The hit piece is a very amateur effort. I commented on it as follows:
I won't debate your general thesis - my thesis as a long depends on understanding how horrible a disease GBM is and hence knowing what an important advance DcVax is and how certain it is to become the new SOC for GBM, especially given the latest combination trials at UCLA showing a 5 year survival rate far, far above the 2.5 times SOC results in NWBO's phase 3 trial. To anybody who doesn't understand the importance of those results in the clinic, NWBO shares would be an unacceptable risk because the return side of the risk/return equation is completely dependent on getting marketing approval. We are still waiting for the initial marketing application to MHRA (the UK's FDA) though we are quite sure that will be made within weeks.
But in any case, this kind of analysis certainly has to be backed by numbers, hopefully fairly accurate numbers. You are completely missing the most important numerical analysis for this kind of analysis and what numbers you do present include at least one blindingly glaring error in your math.
The latter comes where you claim that selling another 115M shares will dilute the current shares by 50%. Huh? 115M new shares is only 10% of the 1.1B current outstanding count. 115/1100 is about 10% dilution, nowhere near 50%. Where did you get a 50% dilution on issuing 115M new shares?
Second, you pull out of your hat a likely valuation after getting marketing approval as a $1-$2B market cap. For any biotech (or for that matter ANY public company), the most important measure of value certainly is the addressable market, and what % penetration of that market can be expected over time, vs the expected revenue per patient (more accurately the gross margin on that revenue) per patient. Without any such analysis, you just throw out a random number. Your estimate of the upside - the heart of any analysis such as this - is in other words a random WAG. If you actually did any work on that you certainly aren't showing it.
