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.
So you are saying that the company is providing disclosure in accordance with Securities law? I guess I have missed it. Please point me in the right direction.
I don't know what Frudakis is doing, if you have a clue let us all know.
Nowhere do I question Mr. Yonker's sincerity.
And I want to thank him for identifying himself as "mikeinsarasota" he didn't have to. "mikeinsarasota" could have been anyone masquerading as the landlord.
That is my point precisely. Supposition has taken the place of disclosure. While I admit my suppositions take a negative view, 90% of the suppositons posted here paint the company in a positive light.
Now, since the company no longer discloses it's activities as required by Federal and State regulation, one can only draw from these two conclusions:
1. It is a publicly traded corporation operating as a privately held company in violation of securities law.
or
2. It has ceased operating.
As an investor, this should be of concern.
Interesting indeed!
Here we have a landlord who was uncomfortable enough that he felt the need to do a little research beyond the norm, which led him to Mr. Gannon. We can only assume that the landlord did this because he had found that he could no longer contact the company by either knocking on the door, or phoning the people he was accustomed to conducting business with. This sort of supports the conclusion that the principals have "flown the coop".
Now we have a happy landlord, who obviously has obtained that which generally makes landlords happy. Dan, I hope you were smart enough to obtain a note senior to Dutchess.
Now, but then again, if the landlord had put the broken SNiP machine out on the curb, this might lead to an unfavorable report from "Fox" (Thank you again for taking the time!) which might not do well for share price. So perhaps the rent is a small enough investment, when compared with the potential to be made in share price increase, to keep the ruse of an active company in place.
Fascinating.
So, mikeinsarasota; We are to understand that you are Michael B. Yonker, President of Brel International.
Is that correct?
There is a "classic" case of penny stock manipulation going on here. Right before our very eyes, we get to watch it unfold.
Fascinating.
Thank you Florida Grey, there is nothing that can beat 'feet on the street' for getting some answers.
Again, thanks for taking the time.
We have managed to raise some good questions here in the last couple days.
-Is DNAPrint still conducting business? It's hard to tell.
-Do they have a revenue stream? There does not appear to be one.
-Are they in compliance with the law in Florida and the CFR's regarding publicly traded corporations? No.
-When will the SNiP machine be running again? No clear answer. We know it has been down three months already.
-Is it a lack of money or willingness to get this machine running again, so revenue producing testing can resume? No clear answer.
-Have the officers walked out the back door with the Intellectual Property? There are indications.
-Is the Intellectual Property worth carrying out the back door? This seems to be the best argument against the preceding question.
-What is the reason for the complete and total silence from the officers?
I wonder if we can get further clarification to these issues, rather than posts to scientific papers, old press releases, Wikipedia articles, and Barack Obama, all of which just seem designed to obfuscate the search for facts surrounding this company.
"Think it would be a little cheerier if we were at .0025 today?"
It would definitely be cheerier. Irrational Exuberance is a lot more fun when it comes to investing. But then again, drinking heavily is a lot of fun too. Trouble is, they both have consequences in the end.
While it's not as much fun, it is better to drink moderately and invest skeptically.
The result of that search is "fuzzy stuff". It has nothing to do with DNAPrint Genomics.
"I suppose everything government does might be called "fuzzy," but a lot of "fuzzy" money flows, at the direction of "fuzzy" government."
As for the last part of your posting, I could not agree with you more.
goldenstone:
I think you draw the wrong conclusion. Perhaps it would be more reasonable to conclude that Nanobac, before completing the proposed transaction, conducted a little of thier own "Due Diligence". And perhaps the result of the DD is the final communication from the corporation:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1127354/000111650208000616/dna8k.htm
In response:
"So, when DNA Ancestors says it is currently running DNAPrint Genomics' AncestryByDNA tests, in-house, in their lab in Australia, that means to you, "it's looking pretty clear this company no longer transacts anywhere"?"
By transactions, I guess I mean't revenue producing activities for DNAPrint Genomics. Are these Australians paying a royalty? If so, to whom?
"I wonder what a company has to do, to satisfy your personal definition of "transacting business."
A 10-Q would suffice.
"But what you insinuate is way beyond what is reasonable and substantiated.'
I'm not insinuating anyting. I'm just reporting and commenting on my own and other's observations. Observations which seem reasonable, because there is some substantiation here.
On the other hand (ahem), it could be said that posting links to scientific papers which may mention Tony Frudakis, genomics, personalized medicine, -- mentions of "very undervalued IMHO", or that Barack Obama is "big on this stuff" may not only qualify as insinuation, but conclusions drawn from such may also be considered to be unreasonable, because they are not drawn from observation, just pulled from some fuzzy sort of ... Oh, I don't know, just fuzzy stuff.
Isn't this a moot point? It's looking pretty clear that this company no longer transacts anywhere!
Actually, you are misreading this. " Transacting business in interstate commerce" is an acknowledment by Florida that no state has the authority to regulate interstate commerce.
Florida certainly will require a corporation or individual to register itself to conduct business here. If they are paying employees, that's enough.
D.G:
We can move the numbers your way, (best case scenario) and DNAPrint still owes more than 6 times it's market cap. If you want to interpret that as a good thing, well OK. It's your money.
I wasn't aware that Dutchess was an equity holder, although they certainly may have some. The stake that I refer to is in the form of financing (debt). Senior to equity. You guys buying this stock have looked at the balance sheet and familiarized yourselves with this situation. Right?
By the way, I'm off to Florida. Palm Beach this time though - the wrong coast.
PT - what impact would an increased Market-Cap have on Corp taxes?
Off the top of my head I would say none.
This is a really great development, to see some people actually doing a little research, and move this discussion past the blur and fuzz of "very undervalued IMHO".
With today's share price, total market cap is still about one thirteenth of what we know this company owes to creditors. And those numbers are old, so one must assume they are currently even greater than that, as we have another year of deffered compensation, capitol leases, etc. etc. etc. There is an awful lot of debt in line in front of the shareholders.
I have a question, I really don't know the answer to it, but I am curious; Would too much of an increase in market cap actually encourage Dutchess to pull the plug at some point and force a bankruptcy? Or would this be a non-factor?
As for the comparison some one made with ACTC, It might be useful to point out that at least ACTC still seems to be an active company. Not that I would invest there, but at least they seem to be open for business and reporting to shareholders, the SEC, and bothering to pay the fee for an annual report.
I was wondering if the sign leaning against the wall wasn't at one time up on the sign post to the left in this picture. Before the sign on the right appeared perhaps.
http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc1/mclass55/sign_at_entrance_with_space_availab.jpg
Florida_Grey_Fox:
Sounds familiar. Yeah, it's a little run down, but sort of nice place though. The picnic table out front looks like a great place to eat lunch under the trees, out in the weeds.
When you open up a reply box , look down below the box where you type. There is a link to "Read the FAQ" which will take you to IHub's photo hosting service. You upload your image, and it returns a link which you can paste into the body of your message. The photo will then show up embedded in the message you post here. That is how I posted the photo of that row of DNA processing machines.
Dan:
Thank you for the information. And especially, for taking the time to do the research.
I'm just curious though... What does DNAPrint themselves have to say?
The machine has been down a solid three months, and is still down?
If I was the largest shareholder I would be throwing a fit!
See below for a suggestion:
"fluff pr" Now that's a good idea.
How about this:
"Gene Sequencing Machines in Action"
Proof that not only are they out of hock, but we even have several running at full tilt!
If DNAPrint answered the phone, then no one would have to call you.
I wouldn't fill in the phone number on those forms, you probably don't have to. Or at least ask the SEC to mask it. It seems like a privacy issue to me. Seriously.
So this stock rises sharply on news that two people were actually seen in DNAG's office and the telephone was answered.
Now, do we infer from recent posts by yourself, and goldenstone that they are no longer answering the phone again?
Actually, I have previously made the same mistake that pt has made. While the publication date is recent, the patent was filed in November of 2005.
This is more of a reflection on the efficiency of the US Patent Office than it is about whether or not DNAPrint is still actively engaged in business.
Ooops, I stand corrected.
goldenstone: Let us know what you find out. It is interesting when someone can get first hand information.
goldenstone:
If I come off as complaining, I apologize because that is not my intent. I just try to post facts and research to counter some of the obfuscation which gets thrown up here.
Do I wish I had bought this at .0002 and sold at .0020. You bet I do. But as Mr. Buffett says: "That's like driving by looking in the rear-view mirror."
Actually, this stock is so thinly traded, that I'm not sure I would have been able to do that even if I had the foresight. When the new money in this stock tries to take a profit, they will find that they have entered the financial equivalent of a "Roach Motel". Easier to get in than get out.
As for the people who have been in this stock for many years, I don't think they will agree with your assessment of .002 as being such a hot price either.
As for my investment style, I am quite comfortable with sticking to fundamentals. If you look more carefully at my posts, you will see that I discount past data. And that's why I can't buy this stock. There is no current data.
C'mon Dan, the newest news on that "pipeline" page is four years old.
http://www.dnaprint.com/welcome/pipeline/
I expect it would be a fair proposition for management to produce some sort of guidance for investors to clear up the obvious misconceptions that have arisen from the SEC filings they left us with before falling silent.
"Gees guys I hope I didn't jinx us...lol. First day here were moving backwards."
Hey, don't sweat it. Actually, this stock has had a lot of practice at moving backwards.
"Should the company publish a press release this stock could make another break for the pennies."
So, since management obviously must have some interest in this company, the question begs to be asked: Why don't they?
You don't get much on this forum but a lot of fuzzy stuff about "personalized medicine" or "undervalued" or "in my opinion".
Facts aren't presented here because they are just too dismal.
Here is the last 10Q. You should read it all before you invest, but page 10 sums it up:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1127354/000135448807001952/dnap10qsb.htm
Here are the last two 8Ks:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1127354/000111650208000616/dna8k.htm
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1127354/000135448808000259/f8k.htm
Of course it will be pointed out that this is all old news, and it is because this company no longer files financials.
I looked at ACTC's last 10Q filed last July. This company reminds me a little of DNAPrint. I'm still going to stick with my thesis that we are seeing a "mini-bubble" in micro-cap stocks perceived to have something to do with "stem-cell" or "personalized medicine" or whatever you want to call it. There is a remarkable rise in price for the whole sector so we cannot connect this with any improvement to the fortunes of DNAPrint.
As to the financial health of both of these companies, well let's just say there isn't much of it.
These are just my opinions.
And "Dude" is an insult. Please refrain.
Actually Babe, it is much simpler than that. Companies that make money survive and thrive. They reward the investors who took the risk.
Those that don't make money - well, they just don't.
Ok, I'll agree with you. It's a generalized hysteria over personalized medicine. But, it is raising prices of all sorts of stocks in this category, regardless of the health or lack therof regarding any of these companies.
I'm just not sure this is "smart money" buying in.
Nice jump. Congratulations, although I have a feeling that not too many people here can make any money selling at today's level. Even if all the shares traded today had traded at .0014, that would only amount to about $26,000.00. That's pretty thin.
There seems to be a general hysteria going on among penny, micro, and micro micro-cap stocks which may be involved in anything remotely construed, or even imagined to have anything to do with "stem cell" research.
So, I don't think this run-up has anything to do with a company called DNAPrint, just more to do with an Obama induced "stem cell" micro bubble.
Just my opinion.
The Nanobac deal is a long time gone.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1127354/000111650208000616/dna8k.htm
This is all a bunch of Cool Beans.
But is DNAPrint Genomics currently processing any of these tests? More importantly, are they pulling down revenue?
bendriver:
I'm afraid a few hundred thousand shares may not even get the sign hung back up, much less pay down any existing debt. Other than that, I think you have the scenario pretty well nailed down.
Sam: While it's seems true that equity issued doesn't seem to explain the company's cash burn rate, keep in mind there is also the debt side of the equation.
In the 8-K filed last February, shortly before the company entered the "cone of silence", they list over ten million in debt obligations.
So. the destruction of wealth comes from both sides of the balance sheet.
I would imagine that cash from the debt side is no longer available, hence the reduced level of activity. The dwindling equity issues and whatever revenue is coming in is probably all that remains to support a cash flow.
Of course, I'm just guessing here.
It's unfortunate though that we have to guess about the financial status of a publicly traded corporation.
I agree that the sign is an issue, but you must prioritize!
If you are going to help them out, I suggest you go get the DNA machine out of hock first, then worry about the sign. I think Ann is right, you need to get down there and personally make sure this gets done.
We are all pulling for you Dan. Let us know how it works out.