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.
Great, thank you.
Maybe I missed it, but could someone please explain all of the Hawaii references?
Oracle wouldn’t partner with just an idea. .60 is speculative of course, necessarily build on future growth and earnings.
On breakout boards too, first time that I’ve seen FUSZ there in my limited time here.
I had to add this morning, rebalancing from another promising stock. FUSZ seems to have great potential, even within the next 30-60 days. Wonderful communication from the CEO. Looking forward to 1.00 and uplisting. Anyone know what that takes? Does it need to stay above 1.00 for a year, or is there some other criteria that will work?
Thanks, the timing does look good. You or someone else mentioned this on BIEL’s board. I think there’s still a lot of promise there with more to come later this year, but the pace seems faster here and I like the communication from the CEO. Different industries; it’s no surprise that a video CRM company is excellent at marketing to its investors as well as its end users and partners.
Pears, I followed you from another board. Your original post there recommending FUSZ may have been deleted, but I wanted to say thanks for bringing my attention to this very promising company. Bought what I could afford and may add. Wonderful transparent communication from the CEO here. On point legally as well, very careful. I emailed them to be added to their distribution list and got a response and an update the same day. Interest from major players says a lot and the slickness of their website and interactive videos speaks volumes of the company’s maturity and professionalism. Great vibes here that I haven’t seen in another penny stock.
I agree, and it may be more than that. According to that Bar Chart website that others have posted, a technical analysis site, .001 and .0011 are “inflection points” - whatever that means. But they are arguably psychological milestones for many people here and others watching.
There’s an opinion by some that the MMs keep this artificially low for their own reasons, but when big news hits in a row, new blood may flood this tiny stock with buy orders and they won’t be able to hold it down. Given how thinly traded this stock is - maybe a couple hundred thousand on a busy day, the lack of liquidity could make the price shoot up as longs hold their shares and newbies buy wherever they can so as not to get left behind.
That’s all a sketchy opinion of what might happen one day, cobbled together from what posters more knowledgeable about penny stocks and MMs have said.
Any thoughts on the above? Seems possible to hit .04 or .08 within six months. .04 would be around half a billion, which some pot stocks have hit with no profits to show and a very precarious legal standing. Just my opinion. Actual pps are mostly worthless guesses, but we can always dream.
IMO, this is the best BIEL interview that I’ve heard. Keith interviews very well and seems to be getting things done and closing deals at rate unseen before in this company.
Potentially tripling UK sales, in talks with Walmart and CVS (with a refined, harder-hitting presentation), completing studies and on more productive footing with the FDA, adding new US distributors and independent pharmacies, with new revenue to report from the end of the 4th quarter into the 1st all add up to a lot of potential growth which has not been priced into the share price.
Having followed this company and this board since 2009, I can understand why some may be jaded, but I agree with Keith that 2018 will be a transformative year. Putting emotion and the history of delays and setbacks aside, I think a reasonable, independent analyst would look at the recent developments described in Keith’s interview and conclude that this stock has huge potential. Huge risk goes without saying; we are at ...0009 with billions of OS and a pending regulatory appeal - but that’s what creates the huge buying opportunity here.
I agree, between now and the end of March, IMO we’ll see a stream of news including a major CVS deal, study results, more details with the NHS rollout, and possibly submitting studies for broader clearance.
It’s still trading, last trade I see was at 2:12, a tiny 6,000 share trade at .0008. Trading volume today is average and continues.
Is anyone good with the “way back machine” website/tool that allows you to look at historical versions websites? Not sure it would work given the structure of the FDAs website, but it’s a thought.
As an aside, there’s no way NHS reimbursement has been priced in yet. IMO, that alone puts us in on an entirely different level. A very small number of people follow this stock. Maybe if they attached Bitcoin or blockchain to the company name, we would get some attention here.
1. My opinion is that the update date from ‘18 is likely not meaningful. I recall bookmarking those pages in the dark days of waiting for the public comment period to end and BIEL’s updated 510(k) to be submitted and seeing that the update dates seemed to change without any actual edits to the webpages. I recall other posters pointing this out.
That being said, the language is definitely meaningful and if there was a change, it could potentially be telegraphing wider clearance in the near? future.
2. I believe yes, there would have to be an official letter.
For what it’s worth, my opinion is that full clearance is highly likely within the next 3 - 12 months, I just don’t know that it’s happened yet.
An order by Administrative Law Judge Elliot denying the Div. of Enforcement’s request for an extension looks good at first, but take note of this sentence:
“For reasons that will be explained in a future order, I do not find any merit in Respondents’ ratification arguments as addressed to me.”
This suggests that ALJ Elliot disagrees with Biel’s ratification arguments ‘as addressed to him.’ IMO, he may have just denied the extension because he doesn’t think there’s any reason for the SEC to reply to those arguments. In the future order he may even say that he’s in no place to rule on the whole ratification issue (I assume this is referring to that “magic wand” solution that the solicitor general tried in the appointments clause appeal where the head of the SEC retroactively fixed the appointment of all the ALJs) until the Supreme Court decides the issue.
My personal opinion is that the Sup. Court will not rule in favor of the government, at least to the extent that any current fix will not apply retroactively to past decisions. Magic wand solutions aside there is a whole “Star Chamber” aspect to SEC enforcement actions where they bring cases against companies with their enforcers and then those cases are decided by their own SEC ALJs - not independent full federal justices who are part of the federal court system.
It would be a little absurd to expect the ALJ here to come out and say “You know what, you’re right, my career at the SEC stands in conflict with the appointments clause, forget about this and every other past decision I’ve made in other enforcement actions, I’ll just step down and reevaluate my life.”
He’s never going to say that, and even ruling on this issue is like ruling on a request to recuse yourself. Hey, you know what, I like my job, so I’m just going to continue doing what I’m doing motion denied.
I’m not a technical person, but it looks like we have a classic head and shoulders pattern here. IMO long term trend is up.
We’ll likely see a continuous stream of good news as new retailers are added. Still waiting on a potential CVS announcement. As many others have said, such a small number of people know about this stock. When the big run comes, things are going to get very tight.
I am waiting until Actipatch commercials are on network TV and I can walk into my local Walgreens and pick this up.
So much room to move up.
JMO
I read this and now I can’t get The Final Countdown out of my head.
Yes, this looks like a solid distribution partner. Acquisition info states that Anda has 60,000 customers which include:
“retail independent and chain pharmacies, nursing homes, mail order pharmacies, hospitals, clinics and physician offices across the United States.”
At the time of the acquisition (which was for a respectable $500 million) Anda employed 650 people, which I would assume includes the 80 sales reps (assuming this is the distributor that AW was referring to).
In my opinion, we are going places now. Perhaps there will be a separate announcement about the distro deal. Given that there already appears to be an agreement in place for the 7 day devices, this likely means that AWs statement that an agreement with a distributor would be finished “within days” is correct.
Just my opinion.
I agree, very interesting. I don’t know the current status of US insurance reimbursement, but it’s exciting to imagine some sort of smooth approval by Aetna of Actipatch as an FSA item if (and this is a big if) CVS starts carrying it on its shelves.
When AW said that they were in talks with a national drug store chain that handles 25% of prescriptions, I assumed it was Walgreens given the Boots connection. But when I Googled it, interestingly enough, CVS is at 24%, Walgreens at 17% or so.
For a brief moment, I was calculating how a possible drop to 20% of the corporate tax rate would help BIEL margins, but then I remembered that they’ve never had a profitable quarter. Maybe some day ...
I’ll admit I agree with this; I’ll give credit where it’s due. Not sure I buy the retroactive request though, it seems likely that they could split the baby and accept the wand-waving fix, but find prior judgments (at least those where the defendants appealed on these grounds) void. They can’t go back to the beginning of time.
I have to believe that, for at least some of these cases,
there are talks between the SEC and defendants where parties are saying, that given the uncertainty let’s meet somewhere in the middle cut the fine in half and move on. Got to be some SEC staff that would rather take half a mil than roll the dice and maybe get half of nothing.
Just my opinion.
Thanks, I’m actually glad that the solicitor general specifically lists BIEL in the exhibit. This may speed up the applicability of any Supreme Court decision to BIEL so that we have clarity whichever way it comes out. More importantly, I’m glad that BIEL’s legal team specifically appealed on these grounds. Money well spent. While I did see some language about the huge damage that million dollar settlements would do to BIEL, that was many months ago. Potential distributor deals or the big box retailer deal recently discussed by AW could put a potential settlement in a different light - should that ever come to pass, which seems far from certain.
The Daily Caller and WSJ articles seem to take slightly different angles than the Yale one, but that’s not entirely surprising. Everyone’s looking at this through a different lens. Can’t deny there’s a potential political angle to the shift in position. While I did read the position shift as their attempt at a magical fix rather than simply siding with the “money managers” and an attempt at “dismantling the administrative state,” there is language in the brief that would make it easier for the Administration to remove SEC officers as well - which could be seen as part of the White House’s ongoing paradigm shift across administrative agencies.
I would have said that any high level shift in SEC focus might not get around to affecting little old BIEL, we aren’t exactly a big fish, but here we are cited in an Exhibit.
Just my opinion. Interesting times and timing for us. Intersection of opiate crisis and arguably radical shift towards deregulation. If I hadn’t been here off and on since 2008, I might get irrationally exuberant.
You are correct. This is not a final decision, just a change in the government’s position, and it must still be decided by the Supreme Court. The government had been previously arguing that their ALJs were employees, not officers subject to the appointments clause. Now they are reversing course and conceding that they are officers, and claim they have a quick way of getting on the right side of the appointments clause - that the head of the SEC can confirm their appointments. They also argue that this fix should apply retroactively. The below Yale article claims that this fix would work prospectively, but that the Supreme Court could still decide that the fix works, but past decisions were unconstitutional. It’s very complicated and far from settled. This is just an exhibit from the solicitor general’s brief people - the government’s argument, not the final Court decision that we are waiting for.
See the below article for a (somewhat) clearer explanation.
http://yalejreg.com/nc/new-government-position-on-the-secs-aljs-they-are-article-ii-officers/