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.
Source? Good enough to result in cancellation of R/S?
Exactly: time DOES equal money—and many of us have multiple thousands of dollars tied up 2+ years in an equity that has done nothing but flailed and flopped. At the end of the day, PPS is the ONLY objectively meaningful measure...
While past results are no guarantee of future performance, they are a reasonably strong starting point analytically—and MUCH stronger than “hope” and “blind trust.” The best laid plans are of ZERO value unless they are executed—and we’ve been hearing all this “any day now” talk in here for two YEARS. The boy who cried “wolf” naturally comes to mind...
I have never seen an allegedly legitimate stock with such INSANE potential so closely mimic a worthless scam. How is this even possible? Kinda like that one teacher we all had in high school—the one whose class was constructed in such a way that one needed a purpose and a patient plan in order NOT to pass. And yet, somehow someone always managed to do the unthinkable. It really is breathtaking and inexplicable...
Last report was in mid-November for data and fins through 9/30/19. Next one in due in mid-February for Q ended 12/31/19. Standard timelines: can’t PRODUCE the report on the last operational day of the quarter in question. Lol
I suppose anything is theoretically possible—we might even be struck by a meteor from Venus. I’m not holding my breath
And maybe there will be no mailing this time too—which is fine by me: that would mean NO R/S!
It APPEARS that they did a SECOND CaverStem trial (based on the 2.0 version that does NOT require a centrifuge) following the original one that ended on 8.28.18. Argumentation 101 dictates that you write up the FIRST set of results and release them ASAP following 8.28.18: any subsequent advances in efficacy and efficiency only STRENGTHEN your case. “The perfect is the enemy of the productive”: speed to lead. These business fundamentals are clearly lost on them...
WHY has ANY of this not been done at ANY point over the last two YEARS??
Gershman et.al. were crowing about 80-90% efficacy for almost two years: was this communication based on “unproven science”?
I’m aware—but how do we know that the results for the 8.28.18-ended trial were even submitted? Hell, we haven’t even been told clearly ANY information about a SECOND trial. We should not have to INFER this kind of information: it should be spelled out clearly and consistently, along with contextual rationales—THAT is what REAL “shareholder updates” look like...
I’ll consider this, IF someone can provide ONE comprehensive and compelling argument WHY they would want to (1) on-board doctors at a snail’s pace for almost 2 years and (2) not publish the results of the trial that ended on 8.28.18 and instead wait for a SECOND trial to be conducted (whose results we are now awaiting). In addition, integrate into the argument HOW a R/S is consistent with a multi-dollar near-term payday for the shareholders, and I’ll never think another critical thought about their skill!
Ironic coming from a company that explicitly and repeatedly has said it will leverage social media to be efficient and cost-effective.
And now our investment has been reduced to rubble—with further damage on the horizon.
We are all painfully aware—and many are PISSED
I caught the same today upon a close fading of the two definitive statements. The revised makes NO mention of reducing the AS, and claims to supersede the 11/2019 document. Does anyone know anything about Matthew Taylor and/or Biostem?
Would LOVE to see some data about efficacy on patients currently taking certain antidepressants—many of which are known to have substantially negative effects on sex drive. Could you imagine the potential marketing and other types of partnership that might stem from this?
I could. Still holding (what I hope is not laughable) hope that there will be NO R/S...
Welcome, new year and old friend!
Reward me richly by leaving SS as it is and letting this grow to $1 ORGANICALLY—even if it takes several years. DO NOT divide my share count—especially when you have shown an inability to provide timely information on which investors can clearly understand your business model, revenue streams, training plan, etc. We could EASILY see a post-RS tank: focus on COMMUNICATION and comprehensible business development.
.06 after the R/S—whoopie. I can hardly contain myself. And the story has had 2 YEARS to “start to get out.” Seriously, man?
Yep. Unfortunately they have done NOTHING to substantiate the value of their IP in any terms that either the market or the intelligent and persistently curious investor can understand. That’s on THEM. Thus valuation can only be based on the sale of a few hundred kits per quarter at a net of something like $1,200 per kit...
A and C: inmediately below, but longer to be below long enough to get kick out of QB (again)
Thanks, my friend
what theory again?
Trust—but VERIFY. The time for silence and inaction are LONG over...
I’m sure Gas Terra, the government in Holland, etc. won’t allow their investment to wither on the vine
Screenshots are nice
Now THAT I remember
Maybe. $38 is beyond laughable. Someone a while back said it best: they have the revs of a well-placed gum ball machine. Smdh
Thanks, but the comment I saw yesterday referred specifically to “licensing fees”
I can’t find it
I’m sorry to hear that. If/when they screw their loyal shareholders with the R/S, all involved will have a VERY hard time finding work in any business-oriented industry again...
Unnecessary self-inflicted wounds are what drives me bananas. Just like with sports team execs that can’t think their way out of a wet paper bag and often do LESS with more. They have desperately needed an aggressive AND precise strategy for business/project/change management. Moreover, you can’t have principals chirping all over social media two years ago and think that will not take on a life of its own—complete with expectations. They didn’t anticipate well and have been playing catch-up (and badly) for over a year...
Trying to find the “it’s OK” post from yesterday that attempted to console us about a 3X worse than previously considered R/S by drawing our attention to the “licensing fees” that we should expect for CaverStem, etc. Didn’t you hear Tim say with his own mouth in a podcast within a day or so of the now-infamous “We delivered” shareholder update: they don’t believe it’s right to charge docs licensing fees. Where have these people BEEN???
2 or 3 bucks per share in 5 years—following a 1:150 R/S?? That’s the silliest thing I’ve read in a while. NO THANKS!
Yawn. They could—and SHOULD—have published something on the FIRST trial (ended 8.28.18) for an number of CLEAR reasons (if I have to explain them, the point is already lost). Bottom line: conduct a R/S of 1:150 ONLY if doing so might realistically lead to MC sufficient to support a PPS of $50-100 within one year. Otherwise, NO THANK YOU.
About 19M OS, I estimate. $50MM MC/19MM OS= ~$2.63/share.
Following the DESTRUCTION of my share count by the 1:150 R/S, that would net me less than $100K.
NO THANKS. I’d rather wait—even if it took 5 years, for it to grow ORGANICALLY up to .50-$1 with NO R/S. But that would require REAL skill in the areas of project and business management...