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.
No, if the vote to increase authorization fails (unlikely in my view), nwbo would not be barred from anything in the future.
They could adjourn the meeting to collect more votes on that issue, or call a special meeting.
That item is why the 14A filing talks about nwbo hiring proxy solicitors to round up votes. They need a majority of the common shares outstanding to increase authorization. The other votes only require a majority of votes cast, with no minimum required.
No, never met Malik. He was a fundamental analyst in biotech. I was a quant, and quant techniques tend to be perverse in biotech.
For a few examples; valuation, earnings surprise, and estimate revision all tend to give incorrect signals in biotech.
Consider estimate revision. In most cases, if analysts are raising estimates, that is based on good news. Plenty of research shows that positive revisions tend to be followed by more positive revisions, which is why it works. Now consider the example of a pre-revenue biotech with analyst coverage that has a successful P2 result. On to P3 - obviously great news. However, short term expenses increase to run the P3 trial, while revenues are still far in the future, which means FY1 and FY2 earnings estimates go down on good news.
You've probably seen Malik's bio in nwbo's proxy materials. For UK investment people, you can also look up their employment history on the FSA regulatory site.
https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/financial-services-register
You should really read Linda Powers' SEC Form 4 filing for this sale at $0.17
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000114420419003609/xslF345X03/tv511975_4.xml
Regarding the Cognate shares, the footnote reads:
Explanation of Responses:
1. Toucan Capital Fund III, LP sold the 804,146 restricted shares of common stock that it owned, in preparation for the required dissolution due to the Toucan Fund reaching the end of its contractual term. The reporting person has management control as well as a partnership interest in the Toucan Fund.
Bolding is mine.
Did you not read Dr. Stupp's commentary? He articulated some doubts.
Not exactly lateral.
CFO was an officer level position with Sarbanes-Oxley responsibilities. CIO is not.
Davis is listed in the 2020 proxy as an officer, with her holdings shown. She is not mentioned in subsequent proxies.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000110465920039528/tm2013863-1_def14a.htm
No, what he said was that it was a scam for the CEO to hire her own CDMO firm.
That is not the same as your implication that it was a scam because nwbo received no funds from the Cognate sale. nwbo had not ownership stake in Cognate so obviously it would receive no proceeds.
Now do you understand the difference?
There was an erroneous claim that nwbo received cash when Cognate was sold. That was corrected.
Your points are off topic as you totally twisted the meaning of ex's post.
Thank you for noticing that my explanation of Jerry J's transaction was accurate rather than the jerry-rigged answer to which I responded.
By SEC definition, directors are insiders. That's the whole reason Janikowski needed to file Form 4. So pretty much everything you said is totally wrong.
Read the SEC regs on who needs to file Form 4.
"The federal securities laws require certain individuals (such as officers, directors, and those that hold more than 10% of any class of a company’s securities, together we’ll call, “insiders”) to report purchases, sales, and holdings of their company’s securities by filing Forms 3, 4, and 5."
source: https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/glossary/forms-3-4-and-5
There were multiple related companies.
Genzyme was the parent company. If they had a promising development in one of their subsidiaries, they spun it off as an independent separately traded company, so there were a bunch of offspring with Genzyme in the name.
Oddly this is not the first mention of goats and biotech together.
Those who have followed biotech long enough might remember a company called Genzyme Transgenics. Ticker was GZTC. They were trying to use genetically engineeried goats as biotech manufacturing. The goats would express the desired molecule in milk, which could be purified into the drug.
My observation was that the nwbo price was stable for months prior to the two week runup, and stable again for months thereafter. That does not require any assumption about whether that level was reasonable or not.
You've assumed the pre-runup price was undervalued. You've assumed the runup price was reasonable. Those are both opinions rather than fact.
Try removing those questionable assumptions and re-analyze the price action.
No, you're ignoring the fact that a 100%+ runup into leaked news is not at all standard.
If you look at a 2022 price chart for nwbo, the two week runup to 5/10 certainly stands out as an aberration. Relatively stable both before and after.
Manipulation upward (standard pump and dump) fits the observed price action better than the story that 5/10 was manipulation downward.
Correct.
Someone who lends shares can recall them at any time. If a recall occurs, the borrower either has to find another source of borrow, or buy to cover the short position.
"All those Fails-to-Deliver" ???
There were less than 10,000 shares for nwbo in the latest data.
Sounds very much like Dr. Carlo Rago's participation in the nwbo saga
One ASM detail
The first 5 items require a plurality of votes cast at the meeting. Broker non-votes and abstentions are irrelevant.
Item 6, expansion of Share Authorization to 1.7 billion, requires a majority of all shares outstanding. Broker non-votes and abstentions are effectively votes against this proposal. That's why you see a mention of nwbo having a proxy solicitation firm to get out the vote.
See nwbio.com for the full text. The quote about TLD is in the section labeled "About Northwest Biotherapeutics".
https://nwbio.com/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-presentations-on-dcvax-l-personalized-vaccines-manufacturing-and-scale-up-and-dcvax-l-clinical-program/
Yes, nwbo did "walk back" TLD.
As shown in my post, company statements start relatively definitive, then add more qualifiers over time.
You've been performing semantic gymnastics for months on this point. You didn't convince me in May, and that has not changed.
nwbo has made a number of statements regarding the NYAS presentation and TLD:
June 5 PR: "This Phase III trial reached data lock and top line data was recently presented."
July 6 PR: "This Phase III trial has been completed and the top line data was presented by a key investigator at a recent scientific meeting."
10-Q: "On May 10, 2022, top line data from the Phase III trial were presented in a scientific conference at the New York Academy of Sciences by one of the investigators in the trial."
I think there are two reasons why nwbo has walked back whether 5/10/22 was "real" TLD.
1) There is a lending covenant that conveys piggyback rights if nwbo "publicly releases top line data from the Phase III trial...". It appears that nwbo would prefer to delay springing those rights.
2) Didn't like the market response. That should be non-controversial.
Does anyone else notice any similarities to the nwbo price runup prior to NYAS?
Could you be so kind as to provide a link to the "comments were made public that a hostile attempt at takeover was done during that time".
Nonsense revisionist history.
LP should have milked Woodford for every cent she could get. He bought more in the market (remember the brief push to $12?) when she could have been raising capital by selling him more new shares.
When Woodford finally raised questions, LP treated him like an enemy instead of the most generous friend nwbo ever had. She criticized his Board suggestion for not having pharma experience, then added Cofer Black with zero pharma experience.
Remember the special report the Board was going to generate? Guess they forgot about that, just like this year's Annual Meeting.
The notion of Woodford trying a hostile deal is ridiculous fiction as there is zero history of him running any company other than his own. That is some of the silliest BS ever posted about nwbo - which says a lot.
2015 - Try reading the context
Absolutely spot on. Cash on hand. Major institutional backer. NASDAQ listed. In Russell 2000.
Humor, poking fun at Linda Powers' many mentions of multi-month estimates over the years.
Admittedly probably not amusing to diehard longs. It was obviously not a serious estimate, which should have been clear to anyone.
No, nothing like that occurred.
First, I never suggested delayed approval, so there was no such point to debunk. If I had an expressed an opinion on nwbo approval, it would be that it most likely never happens.
The fact that nwbo has not even applied for approval 2 years after data lock is big clue. Lots of folks follow tiny breadcrumbs about conferences, but ignore the far more important factor of nwbo's own behavior.
The nwbo 10-Q directly contradicts your thinking in straightforward simple English.
Landmark Trial Data - No, mediocre. All factors slanted to favor nwbo
Innovative Manufacturing - not owned by nwbo longs
Global Patent Protection - limited
Approval Imminent - not even submitted for approval, so certainly not imminent
Journal Imminent - No sign of it 2 years after data lock
7 workstreams. Each no doubt includes one or more multi-month processes. End of the year 2024 seems entirely possible for manufacturing.
BLA or other submission to regulators seems less planned out. Might take longer.
Nice to see the 10-Q on time again. A few thoughts:
Warrant Exercise:
3.3m for cash
4.3m cashless
Of the 145m warrants remaining, 139m are under block or suspension
Warrant liability dropped even though the stock price rose in Q3. Some of the Black-Scholes pricing assumptions changed; higher interest rate, lower volatility.
"C" Preferred is now classified as MEZZANINE EQUITY, and notes a $13.2m liquidation preference.
Small amounts of "C" were issued for debt, issued for common stock warrants (interesting), and a bit more in Subsequent Events.
On the Balance Sheet, Notes Payable (current) rose, while Notes Payable (non-current) dropped. Some 8% Unsecured Notes are due 9/22/23, and being less than a year from expiration moves them from non-current to current.
Maybe you should read what the SEC says about fails-to-deliver, which is SEC data after all.
"Please note that fails-to-deliver can occur for a number of reasons on both long and short sales. Therefore, fails-to-deliver are not necessarily the result of short selling, and are not evidence of abusive short selling or “naked” short selling"
source: https://www.sec.gov/data/foiadocsfailsdatahtm
Agree with your points on market cap.
Fails-to-deliver are NOT a way to track naked short selling. Consider the SEC's statement "Please note that fails-to-deliver can occur for a number of reasons on both long and short sales. Therefore, fails-to-deliver are not necessarily the result of short selling, and are not evidence of abusive short selling or “naked” short selling."
source: https://www.sec.gov/data/foiadocsfailsdatahtm
This is one of those cases where something is repeated endlessly, yet still wrong.
Look at page 19 of the NYAS presentation for data on the comparators.
KPS score - tilted in favor of nwbo
MGMT methylation - tilted in favor of nwbo
Total tumor resection - tilted in favor of nwbo
Residual disease - only one comparator, but still tilted in favor of nwbo
If those factors are all independent (may not be true, but that would lead to other interesting data issues), then the odds of having 4 of 4 tilted in nwbo's favor randomly are 1 out of 16.
@Gary, he has posted on ihub and does use his real name.
Totally wrong, and here is the proof from the latest Berkshire Hathaway 13-F.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1067983/000095012322009450/xslForm13F_X01/15796.xml
Not a penny stock to be found. Smallest market cap is $1.7 billion (Liberty Latin).
You changed your tune completely. Yes, Buffett did invest in distressed undervalued companies.
That's not the same thing as the ridiculous penny stock claim you made in your previous post.