InvestorsHub Logo

Basin Street Blues

05/05/20 5:12 AM

#281473 RE: JerryCampbell #281466

Agreed (more or less).

Her options were OTM therefore she had ntg to barter with.

...Cant believe I`ve agreed with you twice now, to me Linda`s behaviour means one of two things:

1. She has an incredible hand , and we will forgive her anything and everything when we see the results.

Or

2. Shes just a corporate lawyer and de-risks herself at every opportunity.



learningcurve2020

05/05/20 7:58 AM

#281479 RE: JerryCampbell #281466

You don’t see any angle whereby a potential merger deal would dictate she hold of on taking those shares?

kabunushi

05/05/20 8:53 AM

#281493 RE: JerryCampbell #281466

Jerry, you missed a couple of things. One I articulated many times, that the warrants going into the money in the near term or probably ever, depends on getting TLD that supports dc-vax being able to move forward. Part of my thesis on that which is also the thesis that anybody needs to believe to think there is anything to gain in owning NWBO stock is that TLD can lead to a very big rally in the shares - which I personally would expect to fall back and then slowly rise more going forward. Longs might be wrong but it's far from crazy to think that a large rally is very possible.

The second thing which I didn't articulate is this: there's a huge difference to NWBO between LP selling shares and LP exercising the warrants and then selling those shares. Namely, if the warrants are in the money, exercising them and then selling the shares is a way for LP to put money into NWBO's coffers without putting up the money herself. So she could well be motivated to liquidate the warrants by exercising and then liquidating the share any time the warrants go into the money as a way to raise cash for NWBO from outside of her personal funds. So she would have a large motivation for corporate purposes to exercise the warrants rather than selling her shares and holding the warrants.

Poor Man -

05/05/20 11:40 AM

#281538 RE: JerryCampbell #281466

I would add to the argument that for the extension to have any meaningful value to shareholders, it somehow has to offset the 29 million shares of dilution that was just give away, effectively. I can’t think of any realistic scenario where a short term extension for the “other shares” would offset the dilution from the warrants that were renewed.