Just a minor correction, mrinspectortou: viruses can only multiply inside a cell, so if NNVC's agents stop viruses from entering a cell, it follows that they stop them from multiplying.
I found your post useful, and I hope you stick around - just ignore the trolls who contribute nothing except abuse.
Legit companies usually try to raise extra cash by "rights issues", i.e. they give existing stockholders first chance at the deal. I assume you're a bit a newbie, but you can find out about rights issues on Wikipedia or on websites aimed at educating new investors.
"Nanoviricides, Inc. (NNVC) raised $20M last December from institutional investors and EXISTING SHAREHOLDERS,"
Huh? NNVC raised $20M in January in a secret deal, announced only after the fact, which excluded most existing shareholders. The first that most "existing shareholders" found out about it was when they read the news on January 21 that their holdings had just been diluted in a deal that valued stock at about 70% of the price it was trading at on January 17. (Markets were closed on Monday January 20). The price dropped from $6.05 (close on Jan 17) to $4.99 on Jan 21 and continued to slide after that as markets digested the news.
As I remarked at the time, I don't know whether this was legal, but it sure as heck shouldn't be. Company officers are supposed to keep stockholders informed, not shaft them in secret deals.
"your printed statements, if not proven true, would be libelous"
You seem to be completely ignorant of US libel law. Firstly, the burden of proof is on the other side. Secondly, it's not enough to prove a statement false to win a libel suit. Talk to a lawyer instead of talking out of the back of your neck.
Nonsense. It's not a crime to express an opinion.
The author disclosed his/her short position. (By the way, there's no legal requirement for a commentator to do that, though most organizations - like SeekingAlpha - have a policy that their commentators do so.)
Sued for what? A writer who genuinely believed the stock was over-priced (and disclosed a short position) expressed his or her opinion. In US law, to win a libel case, you have to show that the writer doesn't believe what was published. That is a very high barrier. It's not enough to prove that what he/she wrote is false. Successful libel suits are pretty rare in this country.
An intelligent investor doesn't sell just because some random bozo writing under a pseudonym publishes negative comments. Ever heard the phrase "due diligence"?
There's a lot of reaction to the article on Seeking Alpha, but most of it is just attacks on the guy who wrote it. If you actually read the article, it contains some very relevant points.
I've been negative on NNVC since their surprise on January 21, when they blindsided existing shareholders by a big offering at effectively under $4 (depending on how you value the warrants), when the stock had been trading around $5.50. It revealed management's attitude to their shareholders: to them, shareholders are suckers waiting to be fleeced. I was surprised that what they did in this offering was even legal.
HOWEVER, having said that, you also have to remember that NNVC is a thinly traded stock. The reaction to the Seeking Alpha article is probably overdone. There's usually a bit of a bounce after a drop as sharp as that. Don't panic sell. If you hold on for a couple of days, there's a good chance you'll be able to unload at somewhere between $3.30 and $3.50. Not everybody reads Seeking Alpha, and there are probably still biotech newsletters telling readers to buy.
You'd have the costs of 3 transactions: 1. Buy the warrant, 2. Exercise the warrant, 3. Sell the stock.
And you can't trade large lots of the warrants at the quoted ask price because it's thinly traded.
Sure the odds were with them because they got the stock at under $4/share.
That doesn't mean the odds are good for someone who buys at $4.70.
If NGD is doing so great ... why doesn't it pay a dividend?
I think investors today are more and more saying "show me some income" vs management spending all the earnings on acquisitions to make the company bigger (and themselves bigger salaries).
The underlying technology is actually quite promising, but that doesn't mean the stock is a good buy. The history of NNVC is a history of stockholders getting screwed. Top priority for management is to make themselves rich - not stockholders..
Because the Board has demonstrated that it will rip off existing stockholders whenever it has the opportunity. That means they're not a company I want to entrust my money to.
Existing stockholders were completely blindsided by this private offering. Frankly, I am amazed that what Nanoviricides did is legal. It shouldn't be.
The "group of private investors" got a pretty sweet deal: valuing those 5-year warrants as call options gives a fair value in the vicinity of $2 each, meaning they effectively got the stock for under $4/share. Existing shareholders who thought their stock was worth $5.50 last week are left holding the bag.
Most of us don't care. I own NLY for the dividends. Makes no difference to me whether the price is $5 or $15.
In my opinion it's too early to say what is going to happen.
Yes, gold tested the resistance around 1190, and for now, bounced back up. If it stays above 1190 and especially if it breaks 1230 without immediately dropping back, that would be a strong buy signal.
On the other hand, if it breaks below 1180, that would be a sell signal.
So I'd wait and see.
Good point, rivvir. I think the preferred is a good buy (there are several series of NLY preferred and I'm long the C series, Yahoo symbol NLY-PC). At its current price, $22.25, it pays about 8%. It's callable at $25 and I think it's a good buy at any price under $25.
The dividend is paid on January 31. (The ex-div day is the day which determines who gets the dividend, not the day on which the div is actually paid). Logically, the drip shares would be bought on Jan 31 and therefore at a Jan 31 price. But it isn't a simple question, and I don't know the correct answer.
People who own the stock before markets open on the "ex-dividend date", which is tomorrow, will receive the dividend on January 31.
People who buy it on or after the ex-dividend date do not receive this dividend.
Why do you take any notice of Seeking Alpha? It's just clickbait, anybody can write for Seeking Alpha. The purpose of writing for Seeking Alpha is just to earn 1 cent per click. Nobody who really understands the markets would waste their time writing for them.
It will probably "only" be 9% dividends next year. But I'm very happy to be a 'baggie' collecting 9% dividends.