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.
When does the QB grace period end?
All the shareholders of record did. Also keep in mind that Medistem was NOWHERE NEAR commercialization (whereas CELZ has been there for safely approaching a year).
Did shareholders receive something on the order of $1.60 per share of Medistem stock? Then EVERY other consideration is meaningless NOISE.
Why would the Medistem group engage in anything disingenuous that would obliterate the great reputation they had based on taking Medistem from .0020 to $2.50 before the buyout at $1.65? Makes less than no sense. Next theory, please...
Excessive dilution seems like a very false premise: why would they increase the A/S to 6B (doubling it) in anticipation of the need to use those shares to prevent a hostile takeover—only to GIVE them away for next to nothing at these pricing levels. Makes NO sense. Next theory, please...
What are the note conversion price points in relation to where we are/have been? Let’s say the average of last week was .0018–how do the note conversions compare?
When did WHAT happen?
If this is “full swing,” we’re swung...
+1. “They got this” (insert angry, red-faced profanity-spewing emoji here)
Agreed. Eye roll: we need more PAID procedures—MANY THOUSANDS more. But, alas, the glacial advance continues...
I’m thinking that the pill-pushers probably feel otherwise ??
To them $1/share is probably a bargain in the long run
IF they sell, it is likely that only CaverStem alone gets peeled off. I’d take $1/share for that—knowing that I was STILL sitting on the value represented by FemCelz, Stemspine, and AmnioStem.
Here’s an interesting thought to ponder: what exactly IS the notional value/proper price valuation for CaverStem ALONE? I ask because many may not realize the financial implications (and advantages) of CaverStem being a separate legal entity. $1/share sounds pretty reasonable to me—given that the entire O/S and A/S represent ALL the items in the CELZ pipeline, not just CaverStem...
IF the company increased the A/S to prevent a hostile takeover, it is VERY unlikely that they are diluting much at all now: why would they increase the A/S for the reason just posited, and they GIVE those shares away for 1/10 of ONE PENNY? Makes less than ZERO sense.
There is—there MUST BE—*a*logic at play here (whether or not some/many/most would agree that it is logicAL in an absolute sense is another matter entirely). But I’ll be damned if I can get ANYONE to offer JUST ONE well-reasoned rationale to explain how it benefits the company for the PPS to be at 1/10 of one penny—particularly when the EPS is about to turn POSITIVE in all likelihood, and that after the commercialization of only ONE of the items in their pipeline.
Is no one here intelligent enough to contribute to a MUCH-needed collaborative and synthetic analysis, based on what they HAVE said/shown, that we can use to figure out WTF is going on “behind the curtain” (since our unborn grandchildren may reach adulthood before the company itself actually speaks clearly on these matters)?
Some of us have been beating that drum for almost 2 years now—to ABSOLUTELY no avail...
A year and a half ago I might have believed that: for now, however, let’s aim high starting with a nickel and go from there…
How many more false starts before the bottom just simply falls out? So many longs have come and gone, leaving frustrated and worse. A stock can only withstand so much of this treatment of its shareholders...
Sadly, they have done NOTHING with ANY consistency to disprove your assertions. That alone is highly perplexing (and suggestive of amateurism).
Why would they CONTINUE to delay the release of this report? What purpose is served by this approach? Strategy or sloppiness?: I’d like to believe the former, but MUST be shown good reason to believe it...
This came out last week...
Color me skeptical—I’m from Missouri: SHOW ME!
Why is it tanking AGAIN?!?!
Are you done?
As soon as they broke CaverStem off as a separate entity, I began to anticipate a sell-off of that entity. Perhaps then lather, rinse, repeat with the other product lines?
Yep. There was easy money to be made on a daily basis then—prior to the point when I had enough shares to benefit bigly myself. Story of my life...
Fair question I general. However, there are CLEARLY ways that MMs manipulate the APPEARANCE of things as they see fit (making buys show up as SELLS, playing games with block of shares that they are merely passing BETWEEN THEMSELVES, etc)...
OTCX back in the game (on the ASK)—many have believed that to be a good sign in the past.
Please educate me on what you mean by “dumping.” The release of NEW shares into the float (if so, that can be confirmed or confounded pretty easily from any number of sources)?
While I’d prefer to wait for $20 PPS, I’d probably take a buyout at $10.
Sorry, friend—I was only piggybacking on your post to make a general statement, not one directed at you.
Let’s apply just a PINCH of logic and inferential thinking here: would they draw attention to the paper and the trial data (going so far as to provide the URL for those who might wish to check until it’s posted) if “bad news” were waiting behind “Door # 1”? NOT EVEN MAYBE.
SFL, my man! I guess we should consider adopting as our theme song the following: “I’m still standing—yeah yeah yeah”! Maybe it is FINALLY happening...?
“The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of the last business day of its most recently completed second fiscal quarter based upon the price at which the common equity was last sold was $37,242,192.”
$37M?!?!
430M shares traded in 2 days: let that sink in. Solid, new, and higher base forming. Churn on, baby!
Bear in mind that, statistically speaking, demonstrated data that shows even a 60% efficacy rate is “SIGNIFICANT.” I expect the actual numbers, once published to be in the 75-80% range safely.