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.
Hmm...this is why I might be a buyer of the stock in the near future. AITX is now right around the excercise price of the convertible position. So the arbitrage has been made. When you have Stonestreet as a large financier for AITX, you boys and girls better be staying the heck away from this stock until they are hedged! Stonestreet and many of the other firms involved with AITX's placements are notorious for illegal box selling...see below a taste. My feeling is that the company will announce a rather large placement soon and that the nosedive in price has been related to this. It all adds up...the company absolutely needs cash -- they are on last legs. And, they have a history of doing business with proven box sellers. What an interesting situation you guys got going here...great tech though!
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:FCMz2bWMz1cJ:www.ida.ca/Files/Enforcement/HearingAndParticulars....
Stonestreet’s investment strategy involved the participation in private placements of various U.S. issuers, which trade on The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (“NASDAQ”) or Over-the-counter Bulletin Board (“OTC BB”). Stonestreet either directly subscribed to the financings or indirectly subscribed by entering into Custodial Agreements with other Finkelstein clients (“the Finkelstein Clients”) who themselves directly subscribed to thefinancing. In either case, the securities were acquired at a discount to the market price. 6. Stonestreet’s investment strategy was triggered when the Respondents learned of an issuer’s imminent financing. In particular, upon learning of the imminent financing, Stonestreet would begin to hedge against its anticipated investment in the issuer by shorting the issuer’s underlying common stock. Stonestreet continued to short theunderlying stock until the short position accumulated was approximately equal to the number of shares of the issuer that would be received through the private placement. Eventually the newly purchased shares were used, either directly or indirectly, to closeout the accumulated short positions.7. Stonestreet’s profit generated by the strategy was made on the difference between the short sale price and the discount price of the private placement
LOL..it is kind of funny that our most active poster is not even a shareholder...go figure!
OT convertible play? a buddy of mine does a scan for me every few months on VAT (volume and time) weighted convertible positions...usually it turns up boring stocks but i just found an interesting one: AITX ...the convert holders shorted the stock hard against their excercise price in the mid $1's...but now that is over so the stock should be free to run. i used to do a lot of convertible arbitrage and equity convertible plays like AITX, they have good odds but nothing is guaranteed. they also have very interesting and amazing technology which they launched in late '05 and seem to be getting some traction with.
GoldSeeker: an exceedingly moronic argument...very appropriate for a proven moron. How does your moronic argument account for BOCX getting the same royalty vig from the new licensee that they are getting from ABT? Let's see...it doesn't. Also, your assumption that a given diagnostic/drug/device can only be licensed out at one royalty rate to avoid competitive disadvantages among the licensees is profoundly naive, and you have no basis for that claim. It is just another GoldSeeker "shoot from the hip" comment after doing little to no DD. Since you have shown this board time and time again that you are unable to perform accurate research, don't assume for a minute that anybody will buy into another GoldSeeker claim without supporting evidence.
Fact remains, I don't see another licensee for the diagnostics application any time soon, but your attempt to use Moro's statement about "detracting royalties" into hard proof that no other licensee will emerge is ABSURD.
GoldSeeker: frankly I could care less about another licensee...yes, it would be a nice announcement in the short-term and a "feather in our cap" as dakota put it, but as far as fundamentals, all we need is ABT. I've also pondered the thought that, while BOCX does not have an exclusive with ABT, it might alienate ABT if BOCX licensed RECAF to another firm right away.
But all of this is speculative hogwash...IMO your extreme confidence that another licensing deal won't happen is pure arrogance...the kind of know-it-all arrogance that lead you to make other inane statements including: ABT is licensing "any and all markers they can", and that "ABT did virtually no DD on RECAF before licensing it", and that "BOCX doesn't even own the patents to RECAF"....have you not learned your lesson about making all encompassing comments that are based on little to no hard facts?
To come up with the conclusion re licensing, you have basically extrapolated one hard fact -- Moro's implication that the other offers he has received have not been as strong as ABT's. That is all you have to work with, and somehow you've come up with some flimsy case about no more licensees.
fact is, YOU DON'T KNOW AND NEITHER DO I. Personally I don't think we'll see another deal, but your false confidence on the matter bothers me...maybe I'm just biased at this point by your other grandiose errors in judgement/research.
for all we know, Moro may be approached by another large firm in the near future. for all we know, Moro already has something in the works. it's not even worth board space to sit here and speculate, since we have absolutely no info to work with.
once again: NO WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW. you can sit there and say "i don't think it will happen", but to come off as pretty much sure after extrapolating a comment from a PR is just vintage GoldSeeker bad due diligence.
learn from your past mistakes.
dakota...G*D no! Not therapeutics! Please!
GoldSeeker: no offense, but you've been shown to be a complete duntz cap hall of famer...selling stock because you didn't understand a simple fact from the filings about the RECAF patent, completely mischaracterizing ABT's licensing practices, etc. Thank you for the long, bullet pointed post of pure speculative drivel on why the chances of another licensee are "nil"....talk about a waste of board space.
LOL.
bingo Goldseeker...ABT has no interest whatsoever in helping BOCX shareholders. they will discuss RECAF only when they reach a point where they feel it would be commercially beneficial to them...hyping BOCX is the job of the BOD & management. ;)
bingo Goldseeker...ABT has no interest whatsoever in helping BOCX shareholders. that is the job of the BOD & management.
half_full: at any given time BOCX rarely has more than ~$250k in cash. BOCX doesn't have anywhere close to the money needed to hire lawyers, regulatory consultants and application writers in China or elsewhere, let alone market and distribute the product overseas.
BOCX's strategy is to outsource all regulatory and commercial obligations, and that strategy is in place because they don't have the resources to do it themselves. There is a reason ABT is handling all of that...
BOCX's lack of Wall St connections, which has in turn lead to a persistent dearth of capital, has forced us into a very slow and conservative path to commercialization. GoldSeeker is scared sh*tless about a potential PIPE from JP Turner, and in his defense most retail investors look at PIPE's as the plague....certain folks in BOCX management also look at PIPE's as the dirtiest of dirties.
But, I submit -- you are all wrong. Yes, I have been burned by many a PIPE (on both sides). Yes, the volatility can be absolutely brutal, and yes, since the financiers receive equity at a discount the standard practice is to short into the deal to box in gains.
All that considered, PIPE's serve a vital role in the financial markets -- getting much needed capital to very small and risky companies. Yes, companies pay a high price for this capital in share price abus, but cash is king!
Say no to any type of debt offering including convertibles, but say yes to PIPE's...at least in the case of BOCX. Some real capital would buy us an exchange listing, ability to sponsor a large trial, and ability to network and PR the product and stock.
Now..I'm off to the east coast again for a week, will be in and out of here. Have a great weekend all...
good point, reverse...i guess that's what boredom will do to you.
Fluffy: call me nuts, but now i'm swinging the other way again that he's not part of that RB bashing circle. the reason is his recent slip up about BOCX not owning the IP. A simple, ridiculous error like that is just so uncharacteristic of Steve. Steve did very good research...there were always big holes in his arguments, but not ones as simple as that. Also, Steve knew the BOCX intellectual property situation backwards and forwards, as we discussed it many times. I can't imagine him making such an embarassing, credibility ruining mistake like that. Any credibility GoldSeeker might have built up on this board was thrown out the window when he said he sold after realizing BOCX didn't own the IP, which is patently untrue -- no pun intended! :) He literally exited his position (and with much fanfare) because he didn't understand a simple fact from the filings.. The comment about ABT "licensing every marker they could" was one thing, but that last slip up about the IP is just too sloppy to be DC-Steve...
Maybe I'm just a total sucker...LOL.
PS Thanks for the kind words.
LMAO! SmallCapNetwork is really reaching now...
Compared to GreenBaron and Aurelius, they do a good job, but they are very overpaid also.
half_full: can you believe these clowns at GreenBaron? They throw up a tacky website which cost them no more than a few grand, do a webcast here and there and are somehow getting dozens and dozens of companies to throw them $$ and restricted stock? Are these companies out of their F'ing minds?
I wanted to strangle the BOCX d/o's when they decided to do the GreenBaron piece. I spoke with management and they said they decided to do it because investors kept calling in requesting a quarterly conference call rather than just filing.
wow half_full...fantastic read
Seeker: I'm proud of you for voluntarily putting on the ol' duntz cap, but your comment that you sold the morning after searching to see if the notes were paid off is nothing short of shocking. I suggest next time you make such a rash move based on screwy information, you discuss it with the board. That is not a speculative question, it is a simple question of understanding the filings. And I don't want to hear hogwash about "I was scared to ask because I would have been attacked" ...I am ALWAYS willing to discuss legitimate questions that are not lined with false and misleading assertions and "spin"
Seeker: I think you are profoundly confused, and it is a shame that you sold your shares based on a complete lack of understanding of the filings. Jeez louise, that is extraordinarily lame...
First of all, Biocurex acquired the RECAF patents in exchange for ASSUMPTION of $2.3 mil in notes that Pacific owed to third parties. The note was not payable to Pacific, it was owed by Pacific!
Second of all, and most importantly, Biocurex PAID OFF THE NOTES many years ago by issuing 1.5 mil shares of common to the third party who Pacific owed the notes to. See below from the filings. Again, THE NOTES HAVE BEEN PAID OFF (by the way, unless the notes were secured against the IP, which is highly doubtful, it wouldn't matter anyways, but that's not the point).
Let's all sing this together for the poor guy that sold his position because he didn't understand it:
BIOCUREX OWNS THE RECAF PATENT.
BIOCUREX OWNS THE RECAF PATENT.
BIOCUREX OWNS THE RECAF PATENT.
BIOCUREX OWNS THE RECAF PATENT.
-------------------
On March 25, 2001, Biocurex acquired the following assets from Pacific Biosciences Research Centre, then named Curex Technologies Inc., in consideration for the assumption by Biocurex of promissory notes in the amount of $2,326,869 which were payable by Pacific Biosciences to various third parties:
Ÿ Patents
Ÿ Proprietary technology
Ÿ Cash in the amount of $129,032
Ÿ A 51% interest in Biolargo.
In May 2001, Biocurex issued 1,544,404 shares of its common stock in payment of the notes, plus accrued interest, which Biocurex assumed in connection with the acquisition of assets from Pacific Biosciences. (they issued these shares at $2 by the way)
--------------
Let me add that you clearly have ZERO faith in ABT's intelligence. ABT would never have entered into an agreement with BIOCUREX, the corporate entity, if BIOCUREX didn't hold the patents to RECAF.
GS: sorry, my old memory seems to recall you bringing this issue up in the Vysis discussion as another minimizing point. maybe i have that wrong...PS: truce or no truce I'm still absolutely dumbfounded as to why you are so active in this board after purportedly selling. you just responded to my post within 5 minutes, and posted 14 times or so yesterday. What gives? Why in the hell would you spend your day on an internet message board of a stock you don't own? A little nervous you sold at the bottom??
erthang: re ABT purchase, see my previous post on the subject. GoldSeeker, a1derfullife, and the other clowns who keep asking "why wouldn't ABT just take over BOCX if they like the tech" obviously haven't checked the filings any time in the last 5 years. THE COMPANY CANNOT BE TAKEN OVER, AND THIS IS MOST CERTAINLY BY DESIGN. There is a massively dilutive unexcercised options position (mostly NQSO...ouch!) that serves as a poison pill. Not to mention the kung-fu grip on the BOD, the shelf (yet another poison pill), and the huge common position held by the d/o's.
Anybody who brings up this circle jerk again without supporting facts from the filings should be moved to permanent duntz cap wearing status.
Okay truce. GoldSeeker: I'm wondering why you have posted exactly 14 times today if you are neither long or short BOCX? What's the deal with that...
a1derlife: false and misleading statements are intolerable, period. also...maybe i just don't understand this concept about being deeply "concerned" and unconfident about an investment. i never hold onto an investment when i lack confidence in it...maybe that is some new school of investing i don't know about. when my confidence gets shaken in any way, i'm out.
DC-Steve emerging means the MM needs some more shares to flatten out his book from the last rally...LMAO! You can kiss my ass all the way back to the boiler room.
GoldSeeker = DC-Steve...I can't believe I disagreed with you fluffy...what a transformation from a long shareholder to a bewildered shareholder to the current state of all day, round the clock bashing! The style of prose, the persistence, and the sheer volume of posts all so reminiscient of old Stevie! We missed ya Steve what's new?
gunnar: if ABT was "fully convinced" and made that info public, the stock would be at $10+. there's a little thing called RISK in the capital markets and life in general, and it creates opportunity for another little thing called REWARD. if RECAF was a guaranteed proposition, there would be no investment play with BOCX.
what i do know is what i don't know. and i certianly don't know what is involved in implementing RECAF into ABT's ARCHITECT system. based on conversations and research, i don't believe it is a "flip of a switch", and i'm reminded of my whiniest of grand-kids when investors here claim that ABT has lost faith simply because the development stage has lasted a year and change. i believe wittenberg is on record since the beginning saying he expects commercialization "some time in 2007". that said, we are still on track.
one thing i DO know, is that management has not been selling their stock. i will not sell my BOCX stock until either:
1) ABT kills the deal
2) data comes back bad
3) management starts selling in bulk (and i'm not talking about a few K shares here and there to cover living expenses and the tax liability on the NQSO exercising)
gunnar: great post...much better. see my thoughts below in caps...
-- Biocurex is a tiny, almost nonexistent company making an extraordinary claim about its technology. If everything they claim is true, this is a great find and patient investors will be greatly rewarded.
YUP
-- There is a huge disconnect between what the company claims and its apparent lack of success convincing the scientific and investment worlds.
I GUESS CONVINCING THE SECOND LARGEST DIAGNOSTICS COMPANY IN THE WORLD DOESN'T COUNT. ??? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR F'ING MIND?
-- Abbott must see some potential, but long after obtaining the technology and beginning work on it Abbott still has not committed to the technology, and no other pharmas have either.
REGARDING ABBOTT, YOU MAY BE UNDERESTIMATING THE TIMELINE OF THE R&D PROCESS. IT'S BEEN A YEAR AND A HALF, WHICH MAY SEEM LIKE AN ETERNITY FOR THE IMPATIENT INVESTOR. BUT IN THE SCIENCE WORLD, THAT IS BUT A BLIP. THEY ARE TAKING AN RIA ASSAY AND TURNING IT INTO A COLORIMETRIC ASSAY THAT SUITS THE ARCHITECT SPECS. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THIS INVOLVES? I SURE AS HELL DON'T. I THINK IT'S A LITTLE PREMATEUR TO ASSUME THAT ABBOTT IS NOT INTERESTED SIMPLY BECAUSE A YEAR AND A CHANGE HAS PASSED SINCE THEY INKED THE DEAL!
REGARDING "OTHER PHARMAS" -- KEEP IN MIND THAT IT TOOK BOCX A HELL OF A LOT OF TIME TO INK THE DEAL WITH ABBOTT. IN MY OPINION, THEY DON'T NEED ANYONE ELSE BUT ABBOTT. I COULD CARE LESS ABOUT "OTHER PHARMAS" -- WE HAVE THE #2 IN THE INDUSTRY ON OUR SIDE.
GS: re gunnar, it rubs me the wrong way to get a lecture on board etiquette from somebody who has not contributed whatsoever to this board. anyways let's not change the subject here duntz cap boy. and keep in mind that i'm not looking for a "choir" -- i very much enjoy logical debate on BOCX with nay-sayers. My wrath only came about when you used a false and misleading statement as the thrust of your attempt to minimize the ABT deal.
GS: re royalty rates, that's a great question, unlike your other ones. i spent some time digging for that info but gave up and just asked kammerman...it's incredibly tough to decipher because you have to dig deep into the regulatory filings and, in the cases I looked into, it was wholly impossible to guage for several reasons, including 1) the licensor not being public 2) the licensee (ABT) not disclosing the percentage in the filings 3) inability to work the # backward because the numbers weren't line itemed in a detailed enough manner...
anyways, per kammerman the number is 3 - 15% on gross sales for diagnostics, influenced by several factors including the stage of development when the marker was licensed, the promise of the marker, and the bargaining leverage of the licensor (in BOCX's case, the last one is the killer).
if BOCX achieved a 10%+ royalty vig i would consider this a MONUMENTAL success. the 7 - 10% range i would consider very good. and below 7% i would call it a bend-over-backwards type of deal.
gunnar: i'm still waiting for your first ever contribution to the board...feel free to add something to the BOCX discussion beyond general comments about "the board"
goldseeker: "i have no intention of misleading" -- I'll believe you, and take that as a half-ass, indirect way of saying you really didn't do any research at all before making the comment, despite saying in the post that you have been "following ABT closely". so, either you lied in the original post about ABT's licensing practices, or you lied about following ABT closely. either way, you're a piker...dust off the ol' duntz cap big boy.
okay...now that it has been established that you make grossly misleading statements to support your arguments, i'm willing to move on to the next topic...fire away.
dakota: that's fine if you believe that, but whatever the intention was, I'm still waiting on GoldSeeker to acknowledge the factually false and misleading nature of his posts before moving on to further discussion. he reminds me of Kag...quickly changing the subject upon being proven wrong. a constructive "exchange of thoughts" can never happen with folks absolutely wrangling the truth and not retracting statements when they have been proved wrong.
and by the way, if you think it was an honest mistake...why would he then post another deliberately misleading post trying to again minimize RECAF with information he found about 4 licensing deals ABT has struck for cancer markers? he tried to lump HUMIRA, a frigging drug, into the mix. and then threw in PSA and CA which have no place in such a list as ABT has been working with them for years and years (albeit not with ARCHITECT which is a *NEW* platform). when you strip out that garbage, you're left with Europroteome and Vysis...and that covers a period of like 4 or 5 years or something.
i am harping on this point because, for me, this was a HUGE POINT OF CREDIBILITY in the ABT deal. the first thing i did when the announcement was made, was look into the ABT archive to see how selective they are with their cancer marker licensing program. i posted a ton of info about it back in the RB days. i had the same fear that BOCX was one of dozens of markers ABT licensed and threw into the R&D pipe...but careful research has confirmed to me that that is categorically false. That alone is a massive credibility point for RECAF. We are talking about the second largest diagnostics company in the world!
Half_Full has also posted some spectacular information on ABT's stringent licensing program.
So...hopefully you can understand my anger when some young amateur punk steps in here and throws around blatantly false statements about ABT's licensing practices in an attempt to support his empty argument.
GoldSeeker: your entire post is one big attempt to avoid taking ownership of the glaring lie you tried to use to leverage your argument about ABT. i will not answer any questions until you kindly put on your duntz cap and admit that you made a 100% false and misleading statement that has been irrefutably corrected. once you've done that, we can move on, but i will not entertain the selective response game...
Gunnar: i undeleted them immediately when he returned.
dakota...posting factually false and misleading information is not "exchange of thoughts". GoldSeeker posted a blatant lie about ABT to suit his point. Not a fib, not a mistake -- a blatant lie. When his lie was pointed out by me and others, he responded by a) changing the subject and b) trying to heap more BS onto his lie. go to RB if you want to give a free pass to folks that post blatant lies.
GS: i could care less if they remove that power, but i do care about you spewing garbage on the board. you have NOTHING to say to the facts i just presented you regarding the "many markers" ABT is gobbling up. LMAO!!! i guess you will only address the board monitor point, since you have nothing to say to my more important post.
your post about ABT's licensing was blatantly misleading...
europroteome -- VALID
vysis -- VALID
CA family -- complete and utter misleading hogwash
PSA -- complete and utter misleading hogwash
HUMIRA -- complete and utter misleading hogwash.
once you again you show a pattern of doing very poor research (ie 5 mins of google search) and shooting from the hip to support your point.
1nvestor: go read some BOCX filings and you will quickly see that it would be virtually impossible for ABT to take over the company....the unexcercised options position is quite a poison pill, not to mention wittenberg's control of a boatload of common.
goldseeker: let me ask you this, do you know anything about the deal parameters between BOCX and ABT other than the size of the upfront? NO. do you know how big the milestone payments are, and most importantly, the size of the royalty vig? NO.
do you realize that BOCX expressly said they back-loaded the deal? you can say "BOCX is lying about that" -- BUT THAT IS ALL YOU CAN SAY. either BOCX is lying, or they negotiated a back-loaded deal with ABT.
there are licensing deals with NO UPFRONT and a huge revenue split, there are deals with HUGE UPFRONT and no revenue share, there are deals with SMALL UPFRONT and small revenue split, etc.
who knows what BOCX negotiated? one thing's for sure, nobody here knows. i wouldn't be surprised if BOCX got a one-sided deal from ABT, but we don't know, and the important thing is that little BOCX trading on the pink sheets is one of only a few companies that you can count on ONE HAND that ABT has licensed a cancer marker from in the past 5 years or so.
clearly, this entire line of posting of yours originated from the fact that the crux of your ORIGINAL ARGUMENT about why the ABT deal is crappy was that ABT was some cancer marker licensing machine and threw RECAF in with the rest of them without doing any DD.
when i posted info that ABT had only licensed one other cancer marker in the last 18 months, you quickly avoided that point and scrambled to come up with other reasons why the deal was worthless...then you just posted some hogwash listing only 4 markers that abbott has licensed going back to 5 years ago? one of them, HUMIRA, is a therapy not a diagnostic. another one, the PSA, has been in existence for many many years. and a third one you listed, the CA family, have also been around for many many years. thank you so very much for proving my point. the fact remains they are CAREFULLY AND SELECTIVELY licensing cancer markers, as evidenced by the data you yourself posted. ...now you are clinging to the size of the upfront.
goldseeker: sell your stock if you have so little confidence in the deal.
sorry gold i had to do that to see how frequently you are checking this board....obviously, you caught it within one hour so, like i supposed, you are still closely reading the board and IMO long the stock.
please don't lie to the board to make us convince you that your BOCX investment is worthwhile.
lol...had to do it, hopefully they don't nail me.
Can we frame this comment by GoldSeeker and put it in the duntz cap hall of fame:
"When I started following this stock, I also naturally followed ABT. They are licensing just about every cancer marker they can. It would almost appear a get it now, test it and see if it works policy. "
-- 2 cancer markers in 18 months....wow, definitely looks like a "get it now, test it and see if it works policy"....you REALLY use your imagination a lot when posting.
LOL WHAT A POST!!!!! GoldSeeker -- maybe creative writing is a better fit for you than stock market investing? Notice the tone of complete confidence and implication that he has done extensive research, all in the name of dressing up a 100% factually false statement.
halffull: status quo...minimal dilution, virtually no change in cash position. try this link:
http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/fetchFilingFrameset.aspx?dcn=0001004878-06-000153&Type=HTML