Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
if i were a cop i'd hate to frisk people especially men since im not gay .... so this device would help alot.They usually let women cops frisk women which is a big turn on for me to watch . anyhow, the device will really help the homophobic cops which i know i would be one
meant to type were not where
okay i caught myself that time
It would be interesting to know what the reasons where for Steve to switch from the media buisness to the auto software buisness? There could be more then one reason ,am curious.
Also, i couldn't find Larry Ellisons email address ,i think that... well down the road i think if the revenues show substantial growth and Larry would find that a global presence would validate buying such a innovation ,oh i see writing on the wall here , but perhaps its 2 yrs down the road.
re:At this rate ($14M net income per year) AOB can start acquiring companies the size of GLP (or 2 HSPL per year :) ) with their cash generated from operation and AOB to work on its way to be the top 10 pharma in China..
Are you suggesting this to managment ? which is a good idea or is it just a observation ,a very feasable one.
Invest Wisely profit Hugely!
pluripotent stem cell news update:
Advances in Cellular Reprogramming
As reported yesterday, two laboratories (not PLRS )have generated what appear to be pluripotent stem cell lines from human skin cells by permanently introducing a number of specific gene sequences into the genome via live viral vectors. The resulting ?induced? pluripotent stem cell lines (iPS) expressed genes characteristic of ?embryonic? human stem cell lines, proliferated in vitro at small scale for several months and displayed the ability to form teratomas and to undergo differentiation in vitro to several functional cell types. Although the iPS cells appear similar to human embryonic stem cells, they differed from hESCs in global gene expression patterns, with over 1000 genes differentially expressed, and they have not been extensively characterized.
No Impact on hESC Therapeutic Product Development
?This is beautiful science,? said Thomas Okarma, Ph.D., M.D., Geron?s president and CEO. ?These findings contribute to a better understanding of the molecular biology of cellular differentiation. The work will enable the generation of pluripotent lines from individuals who suffer from poorly understood genetic diseases. Such lines will be useful in understanding how certain abnormal genes induce dysfunction in particular cell types that lead to disease.?
?Yet the results are unlikely to impact the development of stem-cell based therapeutics,? continued Dr. Okarma. ?The notion of using an individually derived pluripotent stem cell line as the source for the manufacturing of a therapeutic cell type used only for that individual is not only extremely labor intensive and technically difficult, it is economically unfeasible.>>
SO PLRS APPROACH IS IT COST EFFECTIVE SINCE THE ABOVE ARTICLE STATES THAT THE RECENT PUBLICIZED NEWS DEVELOPMENT ISN'T COST EFFECTIVE AND THAT THE IMMUNE SYSTEM WILL ATTACH SUCH CELLS.
HAS PLRS PROVEN THAT THE IMMUNE SYSTEM WON'T ATTACK????
DO WE HAVE A DOCTOR IN THE HOUSE or IS THIS A TRUE PENNY SCAM?
interesting take , so its way too expensive to derive them from skin cells.
also gern states that embroyoic wont be attacked by the immunse system.
so my prediction is a short covering and this was the low of the year. so a higher new low which down the road ,to me ,means a higher new high to come ,say by july '08?
I agree with your outlook. I will of missed the boat if they have locked up a stream of delightful Pr's. Yet, if they don't then pps will get shorted and they will do another r/s down the road. Its too dangerous for me to buy in at this point ,yet i find the science quite amazing . Actually seems like a more natural way of curing opposed to using drugs. But the company needs a big name bio tech name to join the board instead of some x cia hit man with ties to diabolical organizations such as the caryly group (possible gun running sob's --not sure tho)
NNNNice info Eagle, looks like we have a rather experienced leader.
I plan on adding under monday !
Short interest isn't high at all ,last i checked, but i don't know about the naked short game --perhaps Knights involved ? we will see 12-4
Invest Wisely and Profit hugely!
looking good , yes MM's like to play games
Sec gas changed the rules on them for naked shorting,small caps will do better across the board
was there a side effect issue ? thus 2 phase 3's were needed?
pps has come back pretty good from the test of lows, 08 should be better earnings , as in alot better?
heres the letter ( KNIGHT must be naked shorting many stocks and dosn't like SEC changes ,again i don't know who what or which stock they naked short )
Knight Capital Worried about Reg Sho Changes
September 20, 2006
Nancy M. Morris
Secretary
Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F. Street, NE
Washington, DC 20549-9303
Re: Release No. 34-54154; File Number S7-12-06
Proposed Amendments to Regulation SHO
Dear Ms. Morris:
Knight Capital Group, Inc. (“Knight”)[1] welcomes the opportunity to offer our comments to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) on the proposed amendments to Regulation SHO.[2] The proposed amendments seek to: (i) eliminate the grandfather provision for fails; (ii) modify the options market maker exemption for closing out fails; and (iii) address the unwinding index arbitrage positions. The Commission also requests comment on a number of additional questions. Since our business will be impacted directly by the proposal relating to the elimination of the grandfather provision, we will focus most of our comments on that issue.
Proposed elimination of the grandfather provision
The Commission proposes to eliminate the grandfather clause of Rule 203(b)(3)(i). This rule generally exempts fails to deliver that existed prior to the security becoming a threshold security. The new amendment would require that all grandfathered fails be closed-out within 35 settlement days from the effective date of the amendment and if a security becomes a threshold security after the effective date, all fails would need to be closed out within 13 consecutive settlement days. We respectfully oppose such a change.
We believe that the empirical data now available shows that this proposal is not necessary – see, Memorandum from the Commission’s Office of Economic Analysis (August 21, 2006). For example, “99.2% of the fails that existed on January 3, 2005 are no longer outstanding as of March 31, 2006” (Memorandum at page 2).
Additionally, the elimination of the grandfather provision will lead to increased volatility in these securities, created by short squeezes as individuals attempt to cover positions. Importantly, the elimination of the grandfather provision will negatively impact bona fide market making and the ability of market makers to provide liquidity. As the Division of Market Regulation correctly noted,
There may be legitimate reasons for a failure to deliver….For example, market makers who sell short thinly traded, illiquid stock in response to customer demand may encounter difficulty in obtaining securities when the time for delivery arrives.
Naked short selling is not necessarily a violation of the federal securities laws or the Commission's rules. Indeed, in certain circumstances, naked short selling contributes to market liquidity. For example, broker-dealers that make a market in a security generally stand ready to buy and sell the security on a regular and continuous basis at a publicly quoted price, even when there are no other buyers or sellers. Thus, market makers must sell a security to a buyer even when there are temporary shortages of that security available in the market. This may occur, for example, if there is a sudden surge in buying interest in that security, or if few investors are selling the security at that time. Because it may take a market maker considerable time to purchase or arrange to borrow the security, a market maker engaged in bona fide market making, particularly in a fast-moving market, may need to sell the security short without having arranged to borrow shares. This is especially true for market makers in thinly traded, illiquid stocks such as securities quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board, as there may be few shares available to purchase or borrow at a given time. (emphasis supplied and citations omitted)
See, Division of Market Regulation: Key Points About Regulation SHO (April 11, 2005).
Thus, to restrict – indeed eliminate, the ability of market makers to satisfy these investor needs will undoubtedly lead to less liquidity, greater volatility, and widening of spreads. Further, in certain instances, restricting bona fide market making in such a fashion could lead to upward price manipulation (i.e., the return of “pump & dump” schemes) causing investors to purchase shares at inflated prices.
If the Commission does determine, however, to move forward with the elimination of the grandfather clause, we urge the Commission to adopt a permanent phase-in period of 35 days for all fails to deliver incurred in securities prior to those securities becoming a threshold security. In addition to the reasons stated above, Knight is very concerned that the elimination of the grandfather provision will necessarily inject a new risk dynamic into the market making process that is nearly impossible to predict and even more difficult to measure. More specifically, when making a decision whether to sell short to an investor seeking to buy a “non-threshold” stock, a market maker today can adequately assess the risk associated with providing liquidity and capital to that order. Although there is always a risk of price movement, a market maker can manage that risk by deciding when to buy back that position. Under the current proposal, the market maker loses that risk management capability. Thus, if the stock is not a threshold security the day the market maker sells short to an investor, but becomes a threshold security shortly thereafter, the risk incurred by the market maker on the day it went short will exponentially increase – since, the market maker can no longer manage its exit point on the position and will now be forced to close that position within 13 consecutive settlement days. In effect, a new and substantial risk will be applied retroactively to a market making decision made in the past. So, through no fault of its own, the market maker is now forced into a potentially precarious – and costly, position.
Consequently, in light of the additional and substantial new risks the market maker is being asked to bear, and since this risk will be incurred in connection with activities designed to serve the investing public (i.e., bona fide market making), we suggest an extended, permanent buy-in period of 35 settlement days in these situations. No harm will come to any investor or the marketplace with this modest extension of time, however it will help market makers somewhat manage this newly created risk.
Additional questions posed by the Commission
The Commission raised additional questions in the proposed amendments which we would also like to address:
1. Should there be, “a mandatory pre-borrow requirement in lieu of a locate requirement for threshold securities with extended fails?”
If the Commission was to adopt a mandatory pre-borrow requirement in lieu of a locate requirement for threshold securities with extended fails to deliver, we submit that the Commission should clarify that such requirement would not be imposed on transactions that are exempted from Rule 203(b)(1) by Rule 203(b)(2). If such transactions are not exempted from the pre-borrow requirement, it could impact a market maker even if it did not have an extended fail. Such a requirement could also provide an un-level playing field to certain market participants. Specifically, broker/dealers that have extensive stock loan businesses will have the advantage of transacting in securities at costs much lower than other firms. Overall costs to other broker/dealers would increase as they would have to use capital and pay higher borrow costs to make a market in the stock even though they are not contributing to the fail. In addition, a market maker would be required to incur these borrow costs if it wanted to post quotations if such quotations may result in the market maker selling stock short. This will impact negatively a market maker’s ability to make markets in threshold securities – thereby reducing liquidity for threshold securities.
2. Should the, “current close-out requirement of 13 consecutive settlement days for Rule 144 restricted threshold securities or other types of threshold securities should be extended?”
Knight supports extending the close-out requirement from 13 consecutive settlement days to at least 35 settlement days for sales in threshold securities related to sales effected pursuant to SEC Rule 144, or other similar situations where delays may occur in settlement. Requiring a close-out of “owned” shares in the 13-day period has resulted in serious consequences to sellers that “own” a security who, through no fault of the seller, were not able to settle the transaction by the 13th day. For example, the mechanics of having the transfer agent remove a restrictive legend often results in delays of settling transaction beyond 13 settlement days. [3] These delays are not a result of the abusive short selling practices that Regulation SHO was intended to address. Instead, they are typically a result of ensuring that proper documentation is received to remove the legend (e.g., an opinion of counsel).
In addition, transactions in restricted securities are typically larger in size and occur over several days or weeks which increases the risk that such transactions will be subject to a buy-in because: (i) the fails associated with the sales of restricted shares may be sufficient enough to cause the security to become a threshold security or delay a security from being removed from the threshold list; [4] and (ii) sellers are typically not permitted to start the process of removing the restrictive legend until after the shares are sold. Moreover, using the last-in-first-out (“LIFO”) method of closing out fails-to-deliver, the seller of restricted securities is subject to a greater risk of buy-in because shares that are delivered to settle one trade may be applied to a subsequent trade that is also causing a fail-to-deliver.[5]
3. Should the Commission except “ETFs or other types of structured products from the definition of threshold securities?”
We support such a proposal and submit that such an exception should extend to other structured products and American Depository Receipts (ADRs). These types of securities are not subject to the potential short selling abuses as there value is derived from an underlying basket of securities or underlying foreign security. In addition, ETFs and ADRs are in continuous distributions making it difficult to determine the correct outstanding shares for such securities. Thus, the securities may become threshold securities when the fails-to-deliver do not amount to 0.5% of the true outstanding shares.
4. Should the Commission, “consider tightening the locate requirements?”
The Commission asks whether it should require that brokers/dealers obtain locates only from sources that will decrement shares. We respectfully oppose this proposal, as it will negatively impact the ability of a broker/dealer to borrow stock. Since the vast majority of locates do not result in an actual borrow by settlement, requiring a decrement base simply on a locate request would have the effect of reducing substantially the available stock for lending – thus, increasing the cost to borrow the shares and overall clearing costs (which, ultimately, may be passed on to the investor). Further, we also believe that a great deal of time and money will need to be spent by the clearing industry in developing systems and procedures designed to accurately count and decrement shares each time a locate is requested, cancelled, etc. In our view, the stock lending market is not based on the ability to deliver all shares for which there is a locate requested – rather, it is based on the ability to deliver stock in those instances where a broker/dealer is required to borrow the stock to settle a short sale. Since most locates do not result in a need to borrow shares to settle trades, there is no compelling reason to tie-up all stock available for lending.
5. Should the Commission require the, “dissemination of aggregate fails data or fails data by individual security?”
We respectfully disagree with this proposal. Such disclosure would cause more confusion as the information is not indicative of abusive short selling, especially in light of fails caused by “owned” securities (restricted sales). Thus, for example, investors may mistakenly believe that a large percentage of fails to deliver is indicative of abusive short selling or problems with the issuer, when it could be a result of an operational delay with a transfer agent or a delay in removing the legend for a restricted securities transaction. This mistaken belief could result in increased volatility in the stock and increased short selling.
If the Commission were to require aggregate fail data to be published, Knight believes that such information should be limited to aggregate street-wide fails by cusip number, and that SROs should publish the data they receive from the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”). In addition, the data should only be published for securities that are on the threshold list for 35 consecutive settlement days to avoid situations where the security became a threshold security as a result of restricted securities transactions or operational delays.
6. Should the Commission require, “additional specific documentation of long sales?”
We would oppose such a new requirement. We are not aware of any data which suggests there is a problem in this area. Most broker/dealers have fairly extensive compliance and supervisory requirements designed to confirm sales are properly marked “long” or “short” and to monitor settlement of transactions by its clients. This new proposal will add substantial costs to an already robust infrastructure, with minimal benefit. However, if the Commission does seek to amend Regulation SHO to require increased documentation for long sales, Knight submits that an executing broker should be exempt from such requirements when there is: (i) a prime brokerage relationship; (ii) the trade is a DVP trade; (iii) settlement instructions are on file with the executing broker; or, (iv) the order is sent electronically.
Conclusion
We commend the continued efforts of the Commission to make improvements to Regulation SHO and the marketplace. Knight would welcome the opportunity to discuss our comments with the Commission
still here, huge potential , never seen such a small float
in time it will run BIG
i meant that last line for another board
yet one of the MMs 'NITE'as you know looks to be in big trouble all due to the new SEC rules going into effect and the grace period to cover ending on Dec. 4th.
Previous post was NITEs letter to the SEC in which they show they are worried about LARGE SHORT SQUEEZES occurring shortly before or after that date!
Anyone else short besides NITE here?
If you are you might have just gotten trapped!!!!
Insiders salaries :
Mr. King Kau Ng , 56
Chief Exec. Officer, Pres, Director and Member of Audit Committee $ 96.00K N/A
Mr. Kok Keng Low , 48
Chief Technology Officer, Exec. VP, Head of Processing Bus. Unit, Director and Member of Audit Committee $ 28.00K N/A
Mr. Charlie Rodriguez , 62
Sec., Treasurer, Director and Member of Audit Committee $ 72.00K
No one is over paid ,thats for sure. The company is based in WA USA !! low market cap ? what will happen to make this a profitable company??
Management Effectiveness
Return on Assets (ttm): -50.13%
Return on Equity (ttm): -148.24%
Income Statement
Revenue (ttm): 1.50M
Revenue Per Share (ttm): 0.031
Qtrly Revenue Growth (yoy): 3364.80%
Gross Profit (ttm): 135.06K
EBITDA (ttm): -3.09M
Net Income Avl to Common (ttm): -3.56M
Diluted EPS (ttm): -0.08
Qtrly Earnings Growth (yoy): N/A
Balance Sheet
Total Cash (mrq): 72.79K
Total Cash Per Share (mrq): 0.001
Total Debt (mrq): 317.92K
Total Debt/Equity (mrq): 0.049
Current Ratio (mrq): 0.549
Book Value Per Share (mrq): 0.093
Cash Flow Statement
Operating Cash Flow (ttm): -1.05M
Levered Free Cash Flow (ttm): -2.15M
So what will turn things around? If this is China's version of MASTERCARD etc does it mean that the chinese don't use credit cards like the US does?
pps has been sold off and looks to me to be a great entry point. Yet confirmation for me is if the dow stays above 13
down the road this is a 100$ share , as in possibly a few yrs.
anyone have a take on NHY?
Grandfather provision... NITE: For ALL STOCKS: Do the Math...
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has amended Regulation SHO to eliminate the “grandfather provision” and will take effect on October 15, 2007.
SEC Regulation SHO sets out rules governing short sales, including the mandatory close-out requirement that applies to securities in which a substantial amount of fails to deliver have occurred (“threshold securities”). Clearing agency participants and broker-dealers for which they clear positions (“participants”) must take immediate action to close out a fail to deliver position in a Threshold Security that has lasted for 13 consecutive settlement days by purchasing securities of like kind and quantity (“close-out requirement”).
The amendment eliminates one of the exceptions to the Close-out Requirement for fails to deliver established prior to a security becoming a Threshold Security (“grandfather provision”). The amendment requires Participants to close out any previously-grandfathered fails to deliver in a security that is on the Threshold Security List on October 15th. The close-out must occur within 35 consecutive settlement days of October 15th. If a security becomes a Threshold Security after October 15th, all fails to deliver must be closed out within 13 consecutive settlement days.
What do I have to do on or after October 15th?
This amendment does not require NASDAQ to make any changes to its Threshold Security List. However, Participants should ensure that they close out previously-grandfathered fail to deliver positions within the time frames established by the amendment. Participants that do not close out these fail to deliver positions within 35 days will, by rule, be prohibited from accepting any short sale orders or effecting further short sales in these securities until the entire fail to deliver position is closed out.
http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader/News/2007/regulatoryalerts/ra2007-086.stm
I DO NOT KNOW IF THE PPS FALL WAS DUE TO NAKED SHORTING OR NOT ,BUT IF IT DOES THEN THERES COVERING GOING ON . JUST A THOUGHT
Hey P2 thanks for the updates on the naked shorting rule.I believe the walk down was a last attempt to get the pps down for a short cover . If theres buying monday it should pop back and continue where it left off ( approaching .03)
There is a short on ragingbull that is misconstuing things. I've straightened him out some ,but he's a pompus SOB.
and Retireat , thanks for pointing that out, i'm apparently typing too fast and not using a spell check. But again i was really trying to trap the shorts by adding the buy-out factor to the equation. Yet, i had a sense for some reason that Oracle would find interest. They have made tons of aquisitions ,i looked over thier website ,amazing.
shorts have covered and no more naked shorting i'm hearing? new rule ... so .84 will not be seen again?
means they didn't reject durring the time period of review ,but why didn't they approve durring this time?
I'm confused a bit here , the drug has to be taken many times a day and is alot more costly? sure i would prefer to not to use needles but how does the stuff taste? and will it be a hassle to have to take that much after meals?
1. got to agree that end of day action was a walk down tactic.
2.about what i did earlier today ----I don't think i misrepresented the company when i emailed MSFT ORACLE MOT . i stated i was a shareholder ,yet it wasn't clear which stock i held. Yet, i've never done anything like that before and.... well sorry to upset anyone. I won't do it again,hows that? I didn't notice any typo's ? But agree that it wasn't worded the best. I don't think it will do any harm and probably won't even get read, who knows. I don't think we should make a big deal about it. I've been saying Dlav is a growth play all along. Anyhow ,except my apologies , also another post i used the metaphor 'fat cats' in a possitive way ,yet that term seems to have negative connotations .
LWM
thanks
yes i guess i didn't need to email MSFT etc since they will find out all about it on thier own.
again, we don't need a buy out but why not stir the pot a little .
fatcat companies like those already have established sales teams globablly ,so they have the express route in operation. Webda would spread faster is all ,yet these companies are in competition with each other so ,the 2nd caveat is that the all like Dlav and start a bidding war. Yet, by then the shorts will of wished they covered ??? hehehehe
Thank you for your interest in Oracle! Your email inquiry has been received and will be addressed to the proper department, as this channel is reviewed at least twice daily.
PLEASE NOTE: If you are an international customer, you are not
guaranteed a response as this channel is limited to US customers only. Please
refer to the following site to locate the official international office
nearest you:
http://www.oracle.com/corporate/contact/global.html
ANYHOW SO AS YOU CAN SEE THE FAT CATS WILL BECOME INFORMED ABOUT THE GLOBAL REVENUES THAT THEY CAN EASILY OBTAIN
BUYING DLAV EARLY MEANS .50-200 i would guess a .75 offer to see if they take it. ANYHOW,AGAIN ITS A GROWTH PLAY WE DO NOT NEED A BUY OUT. DOES ANYONE KNOW OF ANY OTHER COMPANIES THAT MIGHT LIKE DLAV?
I've emailed the following to Oracle,Mst and Mot
As a new shareholder i wanted to suggest a new and significant CRM software breakthrough . Its worth going over with you're mergers and aquistions ,works with ORACLES buisness plan.
WebDA(TM) is the next generation of DLAV's "CRM" application. The system is web based and is available at a fraction of the cost of the original Dealer Advance system. According to Humphries dealers that have utilized the original DealerAdvance(TM) system it has shown a 90% increase in captured customer data and a 30% increase in appointment setting.
DealerAdvance Announces WebDA(R) Interface with Nokia(R)
ADDISON, Texas --(Business Wire)-- DealerAdvance(TM), Inc. (OTCBB:DLAV), announced today that the Company has developed its new WebDA product to interface with the new Nokia 770 Tablet hand-held device. Steven Humphries, CEO, made the announcement today to investors with great excitement and anticipation. He commented, "The hand-held technology is what set DealerAdvance apart from all of the other CRM providers over the past several years, but was limited due to the server based technology and the inherit problems with wireless networks. Now with the new Nokia technology utilized in the 770 Tablet PC, dealers and their sales people will now be able to access WebDA from anywhere, anytime." According to Humphries, the new technology will be debuted at the NADA Convention & Expo February 9-12th, 2008 in San Francisco.
ORACLE should look into this at the very least.
So, can you forward or give me the mergers and aquistions department?
Sincerely and for the benifit of buisness model expansion
JOE BLOW AND THE BLOWETTES (just kidding about the last part)
i'm ready to add on monday !
hey is happy hour early today? or at the usual?
again, we're all in early .... this is a turnaround play with growth potential that others have said will be expedential,as in HUGE .
I wonder if MOT has this company on its radar yet, might add to thier arsenol? I will try emailing them to simply inform them . You never know. If they have a mergers and aquisitions department it wouldn't hurt to notify them. They bought symbol for billions. If they got into Dlav before it takes off they could steal it, yet thats why Steve has alot of A/S.
a whole new zone sounds good to me.
i see that when dlav was subpenny the street didn't know what r/d plan was all about or perhaps lost faith. So it was over sold in a big way. I don't know if it was due to naked shorting or not.
now that the ball is rolling so to speak ,the trend is our friend to the upside. A brillant ceo whos shareholder friendly and who could surrender A/S at one point is focused and concentrated on going after US auto market first, after that is accomplished then the global market would be knocking at the door. A caveat of a buy out by other software makers is always a possibility ,too.(as i've and others had mentioned). All in all ,we're in a great growth play ,up up and away ,lets hope some shorts got trapped---only since i dislike them so much.
institutions don't mind if they crunch the numbers and its way undervalued. But yes the individual investor seems to like to wait for a dip ???
I'll be keeping a eye on the institutional ownership which is at the beginning .... and i predict a big big block coming from them soon--- or after the trade show.
by the way the trade show isn't open to the public ,only auto dealers
i agree ,board monitors are you home today?
I clicked the link ,ahh so , yes yes yes , short clips ...
wow some sorta cute looking women ,,, not bad! A polished show for sure !
LONG HERE
<<Let's be conservative and say revenue is only $50M and let's say earnings are only $15M. Staying conservative, let's say the OS at the time has increased to 150M. That's EPS of 10 cents. With a high growth rate, it certainly would support a PE of 30. That gives a share price of $3.
Again, if this senerio played out which i believe it would we would be listed on a better index and get max exposure which yes could very well take us to 3.00 ,of course down the road and only after theres confirmation that auto dealers love the product(s).
A great CEO and a leading edge technology ??? what a great combo !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LONG LONG LONG HERE
the cat is out of control buddy LOL
i've got to get a pic for mine... when we reach a target i add a picture ,something along the lines of appl msft running after our ticker symbol
yet someone posted a pic with that chick who was painted up all nice ,you know the base ball fan one?
well the overall market is to the upside ....today
i believe its called healthy consolidation, yet those mentioning the s-8 selling ,sure it could still of been a factor.
will agree with those saying this is a great way to enter the chinese market ..... now when will be listed on the chinese exchange?
Mak should look over the plus's there , more exposure to institutional investors. Are we headed greener ? i think so
re: other tv shows like weakest link? you bet ,not a bad idea at all, weakest link fits with the playing field in china , you walk out of line over there you get thrown in prison for the rest of your life , a show with fast and dire consequences would go over well since everyone there can empathize. or do you think they need one of those Chef shows, where they slave over a wok ? sheesh time for left overs..
so i didn't do my DD Symbol was bought out ....
perhaps MOT or MSFT would be interested in DLAV
again ,we don't need a buy out to reach
.10 in 3 months
.20 next yr sometime
.40 is my target for '08
and if i like what i see then i will be in in '09
where i clean up as we hit the 1.00 and get listed on a better index. Yet ,it would make sense that in such a competative area ,that a buy out happens fast and furiously since the buyer would get the best deal early .
Motorola Completes Acquisition of Symbol Technologies
Transaction Positions Motorola as a Global Leader in Enterprise Mobility
SCHAUMBURG, Ill. – 9 January 2007 -- Motorola, Inc. (NYSE: MOT) announced today that it has completed its acquisition of Symbol Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: SBL). The transaction has a total equity value of approximately $3.9 billion on a fully-diluted basis. Symbol will be the core of Motorola’s enterprise mobility business, uniquely positioning the company to take enterprise mobility to a new level. Motorola now will offer the broadest array of innovative products and technologies available that enable enterprise customers to have access to business-critical information anytime, anywhere.
yeppers
and on less volume ,figures since its the a short day
still think this baby is stacked ,looking hot
growth play with even a who knows factor (buy out by msft since they are looking to compete against symbol etc)
LXRX started out as a technology company...I believe their original mission was to define gene function...or something like that. Now that they are transitioning into pharmaceuticals, they need a leader. It has been obvious over the past 2-3 years that Arthur cannot do this, as evidenced by the lack of deals, slow progress, overload of employees, and severe lack of communication. The investors know this and sent the stock plummeting!
I think the investors group Invus has something up their sleeve. Surely a bright group of people like them know what they are doing! Like us, they have been LXRX investors for a number of years...and have lost a lot of money. Now, the sudden influx on a failed initial investment?
I wouldnt be surprised if they are accumulating more shares at these low levels to raise their stake to greater than 50%. Or perhaps, they are waiting a few years for a compound to fail and a 50% selloff so they can take the company over for cheap. Afterall, they do have 3 board members! I just dont think we have heard the last of them.
If they really truely do believe in Lexicon and its pipeline, they should just take the company private now, and sell it back to the public in 5 years when LXRX has completed its initial 10 to 10 mission and has a drug or 2 on the market!
And the one thing about Invus holding greater than 50% of the stock is they can dump Sands and Julia, put a stop to huge bonuses, and get someone in the driver's seat.
So a buy out and restructoring ,getting rid of the dead wood as they say is the only hope??? Or is Invus actually a hedge player? and shorting it.
Note: The translations of articles from the Hebrew press are prepared by the Government Press Office as a service to foreign journalists in Israel. They express the views of the authors.
Background: Biotechnology in Israel Slower, Costlier, Riskier
(By Hadar Horesh, David Goldman and Galit Chemi, Yediot Ahronot, Economics Supplement, 26.1.99, p. 3)
In the past 10-15 years, mathematics, computers, software and the Internet have driven the natural sciences from public attention. The moment that investors and venture-capital funds saw high-tech's high return on investment, they opened the public's awareness to this sector and students flocked to it.
During these bull market periods, Prof. Haim Aviv, a pioneer in the founding of biotechnology companies in Israel, succeeds in raising a little capital for them. In the early 1980s, Prof. Aviv founded General Biotechnology and Pharmos. Three years ago, the largest investor in biotechnology companies in Israel and the United States, David Blech, went bankrupt, and since then several sources of funding have dried up.
Actually i've heard that Blech has interests with Plrs.Yet i only find his brothers name listed??? I guess David dosn't want his name mentioned anywhere . His wife Margie Chassman is usually the way he does it. Here i found proof from a web search:
Re: James Dale Davidson has been located
By James Dale Davidson-Leumi Bank Israel on 7/20/2007 5:43:29 PM
E-mail: endoscam@lycos.com
Below is SEC filing naming individuals and entities involved in this latest pump and dump scam from SEC Christopher Cox's
Alexandria,Virginia neighbor and National Taxpayers Union founder.Interesting to see the Leumi Bank of Israel connection in light of the fact that ex Secretary of Treasury John Snow,
Dan Quayle,the Kellogg Brown and Root boys still have some interst there and could stop its use for an obvious U.S. penny stock pump and dump and probable mnoney laundering operation.I wonder why they don't do something ?
Anyone have any idea why they incorporated their penny stock pump and dump scam in the good ol' USA rather than in Israel ?
http://sec.edgar-online.com/2007/05/24/0001085037-07-001248/Section14.asp
PLURISTEM LIFE SYSTEMS INC
Form:8-K Filing Date:5/24/2007 Jump to : -- Use Sections To Navigate Through The Document -- 8-K FORM 8-K SECTION 2 FINANCIAL INFORMATION Item 2.01. Completion of Acquisition or Disposition of Assets. SECTION 3 SECURITIES AND TRADING MARKETS Item 3.02. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities. SECTION 5 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE Item 5.02. Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; ... SECTION 7 REGULATION FD Item 7.01. Regulation FD Disclosure. SECTION 9 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits. SIGNATURES EXHIBIT 99 EXHIBIT 99 EXHIBIT 10 EXHIBIT 10 EXHIBIT 10 Format : HTML RTF Sections Excel Original PDF File Back
Pluristem Life Systems Inc.
List of Investors
AMY GANZ
AVINOAM KADORI
AVNER AND MICHAL STEPAK
BARRY HONIG
BENJAMIN BLECH
BRS ENERGY INVESTMENTS LLC
CAPELA OVERSEAS LTD
CHARLA CROITOROO
CRAIG H. BIRD
DAB HOLDINGS
DIANE TURK
ELINOR C GANZ RESTATED TRUST, ELINOR C. GANZ TRUSTEE
FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CUSTODIAN FOR ELINOR C. GANZ IRA ROLLOVER
FRANK CARLUCCI
GANZ FAMILY FOUNDATION
HTI VENTURES LLC ATTN ADI
JAMES DAVIDSON
JOHN S LEMAK
JONATHAN HONIG
LION BROTHERS
MEITAV GEMEL LTD. ON BEHALF OF BANK BENLEUMI
MEITAV GEMEL LTD. ON BEHALF OF BANK LEUMI
MEITAV INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LTD.
MEITAV MISHAN LTD. ON BEHALF OF BANK HAPOALIM
MEITAV PENSION LTD
MEITAV UNDERWRITING LTD
MICHAEL & BETSY BRAUSER TENANTS BY ENTIRETY
MICHAEL & BETSY BRAUSER TENANTS BY ENTIRETY
MICHAEL G. JESSELSON 12/18/80 TRUST
MONARCH CAPITAL FUNDS LTD.
OPALLO INVESTMENT
PARADOX TRADING COMPANY LLC
PAUL CROITOROO
PEDDLE PARTNERS LLP
POINT INVESTMENTS
RACHELLE OSTRO HAIM OSTRO
ROBERT PRAG
ROBERT S. COLMAN TRUST U/D/T 3/13/85
RONALD I. HELLER REVOCABLE TRUST
RONALD I. HELLER REVOCABLE TRUST
SAMUEL BARTOLETTA
SANDOR CAPITAL MASTER FUND, L.P.
SCOTT FROHMAN
SHAI MERETZKI
SHIMON AND MORDECAHAI VOGEL
KINDER INVESTMENTS LP.
SHMUEL COHEN
SHOSHANA MERCHAV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPRING CHARITABLE REMAINDER TRUST
SUSAN GANZ
TECHNION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION LTD
THE WOOD RIVER FUND
TIFFANY PALAGONIA
WILLIAM R. PRATHER REVOCABLE TRUST
YAACOV & ANAT YANAY
ZVI EINTRACHT AND AYA EINTRACHT TENANTS IN COMMON WROS
yeah ,all the company has are patent and they don't collect royalties ,,maybe of stem cells are approved and are the modus of operation ---only then would this stock start to move up. the company's president m chassman is married and is a front for the famous bio traders d. blech and he got into trouble before with the sec,jmo. Do a search on him. Anyhow , he does know something about biotech and how to pump and dump ,he might of caused the dead cat bounce for all i know. but its way to early to be in this ,let it fall to .0001 and then you might have a gold mine ,yet he would be buying there first before any of us ,unless it goes chp 11.
We also noted that the founder of Genetic Systems, David Blech, was found guilty of two counts of fraud.
The Seattle Times just provided some follow-up about another of the principle figures in Genetic Systems, Dr. Robert Nowinski, whom Blech hired to run the company. After he sold his shares in Genetic Systems, Nowinski went on to found three more bio-technology companies, Icos, PathoGenesis, and VaxGen, and he helped to found Primal. In 1990, he said, "if you took the 15 largest biotechnology companies of the 1980s, we founded three of them." After getting out of bio-tech, he went on to set up a high-tech art gallery in Seattle. However, this year he was reported again to be trying to "broker a billion-dollar deal with a local biotech company on behalf of some major investors."
The Times reported he has just been arrested on two federal criminal counts of failing to pay child support. Prosecutors say he is about $125,000 in arrears. He has also been subject to civil suits that claim he hid assets during his divorce proceedings, and that he withdrew a "loan," never paid back, from a trust fund meant to benefit his children from the failed marriage.
What a motley crew we have had running health care organizations!
Perhaps it's time to think about setting some standards for who gets to do that.
posted by Roy M. Poses MD at 11:43 AM
Links to this post
0 Comments:Post a Comment
<< Home
Links to this post:
<$BlogBacklinkTitle$>
<$BlogBacklinkSnippet$>
posted by <$BlogBacklinkAuthor$> @ <$BlogBacklinkDateTime$>
Create a Link
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AboutAddressing threats to health care's core values, especially those stemming from concentration and abuse of power.
ContributorsBernard Carroll
APeticola
Kimball Atwood MD
Cetona
MedInformaticsMD
Roy M. Poses MD
Wally R. Smith, MD
wiswal
PreviousDental Student Suspended for Blogging
if we we're in a biotech bull market then go with the r/s but we arn't. and if they had a instant revenue stream from something which would generate pr's etc then sure go with the r/s. if they are going to start phase 1 and start burning cash ,sure you can get some Pr's going but what happens when they need more money for '09 phase 2? will they dilute again pre phase2 ? sure they will and i will pay attention then as to where to possibly enter .... but for now it seems to risky. If you're rich and money dosn't matter ok get in now, but if you have problems sleeping at night due to needing every penny of your investment then now isn't the time. i also don't see why they picked board members who don't have medical degrees and connections? they needed to recrute a stem cell noble prize loriet instead? would of made me think its more legit. a x politician cia guy makes you sorta wonder the purpose? will he use his connections to help the pps? or to get investors? or to threaten the lives of shorts? : )MY next post will be at the end of '08 ,most liklely
it was so clear the deal was going to happen when bagful posted once : i got off the phone with dino and he said the buy out offer paper work was sitting in front of him waiting for shareholder approval. now we have a delay? what happened ? did someone leave the window open and all the papers get blown off the dang desk ? or did the cleaning lady accidently misplace them? or did the mounties steal them durring the night so they can save up some money and become a investor. anyhow i asked important questions once and since the answers never came in i felt its a total desperation play on a company that missed thier target ,last yr projecting 10mill in revs for this yr and it missed by a mile,so next plan to get pps up was a buy out offer for way more then its worth. why not say they had a offer for .15?? it would of made more sense . anyhow good luck to those needing thier money .... i'm cooking a turkey now with the profits i made here .... boy sure am glad i sold
yeah i saw that too
Thanks for the info whoever it was that gave it re: x cfo
so the company's replacement is solid and qualified ,good!
Looks like many bio techs are near there lows now , Gern is one i like thats been hammered.
Only one moving higher is DLAV