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.
From Battelle's website ( http://www.battelle.org/about-us/our-mission-vision-values :
Battelle is committed to applying science and research in the service of society. Since they obviously feel that nanologix's innovative technology fits their criteria, a public endorsement from them is the least I would expect. I would think Battelle would take an active role in helping to get the establishment to adopt and implement Nanologix's technology ASAP. I'm curious to know what form their role will be; I.e., financial assistance, press release about their use of bnp and bnf wherever applicable, etc.
Btw, I think the nanologix website's rank in the U.S. improved from the last time i checked a couple weeks ago by about 10,000 to 54,749 according to Alexa.com.
well, item 2) had to be registered since the company is now selling them.
I'm guessing that the removal of BNC is just clerical (should have been removed a long time ago once it was determined to not be 510k exempt).
nanologix website statistics via alexa.com
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/nanologix.com#
was curious to know if there was a bump in the number of searches for the company recently. probably better to check it in a month to compare to today's results.
FDA Establishment Registration & Device Listing updated for nanologix:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRL/rl.cfm
type in 'nanologix' in the Establishment Name field and search.
changes:
1) BNC is no longer listed.
2) Petri TSA RT Plate is now listed.
please do a chart for NNLX. tia.
NNLX
Background:
Patented nanotechnology applied to the petri dish for quicker detection of microorganisms such as tuberculosis, group b strep, anthrax, etc. see company's test results page. Has been in R&D phase for the past 5-6 years.
Company just announced commercial launch of their products under FDA 510k exempt status. Their product is disruptive to the 'in vitro diagnostic' (IVD) market space which has been transitioning from traditional petri disc cultures to faster means via PCR, flow cytometry, etc. Traditional petri dish cultures take too long to grow the microorganisms. PCR, flow cytometry, etc. doesn't require waiting for growth of microorganisms, but suffer from
1) high equipment costs ($100k+)
2) inability to tell if the microorganism is alive or dead
3) inability to detect antibiotic sensitivity
4) need for highly skilled technicians to operate equipment.
NNLX technology also doesn't require waiting for growth of microorganisms and is as fast or faster than PCR, flow cytometry, etc. AND:
1) works on existing equipment with the addition of an incubator
2) detects if the microorganism is alive or dead
3) detects antibiotic sensitivity
4) requires no special training
Note that antibiotic sensitivity is extremely valueable since it allows targeted treatment of infection as opposed to the current method of treatment which is to bombard the offending microorganism with a cocktail of every available antibiotic in hopes that one of them will work while at the same time risks the creation of antibiotic resistant superbugs.
Note that there are two independent third party reports due out soon. The two independent third parties are the Texas Medical Center for Group B Strep and Battelle Memorial Institute for tuberculosis. They are both very large and reputable institutions.
The company typically provides updates via their website. Then follows up in a few days with an official press release.
Hence, the chart shows a jump on 8-15-12 when the website update was posted and not much of anything on 8-21-12 when the press release hit the wires. Technical wise:
1) pps has retraced to 8-day ema after almost hitting the 20-day ema intra day
2) rsi has come down from ~80 to ~61
3) macd rounding down nicely getting ready to continue the uptrend
4) fast sto pulled back nicely into neutral territory from overbought levels
Chart is set up nicely for a good entry. News is great and will continue as the company is launching product and marketing efforts. As they've timed the launch with the soon to be published reports, I'm guessing that they plan to use the reports as marketing material to shop their product to potential customers. IMO, this is the beginning of a long running uptrend for this stock as the company enters the IVD market space and begins taking market share.
What I think is going on with the recent medical device registration:
Assertions:
1) Since the company has registered BNF, BNF Quick Test and BNP, I'm going to accept that they are exempt from premarket notification.
2)I also know that BNC is NOT exempt.
This lead me to refresh my knowledge on what exactly these (BNC, BNP and BNF) are. I looked up the patents (I'm pretty sure the links I've provided are them):
BNC
BNP
BNF
BNC changes the shape of the microorganism as it grows in the micro-channel from a regular semi-sphere to a long and thin cyclinder.
BNP is a membrane that...well, if you want to know what it does, read the patent cause I don't think I can explain it well. But in paragraph [0031] of the patent, it states that it works with a secondary media, which is a gel, polymer or BNC.
BNF...the way I understand it, it is similar to BNC except it doesn't grow the microorganishm. It captures cells when a liquid sample containing one or more microorganims is passed thru it. See paragraph [0011].
BNP and BNF's independence from BNC supports my first two assertions at the beginning of this post.
Regarding the confusing PR in which the company says it has instructed a third party to prepare 6 applications for submittal to the FDA, all of which are to include results from BNP and BNF, the only way I can think of to tie it all together is that the applications are 510k applications for BNC with results from BNP and BNF. BNC is just a culture media. To prove that it works, you have to detect it and submit the results (gotten from BNP and BNF).
After all this, I'm left wondering why the company had not registered and begun commercial sales of BNP and BNF previously.
Remember, all IMHO.
I should have been more clear in the point of my analysis. It isn't an attempt to figure out the magnitude of any potential revenues. It is simply to show possible evidence that the company is generating some revenues from the sales of kits. To date, the company has never acknowledged that it is generating any revenue. I made a simliar attempt in my previous post wherein I showed that the current CEO has reduced the rate of shares being added to the OS while expenses have been rising over the 5 years that he's been in office.
My analysis shows that it doesn't take many 500g bottles of agar to make 12,000 kits. The company saying they by these bottles by the case load got me excited.
The value of the 12,000 units (I stated that I assumed these units = kits) was based on what the company was selling each kit ($5.10 ea.) at the time of the analysis (the price was doubled over the weekend). I realize that this part of my analysis confused things, but it was an attempt to contrast the HUGE potential revenues that could be generated when the company is in full production mode.
Received a clarification from the company regarding a typo (500mg):
we buy 500g bottles, by the caseload.
No mention of how many bottles in a case or the frequency of turnover, but 500g is ~1.1lbs. I assumed they purchase agar in tablet or powder form since they "mix them to industry standards".
I investigated how many agar plates can be made from 1 bottle. I checked several websites and watched some youtube videos on how to make agar plates and decided to reference this site: all about agar
Under Preparing Bottled Agar and Plates subsection Preparing Tablet or Powdered Agar:
"...For agar powders, dissolve by microwaving, 6.9 g of agar in 500 ml of water. 500 ml of agar will pour ~ 25 large Petri dishes (100 mm diameter) or 50 small Petri dishes (60 mm diameter)."
Nanologix offers kits in both sizes.
500g / 6.9g = 72 units [of 500 ml of agar]
72 x 25 = 1,800 large petri dishes (agar plates)
72 x 50 = 3,600 small petri dishes
To put this into some context, the July 5, 2012 update stated that a multi-billion dollar company had selected Nanologix as a vendor and ordered 12,000 units for a project beginning in July. I assumed 12,000 units = 12,000 kits = 12,000 petri dishes.
12,000 / 1,800 = ~7ea. 500g bottles of powdered agar.
12,000 / 3,600 = ~3ea. 500g bottels of powdered agar.
Going back to the clarification by the company that they buy these 500g bottles by the caseload, I doubt that there are just 7 bottles or 8lbs per case. For simplicity and to be conservative, I'm only going to consider the large petri dishes going forward.
Considering the above numbers in dollars, 12,000 kits at $5.1 per kit generates $61,200 in revenues. There doesn't seem to be a difference in price between large and small petri dishes. So 7 bottles of 500g powdered agar can generate $61,200 in revs.
I feel that I've made some significant errors in my analysis because the implications seem too good to be true.
disclaimer: I am not an expert in agar production or use nor am I employed in an industry where such skills are necessary. This analysis is based on many assumptions. This analysis is specifically for the formulation of LB agar and the leap from this analysis to the recently ordered kits may not be accurate.
I agree and I think that the fact that the daily trading volume is usually so miniscule is evidence that most are holding their shares.
Q & A
I sent an email to the company with some questions and got a response:
Q: Do you have an idea of when the instructions for the BNF kits will be updated? On the website, it states that it is under revision.
A: Very soon --- there are multiple testing protocols that have been developed, each of which depend upon different groups of bacteria being tested
Q: Can you qualify further the time to detection that is posted on the website? For example, when does the clock start and stop?
A: Our testing does not require any enrichment step to date, so the times you see are what are achieved. After assay is set up for BNF for any particular bacteria, the numbers given include the set-up time. Anyone can use their imagination to extrapolate from there if more than one sample was being tested and the assay was already in place.
Q: Does the company create its own agar formulations or purchase them?
A: We buy 500mg containers of various agars and mix them to industry standards
Q: If the company were to license the technology, how would that work? For example, would you sell the membrane to agar plate producers and collect a royalty?
A: No comment
Q: Who are our main direct competitors? Can you provide 2 or 3 names, preferably ones that are public companies.
A: None really. They may think they are, but we don't consider their technology to be competition once word gets out.
Look again. Its all there. If you aren't capable of reading and understanding financial statements, then you really ought to reevaluate your decision to handle your own investments. The reason why I won't spell it out for you is because the last debate we had about Form D filings, I provided backup to all my info and you basically left with 'oh well, laws may have changed.' In other words, I'm not wasting time with your questions. Take it or leave it, I don't care. Anyone looking through my links who knows how to read and understand financial statements can see for themselves.
did you follow the links i provided?
thanks petro.
Nanologix shareholder equity since the time of current CEO
Feb 2007 : BB becomes new CEO and Chariman of the BOD
The data below can be found here: nanologix financials
Month : 2007 : change from prior period
Mar : 67,779,096 : NA
Jun : 73,360,795 : 5,581,699
Sep : 78,534,114 : 5,173,319
Dec : 84,465,217 : 5,931,103
TOTAL CHANGE: 16,6886,121
Month : 2008 : change from prior period
Mar : 87,210,752 : 2,745,535
Jun : 89,426,196 : 2,215,444
Sep : 92,063,089 : 2,636,893
Dec : 95,743,192 : 3,680,103
TOTAL CHANGE : 11,277,975
Month : 2009 : change from prior period
Mar : NA
Jun : 98,817,054 : 3,073,862
Sep : 101,703,217 : 2,886,163
Dec : 104,489,795 : 2,786,578
TOTAL CHANGE : 8,746,603
Month : 2010 : change from prior period
Mar : NA
Jun : 109,374,822 : 4,885,027
Sep : NA
Dec : NA
TOTAL CHANGE : 4,885,027
From update (http://nanologix.com/news/2011_company_update.html), as of February 2012:
Month : 2012 : change from prior period
Feb : 115,998,796 : 6,623,974
There have been 6 quarters between June 2010 and February 2012.
Average delta has been 1,103,996 shares per quarter or 4,415,984 shares per year.
Notice how the rate of shareholder dilution has been reduced to about 25% in Feb 2012 from March 2007 when BB took over. I wanted to spend more time articulating my thoughts about what follows, but I've got a dinner to attend so I'm going to just make it quick:
One of the first things BB did was restructure BOD compensation -- I've assumed that this factor has remained constant since. Expenses have only gone up with additional staff, equipment, capital investments, and other operating costs. So how has BB managed to REDUCE the rate of dilution while expenses have been INCREASING? The 2007 PIPE was capped at $1m -- a nice chunk of change to keep the company going, but not for 5 years. So....is this empirical evidence of REVENUES?
At the bottom of the
Quick Test Kits page:
"NanoLogix products are currently available for QA/QC purposes in self-certifying organizations, such as those in the pharmaceutical, veterinary, cosmetic and food processing industries. For clinical use involving human patients, NanoLogix products are available for research purposes only."
Excellent commentary! I particularly applaud your Sun Tzu reference on strategy as it addresses the concerns of many posters on the YHMB.
I'd like to expand on your 2nd paragraph about pumping the stock price. I think I can accurately state that in typical financing transactions geared at raising funds for the ongoing operations of a "pink" company, the financiers peg the share price of the transaction on a period-specific average of the share price. That this company does not engage in manipulating the share price is exemplary of their ability/confidence in obtaining financing that does not heavily dilute shareholder equity. I do not know how the shares underlying the PIPE's are valued, but since management does not seem overly concerned about the share price, I have to surmise that they arrive at the value based on other qualities.
if you're interested in this company as an investment, then you should think about it and do the DD to figure it out.
from today's PR:
"Marti Perhach, CEO/Cofounder of Group B Strep International stated, "I first contacted NanoLogix about a year ago when I heard they were developing a new rapid test to detect Group B Strep. Having an accurate rapid test available is extremely important, especially as women may test negative during routine screening, but be positive during labor and delivery. Group B Strep International's mission is to promote awareness and prevention of Group B Strep disease in all babies throughout pregnancy and early infancy. As sponsors of July as International Group B Strep Awareness Month, we invited Nanologix to participate in our awareness campaign. We are so appreciative of their efforts in GBS awareness and the excellent information they have made available to the general public through USAToday.com"
So GBSI asked Nanologix to help spread the word about the importance for pregnant women to be tested for Group B Strep. Why did they specifically ask Nanologix? Do you think it would have made sense for Nanologix to promote awareness without also promoting the availability of their "accurate rapid test"?
Nanologix Marketing Material:
http://sites.conversionplanet.com/group-b-strep-awareness/group%20b%20strep/3-effective-steps-for-preventing-group-b-strep-deaths.fac
Perhaps this is a candidate to take up some space in the intro section?
Thanks Budax. Followup questions:
Is POSC plagued by toxic financing? i.e., convertible bonds with massively discounted strike prices? Has there been any mention by the company that hints at a reverse split? Does the company have a history of a reverse split followed by a available share increase? If so, how many times so far?
I am interested in this company because it has a real product to sell. I am reminded of how FedEx was a stinky pinky at one time and almost went out of business under the strain of its toxic financing. POSC looks like its got the same potential.
Thanks parents.
no matter how hard management tries to keep the share price up by PR pumping using all means necessary, this pps will fall under the weight of the toxic financing. Only a matter of time for those who are patient. No upside price explosion can be expected anytime soon. I wonder what price will trigger a debtee protection clause which will result in issuing massively discounted convertible shares to the debtee(s). Only way to play this is to get lucky and not hold shares for more than a day or two at a time.
Hi guys. Can someone be kind enough to give a quick snapshot of where the company is at:
1) generating revs to balance expenses
2) need to raise cash
3) things that are exciting about the company
4) things to look out for.
TIA.
um......o.....k....
I've done my DD and like I said, my source is an expert and he's never steered me wrong. Who knows, maybe he's got more experience with these things than you do.
I'm ok with letting this discussion end here. Hopefully we brought some insight of interest to the readers here.
If you read through our discussion, I said that the company would have to file a Form D (with each state that requires it) in which they sell securities in addition to the Form D with the SEC while you said the ONLY requirement was to file a Form D with the SEC. You also said something like SEC regulations trump state regulations.
to refresh, here's a link to the PIPE filing in 2007 in California:
134.186.208.233/caleasi/PDFDocs/%7BE535F604-57D2-4ABA-9CEC-5C22E41D70F6%7D.PDF
This is an interesting document that supports what I've been saying:
134.186.208.233/caleasi/PDFDocs/%7B17F0B0E4-18CF-4A10-9CE5-B5A93AB5E300%7D.PDF
And here's where you can pull up all documents filed related to the 2007 PIPE by searching 'nanologix':
134.186.208.233/caleasi/pub/exsearch.htm
Yet Nanologix filed Form D in California for the equity offering under reg d section 506 in 2007.
Thanks for the point to the resources. I may have a look at them later. In the meantime, it was a little slow today so I did a little digging.
From this link: www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/qasbsec.htm#eod14
First paragraph:
"The federal government and state governments each have their own securities laws and regulations. If your company is selling securities, it must comply with federal and state securities laws. If a particular offering is exempt under the federal securities laws, that does not necessarily mean that it is exempt from any of the state laws."
From this link: www.corp.ca.gov/Commissioner/Releases/pdf/120C.pdf
First page under heading 'Filing Requirements in California'
"To claim an exclusion or exemption from securities qualification under California law, a Form D filing must be submitted to the California Corporations Commissioner no later than 15 days after the date of the first sale in this state. The Corporations Commissioner accepts Form D filings in two ways:
1. For an issuer filing a notice of a Rule 506 offering under California Corporations Code Section 25102.1(d), an issuer must submit:
a. A copy of the version of Form D filed with and accepted by the SEC;
b. A filing fee of $300, pursuant to Section 25608.1(c) of the California Corporations Code; and...."
From this link:
www.ndbf.ne.gov/securities/secregulationd.shtml
"Beginning March 16, 2009, an issuer offering or selling securities in reliance on Regulation D; Rule 505; or Rule 506 must file with the State of Nebraska, Bureau of Securities:
An authenticated paper copy of the notice of sale on Form D that was filed electronically with the SEC. The form is available at SEC Form D
Nebraska requires that you submit the state appendix pages. State Appendix Pages (pdf)
The filings must be accompanied by the requisite fee. The fee is $200"
"it's a full time profession"
Great!! Nice to have a SEC pro interested in this company keeping watch.
Still not gonna say that you are correct. Only so much cred can be given to anyone on an anonymous message board.
well, you got me -- in so far as that my knowledge of the subject is not firsthand. What I wrote is based on how my brain interpreted what was told me by someone who does really knows his stuff. All the stuff told to me still is accurate, but my application of it may not have been. I'm not saying that you are right. You may be right. I just haven't spent the necessary time to confirm or deny what you've written. And sadly, this discussion will end here for now since I don't have the time to commit to learning it in more depth.
you write very well. Did you get a reason from iHub as to why your post yesterday was deleted?
OK, you can acuse me of mis-using the term 'registered'. A form D must be filed with certain states depending on each state's rules if shares are offered in those states. California is one state which requires it.
http://134.186.208.233/caleasi/pub/exsearch.htm
search 'nanologix' and you will find a Form D for an equity offering under Rule 506 in 2007. You'll see that at the time of that filing, shares had previously been sold to investors in Nebraska. I haven't been able to determine if Nebraska requires a Form D filing, but so far, it looks like they don't.
So my thinking is that we can know when shares are sold if shares from the current equity offering are sold in a state that requires a Form D filing.
not 100% true. Depending on the rules in which state the securities are sold, the company MAY need to register the shares being sold as part of this offering. If you spend the time, you canb peruse each state's secretary of state website, find the page where you can do a search on registered securities and do a search.
And the point of my post was not to guess whether the company had or hadn't. It was to point out that the shares traded in the recent spike is not part of the recently announced equity offering.
Not sure what you are referring to. If you are referring to shares from the most recent equity offering notice, those shares are restricted for 1 year from the time they are sold. And as far as I know, none have been sold as of yet.
It sounds like a few on the YHMB think that the equity offer will be priced at a discount to current share price. Based on what I know, that is not likely.
But forget about I know or what you think I know. Let's focus on what an equity offer is and take it in the context of the current news and status of the company.
1) The company is generating revenues. Assuming $5 per kit, that's $60k in the one recent order -- or 1 months worth of operating costs.
2) Expanding on 1), the company needs just $400k to be self sufficient. Lol, that's less than what most pinky executives worse pay themselves while running companies into oblivion.
3) FDA application followed by approval is just a few months away, which will open the floodgates to revenue generation. Investors can and have speculated the share price based on the size of the market, the initial market penetration expected by the company and subsequent growth into current and new markets.
So what is an equity offer? Its a business transaction in which a seller and a buyer agree on a price on which to exchange goods -- in this case, a share of the company. Note that there is a big difference between a transaction involving the company and an investor vs. a transaction amongs shareholders on a stock exchange. For the less astute, its that the company has 100% knowledge of the prospects for the company.
Given what we know about the company, do you think the company will price the equity offer 1) below a running average of current pps, 2) at a running average of current pps, or 3) above a running average of current pps? I pick 3).
Let's imagine a scenario between the company and an investor: Company argues why the current share price is not a reflection of the true value of the company. It brings out studies, charts, reports, etc. justifying its self-valuation at say $20 in 3 years. And backing out the time value of money based on so-and-so interest rate and other factor (low risk based on what they know about their products, validations by 3rd parties, credibility of partner Battelle, etc.), comes up with a $5 figure. Now, assuming that the facts behind the company's market valuation of itself is sound, a reasonable investor may argue that the company has not discounted the shares enough for risk, since FDA approval/denial will make or break the company. Making this argument, the reasonable investor may want to pay no more than $2 per share. And after negotiations, they settle on some price between $2 and $5.
Now, an unreasonable investor may argue the same and bring the additional argument that the current market price is a reflection of the risk. Making this argument, the unreasonable investor may offer $0.50 per share. By the way, any seasoned investor knows that price manipulation is rampant and procedural in most pink stocks.
From what I've heard from Bret, he's not interested in dealing with unreasonables. That being said, I don't know if the company is in a desperate financial situation and have no choice, but to deal. From my experience, financial desperation is the primary reason why companies developing promising technology make horrendously bad deals.
But given how Bret's managed to NOT engage the services of toxic financiers thru these past SEVERAL YEARS without revenues, without third party validations, and without being on the cusp of FDA application followed by approval, I think he'll somehow manage to avoid them just a little bit longer.
Oh, it MAY be a double or triple, but not from these prices. More likely from somewhere sub a tenth of a penny.
It will go much much lower. OOIL has sold itself to the bane of OTC stocks (toxic financiers) and they will use OOIL stock as a vehicle to enrich themselves:
Don't forget that they have warrants and legaleze that will trigger further warrants at tremendous discounts. And they will guarantee that the triggers are hit thus guaranteeing OOIL to come back to beg for more poison (like a crack addict to the dealler).
This company is virtually a walking corpse unless their tech is SO revolutionary that someone is willing to buy them out....which would have happened already if it were the case.
tsk tsk. The outlook for this company toxic. Like I said, a walking zombie feasting on the naive.
Yes, I'm not Parents.
But here's a link.
http://www.bioprocessingjournal.com/bioprocessingjournal.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=41&layout=blog&Itemid=81
I think the article needs to be purchased atm. See 2nd article synopsis.
very good point!
Anyone know if All Allan blogger is still shilling this?
don'e you think it odd that the share price is being taken down on relatively low volume when the good news is crescendo-ing?