Oh, there's a logical explanation, it's called stock price manipulation via short-selling, and it will continue until these guys are called off or the volume rises such that they can't match it. We could use a Makary type at FINRA, who oversees the OTC stocks. There's a new chairman at the SEC, but the leadership at FINRA remains unchanged. I wouldn't necessarily say they're complicit, but they have stood idly by while small biotechs are wrecked by short sellers...remind you of any company we know?
A great article on the subject was written by Nancy Kim:
https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol57/iss3/1/
A summary of the article from Chatgpt; the author suggests suggests some reforms aimed at solving the problem:
"Summary: Shorting Innovation by Nancy S. Kim
In her article, Nancy S. Kim explores how short selling adversely impacts small biotech firms—defined as those with a market capitalization under $2 billion. These companies are pivotal in driving medical innovation but are particularly vulnerable to financial manipulation.
Key Points:
Disruption of Innovation: Short sellers often target small biotechs by disseminating misleading information and engaging in aggressive trading tactics. This can erode investor confidence, leading to stock price declines that hinder a company's ability to secure necessary funding for research and development.
Case Study - Northwest Biotherapeutics: Kim highlights the experience of Northwest Biotherapeutics, which faced significant challenges due to short-selling activities. These actions nearly derailed the development of their promising brain cancer vaccine, illustrating the real-world consequences of such financial strategies.
Broader Implications: The article argues that short selling not only affects individual companies but also has societal repercussions. By stifling innovation in the biotech sector, these practices can delay the availability of new treatments and maintain high drug prices due to reduced competition.
Policy Recommendations:
Surtax on Short Selling: Kim proposes a 15% surtax on profits from short selling small biotech stocks. The revenue generated would be allocated to the National Institutes of Health to support further research and development.
Increased Transparency: The article advocates for daily reporting of short sales and quarterly disclosures from large short sellers to enhance market transparency and accountability.
Kim's analysis underscores the need for regulatory reforms to protect small biotech firms from predatory financial practices and to ensure the continued advancement of medical innovations."
Personally I've had it with this sh!t, we need transparency here so these weasels can't continue to attack promising small biotechs in secrecy such as is happening to CytoDyn.
A great article on the subject was written by Nancy Kim:
https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol57/iss3/1/
A summary of the article from Chatgpt; the author suggests suggests some reforms aimed at solving the problem:
"Summary: Shorting Innovation by Nancy S. Kim
In her article, Nancy S. Kim explores how short selling adversely impacts small biotech firms—defined as those with a market capitalization under $2 billion. These companies are pivotal in driving medical innovation but are particularly vulnerable to financial manipulation.
Key Points:
Disruption of Innovation: Short sellers often target small biotechs by disseminating misleading information and engaging in aggressive trading tactics. This can erode investor confidence, leading to stock price declines that hinder a company's ability to secure necessary funding for research and development.
Case Study - Northwest Biotherapeutics: Kim highlights the experience of Northwest Biotherapeutics, which faced significant challenges due to short-selling activities. These actions nearly derailed the development of their promising brain cancer vaccine, illustrating the real-world consequences of such financial strategies.
Broader Implications: The article argues that short selling not only affects individual companies but also has societal repercussions. By stifling innovation in the biotech sector, these practices can delay the availability of new treatments and maintain high drug prices due to reduced competition.
Policy Recommendations:
Surtax on Short Selling: Kim proposes a 15% surtax on profits from short selling small biotech stocks. The revenue generated would be allocated to the National Institutes of Health to support further research and development.
Increased Transparency: The article advocates for daily reporting of short sales and quarterly disclosures from large short sellers to enhance market transparency and accountability.
Kim's analysis underscores the need for regulatory reforms to protect small biotech firms from predatory financial practices and to ensure the continued advancement of medical innovations."
Personally I've had it with this sh!t, we need transparency here so these weasels can't continue to attack promising small biotechs in secrecy such as is happening to CytoDyn.
10
