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.
What will be your response if\when institutional holdings go down in the next round of 13F reporting because the stock price has gone down precipitously in Q3?
You're conflating different things. The issue isn't that index funds are buying shares. Everyone wants to point to index funds and ETFs holding shares as some sort of validation in the strength of LWLG. Most, not all, of the institutional holdings are held in passively managed vehicles. They buy shares of all stocks to mirror their index\exchange per the prospectus. There is no manager, in the case of I\ETFs sitting back and saying "This looks like a great company. BUY BUY BUY."
Most of Fidelity's shares are accounted for in ETFs. The majority of BlackRock's are as well. I'm sure there are some at BlackRock sitting in a more actively managed portfolio.
*EDIT* Vanguard not Fidelity.
It's ok. I can wait until your done.
Edit: I see the error of my ways (see how easy that is?). Stand by.
Which day dropped 8%? The shorts covered 1M shares between 7/14 and 7/31. 7/31 was a flat trading day with an open at 6.71 and a close at 6.72. T + 2 has to do with settlement and dotting i's and crossing t's. The trades still happened on the day they happened.
Your $.01\1000 is $100 increase with 1M covered. Off by a factor of 10 is $10. Why didn't we hit $16 with all that covering? It would seem like more than a factor of 10 since the share price dropped 22% in the period 1M shares were covered.
I'm not the least bit unsettled parking my money here. Planted firmly in the middle and calling out both sides when their shit stinks.
Edit: You also didn't really answer the question. Aren't you surprised the shorts covered 1M shares? How did the price not go up as you have alluded to these past months?
Surely you were surprised that the shorts covered 1M shares. Why didn't the share price balloon?
This is from just this week.
That may be the case but 1M shares were covered!
I did the calculations and it was settled math - There was a 1 cent increase for every 1000 shares covered. This is as true as the sky being blue. There are 10,000 1000's in 1M. That translates to a $100\share increase. Even if I was off by a factor of 10 we should still be sitting at ~$16\share right now. I just don't understand how this could have happened. /s
Interesting theory but you're overlooking the fact that the cash on hand reported in the 10-Q was for the period ending June 30. 1M shares were covered 7/17-7/31. Simply not possible for this to be the case.
LETS TALK ABOUT THE SHORTS!
Somehow those pesky shorts managed to unwind 1M shares and the price actually DROPPED 22% between 7/17 and 7/31. Golly.
It's possible but I think it's still to early to take that position. If we make it to the next ASM and that revenue still hasn't been recognized we will definitely have our answer though.
Unpopular Opinion: The deferred revenue is problematic
🤣 Made the permabulls look.
I had a feeling the revenue wouldn't be recognized. Same old, Same old. Wonder if the $50k can be deferred indefinitely or if the contract has some stipulation that the client has to begin taking receipt of product by X date. Is the 4 year clock already running or does it begin when the revenue is recognized?
I thought it was clear that it was an example. Apparently you have no interest in actually stopping to think about what I've said.
(For the avoidance of doubt - This list is not comprehensive.)
Blackrock - 6.970M Shares
- IWM - 2.438M Shares
-IWO. - 0.880M Shares
-ITOT - 0.118M Shares
3 funds - 50% of Blackrocks holdings.
Vanguard - 6.463M Shares
-VTSMX. - 3.300M Shares
-VEXMX - 1.545M Shares
-VITAX. - 0.844M Shares
-VRTIX. - 0.306M Shares
4 funds - 92.75% of Vanguards holdings.
You want to talk about interesting institutional holdings? Talk about Geode Capital Management. They are a hedge fund holding 2.25M shares. That's a holder that I would put more stock in than Vanguard and Blackrock's holdings.
Well that escalated quickly.
I never said "all" of Blackrock and Vanguards holdings were solely via their ETFs. Did I? Did I even begin to insinuate that?
I can guarantee you that if someone had access to the granular holdings of the different ETFs operated by Blackrock\Vanguard that it would make up a super majority of their holdings.
IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) owned by Blackrock holds 2.62M shares of LWLG and it makes up .03% of the ETF. Every Russell 2000 ETF that seeks to simply mirror the index will be similarly weighted.
Care to educate us?
Most of the "institutional" ownership is due to us being on a few indexes (Nasdaq, Russell, etc.). If a company is on an index\exchange it has to be bought by the ETF's that track a given index\exchange. Who has the most AUM via the most\largest ETFs? You guessed it, Vanguard and Blackrock!
Puffery - Full Stop. All companies do it. The submissions to the SEC via the 10Q\K's are the only source of information that is mostly matter of fact.
This isn't an indictment of Lightwave.
While I agree with your pragmatic stance on the stock you are heading to the polar opposite of the perma bulls. You are spinning the faintest of details into a full scale indictment of the company.
Let's see those order slips!!
The biggest fallacy of your whole short thesis is your apparent refusal to consider churn in the short position. You have no way of knowing the entry points for the short positions. You have no way of knowing if the shorts are only short on the stock or it is a hedge against their long positions. <-- This is a big one because then they don't really care if the price skyrockets because the position was nothing more than risk mitigation.
Your "math" is nothing more than arbitrary number crunching. Last week you threw out the preposterous number of $2,000\share because of the impending short squeeze.
Some shorts will close on the way up while a bunch of new blood will create new short positions.
I still stand by my position that it will be a glorious day when it's revealed that a meaningful piece of the shorts position has been unwound without a material move in share price.
Someone more knowledgeable on the tech would need to chime in but my take is that "Stack" is an in-house designed (possibly contracted out for fabrication) device utilizing Lightwave's polymer.
Not really sure how this is a response to my post. The 10K\Q's are one of the few things a company puts out that isn't really subject to puffery. My response provided a counterpoint to Ted's viewpoint and was beneficial to the position you are taking that Plus will be first to market.
You could have chosen to digest it and think critically about it. Instead you opted for the patented Proto copy\pasta wall of text.
I'll provide some additional nuance that people may be overlooking here......
Calling out the info from the 10K\Q's regarding the Stack is worthy of discussion. I have seen that line item since I invested and it has never changed. It is also the only thing they will assign a TAM to.
Now for the nuance - They say the stack is their first commercially viable DEVICE, not product and\or material. It's possible that PLUS comes to market first because they just hand someone a gallon of polymer and it's off to the races.
Xena - You are incorrect here.
Leonberger's most recent transaction was an exercise and sell, not a cashless exercise.
As you can see in the Form 4 (here), Leonberger exercised 49.000 options, acquired the shares and subsequently disposed of them.
His amount of securities (not derivatives\options) beneficially owned after the transaction remains 154,128 shares. This is the same as is listed in his previous Form 4 listed Here
You understand that a margin account is mainly collateralized by the other shares in the account, right? The daily interest charges are clear to see for the account holder. The P\L on the trade is nothing more than simple math. I'm certain people can figure it out before hitting the buy\sell button.
I can't wait to watch the goal posts get moved when a portion of the short positions are unwound and there is no material increase in the share price. I might have to invest in $CHALK because sales will be through the roof with the next level mental gymnastics that will be on display.
Or the more likely outcome - You don't have a clue what the market is going to do and are simply drawing with crayons like the rest of us.
X - You were wrong with something as "simple" as tabulating the short shares outstanding. If you're analytical superpowers couldn't get a handle on that how do you think you can account for a far more complex scenario such as "share price action as shorts cover?" Furthermore you don't even have any consistency in these posts. It's "here's a meaningless data point I pulled out of the tape today. I think it looks good. I'll just plug this into the formula today and add a bunch of words so it looks knowledgeable."
You seem to know a lot about the technology. Why not stick to that instead of compromising the good will you've built over the years with nonsensical drivel?
One can be as optimistic\pessimistic as their heart desires. This gripe, however, is pretty cut and dry. Had Lebby answered the question it would have very likely resulted in the disclosure of material non-public information. Not a huge leap for that to then turn into insider trading for someone.
One can be as optimistic\pessimistic as their heart desires. This gripe, however, is pretty cut and dry. Had Lebby answered the question it would have very likely resulted in the disclosure of material non-public information. Not a huge leap for that to then turn into insider trading for someone.
Why would someone with a long term investment mentality be "eager" to buy today when they could have done so last week for 10% cheaper? There were no material events in the last week. Stock price went up due to the machinations of the market and broader economic factors.
Come on now...... SEC has reporting requirements. I'm sure there is some sort of countdown clock that starts when a board nominee is formally voted\approved and when a company needs to announce.
It would appear Lil Birdie told you a lie.
Source
IMO there is a an important distinction to institutional ownership that is not heavily discussed\debated. It has to deal with how many shares the tutes hold in actively managed funds vs those held as part of an ETF.
It's my belief that shares held as part of an ETF says nothing, positive or negative, about the institution's feelings for LWLG. This is because they NEED to own those shares for their ETF to be representative of the index they are attempting to track.
Show me changes in institutional ownership for actively managed funds. Those are the guys\gals that are buying or selling LWLG based on the future they envision.
I don't think anyone is at this point. Longer term, however, if LWLG is simply printing money on their intellectual property and haven't diversified into other revenue streams it will be tough to fend off a buyout. I'm sure the tutes will vote in favor of it because it would simply get rolled up into a company they already have a large position in so it's a win-win for them.
I agree with this in theory.
My issue is that with the stated business model we will need a majority of shareholders to vote against the quick payday of a buyout for longer term wealth accumulation via handsome dividend payouts. That is probably not an outcome we can bank on because of the instant return of a buyout. We just have to hope a potential buyout is suitably generous.
A month ago we had daily updates regarding the buy\sell ratios and how the short interest was ballooning.
Still LQQKing for a 30 day price prediction.
Not sure what I'm supposed to be seeing. You seem rather confident in it's meaning though. Here's a challenge - take that confidence and memorialize a prediction based on the indicators you are seeing. "I, proto, think the share price will be $$ by *date*." Don't throw out some prediction that is years out. Tell us where you think it will be in 30 days time based on these indicators.