This post will be news to some readers and annoy others. I am warning readers to read all posts with cynicism. The concept behind the Stockhouse Bullboards is to provide retail investors with a forum to share ideas and information to improve their investment results. Trusting retail investors who take all posts at face value create a great opportunity for investment firms to promote their business efforts. Pump to sell. Dump to buy. There are no advertising costs and no disclosure requirements.
Below is a post that I made on the bullboard for Oncolytics Biotech, T.ONC. It provides three examples of posters who support a buy side manipulation to justify a depressed stock price. It is not difficult for investment firms to manage ONC’s stock price given their advantage of being the dominant buyer of a thinly traded stock. FYI, Oncolytics is in the final stages of the commercial development of Reolysin. Reolysin is a viral therapy that kills and hunts cancer cells. It also leaves the body with an immune response.
As for me, I would not rely on any bullboard to make an investment decision. It is not a credible source. A company’s website contains more than enough information and it is subject to disclosure and reporting rules, regulations, and laws. There are other credible sources for due diligence. I stumbled on Stockhouse last May looking for reasons why ONC was failing to stay above the $3.00 margin. The bullboard consisted post after post of whining about management. I started to be a pumper and discovered, to my amazement, the influence of bullboards. To date, I have posted 316 times since 21 May 2010. It has been an educational experience in how the market works. Enjoy reading Modern Day Carpetbaggers.
Modern Day Carpetbaggers – Hold & Buy Oncolytics Posted 12 May 2011-05-13
Please be advised that this is a long post. It has taken me time to research and draft it. The short version is that Stockhouse Bullboard is an ideal marketing tool for small investment firms. They can use it to pump stocks that they are selling and dump on stocks that they are buying. It is work to be a constant poster. I have done it for a year because deceptive practices annoy me and it’s a challenge to fight back. I am counting the days until the bubble bursts on the buy side manipulation. The common target audience is retail investors who are drawn by curiosity and self interest to the bullboards. The buy side manipulation is not a conspiracy. It is a business practice. With readership on the Oncolytics bullboard down 67% compared to before I started posting and other bullboards, my posts have made a difference. Retail investors are holding onto their shares. Trading volumes are low.
The long version is that the responses by rnewland, CravenRaven, and Sharkfood to my May 6th post, Questions and Cost of Capital, caused me to re-evaluate who is behind the buy side manipulation of Oncolytics. The buy side manipulation consists of managing the stock price through trading techniques of controlling the bid and ask, and using this site to encourage retail investors to sell. The mystery is who would stoop to posting to discussion boards? There is no mystery to “why.” It is called greed and financial gain. It seems to me that the manipulators are small investment firms who use discussion boards to pump stocks that they are selling and to dump on stocks that they are buying. It is not a conspiracy. It is business and a cheap effective way to market. When the bubble bursts on Oncolytics, they will be in a position to sell and fill the demand from institutional fund managers and retail investors who are late comers to potential value of Reolysin. It is an old and requiring story as demonstrated by the trading of Dendreon in April 2009. (It appears at the end.)
Let’s look at the three responses to Questions and Cost of Capital and ask the question: Are posters retail investors or employees? In Questions and Cost of Capital, I made the point that “cost of capital” meant that it was in the CEO’s best financial interest to partner because it minimizes the cost of dilution to his personal holdings, 962,000 shares. With a partner, Oncolytics share price will jump to reflect the premium that the partner pays to buy in and the impact of the credibility factor. The primary consideration to partner now from CEO’s and other shareholders’ perspective is the stock price that the potential partner will pay. With the trial results being presented at the World Lung Cancer Conference during July 3-7 in Amsterdam, the next step for Oncolytics is to apply to the FDA for a pivotal trial. A pivotal trial will create the urgency by Big Pharma players to partner. Questions and Cost of Capital included a table using three cases with partnership strike prices of $7.50, $10.00, and $15.00. It illustrated that at $7.50 it did not cost the CEO (under $1/2 million) and other shareholders much to absorb the cost of dilution but the cost started to become significant to the CEO at $10.00 (over $1 million) and at $15.00 material (over $2 million). Last Friday, ONCY closed at $5.66 and ONC closed at $5.49. The gap between the closing prices and the strike price to close a partnership deal demonstrates the financial strength of the buy side manipulation to manage the stock price.
The last comment received was from Sharkfood. Sharkfood’s background is that he has been posting since 6 August 2000 and has a reputation rating of 2 based on 576 posts to date. I checked the archive in his Content section to discover that 560 posts were made to the ONC bullboard. Except for a customer complaint when he bought a Mac on the 12 August 2008, he has posted 16 times on T.MSD (11 posts from 21 June 2006 to 13 Sept., 4 posts from 25-28 April 2003, and 1 post on 28 January 2002). I question Sharkfood’s motive for posting 559 times over 11 years. I have posted for a year and posting is work. Sharkfood posts to complain about Oncolytics management and is not concerned by the stock movement. A rationale retail investor would not hold a stock for 11 years with no trust in management and take the time to post primarily on it. An employee of a small investment firm would.
His reply post consists of pasting a post by charlieml1 from the Yahoo discussion board for my consideration. I do not believe in discussion boards to make my investment decisions because they are not a credible source of information. I never have been to nor intend to go to the Yahoo discussion board. I was pleased to read that my posts on Stockhouse have influenced the Yahoo board. Charlieml1’s post confirms that people are complaining about the manipulation of ONCY. “The manipulators of oncy do it simply because they can. Retail is nomatch for the assets the big boys work with. It cracks me up when peoplescream for other people to quit selling their stock, as if retail wasresponsible for major price movements.” Charlieml1 goes on to defend the current stock price: “It hasbeen said that with preapproval biotechs, the best time to sell isafter positive phase 2 results. I don't remember the percentages, butphase 3 is the death knell for a good majority.” Charlieml1 finishes with casting the light on Brad as the chief manipulator. Brad would have to be missing more than one loose screw to be a manipulator. He is the insider of insiders and the architect of the 10% management option pool. He has no reason to run a buy side manipulation.
The second reply was from CravenRaven. CravenRaven’s background is that he has been posting since 12 March 2010 and has a reputation rating of 3 based on 411 posts to date. According to the archive in his Content section, CravenRaven has posted on 22 different bullboards. His expertise is the energy, exploration, and oil sector where he has posted on 21 companies. There were 11 companies listed on the Venture Exchange (ATK, BLR, BMX.A, BWD, GNZ, NOG, PXL, RYD (acquired), SNV, TOC.A, WSX), and 10 companies on the TSX (AEI, BCF (acquired), DZR, EME, NGL, PBG, PBN, PMT, SWY, WDN). It strikes me as a strange that a retail investor would include Oncolytics in this portfolio. It is also a lot of work for CravenRaven to keep on top of this portfolio and post. Compared to his posts on ONC where he argues the market price is right and ridicules me for posting against a buy side manipulation, his posts to other companies reflect a person with a deep understanding. Some posts pump a stock while others dump a stock. It is more likely that CravenRaven is an analyst for a small investment firm.
His reply post starts by misrepresenting my January prediction that if the market was forward looking to July then ONC should be trading above $13.26 by the end of March. “*yawn*... you also "saw" a price above ...what was it? 12 bucks???? by the end of March... WE all know how that prediction turned out don't we?” His replies in January were that there was a natural ebb and flow to ONC’s market price and he was selling at $6.25 with buy back points of $4.50 and $5.00. Since the December 31 closing price of ONC at $6.73, there has been no news to justify or general market trend to justify the 18% decline in the stock price. CravenRaven predicted the strength of the buy side manipulation to manage the stock price. His post goes on to deny a buy side manipulation could exist. “YOU best stick to your conspiracy theory..” His post closes with a comment that partnership equity strike prices are set by rote formula without consideration of management judgment or external comparisons. “ANY partnership... WILL involve an equity offer... typically... that equity will be based on an X- number of trading days average SP and with the potential partner offering a premium to that average price... THEY don't just pull a number out of their *ss” Based on the current stock price and market cap, under $400 million, Cravenraven appears to support a partner coming in around the $7.50 since it represents a 50% premium. Amgn announced acquiring Biovex for $1 billion last January. As illustrated by the three strike price cases in Questions and Cost of Capital, $7.50 is unlikely to be accepted by management and shareholders. The buy side manipulation is relying on management to negotiate the best strike price and focuses on managing the stock price to reduce costs.
The first reply was from rnewland. Rnewland’s background is that he has been posting since 22 October 2007 and has a reputation rating of 1 based on 17 posts to date. His back ground raises more questions than supplies answers. It is strange that a person can acquire a reputation rating of 1 on only 17 posts, particularly when you read their content. Rnewland was created in 2007 with 3 posts on MPV over 2 days. It was dormant until 10 October 2010 when he posted the first of 12 posts to ONC. Most of his posts to ONC are personal attacks against JLGemini. I have noticed this pattern with other posters and, now, routinely check a new poster’s background. My take is that some investment firms have dormant shelf accounts to handle the situation when they want to add a new face to a bullboard. The other two posts were to the MPV bullboard.
Rnewland’s reply, Valuation, was made in error. He meant to post it to T.MPV. He was pumping the stock price. Mountain Provincial Diamonds raised $23 million last November at $5.00 per share. Is rnewland pumping the stock to sell his firms allotment? MPV is trading at $5.60. Here is rnewland’s post, Valuation:
“Using 6 B in diamonds
650 M to construct mine
25% cost to pull the diamonds out - this is a guess - anyone know the right number?
49% ownership
I come up with $1,966,125,000
I don't know how to calculate the discounting for the fact that it will take 11 years to get all the diamonds - can anyone help with that?
after using the discount factor divide by 78.65 M shares - although that will probably go up as they raise capital
Thanks, Randy”
In closing, I repeat my allegation that Sharkfood, Cravenraven, rnewlands, and many people who post are not retail investors who want to share ideas and information to support others. I allege that they post to advance their business agenda to sell and buy shares and a bullboard is an ideal marketing tool for them.
Hold and Buy Oncolytics. The best proof source is the existence and efforts of the buy side manipulation to dispute this message.
Trading of Dendreon, DNDN, on the NASDAQ
| Date | Close | Volume |
| | | |
| 31-Dec-08 | 4.58 | 714,221 |
| 15-Jan-09 | 4.61 | 2,471,820 |
| 30-Jan-09 | 3.37 | 1,317,839 |
| 17-Feb-09 | 3.65 | 1,606,247 |
| 27-Feb-09 | 3.05 | 2,757,763 |
| 16-Mar-09 | 3.95 | 4,921,467 |
| 31-Mar-09 | 4.20 | 2,296,321 |
| 01-Apr-09 | 4.14 | 3,199,650 |
| 02-Apr-09 | 4.34 | 2,427,867 |
| 03-Apr-09 | 5.99 | 22,497,200 |
| 06-Apr-09 | 6.58 | 19,585,750 |
| 07-Apr-09 | 6.58 | 7,346,062 |
| 08-Apr-09 | 6.37 | 5,392,639 |
| 09-Apr-09 | 6.30 | 4,234,697 |
| 13-Apr-09 | 7.30 | 12,775,310 |
| 14-Apr-09 | 16.99 | 65,120,890 |
| 15-Apr-09 | 17.17 | 19,294,060 |
| 16-Apr-09 | 17.03 | 6,894,881 |
| 17-Apr-09 | 17.99 | 17,799,470 |
| 20-Apr-09 | 19.52 | 17,724,250 |
| 21-Apr-09 | 19.74 | 11,008,510 |
| 22-Apr-09 | 20.12 | 7,358,435 |
| 23-Apr-09 | 20.33 | 6,123,418 |
| 24-Apr-09 | 20.08 | 7,393,327 |
| 27-Apr-09 | 21.55 | 18,569,850 |
| 28-Apr-09 | 11.81 | 28,070,740 |
| 29-Apr-09 | 22.94 | 48,235,790 |
| 30-Apr-09 | 21.20 | 17,468,950 |
| Yesterday | | |
| 11-May-11 | 38.18 | 2,497,301 |