Replies to post #819444 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[FeMike]

Not dissimilar from the ridiculous notion that we are going to get bought out for some 1000% premium, analyst price targets are not going to name some asinine pie in the sky price with a stock trading at 20 cents.

Take a look at legit analyst price targets on real companies. You won't find many (if any) up here at 400%. Optimistic ones are barely 100%, and that isn't over 1 year.

They are going out on a huge limb even having the confidence to make a 400% PT. Wanting more than that is crazy, even if we all think (hope) the price should be higher than $1 by 2028.

An actual analyst saying they think the company valuation can increase 400% in a year, when the industry standard for a nice investment is 15-20% annually, is insane. Anybody thinking this is somehow "FUD" or "low balling" is insane-er. Nonsensical, even.

[Baxers]

Upon a bit more research, apparently this is quite a common arrangement called issuer-sponsored distribution. An analyst at a firm like First Berlin sees upcoming catalysts for a company (like NWBO's UK MHRA application). They know their European institutional clients might be interested so they approach NWBO and tell them we are going to initiate independent coverage on you. However, if you want us to get this report out to our proprietary network of institutional funds, family offices, and retail platforms, you need to pay a distribution fee.

Regardless of who paid who, I still dont buy into the argument that the shorts commissioned this report:

- The report is absolutely nothing like the Phase Five report hit piece.
- The report has a Buy rating on it.
- It explicitly highlights the statistically significant improvement in overall survival for both newly diagnosed and recurrent glioblastoma (GBM) and emphasises the long tail of survival.
- It has strong support for the regulatory case FOR approval: "We view the use of overall survival as the primary endpoint, supported by long follow-up and consistent benefit across disease stages, as a key factor underpinning the regulatory case."
- Clear (while very conservative) timeline for commercial launch.
- No open suggestion of a likely NICE rejection as a short-report would certainly include. This is much more indirectly included in risk factors and the subtle statement that NICE rejected Optune coverage.
- An 80% PoS for DCVax in GBM in the UK is not in-line with a short-report.
- A 350% upside is not in-line with any short-report
- Expectation of regulatory filings in the US, Canada and Europe.
- Algorithms exercising margin calls during a short squeeze aren't going to GAF about some analyst note calling for $1.
- Finally, the moment a drug like DCVax-L receives marketing approval, historical price targets are instantly shredded. The market immediately re-prices the company based on the commercial TAM buyout potential, and partnership deals. Any supposed anchor a short seller tried to set at $1 would be washed away in the first ten minutes of trading.

So based on the above, I think the short seller report commission thesis is still unfounded. There are too many positive inclusions and too many of the common short seller BS doom omissions.