.
Expect at least “x” number of shares to trade today, with a closing price within the intraday trading range.
Wow, that is some serious hyperbole.
I guess Ken Griffin cut them loose. lol
Talk about twisted logic. Institutions are accumulating, wow, what a negative. Authentic nonsense.
Exactly what I’ve been saying. Missling has little (or nothing) to do with whether they get approval or not and, thus, whether the company succeeds. The trial results are what they are and experts are preparing the submissions. So will they design and conduct additional trials.