Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : NNVC - NanoViricides, Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JJx4 who wrote (3359)	12/12/2014 4:11:13 PM
From: HardToFind	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12871

> My guess is that those that used their warrants at 3.5 this past summer are feeling duped and played, and that they over-payed. This stock was seven bucks or so in the early part of the year and somehow management allowed it to slip to below three today. That's all warrant holders had to do was wait and they could have bought much cheaper. I don't think it is quite as bad as portrayed: 1. Not too many people are happy when their holdings go down. But sophisticated investors know biotech companies are volatile. Managements are expected to be honest about the prospects of the company in the offering (not create inordinate hype to sell into), to keep the business efficiently moving forward toward profitability (or a generous buyout), and to appropriately communicate the prospects to analysts and the public. I don't think they are otherwise expected to "keep the price up" per se, but they are expected to not allow a preventable cause for a price drop. I honestly don't know how the market characterizes the causes for the current price slump. Is it management's fault? You tell me... 2. Warrants are options, and because of the tax consequences I think most professional investors sell on exercise...unless they are in love with the company. (Professional investors should not fall in love with the company. When they do, they become speculators, and sort of deserve what they get. They might be mad at management, but they really should be able to articulate a specific reason for why they think management was deficient.) If you can't articulate why management has failed you, you really don't have a legitimate beef. 3. The bigger issue with a company buying back its own shares, which may artificially keep the price up in the short run, is that you are risking money that (at one time you thought) you might need. Plans tend not to go quite as well as expected, so the perception is that the company buying back shares before profitability, is speculating with the money it might need to keep the lights on and the business running. That increases risk, which generally doesn't help the stock price over the medium to long run. It only works when you can articulate why you are very sure you can make it to profitability without another financing (or profitable buyout), and then you make it. If you are wrong you are likely to soon be an unemployed former-CEO, with a black mark on your resume. It's unnecessary personal risk for a CEO, which they tend to avoid.

To: JJx4 who wrote (3359)	12/26/2014 1:40:39 AM
From: HardToFind	Respond to of 12871

> I have a few shares and wouldn't mind picking up some more at the right price. What is the right price? Insiders have been buying (more than token amounts) at the market for the last year almost, at prices as high as $3.50. Diwan last sold at $5.29 in October 2013. Boniuk is the guy whose timing, opinion and actions I trust most. He just keeps doubling down from $3.50, $3.20, $3.16, $3, and $2.70. Below $2.70 is an amazing price opportunity IMO. If EbolaCide II is a hit, you might never see these prices again. Then again, if we get an Ebola setback, you may get an even better price opportunity.