InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 229
Posts 14582
Boards Moderated 1
Alias Born 03/29/2014

Re: flipper44 post# 232738

Tuesday, 06/11/2019 8:23:06 PM

Tuesday, June 11, 2019 8:23:06 PM

Post# of 689509

It looks to me like NWBO changed course in 2015 but additionally decided to bait shorts, dilute Neil and leave longs in the dark whilst continuing to accumulate securities for themselves through debt financing and votes for options.



hmmm... well just for the record, I don't agree with this point. But that is likely how it all played out. Shorts benefited, for sure, and were perhaps baited if real evidence was collected; longs are still largely in the dark; and they did accumulate quite a number of securities for themselves, which would have been less had the share price stayed stable and at higher rates. But I'd argue that it was the shorts primarily who were responsible for the dilution as I think they shorted the stock down by selling shares that they didn't have (using warrants instead as collateral), and then most likely corrected as the share price lowered. And then reshorted all over again using the same warrants as collateral, over and over again. I think that is naked shorting as those warrants aren't shares. And if the warrants are priced at $4 dollars, and they are used to short a stock under a $1, that is grossly unfair and naked as a baby when first born. In my opinion, of course.

Are there piles of counterfeit shares still out there? I don't know. There's probably around 12 million or so of them, backed by warrants. But the warrants are probably lower now... closer to the actual price. So that is more difficult for me to argue. But technically, one is supposed to borrow a share to execute a short position, and that may not have been what happened.

:(
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent NWBO News