Were Are Missing Anderson Too:
I want to clarify what went on in those exchanges a few days ago.
Three months ago Anderson was in-putting very useful information about infrastructure in Europe and his projections on current production capability world wide as well as projections for possible rate of expansion. These same topics were the primary focus of the last 8K which was discussed heavily on this blog.
Anderson had very high expectations for company growth over the mid-term if products all proved out. He was clearly long and clearly being honest when he talked about $50 and possibly $300 share prices. Yet he got hammered a couple of times for talking about such numbers... and then he disappeared. Apparently very sensitive to negative feedback. He was accused of pumping, when he had only been sharing his opinion.
Anderson returned to the blog a couple of weeks ago with a single post. Not a controversial post, from what I remember. Then he returned again a few days ago and commented on OU's post. Very politely saying that OU was pumping. I think he should have chosen some other word. That offended OU... maybe being a little offended is understandable, but being highly offended for the politely worded statement was not reasonable. OU did not reply, but Astra jumped all over Alexander. It didn't make any sense. Astra was clearly off base. Then OU jumped in and Alexander was being double teamed. That is when I jumped in and stated what I had been thinking when I read OU's post. It was pumping. Mild pumping, and not worth commenting on, but it was pumping.
The background was this. The day before NW had released an 8K that described a 10% dilution. This resulted in a +15% stock bump because of the wording of their 8K. Brilliant! I am long, so I think that's great, however, to some extent it is dangerous to investors on this blog to ignore such candy coating... to be polite. Only GPB was willing to point to the truth, (if I understood him and the 8K correctly), that the large payments described appeared to be for money's owed Cognate, not for the forward expansion described in the 8K. What was forward was the financial arrangements for future expansion. Recent past activities had been a squeeze because there were more projects than fully agreed financing. As a result, Cognate had to work unpaid for apparently 2 or 3 months. This kind of confusion could really hurt them as they try to expand quickly, ie if early approval were to occur. Thus it was very important that no such squabbles be possible in the new forward contracts. And apparently this was accomplished. The forward aspect may include detailed planning expansion, which has it's own costs, but the big dollars exchanged were apparently for past work by Cognate.
Northwest doesn't want or deserve the knee-jerk 10% stock drop that would normally come with a 10% dilution. They don't deserve the hit because they have kept their expenses for a phase 3 trial at much lower than industry standard. Instead of trying to defend themselves, they worded the 8K to make it sound like the money was going into future expansion, though they never said that.
Because everyone is in great anticipation of the interim review, an 8K describing $6.5M appropriated for expansion got a lot of attention. I don't know how much I care about new investors fighting to buy shares over that news, but there were people on this blog somewhat duped by the 8K. The focus of this blog lately has been on the real possibility of an early approval recommendation by the review committee, so we are all a little more prepped to misinterpret the 8K that when normally would be, given that we are (we would like to think) a step above most. But GPB's analysis of the 8K was forgotten by the next day, and the blog sort floated above what was going on. A 15% stock rise on the announcement of a 10% stock dilution. That was what was happening real time, and there was no longer any notice. Even if you are fixed long, and not trading, it is ok to comment on what is going on real time when it is that large and that senseless.
So as the helium continued to be passed from blogger to blogger, Anderson finally commented. Unfortunately he used a poor choice of words with a blogger who is apparently very sensitive. It wasn't about OU. It was about the blogs overall response to the 8K.
Recall that Anderson disappeared for 3 months after being falsely accused of being a pumper. That was probably why he used the term pumper. Upon returning he is probably being carefull to not be a pumper, even though he never was. And in that vigilance, he is going to be predisposed to using the term.
OU is a straight shooter, for sure. He says what he thinks and it is not always positive. In fact, then night before, I thought he was shooting a little too straight regarding the potential for DCVax-Prostate, and I let him know that. I wasn't mean. I had said the exact same things that he was saying a few weeks ago, but I had time to think about it and regret it. So I told him my experience and asked him to reconsider while there was time to edit his blog. The fact is... NW is trying to partner or sell Prostate, and so it must be important to them. Maybe they don't think Direct will be good for prostate. Or maybe they think Direct could take much longer than Prostate to get approved... who knows. But they have been vocal about wanting a partner for prostate. In fact, Linda's recent talk in SF was almost identical to the Oppenheimer talk about 3 weeks earlier. Recall that the SF talk was announced only a week in advance, so it could be that Linda had no time to prepare a new speech. Hard to say. But notable were the few differences between the talks. In the SF talk she did not discuss the pending decision on further German government financial contributions to those trials, and when she got to Prostate she said, well, let me move on, or some such. There were many more speakers at the SF conference than the Oppenheimer conference. It may have been more imperative that she not go over the 30 min apparent window. The Oppenheimer talk went over by about 1 1/2 minutes as I recall. She kept the SF talk under by about 1 1/2 minutes, as I recall. So that might fully explain dropping the talk about German financing and Prostate.... however, it is very possible that they are in negotiations for Prostate. In fact, that was my best guess based on all the subtleties in what she did say. Tone of voice, etc.. Once in negotiations, they just don't talk about a product or deal. And Linda had brought up the issue of wanting to partner prostate in every recent public communication. This is why I was trying to be careful talking about prostate, and why I was asking OU to consider doing the same.
OU was not offended by my suggestion, but I think a little confused about being approached directly. The next day he was a little rosier than usual about all things. I think he was sort of testing the waters. Testing out the halo I had advised him to consider dawning. But again, the entire blog was breathing helium and wearing halos that day. No crime... but it did endanger some of the newbies. There were people jumping in at $5.20, $5.30, $5.40... trying to get in before the obvious eminent approval / recommendation for early approval.
So Anderson was predisposed to use the word "pumping", and OU was predisposed to pump and was really just going with the flow of the blog, trying to be a good guy and not be negative. In fact, he was just going with the flow of the blog when Anderson politely said that he thought he was pumping.
Then Astra jumped in and hammered Anderson, eventually using the F-Word, (Furstein). In fact by telling he thought he should sell, he was telling him to leave the blog. Anderson had just left for 3 months for being hammered without cause. I was glad to see him back. I like learning about company infrastructure and expansion capabilities, and I like hearing about $300 valuations.
Then OU jumped in and started hammering and insisting that this massive indignity be dealt with. Sorry, but Astra was being overly aggressive, irrational, unfair, and OU was adding to it. I don't like seeing an innocent man being double teamed. Whether that's on a blog or in the alley behind a bar. And I get involved when I see that happening. I don't apologize for that.
Maybe I OU an apology for going overboard in response to his going overboard. I apologize OU. But like Anderson, you are too sensitive. Anderson's comment was more directed at the broader blog than at you, and his words were perhaps poorly chosen. And Anderson was right about the broader blog that day. He was just being honest.
