1. It does not matter to me who likes or dislikes me on this board
2. The board asked for a plausible explanation of the short interest and pointed to me as one of the potential contributors, so I responded with what I believed to be a reasonable and rational explanation. Notice in my original post that I did ask for opinions? I admit that the timing of purchases is not compatible with my original premise. That does not mean that it is completely wrong.
3. It may not have been Woodford who shorted the 2.3 million shares, but I think that it would be foolish for Woodford to NOT short shares as he buys, because that gives him the ability to stop a drastic decline in share price given any negative event without increasing his holding, gives him another angle to make money, and provides a small amount of "insurance" just in case something very negative does come out of NWBO (which I do not think is the case here)...it is a big-boys hedge. I do not think Woodford or his analysts are foolish. I also do not think that Woodford is interested in owning a majority share of NWBO, which could happen if he only used the tool of buying on the open market to keep the share price from going below $5.
4. No matter who shorted those shares, they do have to be bought back...as long as NWBO does not go completely bust. I do not think NWBO is going to completely implode based only on the latest events and given that Woodford continues to invest. Hence the short interest will serve to "prop up" the stock price as those shares are covered no matter who shorted them.
5. I really don't care whether or not anyone believes this rationale or not. I was simply sharing my take/opinion on the subject at the request of the board.
This will be my last post on this subject.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
