Although he looks alone, somebody wants him on the phone.
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.
Yeah, and I doubt that he wants to be managed. Either by the board, or the majority owners... Meddling congressmen.
I know I'm out on a limb.
How's this for a predicition: "Benmosche is gone before the end of September."
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10594093/1/aig-ceos-bluster-draws-ire-of-board.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEFI
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE5820HJ20090903
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125193158903881263.html
Yeah, when will we get some news from the Dutchess Capital Management loss abatement team?
I haven't been to Sarasota since January, and I'm out of touch with current events. The silence from these folks is deafening.
And what makes you think Dick has flown the coop? 8-K nothwithstanding, of course.
FSDLS was something that was tried late last year to try and move any possible value the intellectual property had out from under the noses of debt and equity holders alike. It went nowhere. Probably because whoever was funding FSDLS got smart.
I think the new group is trying to be coaxed by the former management into pulling the same sort of stunt. Or maybe being coaxed into helping pay a few key debts to parties with whom these people may want to do business with in the future. I have no way of knowing that, it's an opinion made strictly by inference from some of the posts made before the effort went private.
Those of a somewhat skeptical nature who may tend to view potential investments through a lens of research and reality ("bashers") are considered unqualified to join the group.
I'm not sure that the word "credible" and "investing further into DNAPrint" are compatible terms.
You would think they could pick the sign up off the ground, at least for the TV news crews.
Interesting.
One thing I do not understand in this good news is: How does forcing lenders to eat a significant loss on loans help FNM?
This is an excellent article for people who haven't figured out that FNM/FRE are not investment grade stocks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/business/03mortgage.html?_r=2&ref=business
"But one thing has held true - the bashers were always right - every damn time."
bashers? Let's try an alternative term. How about "realists". I like that better.
Has anyone heard if progress has been made in the scheme to buy the liens to the I.P. and form a private company to hold them?
Frog:
If "johnny come lately" owns 17% of outstanding shares and is working with two out of the remaining "big three" who incidentally have shown no official sign of resigning, then the scenario is possible. Not ethical, certainly not ethical. But possible.
I guess the crux is this: Who can muster 51% of shares voting?
Certainly, long time shareholders should keep their antennae out.
My personal opinion? Any new investment money will go where the old investment money went: Away.
This plan will go nowhere, but it will be interesting to watch.
bag8ger:
It doesn't matter whether I believe there is value there or not.
What matters is that Dutchess believes there is not, and that Mr. Gannon and his group believe that there is. That is the only reason that a plan that was hatched and abandoned in late 2008 seems to have been revived.
I thought that Frog had posted stale news. Until I clicked on "Next" and saw Mr.Gannon's reaction, that is.
Again, I'm just working to get things out in the open.
FSDLS was going to be created as a private company, LLC, or closely held corporation solely to purchase the "rights" from DNAPrint to the use of the "Intellectual Property".
One can imagine that the amount charged to the new company for licensing the rights would closely match whatever it took to get those who hold liens to release them. Then the new private company could move forward unencumbered by the obligations of the old corporation, which would be presumably left as a husk to blow away with the wind. None of this went beyond a business plan which was floated to attract financing. It went nowhere. Probably because if it is not legally fraudulent, it morally is.
This was the "Sneaking out the back door with the Intellectual Property" scenario.
Dan, is this the plan they have asked you to participate in? It is time to clear the air here. Don't leave us conjecturing.
Then whatever you are working on with them is obviously different than what was presented last fall. You could of course clear this up very easily. I'd like to see your plan. You know my e-mail address.
Sorry bag8ger. This is a publicly traded corporation. It is owned by the shareholders. Disclosure is your right. Management does not have the right to enter secret deals. FSDLS is not about reviving DNAG, it is about discarding it.
I know that some people believe that I am a DNAG basher, but I am quite the opposite. As I have pointed out before, it is a real shame that we have to resort to detective work to try to find out what is going on.
This gets interestinger and interestinger!
It is no secret that these guys were working on a plan to walk out the back door with the I.P. and leave the creditors and shareholders of DNAG behind.
This is old news to anyone with open eyes.
Is that your new plan? To finance the FSDLS scheme that they tried to pull in late 2008, to pay off the lien holders of the I.P? So they do seem to see some sort of value in the I.P. after all. I wonder how closely Dutchess is paying attention to this. I would imagine that the $200,000 number is going to grow if they figure this out.
I might not have paid too much attention to Frog's post until I read your reaction. Now, I must ask the same question as Frog; What's in this for you?
And long time shareholders here should ask of you;
Et tu Brute?
FSAIL:
Well, perhaps my point was missed.
Shopping at Whole Foods is to an upscale lifestyle as shopping at ALDI's is to a frugal one.
"Thank you for your eloquent, and accurate, posts, Babe"
Proof positive, that it is easier to catch puffballs than dodge bullets.
How does your plan to buy out Dutchess' interests benefit the people you are trying to lure into this plan? The benefit to anyone person or organization that has found itself too deep into this situation is obvious. The benefit to new money is a little murkier. Please clarify.
The truth is shopping at Whole Foods, is not where I would expect to see one who is living frugally, ie; working without pay" as has been put forward here previously.
"Tony emphatically said that he did not read, participate,
nor care about what was being said, claimed, promulgated
on these boards, ie: IHUB, Yazoo, RB tec..."
"Dr Frudakis, was highly passionate about the lies, rumors, innuendo's that were being promulgated"
Highly passionate over something he knows nothing about? It's OK though, it just shows that he is about as normal as most investors at large.
I have no doubt that it will be very easy to buy out Dutchess' interest.
But shareholders with large stakes in this company need to address an important question for the sake of the people they might be trying to lure into a windmill tilting adventure: How is this not simply a plan to mitigate Dutchess' loss in their DNAPrint investment?
"We are interested in buying Dutchess' stake in DNAPrint, and I think the plan, presented to me, is a good one.
Here is a question that must be addressed: If Dutchess Capitol is willing to sell their debt at a discount, then what does that say about their perceived value of DNAPrint?
It is important to avoid becoming simply a way for them to cut their loss, at your expense.
That's an interesting thought, Fox.
"This company aint "Kaput" until they add a Q to the ticker symbol. IMHO"
To declare bankruptcy would imply that there is still something of value here. I'm not sure there is anything here that would justify the costs associated with taking it through bankruptcy.
So, what's next - BK or simple dissolutionment? Anyone have a clue?
It took just the barest amount of due diligence to see that this company had stopped functioning about a year ago.
And don't be so hard on Dutchess Capitol, they gave the company $4.5 million. Now they have to turn around and explain themselves to the investors who's money they were entrusted with. It is difficult to believe they are feeling too "Peachy Keen" on this deal either.
It's a shame, but I guess it is just human nature to blame the messenger who was simply reporting on management's "capitol investment removal plan" while it was being carried out.
Do you think this news will affect D.G.'s fundraising for the "Dutchess Capitol Management Loss Mitigation Plan"?
I see that DNAPrint has updated the web-site. This must be the first change to it in quite some time:
http://www.dnaprint.com/welcome/home/index.php
Dan:
There you are. Why don't you hire Florida Grey Fox to assist you with that research. He's on the scene, and what ever is outside his circle of competence he could farm out to someone who is knowledgeable in the particular area.
You are the largest shareholder. Grab that board seat, appoint a CEO, and make it happen.
I can imagine that Dutchess Capitol could very well accept some pennies on the dollar in exchange for the debt they hold.
But now, doesn't this raise a conundrum? If you can buy out Dutchess at a discount, then it stands to reason that they don't believe that there is any value in the intellectual property either.
No, your first step must be to have the IP evaluated by independent experts.
And if that works out then an evaluation of the books by another independent auditor. We are aware of at least $10.5 million in debt. But how do you know that is all? You can't know.
Anything less than this, and you are being irresponsible to your other "five parties". Do what you want with your own money.
"They could have done all those things long before they ran out of shares to sell, long before they had to 'work indefinitely for no pay'"
The idea of working without pay is pure propaganda. The fact is, payroll is the most inefficient way to remove value from a company -- by far. Anyone who has ever run a company knows this instantly.
There had been some speculation that there would be "events" as the limit to the last iteration of "Authorized Shares" ran out.
Yeah, I guess so.
Dan:
Frog's right -- you don't like it, but he's right.
The Board seat and even the Chairmanship are yours for the taking. Go do it. The entire management team has left. Dutchess isn't going to just sit around. If there is a dime in DNAG, these guys aren't going to leave it lay there.
So far as the value of the "intellectual property" goes, I would have it evaluated by two outside independent experts. College professors love to do this kind of stuff, and may even help you out gratis. One guy who knows about Genetics, and one guy who knows Patent Law. And I would do this before giving the company a cent.
And so far as just giving Gomez and Frudakis more money and letting them run the company with it... Well, think about this: How would that differentiate you from previous investors who have seen their money evaporate?
Good luck. I mean it.
Dan, you need to be on the board. You should have taken Gomez up on his offer -- before he resigned.
If you just leave it up to Dutchess, keep in mind that they will act exclusively in their own interests. There will be no empathy for other equity or debt holders.
Good luck.
FOX:
Check out this discussion board: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/board.aspx?board_id=8290
You have to use extreme caution with stocks in this category, because they are rife with fraud, as you have discovered.
I have been bringing up questions here for two months, long term shareholders just didn't seem to want to look at what was becoming increasingly obvious. Thanks for acting as the "eyes and ears".
My own opinion (just an opinion) is that buying a stock like this is akin to casino gambling, only the odds are a lot worse.
While some seem uncomfortable with the concept, I think this discussion group as a whole has benefited greatly by the investigation of whether or not DNAPrint remains an on-going concern. Some interesting things have been turned up and examined. All are free to draw their own conclusions.
Another interesting question has been raised about whether the value of the "Intellectual Property" alone qualifies DNAG as an investment. I would think that the answer to this question revolves solely around this argument: "Are the patents enforceable?".
Interesting reading here:
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/patents.shtml
I'm not drawing conclusions, just trying to inspire a little discussion.
"I don't see anything wrong with someone discovering that he/she is being purposely misled and reacting to that discovery with vigor.
BINGO!!!!
Actually, I too always thought that the saying about beating a dead horse applied to those who wanted it to get up and run. I'm glad I am not alone.
e-ore:
That list looks like you might have cut and pasted it from a site warning about the hazards of trading in micro-cap stocks.
Anyone can do what they want with their own investment purchases. Just be alert.
Well I can't re-read them, they are all deleted. I had to go from memory. As for the messages he was replying to, I wrote them. So I am familiar with the context.
I'm quite sure that you won't be forthcoming with "the details early" (to paraphrase you), because the whole purpose of keeping us waiting for the insider's dope is to try to coax share price upward, in anticipation that 'something is up'.
And this from a guy always whacking the SEC for failure to do their job.
So am I to understand the following?
Commentary about information readily available to the public, and discussed openly on this forum for the last couple of days is "bashing" and "manipulative". Possibly criminal. Speculation about the meaning of a lack of disclosure from a publicly traded corporation and the failure to file required reports is "libelous".
But the dropping of heavy hints, dripping with portent by an individual who owns 17% of outstanding shares about "re: what's going on", insinuating a big deal is about to pop... Well, that is perfectly OK.
I just want to get this straight, what the rules are, you know?
Thank you Mike, I think we have all learned a lot in the last two days about the status of a company which had fallen silent to it's investor base.
Silence breeds suspicion. Disclosure clarifies. Perhaps in your next conversation with an officer there you would pass that on.
Again, Thanks to you and Florida Grey Fox.