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.
Would've had to rush it while the patient was on their deathbed.
That's supremely dirty and there must be a special place in hell for that. And supremely stupid if they think they can get away with it. I have doubts about this one.
Because now that the short manipulation scheme is drawing to a close, they instead don't want people buying and/or holding for long so that they can accumulate on the cheap.
PT of $20 with a price of $2-5? Lots of buyers who don't look under the hood. Buyers that become the main ingredient of a short bonanza.
PT of $5? Not as worthy of buying. And when it breaks $5, it's harder to justify holding onto.
Starting to see the manipulation engine turn, IMO.
Beat me to this. Wouldn't be surprised if we're back around 2.00 by EOD. That's not to say I necessarily expect it, though. 30% chance maybe?
Aside from the clinical hold part, could have been audio snipped from a previous call.
Sick of their propping up their shiny "progress". What freakin progress? Clearly not the SP, so... what? File some papers a year late? What milestone has been hit in any remotely timely manner?
Maybe their progress is measured in shareholder dollars wasted.
So they had $25M cash at the end of January. Guess that explains the need for a chump change offering.
Christ.
I think I'm gonna die laughing. Broke, but laughing.
Wow. Talk about the anti-hype.
"business update" from the rooftops!
Word. Though I wonder how that plays with the ownership filing thresholds, since we haven't seen any.
Really makes you wonder where the rest of the offering shares went if only ~5M were needed.
What makes you say that?
Did anyone see this volume happening live in L2? Odds it was a dark pool transaction?
:)
I know, just throwing my thoughts out there on why we haven't seen any such filing. It's also partially not rhetorical, I'd be actually interested to hear some precedence on whether the chicken (being net -4M) or the egg (buying what would otherwise be a reportable ownership stake) comes first in this situation, legally when it comes to said filings.
If you're net -4 million shares and you buy 8 million shares to deliver your short position and nobody is around to hear it, does it make an ownership sound?
Pretty sure they're actively covering, but the biggest questions are how far they think they can push it down while doing so, and the rate at which they're doing it/planning to continue doing it. I can see the short interest decline being a rocky downward trajectory like what we've seen in the last few months.
Related, one of the more interesting questions I think is whether paying interest on shorted shares they are already ready to deliver is worth more or less than snapping the position shut in a very short time and confirming that the offering was in fact for them.
Most importantly, the company can only hold back milestones and investor relations for so long before they start drawing unwanted attention, and I think that time is close.
Indirect evidence that is available if you choose to see it and that has been presented here for months. The longer you've been invested and watching this play out day-in/day-out, the more tidbits of supporting information you'll have at your disposal that aren't readily documented anywhere and the more dots you can connect. If you haven't been around long, I see skepticism as understandable, but I'd advise keeping an open mind on this.
It's not meaningless because that killing they are making is with YOUR money. Wealth redistribution at its finest.
It's also not meaningless because if you know what they're doing, events become that much easier to predict. That directly translates into dollars. In fact, you get to skim your own dollars right back from their bottom line.
When we get there. Should be any day/week now.
There will never be evidence. There is plenty of indirect evidence if you're willing to look at it and GB provided an excellent summary recently.
There is absolutely no cost to anyone to consider the possibility, and you'd be surprised at the options that viewing the situation through this perspective opens up for you as a small fish.
But failing to even consider the possibility? Weak argument that just makes it seem like you're a plant. Sounds like you're just trying to throw GB off the trail.
Keep it up, GB. Every person that sees this perspective is one more person that eats away at these scumbags' profit.
Yes!
Also don't forget to view the short interest in parallel and the price performance once it topped out, and the fact that the short interest before December 2014 was miniscule. They were shorting directly into the rally they were creating based on their reputation alone. That reputation bit is what makes it very likely that the price will run again in order to continue cementing that reputation and enabling the cycle to recur.
Pearson hit piece? Nothing but a cover to make the mounting short position seem "organic".
I calculated the cost basis of the short position as of last summer to have a floor of about $150M, using month to month VWAP since December 2014. I use "floor" because it's a virtual certainty that they ran the price up and down all the time and that contributes profits in the interim period between establishment of the position and now.
That analysis is in my post history somewhere.
If they do retract, I would say yes it's definitely correct and it achieved its intended goal. If they don't retract, it might still be correct but the actual effect of the bluff wasn't enough. The offering makes up the difference between the actual effect of the bluff and the intended. In other words, they get their shares either way.
They did do that. The day the offering details were announced, the uptick rule was triggered and yet the price was pegged around $1.90. Since shorting was restricted, that means the pegging was driven from the bid side. Someone was scooping hard.
It's simple, the offering was a bluff threat to loosen shares for Adage. It came at the end of the retention bonus window because that's where it made the most sense -- Adage has had time to play during operation silence for months. The reason we haven't seen the offering closure is because it was a partial bluff that only needs to go through if the threat doesn't free up shares. Now it looks "sloppy" and delayed because they're waiting for Adage's feedback on whether to proceed or not.
Go through my post history, particularly from last summer. I presented plenty of indirect evidence for everyone to draw their own conclusions. Too much to reconstruct here coherently. Most of it has panned out exactly as I hypothesized, except the dilution happened at $2 rather than $5 -- meaning they're in even more control and greedier than I thought.
There will never be direct evidence by design, so looking or asking for it is a pointless exercise. It's up to you to connect the dots and arrive at your own conclusion. There's nothing wrong with entertaining a theory that is only circumstantially supported. We did it for thousands of years as a species.
But you and everyone else will say you need hard evidence even while being cognizant of this fact. Casting doubt is the only available defense because there is no evidence that opposes the theory, either. But the indirect evidence is mounting...
The dilution was a "favor" to Adage who found themselves balls deep in a short position they couldn't (or perhaps more accurately, knew they wouldn't need to) get out of.
When we soon reverse, the annals of Wall Street history will forever proclaim "Adage is great to have on board, they are true believers holding through thick and thin and they see great returns! See ADXS!"
And those cries will draw carbon copies of all of us into yet another slaughter of theirs and the cycle will begin anew.
Just wanted to chime in here on your question: I don't think they have done everything they can to avoid the offering. 'Cause the offering was planned in December 2014.
Lol that must be some kind of mistake or you must also have common shares. Warrants don't and have never had voting power here. It makes sense when you think about it, since warrants have the potential to never become shares at all and they're super cheap so the voting power/price ratio would be lopsided.
Us broke-ass warrant holders don't get a say in the vote. :(
Gantor, I'm hungry!
Just curious what makes you so sure? Anything other than just a feeling or do you have some specifics you can share?
I wish I/we could continue trusting what you say, but it was just around this time last year that you were predicting a turnaround that only materialized into a brutal loss for all shareholders.
In with Catt on this one. It makes more sense than any other time for the company to be sold given the M&A stars aligned in the market.
Unless "new CEO" also includes "acquiring company's CEO is the new CEO". Nothin' like technicalities.
Fair point, I hadn't considered the shareholder revolts that would happen at those other places. (Which is ironic.)
Conversely, does a BP want to pass up a potentially profitable opportunity and an opportunity to get a leg up on its competitors just because of that which they can't precisely foresee? I would think the further progressed/proven you are in trials, the more leeway you would get with something like this.
I could see it going either way. I can't argue for or against since I think we're just guessing.
I dunno... This seems like a bit of a logical leap to me.
"You don't have enough money, so screw you, I won't give you money."?
Wouldn't the deal itself resolve the going concern issue? Unless they're looking for no upfront cash on the deal, in which case... PFFT.
The volume spikes, probably real trading. In those quantities, I'm sure institutions were involved. The flatter portions were likely just HFT churn.
Intentionally pinned as usual. We were pinned at more or less the same level yesterday too.
The part that I found fascinating about yesterday's trading is that the uptick rule was in effect. It was still behaving in its usual pinned manner. To me, that means that shares were truly being scooped up at the bid as sells came in.
Today I think we're probably seeing the usual play on both sides.
We can talk about it when we get there. I highly, highly, super, double dog doubt it will.
The part I'm not sure about is whether we'll see the position shut in one fell swoop, or a relative trickle. Purely for concealment purposes, I can see it being the latter.
Sure thing. Couple more notes:
- No major issues have been found as far as the tech itself. I'm of the opinion that one of our recent trial results was a little soft but it shouldn't sink the ship. We have other trial results that are stellar. So the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
- It might be a good a time as any to buy right now, if you like a gamble and have the stomach. If you REALLY, REALLY want to gamble, ticker ADXSW is warrants that expire this October. They're a little over a quarter a pop right now. Be careful with slippage across the bid/ask spread, it's generally very illiquid.
- There are generally three camps as far as shareholders. Camp 1 is what I just put forth about collusion, camp 2 says camp 1's beliefs are "BS", also on blind faith, and camp 3 doesn't really know what to think so they just say whatever comes to mind or focus on the science instead.
Good luck.
None today in particular. The company has been completely silent for going on 8-9 months while the price has been utterly destroyed. Cash concerns have been an issue throughout the same time period. Mind you, this price drop was on top of a broader price drop that you can plainly see if you zoom the chart out to 3y or so.
10 million shares had been sitting short for about 2.5 years until this price drop, during which a number of large holders sold out. The short interest dropped to ~7-8 million during the drop. Short interest in the company was near zero before Adage Capital received a placement in December 2014 and the short interest climbed in parallel to the subsequent price run-up.
Yesterday they announced intent to issue 10 million shares (20-25% dilution) at all-time lows of $2 (20% discount to market) at a time when there are important catalysts pending through H1 2018, there are a couple of quarters of cash remaining, and during the voting process for the annual shareholder meeting in March. One of the items they are requesting is 30 million additional shares (bringing the share authorization up to 95 million shares), which is a point of sensitivity for everyone.
10 million shares issued at all-time lows at a time that doesn't make any sense, especially considering they have had ample opportunity to dilute at much higher levels in the months leading up to yesterday, while 7.5 million shares sit short. You do the math and draw your own conclusions, but my math says we've been had by hedge funds colluding with the company.
Now we're all just waiting to see what happens next and hoping we get our money back.
Welcome to the wild and zany world of ADXS, where the reamings are deep and the SEC is absent. :)
Stranglehold by short interests. But they're being paid off with our money so it should be OK soon.
Sarcasm aside, it's actually true though.
LOL. I started trying to do this, opened up the 10-K for fiscal year 2014, ctrl-f, "warrant", 268 matches.
Everyone and their mother has had warrants issued to them. Yvonne, James Patton, Mr. and Ms. French, yadda yadda.
What a total mess. This'll take too much time, sorry. What a tangled web they weave, I'd hate to see the books.
ADXS hasn't done jack without Adage's blessing, and they've done jack with Adage's blessing.
I bet they're sitting on a veritable mountain of PR-worthy information that Adage is keeping the lid on. Illegal? Sure. Provable? Only by a select few that are being paid quite well.
I've observed what I believe to be a pattern over several months: when volatility here picks up, the quantity of HFT-driven 100 share trades absolutely explodes, seemingly to conceal the actual trading activity. And it almost always gets pegged to a specific price, like it is now.
The question for me, though, is one of chicken or egg: is the volatility itself engineered? If you signal a wipe of the order book in PM/AH trading and it has a downstream effect that causes pending buy orders and other HFTs to back off for the trading day, then it's very easy to cause a huge drop in price at the open with only a relatively small number of shares. Then the HFT holds it there and generates an overwhelming amount of churn that makes it impossible to determine what's actually happening.
I bet only 1-1.5M of this trading is real, if even that.
3ish? Are you calculating that from the $2.4 million amount divided by the quantity exercised?
I suppose this is vague and open to interpretation. The line immediately following the $2.4 million that I quoted: "This was partially offset by approximately $1.6 million of taxes paid related to the net share settlement of equity awards."
$2.4M + $1.6M = $4.0M
$4.0M / ~800k = $5
I have no idea if that line is referring to the entire paragraph or just the warrant portion, or if it's correct to add them together. ~40% sounds like a believable tax amount, at least from my lowly commoner's capital gains tax perspective. Probably too low to represent the entire paragraph.
The income is buried in prose in the 10-K somewhere for 2015. I think the income was $2.4 million. I don't think the income is so important though, since the common stock is the currency of importance here. 1 share issued yesterday = 1 share today, but 1 share's price yesterday != 1 share's price today. (I can say that pretty confidently!)
So, 800k shares created from exercising.
Edit: Cash provided by financing activities for the year ended October 31, 2015 was approximately $120.5 million, resulting primarily from registered direct offerings of 8,806,165 shares of our Common Stock resulting in net proceeds of approximately $63.1 million and a public offering of 2,800,000 shares of Common Stock resulting in net proceeds of approximately $56.7 million. In addition, the Company received approximately $2.4 million from the proceeds received on option and warrant exercises. This was partially offset by approximately $1.6 million of taxes paid related to the net share settlement of equity awards.