Replies to post #143310 on NanoViricides Inc. (NNVC)

[NewMoney]

Should be an interesting day. I’ve seen senators visits and public addresses and even coverage on the Discovery Channel not stop a bad company from complete failure and collapse into the depths of penny stock hell.

Should be interesting. Good luck.

[arvitar]

We are now utterly convinced that a Big Pharma, has been behind the ever-present manipulation of the stock price of Nano FOR THE PAST 6+ YEARS!!!!

Hold on a second there!

Diwan has failed to move a single candidate off the lab bench and into clinical trials, after squandering 15 years and $100 MILLION dollars.

Did "Big Pharma" take over Diwan's brain and transform him into an ineffectual and incompetent lout?

Do you not think NNVC would be trading higher if they had 3-5 approved and marketed billion-dollar drugs back in 2009, as they claimed they would have to gullible dupes?

[arvitar]

From 12/29/2015, when NNVC was trading at $25.00 at pre-split prices:

"Before I begin today's discussion, I want all of you to put in your favorite places finviz.com (short for financial visualizations) and specifically the daily chart pattern for NNVC. Refer to it often to watch the progress over the next 18 months.

Given my premise that NNVC will increase in value during that period from the current $1.26 to $125, it stands to reason that there will be many gaps up between the closing price on one day and the opening price on the next trading day. If that gap is not "filled" on the following day the resulting "air space" is called an "island".

For illustration, NNVC closed last Wednesday at $1.03 and in the abbreviated session Thursday, because of the Cox Report, opened at $1.05 and never looked back, closing at $1.17. Yesterday, the next trading day because of the Christmas holiday, the price "gapped" to $1.20 and never closed that gap during the session. This created our first "island", with "open water" on both sides of $1.05-1.17. VERY BULLISH! (Bullish is good, bearish is bad in the market lexicon).

Why is this stock set-up for island creation? Many reasons:

1. Institutions only own 5.5% of the 57.5 million shares---- extremely low, especially for a company that has been "public" for over 10 years with a world-class disruptive technology.

2. The real float is much smaller than the stated one by dint of "insiders" owning 14 million (ish) shares and large individual owners like my family owning many millions more that are not publicly disclosed.

3. The 10,000-15,000 small retail accounts that make up the rest of the stock ownership are tough as nails, having been battered by countless delays in the development of this technology. That they hung in there to this point means they should not consider selling as the price rises. They know the ages of the management and the BOD and have certainly understood the implications of the creation of the Preferred A stock. They will await their "mother lode" when the buyout happens.

Conclusion: The institutions are grossly on the outside looking in and will want to reverse that position with the start of an upcoming investor relations "push" coupled with very positive PRs. They will have to be very aggressive in doing so, thereby creating repeated "islands" as we move through 2016."
https://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=30380400


Five years later, this seems as nutty now as it did then.