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.
That would be true if the cost to generate the revenue was less than the revenue generated. I do not believe that is the case when you factor in salaries and other costs associated with marketing and sales. So, in this case generating revenue is probably increasing the need for dilution.
My point was that the evidence obviously wasn't so overwhelmingly positive that the FDA was able to make a quick decision. The more evidence that BIEL can provide to support their case the better their chances of gaining an approval decision.
No, it's not out there. It's exactly what happened. They did the same thing with the fake sales to JN in 2009 as well. There is a pattern here.
Common sense. Look at total sales of the vet patches prior to this year. Look at the attempt to pump up 2009 sales numbers by using bill and hold transactions in roughly the same amount to the same company that their auditor later forced them to restate. Look at the fact that those sales magically reappeared after they fired their auditor. It's not hard to connect the dots.
So the FDA has approved it!?!?!? WOW!!! Oh, of course they haven't.
Revenues aren't improving. Year over year they are declining. Especially if you discount the fake veterinary patch sales to Andy's sister.
Obviously not because they still haven't provided enough evidence to allow the FDA to approve it.
No, I'm not talking about planning for failure, I'm talking about running a company responsibly. Most development stage companies, which BIEL claims to be, attempt to minimize expenses. Bio-techs, in particular, can go years with zero marketing and sales expense while they focus on R&D and regulatory clearance.
If BIEL had a profitable line of products that were helping to support their development then that would be a different story, but they don't. The shotgun approach they are taking to marketing their product has been a dismal failure to date and I don't see that changing unless they receive FDA approval. The money they are currently spending on marketing and salaries would be better deployed conducting further studies to more adequately prove that the product is both safe and effective.
It's all my opinion, obviously, but I believe they would have a better chance at long term success if they went this route.
These guys are attempting to do the same thing Locin industries was hired to do back in 2008. If you look at Locin's retail partners it includes all of the same retailers curently being targeted by Greenwood.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/05/13/idUS154355+13-May-2008+PRN20080513
Competition for shelf space in those major stores is fierce. The problem, IMO, is that there is no demand from retailers for PEMF products. Retailer demand is of course driven by consumer demand and there just isn't a huge public outcry for PEMF products. Maybe the Dr. Oz and The Doctors spots will start to raise public awareness, but PEMF is still viewed as questionable science by the general poplulace. Whether that's fair or unfair is irrelevant, it's simply true. I had never heard of PEMF prior to taking an interest in BIEL and I'm sure that's true of many other BIEL investors as well.
IMO, BIEL is going about this the wrong way. They need to focus any and all resources on FDA approval. That means cutting expenses down to as close to zero as possible, which in turn means laying off everybody not absolutely integral to that goal. Without FDA approval and the legitimacy (like it or not the average consumer puts a lot of faith in the FDA) that comes along with it I just don't see the products gaining any traction with consumers. Once they have attained FDA approval THEN they should focus all of their efforts on marketing and distributing their product.
Their primary product is for sale all over the world. All you need is a broker account that allows trading of pinksheet stocks.
Sweet! Nothing like topping the iBox with a bunch of non-existent products. WELL DONE!
I am pretty confident that the minute they get a retail agreement in place, regardless of the size of the retailer.
According to reported converstions with the CEO, deals with Canadian pharmacies have been in place for over a year. Ummm...yeah.
February 18, 2011:
Brian Weber of course. The guy handed $80,000 to a failed NASCAR driver wannabe with a share dilution scam. It makes sense that he's going directly to the source for all of his misinformation.
Nothing like living it up on the shareholder dime. BW spin at its finest.
No, why would they care? If that happened they would conduct another reverse split. Over time the investors that lost there money would leave and a new crop of suckers would show up to support management's hobbies and vacations.
No you haven't. Yes, technically some market makers can execute trades outside of normal trading hours, but it is rare and average investors cannot do it.
Nothing to worry about then. These brick sized necklaces will be on the shelves in Costco in January 2012. Wait...
Sales don't do a thing unless you can keep expenses in check. You need to revise your statement to "profits make the world go round" and you might be on to something.
According to the complaint, the plaintiff loaned the defendant $150K that was supposed do to be repaid in 3 installments late last year. No payements were made.
Yes, I'm award of this. The post I responded to was talking about extended hour trading, which doesn't exist in the OTC world.
Pinks don't trade after hours.
They make youtube videos everytime they have a production run. I think there have been 2. Sell shares, make a few drinks, sell shares, go on a lot of vacations. Rinse, repeat.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
Of course not. Nobody can tell you how many shares are outstanding let alone anything about the actual daily operations of the company. That's how share dilution scams stay in business.
It's approved as a class III device for a specific indication, just like Actipatch.
It's your choice if you decide not to apply common sense based on historical information. Good luck to you.
1) No
2) I think they didn't want to deal with the hassel of continuing to be a fully-reporting company. I also think they prefer to not disclose who owns what shares and when they sell them, so I guess so.
3) 2009 was the only year they listed their audit fees. If they had been in the 2010 financials I would have cited those.
4) No, they didn't. The filings are standard and all there is no need to pay a lawyer to simply upload them.
5) That's because the f*d them up the first time. Re-filing was a 1-time cost and wouldn't be necessary going forward.
You're welcome.
Check out Item 14. Audit Fees for FY2009 were $29,800. The cost of an audit is by far the largest line-item for a company like BIEL to remain SEC compliant. The rest is chump change. Do you think the cost of filing a few 8K's and form 4's during the year equates to $250K+? Be realistic.
http://bielcorp.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Form-10-K-Annual-Report-for-the-Fiscal-Year-Ended-12-31-09.pdf
Yes, if you're a major corporation. Not a startup with 8 employees.
The $300K number was BS. That may have been there combined cost from the date they opened their doors, but no way does it cost $300K a year for a company this size to be SEC compliant.
I agree that they won't go BK. However, for the sake of argument just ask yourself why not? All of the assets and patents are pledged to the debt holders (the Whelan's), so if there really was a company interested in buying the technology then they could declare BK, wipe out all existing common shares and keep all of the proceeds of the sale to themselves.
Again, I don't think this will happen, but it's pretty boring around here right now.
Then you're in luck. BBDA puts out at least 1 or 2 PRs per day.
Hear! Hear!
Here, I'll post Andy's response in advance of his actual response (don't get mad, this is obviously intended as entertainment):
First, I don't think that ever happened either. However, no I would not consider that a "real" offer unless the buyer conducted a full due diligence of BIEL's financial statements, as well as their patents.
I'm not going to say that some company hasn't expressed a passing interest in the technology, but I am 100% confident he hasn't turned down a real offer from a real company at a significant premium to market price.
I don't believe for 1 second that Andy has received any firm offers to buy this company.