Issuing new shares does reduce existing shareholders’ percentage ownership unless they participate pro rata. The “smaller slice of a larger pie” argument is about whether the dilution ultimately creates value, not whether dilution occurred.
Maybe the money is being used for smart launch preparation. Maybe it is facility related. Maybe it is leukapheresis related. But unless the company clearly says that, those are still assumptions layered on top of the known fact: NWBO needed cash and sold shares.
I’m not allergic to positive outlooks. I’m allergic to treating speculation as analysis.
If approval comes and the spending was well timed, then fine, the dilution may prove worthwhile. But right now approval is still uncertain, there is no commercial revenue, and shareholders are carrying the cost of the delay.
As for the review, if an issue were clearly fatal and unfixable, maybe the MAA would have been rejected already. But the fact that it has not been rejected does not prove the remaining issues are non fatal. It only proves the process has not reached a final decision.
“Not rejected yet” is not the same as “concerns resolved.” A long review can mean the issues are fixable, or it can mean the issues remain unresolved. You don’t get to convert delay into reassurance just because the final answer has not arrived yet.
Market Data 
Markets 
