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.
Quote: "My, My $OCAT PPS going up. Must be Fools and Good Samaritans!"
Going "up" from what, ROCK BOTTOM, the 52 week low? It's "up" a few pennies after being DOWN over 50% in the prior 2 month period- dropped like a meteor on re-entry from $12.73 to sub $6, right after a key insider unloaded a dump truck full?
That's not "up" from anything? The common shares have lost over 98% of their value since being traded as a public traded company. That's not "up" - that's a massive, massive down decline.
"up" a whopping 5 cents, only 8/10ths of one percent- after losing 98% plus of it's total value?
OK, sounds good to me, I guess? If that's defined as "up"???? Maybe it is "fools" as quoted?
Quote: "What is this rah, rah about "Restoring Your Retina"?????"
Just that, a bunch of rah, rah.
There's no proven, commercial, FDA or Euro or other approved "magic cell" so called "treatment or "cure" that per mythology is going to be "talked about in medical texts for a 1000 yrs" LOL. It's all rah, rah at this point.
How bout 33% with serious issues out of a grand total of 18 in a micro-micro sized "study" trial? NOTHING's been proven conclusively yet- not by a long shot.
And anything claiming so is just pure rah, rah hype. Simple as that. Look at where the share price is sitting- did the rah, rah "big article" cause a rush of "big money" the big boys, the smartest of the smart venture firms to come rushing after this? Or are they, OCAT sitting parked with a 5 yr old share price and out "trying" to unload 10 million dilution shares for some survival and "move forward" cash as they have none and apparently can't attract any other kind of investment capital?
rah, rah, rah, lots of rah, rah
Quote: "Reverse split may not be necessary if they continue to grow organically and are able to buy back shares IMO"
BUY BACK SHARES WITH WHAT? Monopoly money? They for all intents and purposes HAVE NO CASH, generate no cash and use DILUTION, MASS DILUTION FINANCING, endless, non-stop for survival.
How does a circular logic work- of issuing dilution shares to pay day to day bills and limp along barely surviving then allow one to "buy-back" the same shares they just issued out as dilution? It's an impossible formula- it's laughable. They just issued out over 300 MILLION shares of dilution in the past 1 yr and yet ended the last qtr essentially cash BROKE w/ $46K cash on hand, against just "accounts payable" of over $2 MILLION dollars.
So which part of that pittance of $46K cash exactly would be diverted off to this fantasy "share buy back" program while some other creditor of that $2 million accounts payable waits to get paid?
Why did they just do a desperation $200K note, at horrible terms, with Magna if they're about to "buy back" shares? Why did they just do a dilution financing line with Magna if they're about to buy-back shares? So they're gonna borrow money from Magna via pure dilution- the issuing of massive amounts of shares, as in the 10's of millions of shares for even a small "draw" on that credit line- and then supposedly turn around and use the cash gained via massive dilution to supposedly buy back a bit of the shares they just diluted?
What? I'd love to see this graphed out or put on a spread sheet or something as to how this magic formula would work- the use of dilution financing to then turn around and "buy-back" one's own created dilution shares?
Beyond fascinating and a total pipe dream IMO. Total fantasy land IMO.
Quote: "It's the RIGHT analysis. Its common sense. bhrt pays the bills through any means necessary while their revenues explode to eventually be self sufficient and pay bills as revenues become greater than monthly debts then they will do a reverse spilt, the stock price will be in th e dollars they will announce a few big prs, they will then find financing and the start of a phase 3 will commenced and bhrt will be on the 6-10 dollar range... ie see oc?t(the new advance ll tech).. the difference is BHRT GENERATES REVENUE"
What?? This is some future mythology "projection" thing or something?
And reverse splits = a successful company now too? Not the opposite, which is mass failure of a company's share requiring a REVERSE split and not a forward split? How does that supposedly work? Would like to see the details on this vast, imaginative "theory" and how it plays out?
I can't even understand most of that "theory" as it makes no sense at all, let alone have never, ever seen a case study of even a fraction of that "theory" ever playing out in real life, let alone working for a company?
A reverse split, than announce a "few PR's" and boom- you got yourself a winning biz? What? Is that all it takes? Then why wait? Just work that magic formula now and get this thing going? I mean heck, a "few PR's" just what, made up out of thin air? And then you got yourself a winner? Sounds great, what are they waiting for?
R/S are typically a sign of a massively failed company and almost never, ever, ever work, as in never. R/S is pretty much the last gasp of most dying penny companies per all my experience- and I'm certain there's reams of market research that would prove that out.
Fascinating "theory" or future projection or whatever "that" explanation is- of how slam dunk easy it's all gonna be cause they're reporting a tiny amount of "revenue" and then I guess an ole R/S and a few "PR's" and it's off to the winners circle. Wow, just amazing how easy that's all gonna be.
LOL !! "Revenues by definition are profits after expenses"
What?? I've had a little biz schooling and never, ever heard this new "theory"??
I can point to 100's, or 1000's of BK or GONE businesses who had "revenues" and never, ever, ever made a profit, not once.
Bioheart itself, has had many years of "revenues" - this is not new? Go back to the Leonhardt yrs SEC filings, there's been "revenues" before but never, ever even close to positive cash flow, let alone a profit.
Revenues by definition are NOT profits until one knows how much expenses they have. If the expenses exceed the revenues and also if the company can not maintain timely cash flows and CASH to pay obligations as they come due, then they can or will be "insolvent"- which is the exact case under which BHRT is operating right now, and then there are never profits. BHRT's own "going concern" lists "liquidity problems" specifically. This is an issue of Manga or whatever "financing" being able to be tapped and used fast enough- as BHRT debts and creditors are asking to be paid. (as in the recent lawsuit of a creditor wanting payment for a debt now and BHRT obviously having no cash to pay that debt as it stands now, $46K total cash left on-hand last qtr 10-Q filing. Cash is far, far more important to a biz than "revenues"- and cash mgt or lack of has sunk more businesses than would fill a book as big as an old Yellow Pages)
There are companies with $1 BILLION or more in annual "revenues" that exist today or did exist before their BK filing- and they could not get cash flow positive, or generate enough timely cash to pay their bills or tap enough finance lines to stay alive, let alone make a "profit".
Off the top of my head in on a short memory list: Nortel, Canada's biggest and most successful tech company in the nation's history BK. Too many airlines to count BK but with $BILLIONS in revenues, AMR American being a recent one, Sears and the K-Mart brand $BILLIONS in revenues but one foot in the BK grave barely surviving, KMART prior BK filing, Best Buy barely making it, Borders books, 2nd largest book seller in U.S. with 15,000 plus employees and over a $billion in assets BK, Alcatel-Lucent teetering on BK w/ sales of about $15 Billion, GM BK, Chrysler BK, Global Crossing which laid a huge amount of the fiber carrying all internet traffic to this day BK, MCI-Worldcom BK, Lehman Brothers BK, Newspapers and large publishers w/ $billions in "revenues" numerous BK filings recently, Eastman-Kodak once a DOW stalwart and one of the most famous companies in American history - $BILLIONS in "revenues" BK and gone for the most part, Washington Mutual who's branches are now Chase Bank owned, Conseco a mega giant with like $50 BILLION or more in assets BK filed, Pacific Gas and Electric an over 100 yr old company filed BK but is now a dividend paying favorite utility once mismanaged, Texaco which ended up being merged into Chevron was one of America's oldest oil/gas companies filed BK, UAL United airlines BK filed, Delta airlines BK filed, Blockbuster video BK and gone, Orchard supply hardware filed BK, Polaroid another American icon of invention BK and gone for the most part, Circuit City of electronic retailing fame BK and gone, JC Penny on life support right now probably going BK, Macy's filed BK, Continental Airlines BK, Lear corp of Lear jet fame BK, Six Flags of famous amusement parks BK, Tweeter another electronic retail chain BK, Wet Seal a woman's famous retail chain BK, Silcon Graphics a tech giant at one time BK, Solyndra of recent fame and a heck of a lot better "funded" than Bioheart went BK, TWA of airline fame BK, Trump resorts and Trump BK I can't even remember how and when but asset rich, cash poor equaled BK, too many entertainers of rock and roll or Hollywood fame and athletes who had mega assets but no cash flow left and went BK just recently being Nicholas Cage who was filthy wealthy but spend (expenses) more than whatever he brought in, even if it was $20 million a picture BK, Spiegel once a household name BK, Eddie Bauer corp of clothing fame almost a 100 yr old company I believe BK, Delphi automotive an American legend in the auto biz BK- too tired to type more.
REVENUES all of them - most had "revenues" 100 or 1000X that of Bioheart and they ended in BK. Revenues does not = a successful or even a surviving business, not by a long shot. LOL, the "revenues - expenses = profits" if it was only that easy. Too funny.
Wrong analysis: Quote, "What is best for this stock?
No revenues with BHRTs expenses?
Or increasing revenues at exponential rates with BHRTs expenses? "
Missed on the expenses GROWING FASTER than revenues and also high cost of sales- especially the last qtr, way out of whack. Biz problem 101. Cost and expense controls. It's a fundamental of managing a biz properly.
Further, those expenses are growing despite the R&D line being hacked to near zero- spelling double trouble. They're sand bagging the expenses to prop up the loss line by hacking out R&D on what's touted, what's supposedly a "heart research and development" company. If they put R&D spending back to even half of what it once was- to conduct actual FDA quality trials, or any trials or any serious research for the most part, the financial situation would be even more past dire. The expenses would explode past exponential if R&D spending were restored.
Which raises the question IMO, if an R&D research and supposed medical "trial" company is not spending on R&D and "trials"- then where is all the money even going exactly? How are expenses exploding upward, outpacing the so called "revenues" at the same time R&D is being carved out to nearly nothing- as in less than a pittance of $3K a month?
How does that make any sense for the business they're supposed to be in? They're not funding any trials and have no money to even remotely come close to funding any FDA level/quality phase 2/3 trials- not by a long shot. They finished with $46K cash on-hand in that last qtr and didn't do a thing on "trials", yet expense ballooned up by a very large amount. Again, what is the spending for then- where's the ole money going? It's all being washed under the marketing, general and admin expense line for the most part- a big chunk of that being salaries and bonuses for just 2 people- that alone is consuming $500K + $525K + $250K + $300K per yr = $1,575,000 a yr right there, a huge part of their expense line.
Where the rest is going? Who knows? Look at the financials in the last few SEC filings and try and figure it out. Bottom line- the "revenues" have been outpaced by expenses- thus really make no difference in their operational losses, etc Despite the attempt to spin it otherwise IMO. Just looking at the financials tells it all IMO. It's pretty plain and not hard to see yr over yr numbers and what they're doing and the massive increase in the expense line while the R&D line has shrunk to essentially nothing. Just look at SEC filings- balance sheet and statement of operations, it's clear to me.
Quote:"Either way, I believe the biggest picture here is that we are now generating revenues at an exponential rate. "
Well, all except the part that EXPENSE GROWTH is and has outpaced any "revenues" coming in, resulting in a larger loss from operations, yr over yr. No way to spin that one.
Also, they didn't just dilute at a record "exponential" pace this yr- over 300 MILLION shares of common, fully diluted increase, because it's all going "swell" and what not- a record pace for dilution and by all indications (the recent Magna deals) only increasing and on-going unabated. A more than doubling of the fully diluted O/S share count in less than a one yr period- so "revenues" did not make any difference in abating the massive, massive on-going dilution. No way to spin that one either IMO.
Stock sitting at 52 week low and just touched within a micro penny of the all, all time low of .0066, reaching .007 a week ago- more than likely the result of endless use of toxic, convertible debt and dilutive financing- no way to spin that reality either. The common shares and market cap are being run through the crusher.
From the latest filed 10-Q, PAGE 9:
" Fully diluted shares outstanding were 659,543,477 and 323,296,916 for the three months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively and 605,015,919 and 336,682,241 for the nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively."
Same latest filed 10-Q, PAGE 12:
"NOTE 2 — GOING CONCERN MATTERS
The accompanying unaudited condensed financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis, which contemplates the realization of assets and the satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business. As shown in the accompanying unaudited condensed financial statements, during nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company incurred an operating loss of $1,247,199 and used $747,184 in cash for operating activities. As of September 30, 2014, the Company had a working capital deficit (current liabilities in excess of current assets) of approximately $10.0 million. These factors among others may indicate that the Company will be unable to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time.
The Company’s existence is dependent upon management’s ability to develop profitable operations and to obtain additional funding sources. There can be no assurance that the Company’s financing efforts will result in profitable operations or the resolution of the Company’s liquidity problems. The accompanying statements do not include any adjustments that might result should the Company be unable to continue as a going concern."
So what exactly did these much touted "revenues" accomplish exactly again? Guess I'm not quite seeing the big picture or something? What's changed exactly from "revenues" when expenses are not controlled and grow faster than the "revenues"??
Quote: "It went from sub $5 in June to $12.73, Nice profit for 4 months and now we have another buying opportunity, its not hard."
Not that hard, eh? Sure. Right. REAMS of data that says your avg, amateur day-trader not only loses, but loses it all in short order, every dime of trading capital they have when they start.
Anyone who "claims" to somehow pick near perfect bottoms and then buy and then somohow "claims" (as in MYTH) to have always sold and gotten out near the near perfect top- well, not a chance IMO. Just pure hype talk.
Further, the vast majority of claims made here daily are not about flip or day trading this stock? The vast mythological claims are that this is a long term hold that's going to make people, long term shareholders filthy rich. Prices from $40 a share to as high as $240 a share and even $4,500 (yes no joking) have been "claimed" to be about to happen- as in the "near term" time horizon.
I don't buy any claims of easy profits and flip-trading in and out of this over and over- statistically that's a losing proposition. The only ones who flip-trade and dump out of this for profits, with repeat performance are insiders- who get their shares for nothing and know when the "PR" and "news" hype cycle is going to occur. Retail holders- have been mass losers on this stock- it's an immutable fact. A 98% plus loss to common and massive, massive on-going dilution in now way produces "increased wealth" or is a "winner" for the common shareholders. Not a case study out there to prove that true, not one.
LOL, Quote: "Contrarians increased postings are always a good indication for $OCAT imminent positive events. Likewise added another $10K last week to a very substantial position.
"
Yeah, $12.73 to sub $6 a share in a few months? Brilliant, only if one was SHORT. I'd love to see these "scenarios" all penciled out where one makes money on a falling stock via buying more as it falls more? Always found that "new math" and vast claims beyond fascinating??
Other than an insider unloading a boat of shares they pay nothing for- how else did anyone other than a short recently make any money on this stock? How? It's sitting near it's 52 week low and not that far from all time lows when the R/S gimmick is backed-out of the pricing.
Endless positive story telling and vast fantasy imagination based postings increasing in frequency tells me the losses for the common share holders will be even greater IMO. That formula and theory I don't think has ever been proven wrong, not once on this one yet.
Quote:"Those of us that are heavily invested Shareholders, and know Paul Wotton's medical/science/commercialization reasons for leaving Antares and joining $OCAT in 2014 have a different bullish view. "
What? Now msg board people can "know" why a CEO left one company and moved to another - like in mind reading? Really? How is that possible, to "KNOW"???
Wotton left Antares because of an imaginary "medical/science/commercialization" reason, as opposed to say, oh- maybe FOR THE MONEY and maybe because for all one knows he was going to get "canned" at his last company as the stock was in the toilet, among a 1000 other possible reasons why a public traded firm CEO might choose to change jobs??
How does one get these mind reading abilities to "KNOW" with 100% why CEO's do what they do, when they do it? Fascinating to me. Amazing actually.
I understand the not caring about money part in your particular case- but unfortunately, we live in a world where money is the grease that makes the cogs of industry go round.
History is littered with a mountain sized ash heap of "miracles" or "incredible inventions" or what not that never "made it" - and it was because of the almighty dollar. Many of our most famous inventors died broke, nearly indigent in their time- because of ole "money" and their companies going bust, only to have the idea/product/invention re-surface as a success years later- because someone or some firm with money took an interest in it.
The problem I see with many firms like an OCAT is they probably never should have been a public traded firm at this point yet IMO. Being a public traded stock company comes with huge strings attached, huge overhead requirements to comply and cross every "t" and dot every "i" and what not. OCAT is doing a lot of "paper publishing", what's more like pure academia type stuff and what not- more like an academia lab level research project still- not a public traded stock company IMO, one promising an ROI to investors and promising to deliver an approved, salable product by a fixed, well expected date, set timelines, etc.
This type of area of development or product or R&D IMO is usually best left to two areas:
1) Academia where either govt is providing grant funding and similar- usually combined with an interested private, wealthy donor or donor firm like a large trust (think Gates or Paul Allen foundation- just to name two names everyone would recognize). For example, Paul Allen of Microsoft fame and billionaire- just set up an entire facility and funded it for a many year "brain project" to create a working model and study and "mapping" of the entire human brain. Allen is also a cancer survivor- and funds many areas related to that. Michael J. Fox got Parkiinsons, and via his celebrity status and likability- can haul in enormous amounts of funds via his foundation and fund raising abilities. The Michael J. Fox team just had a supposed "miracle" looking (in the phase I) drug sunk and cancelled in the phase II, they pulled the plug on it- as it performed no better than placebo in the end.
2) The other method is when large, successful, highly profitable existing companies- the behemoths fund their own R&D departments. They give a group of folks a lab facility/campus- they give um an R&D budget- and they tell them to go off and tinker and write papers and apply for patents and just wander and explore wherever your instincts take you- and once in a while we'll get a hit product- and we'll make a mountain of money on it and so the story goes. The researchers' often face company review boards, have to compete to prove their research is worthy of continued funding, etc - but that's the jest of how the big firms do it. Baxter, 3M is famous for it- think of "post it notes" and new "glues" and all kinds of stuff that stumbled out of a 3M lab basement somewhere, Google is big on pure R&D, Oil companies- all fund long term research such as Chevron and Exxon, etc, IBM has an enormous patent portfolio, old Lucent was famous for pure R&D, the spin off of "BELL LABS" of which Apple supposedly stole much of their tech, any big pharma like Merck or Pfizer plow a huge amount of profits back into pure R&D and buying-out other firms, etc.
That's the way I see it right now. This company OCAT is in some gray zone almost- like between a near pure R&D firm that needs endless piles of big money to survive and just sink into lost capital, never knowing if it will pay off and being a public traded firm who's "trying" to pitch investors that they're gonna have something to sell one day and finally make an ROI and return some money to shareholders.
The secondary going like it's going- tells me they're still seen as a "tough sell" IMO, because no one can predict or see when they "might" finally start making some money- it's just too far off in the future. And like the big firms I described above- they don't have some commercial side already in existence to fund their loss-leader R&D stuff while everyone sits and waits for some sales and ROI to happen.
My 2 cents on what I see as the pickle box they're sort of stuck in at this point. Answer usually in these situations- they need a partner, a big, deep pockets partner and bad IMO. Be willing to give up some control and some portion of the company- but get some big money on-board who can eat these cost for several yrs and believes in it. Problem is- is anyone out there even interested at this point- or is it too soon? No one really knows at this point obviously.
Flat-lining, volume gone again now.
Last trade was at 9:31 AM Eastern. 1 minute and 2 seconds after market open and it's done less than 150K shares worth (not even $1,500 bucks worth) - but can't seem to find any real buying even in the 1 cent range?
It's been parked, not a single trade posting since 9:31 Eastern which is going on 1.5 hours now.
Seen this low vol, high spread, flat-lining mode many times in the past.
Usually means that one sell order of any decent "size" can sink it in a blink IMO. Seen it many times. It's pretty much ill-liquid in here right now with no trades posting back n forth in normal like order flow. Just one or two trades- and then it sits, often for 1 hour or even longer.
One week ago (for several weeks in a row), it was having huge sell/dump days with 1.5 million shares a day being the low end, and 2 to 4 million shares a day being about the avg on those sell/dump days and a few days that spike to 5 to 7 million shares or more of hard selling.
Now, at about 1 cent, it sits parked and does 150K shares in almost 1.5 hours of trading, $1,500 bucks worth??
Odd trading patterns on this one IMO, it's just all over the map from one week to the next? Can't figure it out?
SMD, incredible post. Puts it all into REALISM based perspective. As clear and cogent as it gets.
This is NOT "about to be commercialized" and be offered as a supposed "treatment" or "cure" anytime soon, if ever IMO. Not by a long shot. The "big article" did not even light up any big-boy non dilutive money to come rushing in chasing this thing- the common shares are parked, languishing, awaiting the "attempt" to sell a 10 million share secondary, and that hasn't even gone according to schedule, let alone the we-uplisted-sorry-not-really FUBAR event of late December 2014.
It's a long, long, long and expensive set of trials still to go- and no one knows if those will pass FDA and/or Euro muster to even reach approval. MOST of these drug treatments fail in the phase II arena- and the phase I was a micro tiny study/trial and was not the "slam dunk" 100% supposed "miracle event" many claim that supposedly has "cured blindness" with "no side effects" and is some imaginary "miracle cure" that a hand full keep repeating over and over and over again with no data or facts to back up those claims.
This company needs enormous more amounts of cash which right now appear will be coming from enormous on-going common share dilution and that's about the only facts known at this point IMO.
There's a 100 plus ways to get tripped up along the way with the stage they are now at in their trials- they haven't even done blinded/placebo arm, or a large cohort of population cross-section, as in reaching the 100 plus sample size. They're barely out of the starting gate.
Their own key insider (OCATs) used the words, quoted in print in a local MA newspaper- of "maybe" year 2020 for commercialization and yet it gets panned by the select few as if it was never stated. Rather the endless drum beat of the imaginary "miracle" keeps getting beaten and the supposed $billions or $trillions in imaginary riches and imaginary market size blah, blah, blah are quoted and "claimed" (made up out of thin air) for a PRODUCT THAT DOES NOT YET EVEN EXIST.
"but they do own OCAT shares , 14000+ "
No, there's no proof they "own" those 14K shares or whether they simply transacted them for a private "client", as in selling a position, etc.
That's the problem with those types of filings/disclosures for a non mutual fund company. Again, read their web site- they handle "wealth mgt" for private clients like trusts, estates, large buyers/sellers etc
When Gary Rabin or say some company (can't remember the name off the top-but they had a large legal settlement with OCAT and got a big block of shares of stock) - when people like that need to move shares, they don't go and open a freaking E-trade discount broker account or whatever.
They go to large firms like this Colonial whatever who have access to trading desks, who have privacy capability to handle large share orders w/o anyone knowing who they're buying or selling for, etc.
There is no way to know as of today if Colonial is a "holder" of OCAT stock, or whether they simply moved a $100K share block of it for a "client" or whatever.
That's how it "works" when a big-boy holder buys or sells.
Read the SEC definition of a 13F filing:
http://www.sec.gov/answers/form13f.htm
They could be handling those shares for current OCAT insiders for all one knows. No one knows if they're "holding" or just bought and sold and for who or what or why- a 13F does not give out that much detail. 13F's are filed by broker-dealers. Colonial could be an OTC broker-dealer in this stock for all one knows.
http://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/13ffaq.htm
As far as I can find- there is no "COLONIAL TRUST BIO-TECH MUTUAL FUND ABC BLAH BLAH" that has been assembled and shows they now "hold" OCAT shares.
Again, they could have bought, held, or sold that pittance of a number of shares for anyone - any private "client" or been a broker-dealer of the shares, etc . No one knows from that filing info. Some private family trust related to some past BOD could have sold or been holding those shares for all one knows.
They're an ASSET MGT company, not a "mutual fund". They buy and sell positions for large clients, PRIVATE clients (think insiders) who have trusts, estates, need to sell large positions in a stock, etc
Read the Colonial Trust web site itself and who they are and what they do.
They do not appear to build and hold mutual fund positions in a stock.
14K shares is a joke- no mutual fund would hold 14K X $7 = $98K worth of stock as a position in a fund? Mutual funds have total fund values for micro funds of $100's of millions of dollars under their mgt and on large funds in the $BILLION and the do not buy and hold penny stocks, un-listed OTC companies, it does not happen.
Colonial blah, blah either bought or sold that position for someone and no one knows who or why - all those transaction listings show is when a registered firm bought or sold shares. Not that they're holding them or whatever. Unless they're a mutual fund and publish the fund name, that funds holdings, etc then no one knows if they were just buyers or sellers or whatever.
Again, read their own site- they move and buy and sell positions for private clients. Those could be Gary Rabin shares being handled for all anyone knows.
Quote: ""despite the then CEO even buying some of the shares himself."??"
Yes, if one knows the history of how poorly the BHRT original IPO performed (it raised almost no money, changed underwriters 3 times I believe, and in the end, after costs, barely sold any shares despite initial claims it would raise something like $70 million, in the end the then CEO, Leonhardt even stepped in and picked up some of the slack buying IPO shares himself- as they weren't selling or holding pricing power).
Read the history of their public offering- it's easy to find in SEC docs, Google searches, published coverage articles, etc.
http://venturebeat.com/2008/02/20/bioheart-a-new-record-for-ipo-futility/
Quote:
"The embattled cell-therapy startup Bioheart finally limped across the IPO goal line yesterday, but it was a Pyhrric victory. The startup, which once sought $70 million, ended up netting as little as $1.5 million. And almost half of that amount came directly from Bioheart founder Henry Leonhardt instead of outside investors."
http://venturebeat.com/2008/02/19/three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust-bioheart-makes-it-across-the-ipo-goal-line-but-with-little-to-show-for-its-struggles/
Feb 19th, 2008
"The company’s long slog to the public markets, however, came at quite a cost. Just last September, Bioheart hoped to raise $70 million in its offering. Now, it stands to net as little as $1.5 million on the sale of 1.1 million shares once it accounts for underwriting, commissions and unspecified “offering costs” of $4.3 million."
"(For what it’s worth, the company says it will actually generate $4.6 million in cash from the IPO, since it’s already paid $3.1 million of those offering costs. On the other hand, the company’s founder and executive chairman, Henry Leonhardt, also apparently found it necessary to purchase just over 10 percent of the offering himself for roughly $600,000, which amounts to 40 percent of Bioheart’s net proceeds. You sure don’t see founders plunking additional cash into their companies at the time of the IPO very often.)
Any way you look at it, those proceeds represent a fairly miserable return on the year of effort Bioheart put into this offering. Since Feb. 13 of last year, the company has slashed its expected offering price twice, fired three of its underwriters (on two separate occasions), and cut the number of shares offered by almost 75 percent. This is one company that was determined to go public, no matter what it took."
There's many more sources found via Google that covered the "net proceeds" of the IPO, which again, per modern NASDAQ IPO offerings may have set a record possible for some new low amount. It's easily found information using Google.
http://venturebeat.com/2007/07/12/bioheart-a-risky-stem-cell-company-boosts-its-ipo-hopes/
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/31292621/bioheart-squeezes-out-ipo-meager-5-8m
And then, they were delisted only about 1 yr later, and NO, no big "trials" were funded and progressed from then on essentially- Marvel and Regen, the FDA trials ground to a halt right about 2009, early 2010 when the company was de-listed from the NASDAQ and have been "claimed" they will be re-started one day, for 5 years now, when "funding" is found (see any recent SEC filing describing all the company's key trials being on-hold for LACK OF FUNDING, it's in ever 10-Q or 10-K filing). This all occurred around the time they went into default on the large, key Bank of America loan. Stock price has been for all intents and purposes- straight down since then, losing about 98% of the common share value since that point in time and 99.98% approx since the IPO date.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aBNETYMPJCg4
http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2010/07/26/daily1.html
LOL, "Colonial Trust Advisors" whoever they are but some little website, that's NOT "Colonial Trust Advisors" is linked too, but says the supposedly bought ACTC and list the stock as Advanced Cell Technology.
Well, since NOWHERE does the company go by that name anymore, or use that stock symbol etc, you can tell how accurate that little "scraper" website is right there. Like NOT ACCURATE at all.
How bout any links to an actual website run by and owned by Colonial Trust Advisors showing THEIR holdings? How does some sight know when Colonial Trust Advisors supposedly took up positions in a stock or not, if they're holding, were a buyer/seller, etc?
Colonial Trust Avisors according to their own web site is NOT A FUND, as in a "mutual fund", they do not appear to take and hold positions in stocks. They are "wealth managers" and handle order flow and portfolios for other clients,etc
For all one knows- that number shown on that 3rd party site via which one is "claiming" that Colonial Trust Advisor now "holds" this stock- could have been nothing more than Lanza's sale being executed for him or some of the legal settlement shares being moved and sold, etc
There is no first party reference that "Colonial Trust Advisors" is now a holder of this stock, none IMO. They're not even a mutual fund according to their own info, not some 3rd party micro site provided in a link, in which the OCAT name isn't even used, but the old ACTC name/symbol.
Mean nothing IMO. And the share amount is so low as to be noise level money anyway. Wouldn't even be a fraction of a percent of the float.
Quote: "OCAT: Thanks Lasers, that sounds great that patients want their other eye treated."????
So someone has actually found and personally spoken to the participants in the trial and has it as fact that they "want their other eye" done? How does one even know their personal medical history and records to know the condition of "their other eye"??? How is that even possible? How does a msg board poster fantasize to know such things, which would be impossible?
Also, it's claimed via the same statements that it's even known how these study participants "personally feel" and that they are terms such as "happy" and "satisfied", etc Were they interviewed and personally spoken too via a stock msg board poster as to how they "feel"? When and where did this occur exactly?
How to the 33%, the SIX of 18 who had SERIOUS ADVERSE EVENTS, how do they "feel" about all this? Are they imaginary also begging for their "other eye to be done" by OCAT and all these other vast claims?
Is this, these "personal feelings interviews" published somewhere for all to read?
Quote: "Sorry. But $OCAT mgmt would vehemently disagree with you and they have a lot more years of direct Pharma experience. "??
Someone claims to know what every member of a public traded mgt team apparently "thinks" and that they would disagree "vehemently" despite that mgt team never making such a statement publicly or "on the record" or in print or similarly published somewhere??
How is that possible? How do people know what other people will "vehemently" say or think when the other people/persons (in this case, the entire Sr Mgt team of a public traded stock company) have never said it or stated it? What power makes this possible?
There is ZERO indication that OCAT is going to produce any income anytime even remotely in the near term future- NONE. And I'd "vehemently" disagree with anyone who would state otherwise w/o extremely specific (non rumor or hyperbole) based proof- as in SEC filing statements, specific business plans as made public by the company showing revenue projections, etc. Else, it's just rumoring and hyperbole based on nothing but imagination and vast speculation IMO. Just msg board chatter based on nothing of substance or published company facts.
Quote: "This EMA award usually means Commercialization soon for the Pharma's Therapy."??
"soon"??? Is year 2020, FIVE years from now considered "soon"??
Do I believe "soon" according to a msg board post that claims to know the details of how a public company's inside plans are going to play out (based on what supposed info who knows???) or would I rather go with the quote of a major company insider like Lanza who said yr 2020 for a "maybe" shot at anything commercialized? How bout just MAKE UP DATES or "soon" out of thin air?
Here is Dr. Lanza, a key OCAT insider, whom one would imagine is "in the know" and knows the ole "inside baseball" better than any msg board poster- here is the Doctor being quoted in a credible MA newspaper that covers local news, MA business/companies, etc. RECENT quote- and nothing is said about "soon" for any imaginary "commercialization" being "soon", nothing.
http://www.telegram.com/article/20141014/NEWS/310149525&Template=printart
QUOTE:
"New medical treatments generally must undergo three phases of human study to demonstrate safety, proper dosing and efficacy before the Food and Drug Administration will approve them for sale. In addition to its phase 1 study in the United States, Advanced Cell has been conducting a phase 1 study of its RPE cells in patients in the United Kingdom.
"We treated the last UK patients last month, and they also have not seen any safety issues related to the transplanted tissues themselves, either," Dr. Lanza said.
Advanced Cell now hopes to launch a 100-patient, phase 2 study in Stargardt's patients by the end of the year, according to Dr. Lanza.
A second, smaller phase 2 study in patients with age-related macular degeneration would follow, he said. Any treatment might not be ready for FDA approval until 2020, Dr. Lanza said."
I'm going with Dr Lanza's own words on this one and in my book, yr 2020 for a "might", FIVE years away is not in the definition of "soon" and is not even "certain", not by a long shot IMO.
Quote: "No matter how undervalued the stock remains it's purely a buyers gift of limited time."
Undervalued based on what? It's being valued by the free market place? They fired off an enormous "news" and PR barrage causing a very brief spike to above $12 a share, at which point a key insider promptly sold a very large chunk of his stock- meaning he must of thought maybe that's as good as it gets for a while, and knew the "fair value" of the stock was well below those sell-n-dump levels, IMO.
What indicators, facts, proof, etc is there to show the stock as being "undervalued" as of today? It has no P/E and thus can't be "valued" on that? There is little positive shareholder equity or bookvalue which are some other metrics- and thus it's not "undervalued" to any industry norms based on that? It's cash poor for the most part- so it's not "undervalued" based on its cash holdings? It has no sales or revenues- so it can't be valued on revenue per employee or revenue to market cap, etc and thus be "undervalued" on any metrics like those? What exactly is this imaginary "undervalue" based on, what metrics or commonly recognized industry norms?
The price has been what it's been- in this tight range for what, a month now? Seems like the market is pretty confident that this is a fair value for the stock. Further, the company has not apparently been able to successfully place or sell a 10 million share secondary yet- and certainly not at any price higher than where it's priced now- again, indicating it's not attracting any rush of "big money" buying here to indicate any "under valuing" of the common shares.
Not seeing the "under valued" argument? Don't see any data or other indicators (other than wishful thinking perhaps) to indicate this stock is "undervalued". I'd venture it's over valued if anything, IMO. I think the secondary, if eventually placed and sold will sell for significantly less than today's market price- indicating that "big money" will not buy 10 million shares at this high a price IMO.
Quote: "This use to be a real stock on the Nasdaq. Could it rise from the ashes like a Phoenix?"???
Operative words "used to" as in way past tense.
This stock listed on the NASDAQ in 2008 in a horrible IPO, barely raising any money despite the then CEO even buying some of the shares himself. It might be one of the worst performing NASDAQ IPOS, at least in recent history.
http://venturebeat.com/2008/02/20/bioheart-a-new-record-for-ipo-futility/
http://venturebeat.com/2008/02/19/three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust-bioheart-makes-it-across-the-ipo-goal-line-but-with-little-to-show-for-its-struggles/
The stock then lasted barely 1 yr on the NASDAQ as it totally collapsed in price from nearly the instant it went public at $5 a share, dropping rapidly in market cap and common share price- and immediately started using dilution financing (same as today) for survival cash and then even defaulting on several large, key loans.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aBNETYMPJCg4
Feb 26th, 2009 it's already delisted. And rapidly accelerates it's sinking share price and market cap from there.
http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2010/07/26/daily1.html
By July 26th, 2010 BHRT has defaulted on a key, large B of A loan (insolvent, BK essentially).
That's not the only default on a major loan in their long, sorted and financially weak history- from pretty much the company's inception, this is another loan they were in default on:
http://www.techjournal.org/2009/02/lender-wants-2-9m-loan-repaid-by-floridas-bioheart/
It also put them teetering on BK.
And in more recent times per their own SEC filings, BHRT has been in default even to their own creation of Northstar LLC:
Year 2012, 10-K filing, PAGE 77:
"On March 30, 2012, the Company and Northstar agreed to extend until May 1, 2012 the initial payment date for any and all required monthly under the Note, such that the first of the four monthly payments required under the Note will be due and payable on May, 2012 and all subsequent payments will be due on a monthly basis thereafter commencing on June 1, 2012, and to waive any and all defaults and/or events of default under the Note with respect to such payments. As of September 30, 2012, the Company was in default, however, subsequent to September 30, 2012, the Company renegotiated the terms of the note, Northstar has agreed to suspend the requirement of principal payments by the Company and allow payment of interest-only in restricted stock."
The company's common stock performance and market cap collapse, extreme negative shareholder equity, lack of cash, lack of sales, lack of assets, etc in NO WAY would allow the company to even remotely qualify for even the lowest tier NASDAQ market qualifications, not by a long, long, long remote shot.
https://listingcenter.nasdaqomx.com/assets/initialguide.pdf
Not a chance in heck IMO that this company, BHRT is anywhere remotely close to being a "listed" stock again- they don't even remotely begin to qualify. They are for all intents and purposes, per their own SEC filings, their extremely low cash position and cash deficits and per their own numerous mgt "going concern" and auditor "going concern" warnings- on financial life support. They're not about to become a listed NASDAQ stock? They're barely surviving as a 4 person business at this point- how, via what means, would they possibly qualify to list on any tier of the NASDAQ markets? That's past an impossibility in their present, dire financial condition IMO. Not even a remote fantasy dream.
LOL, "up" 15% on less than a $500 trade, probably not even a $200 trade.
Gotta love OTC-ville, gotta love it.
Looks like the ole MM's are hunting for some new buyers to grab on to this one. "Trying" to make it appear like it's on the move "up".
Can you imagine a 15% spread? If you bought 3 minutes ago, then changed your mind- it would cost you at least 15% to try and turn around and sell out of your position- "if" it would even fill on this highly ill-liquid stock.
Amazing IMO. I wonder it it's just the same MM "firms" and their trading desks (Asher, Magna, etc) putting out and filling those $100 and $200 and $300 "buy" orders for their own account on the wide spread to try and create an illusion this is on the move? I would not be surprised if they are actually placing the micro-buys to "walk it up" on these enormously wide spreads, on nothing dollar volumes.
Simply amazing IMO how easy this one is to manipulate using less than a $1000 bucks total in a trading day.
Yawn, agree "Interesting trading today in my opinion"
It's just back to low vol, WIDE OPEN spread mode. The Bid is sitting at .09 but it's supposedly "up" like 10% or more? The MMs are just letting up a bit to "walk it up" IMO, maybe short cover a bit, and looking for a few new retail buyers here and there.
There's no real buying pressure or vol to justify the large percentage "up" move- especially when the bid stays pinned at sub one cent.
Total dollar volume used to move it "up" on these moves is like $200 and $500 increments, often even less than that.
It's traded only 250K shares at about .01 = $2,500 bucks to move it 11% or more? That's wide-spread, low volume mode. Ultra wide spread.
Just letting up a bit on the "ratchet" shorting IMO. Nothing new for the pattern of how these MM's and the convertible debt folks trade this one.
It's not moving up on any news or anything of significant- just a small let-up in the massive dilution share selling by "whoever" (Magna, Asher, Fourth Man, Daniel James, etc) IMO.
There's no volume- so it's a big ole non event, wide spread, hunt down a few retail buyers willing to bight in here, to me. That's all.
LOL, quote "Bioheart to Repurchase shares!!! Excellent news! "
Well, the ole "PR" left out just a tad bit of the wording from the actual SEC filing (no surprise there IMO).
Also, how does a company with almost no cash ($46K cash end of qtr last 10-Q filing, against over just $2 MILLION in "accounts payable due and promised cash bonuses of $800K for just two people - that they couldn't even pay they're so cash low so they issue "promissory notes" to those two- meaning any cash coming in goes to pay them first now, as they're owed a debt with a "note" attached to it. They gonna use monopoly money?).
The company is tapping Magna, a total desperation lender for survival cash- they're so debt laden and asset poor compared to just their short and long term debts- but is supposedly going to buy-back their own shares? How exactly does or would that work? So they issue MASSIVE DILUTION SHARES to then turn around and buy-back a tiny fraction of the MASSIVE DILUTION SHARES they just issued and that in some imaginary world will "bolster the common share price" or whatever that PR is "claiming"? Really? So BHRT using borrowed, dilution gained cash is going to out-buy the dilution rate of the very financing, FLOORLESS CONVERTIBLE DEBT deals that put the share price where it is in the first place? That's like some odd-ball circular logic reasoning IMO? It makes no sense, let alone the fact it won't work? It's like borrowing using credit card "A" to pay credit card "B" on a theory that one will get out of debt that way, or better yet, get wealthier somehow? Again, it makes zero sense and has no logic behind it IMO.
Lets read the real, complete text of the SEC filing about the possible, maybe, might, we could perhaps, buy-back a few shares, but we didn't even state how much cash we've set aside for this supposed share buy-back as we probably have no cash to set aside at any given time:
From the SEC filing, exact wording:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1388319/000114544315000051/d32019.htm
"On January 13, 2015, the Company issued a press release announcing that its board of directors has approved a share repurchase program authorizing the Company to repurchase outstanding common stock when beneficially prudent for the Company and its shareholders. A copy of the Company’s press release is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1.
The Securities and Exchange Commission encourages registrants to disclose forward-looking information so that investors can better understand the future prospects of a registrant and make informed investment decisions. This Current Report on Form 8-K and exhibits may contain these types of statements, which are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and which involve risks, uncertainties and reflect the Registrant’s judgment as of the date of this Current Report on Form 8-K. Forward-looking statements may relate to, among other things, operating results and are indicated by words or phrases such as “expects,” “should,” “will,” and similar words or phrases. These statements are subject to inherent uncertainties and risks that could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated at the date of this Current Report on Form 8-K. Investors are cautioned not to rely unduly on forward-looking statements when evaluating the information presented within.
"
Same SEC 8-K filing, exhibit 99.1:
"Sunrise, FL – January 13 th, 2015 – Bioheart, Inc. (BHRT.OB), a biotechnology company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of autologous cell therapies a Florida corporation, today announced that its Board of Directors has approved a share repurchase program authorizing the Company to repurchase outstanding Common Stock when beneficially prudent for the Company and its shareholders.
“Bioheart is committed to maximizing shareholder returns,” said Mike Tomas, CEO. “Our Board of Directors and our management team believe that over the coming months circumstances may arise whereby the Company may be able to repurchase its Common Stock which in turn will bolster trading demand over supply and increase our price per share. Our immediate business goals are to increase top line product and service revenues and complimentary positive cash flows to support our longer-term clinical programs, a new emerging acquisition strategy, and the aforementioned stock repurchase plan. The regenerative medicine / cell therapy industry is advancing and Bioheart’s role within the industry is also evolving. Our mandate is to seize upon the opportunities that are readily available, develop new product and services that are highly sought after and advance therapies that are both clinically and cost effective.”
Repurchases under the share repurchase program may be made from time to time through open market transactions, privately negotiated transactions or otherwise, as determined by the Company’s management depending upon market conditions and business needs in compliance with federal securities laws. The share program does not obligate the Company to purchase any particular amount of common shares and it may be suspended, discontinued or modified at any time at the Company’s discretion and without prior notice.
"
In other words, they "may" NEVER purchase one dime's worth of shares back and listed or denoted or set-aside not one dollar's worth of cash for the actual "share buy-back" program- it's nothing but a giant "maybe" if we don't "cancel it at well with no notice" ole typical BHRT "program" IMO. Like Mirror "enrolling ONE patient" then going in the parking lot position ever since- kinda like that one to me.
If they buy back ONE CENT worth's of shares or if they buy-back NO SHARES or if they already CANCELLED the ole "share buy-back" program by this afternoon, then that "PR" is all true and good to go. All covered under the maybe, if, might, possibly, could maybe happen, but could be cancelled at anytime, and see all the endless "forward looking" blah, blah, blah that covers us statements.
Again, WHAT DILUTION SHARES EXACTLY are they going to issue/use to get the cash needed to buy-back their own issued DILUTION SHARES? I really, really don't "get it" how this would work? They issued out more than 300 MILLION dilution shares just in the prior one yr period, a more than doubling of the O/S share count- and did it for mainly survival cash and to pay common bills and pay who knows what as they have little to no cash at any given time per their own SEC filings and own Sr mgt and own auditor's "going concern" and "liquidity problems" warnings. What cash money would they use to buy back these shares supposedly? Also, their new legal bills for all the lawyers they're putting on retainer are going to consume even more cash they do not have- and I'd guess those retained law firms get paid first or they don't work for you, IMO.
Last filed 10-Q, PAGE 9:
"Fully diluted shares outstanding were 659,543,477 and 323,296,916 for the three months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively and 605,015,919 and 336,682,241 for the nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively."
They more than DOUBLED the O/S share count in massive dilution- now one is to believe they're gonna buy back enough shares to supposedly put "buying pressure" on the stock or whatever that PR is "claiming" in it's vague hypothesis?
Same 10-Q filing, most recently filed with the SEC, PAGE 12:
"NOTE 2 — GOING CONCERN MATTERS
The accompanying unaudited condensed financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis, which contemplates the realization of assets and the satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business. As shown in the accompanying unaudited condensed financial statements, during nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company incurred an operating loss of $1,247,199 and used $747,184 in cash for operating activities. As of September 30, 2014, the Company had a working capital deficit (current liabilities in excess of current assets) of approximately $10.0 million. These factors among others may indicate that the Company will be unable to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time."
Same 10-Q filing, most recent and large bonuses to two people that needed to be paid in "promissory notes" as the company has little to no cash to pay them, so they get a "debt note" to be paid from any future cash that comes in.
PAGE 23, 10-Q, most recent filing:
" Employment agreements
On July 28, 2014, the Company’s Board of Directors approved the 2014/2015 salary for Mike Tomas, Chief Executive Officer, at $525,000 per year, beginning July 1, 2014 with an incentive bonus ranging from $150,000 to $500,000. In addition, the Board of Directors will grant Mr. Tomas options to be determined on or before June 30, 2015. The Company’s Board of Directors approved a bonus of $500,000 and options to acquire 10,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock for ten years with four year vesting and a cashless exercise provision at an exercise price equal to the five day average closing price of the Company’s common stock as of August 1, 2014. The cash bonus may be paid in the form of a six month promissory note.
On July 28, 2014, the Company’s Board of Directors approved the 2014/2015 salary for Kristin Comella, Chief Scientific Officer, at $250,000 per year, beginning July 1, 2014 with an incentive bonus ranging from $100,000 to $300,000. In addition, the Board of Directors will grant Ms. Comella options to be determined on or before June 30, 2015. The Company’s Board of Directors approved a bonus of $300,000 and options to acquire 5,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock for ten years with four year vesting and a cashless exercise provision at an exercise price equal to the five day average closing price of the Company’s common stock as of August 1, 2014. The cash bonus may be paid in the form of a six month promissory note."
Links to recent lawsuit seeking approx. $2.3 MILLION in damages from BHRT which has about $250K total assets to their name- look at the list of law firms they're putting on retainer to defend them. What's that gonna cost from what little cash this company has?
https://www.clerk-17th-flcourts.org/Clerkwebsite/BCCOC2/OdysseyPA/CaseSummary.aspx?CaseID=7862332&hidSearchType=party_case&DisplayCitation=no&CaseNumber=CACE14021256&SearchType=
http://lawsuitpressrelease.com/investors-sue-bioheart-inc-millions-unpaid-debt
Wonder what kind of cash it takes to put all those firms/lawyers on retainer? Of what little cash the company has at any given time- I wonder which part will of the cash will be used to pay law firms and lawyers versus "buy-back shares" of stock versus pay things like their, BHRT's large "accounts payable" bills owed- which on the last 10-Q filing was over $2 MILLION dollars with $46K total cash left on-hand?
Any cash coming in or generated using massive dilution will go first to pay that $2 MILLION in accounts payable, the $800K in "bonuses" and the large legal bills IMO. A "share buy-back" is the last place this cash poor company is going to be diverting funds IMO, the last.
LOL, "Holding Steady at 6, on no news, shows strength,
not weakness."
1) It's been dipping into the $5's and is in a technical DOWN TREND trading below both the 50 DMA and 200 DMA, that's known as WEAKNESS and not "strength". The 50 DMA is $6.43 and the 200 DMA is $6.88, the stock is in weakness.
2) NO NEWS??? They just fired off every supposed "big news" deal they had to their name- the supposed "biggest" year in the company history, including the ole talked about and hyped for more than a year ole "article" (NOT NEJM by the way but the Lancet).
What "news" is supposedly left?
3) They cleaned out nearly the entire Sr mgt ranks, they re-named the company in some "re-branding" effort (to run from a SEC violating, large SEC fine paying, accounting problems "mis-statements" going back years, highly tainted past IMO), they created a new company web site complete with a "new" logo thingy that makes no sense to me personally, they did a 1:125 R/S of the stock, they had numerous presentations and a proxy vote to help self-vote themselves (the insider mgt) bigger and better pay n perks booster programs, they then said they're gonna "uplist" to the NASDAQ and chatted up a "secondary offering" to supposedly raise all kinds of "big money" to fund some major trials and on and on and on and on.
AND, after all that NEWS, the stock has gone NOWHERE. In fact, after a key insider dumped and sold out a boatload near the end of 2014, the common shares are down about 50% or more from a high of $12.73 that resulted from all the above listed, highly hyped up "news". The common stock shares then proceeded to rapidly collapse from that $12.73 ranged (after a key insider sold a large block of course) and the shares are now languishing around $6 with dips into the $5's after the biggest supposed "news year" in this OTC traded company's history.
What am I missing here- the part about "holding great since there's been NO NEWS" supposedly??? What? Wow, talk about a rose colored glasses view of the reality of this thing. The "big article" and the train wreck that followed is more like the real story IMO, including the we-uplisted-but-no-never-really-did-sorry-we're-not-sure-where-it's-even-trading thing in Dec 18th, 2014 and the weeks of mis-quotes, "it's on the NASDAQ" including stated so on OCAT'S own website, retail trading accounts going blank showing no dollar values, inability to trade the stock for many or get timely and accurate quotes for several days or more and even making the FINRA "daily list" it was so jacked up.
Yeah, NO NEWS has occurred on this one and it's doing swell, trading right where it was about 5 or more years ago? Right where it traded when Gary Rabin was CEO, when there was actually "no news" other than some large SEC violations and prosecutions and legal fines that are still being paid off from the shareholder's dime to this day.
GE could care less about OCAT for all any msg board poster knows..... based on all present known FACTS.... *WINK*...... versus what's "claimed" and hyped on one "stem cell penny promotion web site", micro nothing of a site operated by one guy with almost no traffic and a tiny hand full of "members" who are all underwater on ACTC and that create endless myths and then propagate them onto other major, well read msg boards based on nothing but a few people's vast imaginations...GE is close to lots of people and places and things....not close to OCAT at all...WINK...when FACTS are used versus imagination.
Where is ole GE while OCAT is trying to peddle 10 million shares of dilution stock onto the market to survive another yr financially after the big Lancet blah, blah went over like a lead boat anchor?? 33% SERIOUS ADVERSE EVENTS in a tiny-micro phase I that took how many yrs to even complete? How many yrs and how much sunk capital and they have one "questionable", tiny phase I in which they ran the entire study, un-blinded and totally controlled the reported results, all trial parameters, etc?
Looks like no one's been buying the "story" yet, eh? (Lancet, oh please- remember the MYTH was the NEJM that never happened, remember that?) $5 and change- the same share price as how many yrs ago? GARY RABIN had the common shares priced in this same range- how many years ago?
So if 2014 and that blah, blah "article" was the imaginary biggest year ever- and they're parked at sub $6 after a massive R/S, well- that pretty much tells the real tale IMO.
It's doing "great" if one considers treading water and losing value for the common holders and being priced where it was 5 yrs ago, missing probably the greatest bull market in world market's history as "great"- yeah, then it's doing swell. Lost capital opportunity to any investory, real losses to common for nearly all, if not all investors and massive, massive dilution- with more massive dilution on the way. "great", yep.
Quote: "Certainly worth 5 billion."???
Presently, the free market says it's worth about $6 a share with a total market cap of about $209 MILLION (not BILLION by a long shot) - and that's with about $7 million cash left as of their prior, now 3 month old financials and barely positive shareholder equity then of about $720K.
They have not attracted any large, non-diltive or similar financing that would value them anywhere near even $1 billion and are relying on a pretty low end lender to OTC companies known as "Lincoln" for essentially month to month survival cash, done purely via 100% dilutive methods.
No, $5 billion "worth" or "value" being placed on this company anywhere to be found or seen? Where?
What?? "$OCAT Dec 2 IPO $62 mil, 10 mil shs will be of considerable importance for their ongoing Phase II and proposed Clinical Trials."
OCAT did an imaginary "IPO" on Dec 2 and raised $62 mil, via 10 mil shs??
What year was this in? When did this happen?
OCAT has never done an "IPO"?? They couldn't afford an actual "IPO" and thus went public via a reverse merger using an OTC shell company, straight onto the OTC as an un-listed company. That was in yr 2005?? When did this imaginary $62 million "IPO" happen on Dec 2??
What yr was that?
http://www.nature.com/news/stem-cell-research-never-say-die-1.9759
OCAT is presently "trying" to place a SECONDARY OFFERING as an already public traded company via using shelf filed shares, but not an "IPO"?? They are offering 10 million shares that have yet to have been PRICED, let alone actually SOLD, and thus have raised exactly ZERO dollars as of today, Jan 25th, 2015. That's the only 10 mil shares I'm aware of or have heard about related to OCAT??
LOL! "It would not surprized me to see a 500 million plus placement ipo based upon the lancet data. Maybe more... we wait."????
So now it's an imaginary $500 MILLION??? When OCAT already filed a $100 million shelf and actively hired 3 underwrites to "try" and sell and place 10 million shares worth for just a portion of that shelf- to maybe, on their very best day be lucky to raise about $60 million tops, in a SECONDARY which is not an "IPO"?? (at today's market price it's gonna be a lot less than $60 mil once the underwriters discount it)
The company is already public traded so it's not a candidate for an IPO, INITIAL public offering.
The ole "Lancet article" has come and gone and NOTHING has happened because of it. It's a micro-tiny "study" on about 18 people. Not enough to prove anything w/o much larger and more rigorous studies as several peers noted recently in a published article.
See KEY WORDS at bottom of article- the PEER input that this has a long, long, long way to go before a remote shot at commercialization. SIX of 18 patients in the micro trial had SERIOUS ADVERSE EVENTS- seen ole OCAT blathering those facts all over any "PR" and hype stories?? 33% SERIOUS adverse events- this is no slam dunk "done deal", not by any stretch and these were "open label" studies, the weakest and easiest kind to manipulate. They haven't even faced a "blinded" placebo controlled, much higher quality and much large study yet:
"www.medscape.com
Embryonic Stem Cells for AMD: A Promise Fulfilled?
Brianne N. Hobbs, OD
January 23, 2015
Human Embryonic Stem Cell-Derived Retinal Pigment Epithelium in Patients With Age-Related Macular Degeneration and Stargardt's Macular Dystrophy: Follow-up of Two Open-Label Phase 1/2 Studies
Schwartz SD, Regillo CD, Lam BL, et al
Lancet. 2014 Oct 15. [Epub ahead of print]
Subretinal Transplantation Studies
The promise of embryonic stem cells (ESCs) seems limitless. From spinal cord injuries to diabetes to treatment of previously untreatable retinal diseases, ESCs seem to be the long-awaited answer to chronic degenerative conditions. The magic of ESCs lies in their pluripotency—the ability to differentiate into all cell types within the body.
Specific to the eye, ESCs may be useful in Stargardt macular dystrophy and nonexudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD), diseases characterized by dysfunctional retinal pigment epithelium (RPE). The RPE supports the viability of the adjacent photoreceptors, and it is possible that by transplanting RPE cells derived from ESCs, the photoreceptor degeneration could be halted.
ESCs are not without their concerns, however. A storm of controversy exists about the ethics of using cells that can only be obtained from embryos. There are also legitimate risks associated with ESCs, including teratoma formation and the possibility of ESCs differentiating into unwanted cell types. Immune rejection can also occur, but with the eye being largely immunoprivileged, it is an ideal place to explore the use of ESCs, and the chance of rejection is minimized.
Study Findings
Schwartz and colleagues investigated the use of ESCs in the treatment of AMD and Stargardt macular dystrophy. Eighteen eyes were included in the study: nine with AMD and nine with Stargardt macular dystrophy. To be included in the study, visual acuity had to be 20/200 or worse, and only one eye per patient could be enrolled.
Subretinal transplantation of ESCs was performed, and patients received one of three quantities of ESCs: 50,000 cells, 100,000 cells, or 150,000 cells. Patients received systemic immunosuppressive therapy to minimize transplant rejection and were followed for a median of 22 months.
Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability of the transplanted tissue. The secondary endpoint was efficacy and included such measures as visual acuity, visual field testing, electroretinography, quality-of-life surveys, and optical coherence tomography analysis.
Thirteen of the 18 patients developed areas of increased subretinal pigmentation, most commonly at the border of the atrophic area. Although the postoperative increase seems promising, there was no correlation between the increase in retinal pigment and visual improvement. Best-corrected visual acuity improved significantly in 10 patients, remained nearly the same in seven eyes, and worsened in one eye by 10 letters. The untreated eye of each patient had no improvement in acuity, providing evidence that the transplant was responsible for the improved acuity. Visual field, static perimetry, electroretinography, and reading speed were assessed, but there were no preoperative and postoperative differences.
Of interest, such quality-of-life measures as the patient's perception of general vision and near vision improved by 16-25 points in the AMD group and 8-20 points in the Stargardt macular dystrophy group, even though the data did not support these findings.
Serious adverse effects did occur in this study. Four eyes developed cataract progression, one eye developed endophthalmitis, and one eye developed severe vitreous inflammation. Although these complications were not directly linked to the ESCs, the methodology for placing the cells was responsible for the complications. Neither the outcome measures nor the adverse effects were linked to the quantity of transplanted cells, indicating that further research is needed to determine the optimal number of cells to transplant.
Viewpoint
The results should be interpreted with cautious optimism. The idea of transplanting retinal cells is not new, but the method of transplanting the cells at the edge of the atrophic zone to enhance blood supply to the transplanted tissue is a novel strategy.
Although none of the anticipated major safety concerns, including teratoma formation, immune rejection, and uncontrolled differentiation, actually occurred in the study, six of the 18 participants (33%) experienced other major adverse effects. The sample size was so small that no statistical analyses were possible, calling into question the validity of the data.
The results should also be interpreted with caution because the company that funded the study, Advanced Cell Technology, was involved in all aspects of the study, creating the potential for bias.
Despite the aforementioned concerns, this study provides evidence that even in advanced cases of AMD and Stargardt macular dystrophy, ESCs can survive and even restore some level of visual acuity—a major achievement. This is obviously a very early study in the development of ESCs, and certainly larger ones will follow that will provide a more accurate and comprehensive description of the treatment effect.
Medscape Optometry © 2015 WebMD, LLC"
Quote: "Thanks for the clarification since I was getting this from the OTC website."
Any site like the OTC or Yahoo Finance or similar is only going to get their information such as O/S share count or A/S share count for a public traded company from that company's SEC filings. Those sites have programs that go and get it via automated software. Thus, any info a site like OTC has will be out of date most of the time or often contain errors as their automation program didn't read every SEC filing correctly.
The only 100% reliable and guaranteed credible place to get information about a public traded company is in their duly filed SEC documents. That database, maintained by the U.S. Govt as part of the SEC (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) is called the "EDGAR" database- and is the single point repository for all SEC filed documents.
http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html
It's the first place a SEC filing goes when a company files it- a company such as Bioheart electronically uploads any SEC filing to the "EDGAR" database where it's time stamped, accepted, and goes "public viewable" once approved in that SEC database; any other website or person (OTC's site, CNBC, Bloomberg, or some "news" link/site, or whatever) that is quoting or linking to a SEC filing is getting it from EDGAR ultimately. It may be linked or posted to look like "PR" or something- but the first, and main place that SEC filing appeared ultimately is on the EDGAR database of the U.S. SEC. The SEC has to be the first ones to receive and "see" and approve any SEC filing before it goes "live" and is accepted and time stamped.
For Bioheart, all SEC filing on EDGAR, every SEC document they've ever filed going back to the day they became a public traded company is at this link:
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001388319&owner=exclude&count=40&hidefilings=0
That's the only guaranteed source for SEC filings for any company. That web site- if it's not stated on there, in a filing there, then it's questionably or likely incorrect information (out of date at best, sometimes just 100% incorrect due to automated software collection programs).
The SEC filings for every public company that traded/trades on a U.S. market can be searched and found there, over 20 million filings according to the SEC EDGAR website, are on the that EDGAR database.
NO, WRONG: "Shares Outstanding 569,891,769, a/o Dec 09, 2014 Authorized Shares 950,000,000 a/o Dec 09, 2014 "
Completely a false statement.
A/S are now 2 BILLION.
SEC filing, dated April 28th, 2014
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1388319/000114544314000633/d31331.htm
QUOTE from SEC filing, PAGE 2:
"Ratification of the increase of the authorized shares of capital stock of the Company from nine hundred and fifty million (950,000,000) shares of common stock and twenty million (20,000,000) shares of preferred stock, both $.001 par value respectively, to two billion (2,000,000,000) shares of shares of common stock and twenty million (20,000,000) shares of preferred stock, both $.001 par value respectively, effective as of the filing of an amendment to the Company's Articles of Incorporation with the Florida Secretary of State."
From last filed 10-Q, PAGE 9, filed with SEC 11/7/14:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1388319/000114544314001305/d31740.htm
" Fully diluted shares outstanding were 659,543,477 and 323,296,916 for the three months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively and 605,015,919 and 336,682,241 for the nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively."
Same 10-Q filing, PAGE 19:
"Common stock
Effective May 19, 2014, the Company amended its articles of incorporation to increase the authorized shares of capital stock of the Company from nine hundred and fifty million (950,000,000) shares of common stock and twenty million (20,000,000) shares of preferred stock, both $.001 par value respectively, to two billion (2,000,000,000) shares of shares of common stock and twenty million (20,000,000) shares of preferred stock, both $.001 par value respectively."
And there has been MASSIVE amounts of on-going, non stop dilution since those date- 3 month past now, so those O/S counts are gonna be way, way, way higher when the next 10-K is released. Just the Magna deal alone, recently inked has added probably 40 million plus shares to the O/S share count. Also, BHRT issues out shares like water every qtr for everything from paying common bills, to employee perks programs, to continual need to service their debts and pay finance people (Asher) and similar upon conversion of any shares to "related party notes", etc (see ANY recent SEC filing 10-Q or 10-K for at least the past 3 yrs to see how much massive dilution occurs continually, non-stop every qtr).
"to give us the next big move up. "???
The stock has LOST over 99% of its value since going public? $5 a share to .0085 or so a share. Actually more like 99.8% of its value. What "big move up"??
It's lost well over 50% of it's value in just a month or two and 85% plus in the past 9 months or so? It's sitting near all time lows, at a 52 week low and within the past few weeks touched within a fraction of a cent of its all, all, all time low of .0066.
It's lost about 98% of its value since the present CEO took over in 2010, from .50 cents a share or so to now 8/10ths of ONE CENT.
What exactly is "big move up" has this stock ever made since going public? It's a total loss to the common shares- near total?
It's amazing IMO how some "claim" to have ALWAYS, every single time essentially, bought the exact perfect bottom and then somehow got out at a much higher top, say for a 25% recent gain- which is essentially impossible IMO on this ill-liquid a stock which only offers retail buyers/sellers a very wide spread, almost always (8% to 12% spreads between bid/ask being seen near daily). It can often take one hour or more to get a small fill on an order for retail - and a retail buyer/seller will most often be paying a 10% or wider spread. Making it nearly impossible to have "made 25% recently", it simply doesn't pencil out given what the recent bottom price was and the recent price as of yesterday- when the spread and ill-liquid trading is taken into account.
Personally, not buying the "claims" of 25% recent "gains" or some ability to always pick/buy ultra bottoms and then get out at much higher highs. All research shows that frequent traders (well documented by SEC, academia, trading firms, etc and found via a simple Google search on day-trading research or similar terms), unless behind pro level, institutional level trading desks, they lose almost always. Many research studies on "day trading" show almost all will lose everything, all their trading capital in a very short period of time.
LOL, "as far Gilead/Billion Dollar Company also uses "will and may's" they/BHRT out an 8K which means they buy shares back or get into trouble. I think the stocks is going to be Promoted personally. "
That "it's gonna be promoted" line was made months ago on that nothing web site. Looks like it got "promoted" right down to 7/10ths or 8/10ths of ONE CENT, lol. Heck of a "promotion"? I'll personally, just stick to I-HUB and the much higher quality info and better researched info and discussion on can get here by far. That's my opinion. I-HUB must have 10,000 times the traffic of that micro "stem cell promotion" whatever little site.
Has that micro, almost no readership, stem cell penny stock promo web site and the guy that runs it EVER been correct about anything they "predict"??? BHRT is sitting at sub ONE CENT. But according to that nothing web site and it's operator, it's about to be "promoted"?? How would that guy know that (the guy who's EPIC wrong 99% of the time)? That would be illegal if they know a penny "promotion" is about to happen and are involved in it?
If I had a penny for every time that micro, no traffic, "stem cell promo n hype" web site has been DEAD WRONG in their "predictions" - I'd be a multi, multi millionaire.
Still lots of expensive BHRT law suits going on, near constantly. Imagine what just the legal costs coming up are going to suck out of the cash line, let alone how much they've spent in legal in the past?
http://lawsuitpressrelease.com/investors-sue-bioheart-inc-millions-unpaid-debt
Just imagine if they lose. $2.3 million will BK this company IMO as they have about $250K TOTAL assets to their name.
Look at how many past law suits they have, several still on-going, all public and easilly found info per due diligence on govt run court websites or public newspapers, law journals and similar; just a few of them:
https://www.clerk-17th-flcourts.org/Clerkwebsite/BCCOC2/OdysseyPA/CaseSummary.aspx?CaseID=7155410&hidSearchType=party_case&DisplayCitation=no&CaseNumber=CACE13024037&SearchType=
Comella their CSO and a bunch of sub companies she was involved with and that BHRT past SEC filings said they did business with- and they even licensed Lipicell or whatever from, which they then cancelled/lost that license agreement and re-named some new "term sheet" license as "Adipocell" now (see last 10-K filing, it's all in there)
Or this one was real interesting- they lost this one too I think:
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/florida/flsdce/0:2013cv60304/414951/20
QUOTE from case history of the court:
". However, in response to the instant motion, Bioheart has attached affidavits of two investors, Jeffrey Solomon and Jason Gruner, who claim to have read the postings while they were in Florida. "
Interesting is these two people claim to own very large holdings in the stock and also very actively promote it for their own self interest? At least one, for 100% certain, promotes it using emails, a website and many other methods, including for "fee" from "members". Kinds seems like a conflict IMHO? How would BHRT even find those two, let alone contact them?
Just never ending lawsuits and lawyers it seems. Oh, and big cash bonuses all while the key, FIVE YEAR OLD FDA level "trials" are "on hold" for "lack of funding".
Latest filed 10-Q statement, PAGE 29:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1388319/000114544314001305/d31740.htm
"We received approval from the FDA in July of 2009 to conduct a Phase I safety study on 15 patients of a combined therapy (Myocell with SDF-1), which we believe was the first approval of a study combining gene and cell therapies. We initially commenced work on this study, called the REGEN Trial, during the first quarter of 2010. We suspended activity on the trial in 2010 while seeking additional funding necessary to conduct the trial.
We are seeking to secure sufficient funds to reinitiate enrollment in the MARVEL and REGEN trials. If we successfully secure such funds, we intend to re-engage a contract research organization, or CRO, investigators and certain suppliers to advance such trials. We have initiated and enrolled our first patient in the MIRROR trial in 2013. The trial is very similar to the MARVEL trial but focusses on sites outside the US. We will continue enrollment in the MIRROR trial once we have secured sufficient funds."
2009/2010 is a Looong time ago IMO- and I don't see any way or possibility how they'd fund or restart those trials now given their horrible financial condition, extremely low cash position (just read their financials in the last filed SEC 10-Q or any recent SEC filing going back 1 to 1 yrs) and collapsed share price and market cap? What money would they use to fund an FDA level trial? They finished last qtr with $46K total cash left on-hand, despite the bit PR hype about "revenues" and what not. $46K total cash and over $2 MILLION in just "accounts payable" bills due (see last filed 10-Q pages 4 through 6, it's all there)
HOW MANY were ever "enrolled" in the much PR hyped ole "Mirror" trial, the big ole phase 3 hyped n "promoted"??? ONE, according to their own SEC filings. ONE "enrolled" and they claimed to even "randomize" that ONE. Which it's mathematically and statistically impossible to "randomize" a set-size containing ONE of anything. Makes one wonder if they understand what "randomization" even is or how it works?
LOL, still "looking for" or "seeking" that ole pesky "funding" to supposedly "re-start" the only FDA level trials they ever had, some 5 YEARS LATER - while 3 yrs of huge basse pay increases and cash bonuses go to just two people of a 4 person full time employee company (see last SEC filed 10-Q) and untold lawyer bills have been paid out in these recent 3 yrs (Just read the last filed 10-K exec compensation table, and look at the bonus and base pay increase history- all in the SEC filings in black n white).
So, I guess according to the micro, little read web "stem cell" penny stock promo site this is about to be "promoted"? Interesting IMO how someone can/could possibly know that w/o being an insider?
SEC Form SC 13G is an old filing- it was filed on Jan 12, 2015.
It's been on EDGAR since the instant it was filed- it was not filed today, 1/23/15
If one wants to known any current or past SEC filing- the only 100% credible source is the SEC maintained EDGAR database. It's the first place any new SEC filing will appear.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1388319/000114544315000029/d31977.htm
That particular SC 13G filing was the one removing BOD "Chuck Hart" as "chairman" or "Chairman of Board of Managers" of Norhstar Biotech LLC and handing that title (and thus control of over 500 MILLION voting shares of Northstar LLC) to some guy named "Greg Knutson".
From the filing:
"
(1) Greg Knutson, Chairman of Board of Managers, is deemed to have voting and dispositive power"
2(a) Name of person filing: Greg Knutson, Chairman of Board of Managers
2(b) Address or principal business office or, if none, residence: 19345 Rhinestone Street, NW, Anoka, Minnesota 55303
This was always BOD Chuck Hart in the past and had the same address listed. Being that it's a residential location- it makes no sense IMO- as does this mean that property is now belonging to Greg Knutson? It appears that because of, or related to, the Brenda Leonhardt lawsuit- which names Chuck Hart and Northstar LLC as two of the defendants, they filed this document IMO to pull Chuck Hart off the title/position of having the voting power control of Northstar LLC.
That location has been listed for years as the main location of Hart Masonry, which is BOD Chuck Hart's main business. The Bioheart main website lists his background as "Masonry construction" or something to that effect. A simple Google search matches that address to "Hart Masonry" with Chuck Hart listed as owner.
http://www.manta.com/c/mm5nhxg/hart-masonry-inc
http://nonresidential-construction.hire-a-pro.com/review/Hart-Masonry-Inc-Anoka-MN/
http://www.whereorg.com/hart-masonry-inc-8283084
That location, listed as the address- is also the one that happens to be shown as being for sale on Zillow and several other public real estate sales sites- it comes up in the #1 search position in Google.
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/19345-Rhinestone-St-NW-Nowthen-MN-55303/2126624884_zpid/
A week or so ago they changed that listing to "Nowthen" MN, but it was "Anoka" prior to that. Nowthen is a city in Anoka county. It's the same listing- I viewed it prior and with 100% certainty it stated "Anoka" and had all the same photos and descriptions, sq-ft, etc. It's the same listing IMO. It's the only 19345 Rhinestone St NW that comes up in a MN search on Google.
From same SEC filing:
"(8) Shared dispositive power: 52,368,582 capital shares (32,368,582 shares of common and 20,000,000 preferred (each share of preferred stock has voting power equal to twenty-five common shares)"
That would mean this "Greg Knutson" person of MN now has total voting control majority over the public common shares of Bioheart, the public traded company- via controlling the votes of 25 X 20,000 preferred shares = 500 MILLION votes + 52,368,582 shares = 552,368,582 votes. 550 MILLION votes- a total majority over any proxy or similar votes. "Greg Knutson", whoever he is, now controls for all intents and purposes- the total common share voting power of the public traded company known as Bioheart, and is doing it via a tiny, secretive LLC known as "Northstar Biotech LLC".
My 2 cents.
NO? "He is a fan of ACTC now OCAT"
That's not said in the video? NOWHERE does this person from GE use any word such as "FAN" or "LIKES" or is "INTERESTED IN PARTNERING WITH" OCAT, or ACTC, etc NOWHERE. Never says it, does not happen.
http://vimeo.com/78571115
He merely speaks briefly, less than 30 seconds, about ONE portion, "possibilities" in the state of the "regenerative medicine industry" and in a few sentences mentions the words ACTC and some "work they've done for instance in the eye area" (paraphrasing) and then mentions numerous other companies and industries and other areas where "cells are used" etc. NEVER uses the word "he LIKES them" or any similar phrasing.
His tone of voice, his inflection and specific wording indicates NO specific excitement or interest in particular over ACTC than approx other of approx 20 other topics and companies and industry segments and sub-segments he's discussing.
To "try" and infer this tiny, micro 6 minute and few second video clip- in which the words ACTC is mentioned a few times in a portion of the video lasting less than 30 seconds, to "try" and infer that this means this person from GE "likes" what's now OCAT or singles them out over any other of probably 50 companies this man generalizes about or to especially create a MYTH that this is linked to why/where GE is putting a plant in MA and why they located there, etc is past desperation and grasping at straws that DO NOT EXIST IMO.
It's a tiny video clip - "ACTC" the words get a brief mention from some guy who happens to be from the TECHNICAL SIDE of GE, not the plant and capital equipment location or planning or acquisition side, etc.
It MEANS NOTHING in terms of OCAT, this "video" and some imaginary "GE RELATIONSHIP", pure fabrication IMO. A million mile stretch of fantasy built on a few words being uttered- then painted into a 1000 page book of fantasy.
NEVER SAID: "GE Healthcare Chief Dr. Stephen Minger likes OCAT "
NOWHERE in the 6 minute and 36 second video does this GE person EVER use the words (or any similar words) "LIKES OCAT", not once.
In the video, ACTC is briefly mentioned from about 1:19 to 1:50 (about 30 seconds) and no word "like" is mentioned that I heard- and ACTC is mish-mashed in to numerous mentions of other company names and other companies in different biz segments and the mention of numerous "sub industry" groups is also clearly discussed by this GE person.
NOTHING mentions "OCAT" and a GE facility being built near OCAT or any even remote hint at a relationship existing, planning for a MA facility, etc NOTHING- not a word.
Also, this GE Dr. Minger says that GE, ONE THEIR own presently grows and harvest BILLIONS and BILLIONS of their OWN STEM CELLS or other CELLS as needed and he's personally mandated his team to further automate and make progress on the process- and he does NOT mention any need for help in doing so, or any JV needs or any other company or sub companies being involved in that process. By all indications of his wording that I listened too- it's a 100% INSIDE GE process and project.
That is ALL the video says. NO mention or "liking OCAT" or anything to that effect IMO. NONE. Just one company name, ACTC, tossed in, in the middle of discussing numerous "general industry trends" or general "areas of regenerative medicine" that he, he Minger reads about, stays abreast of, hears about as part of his day to day duties to keep GE competitive, beating their competition, knowing where they might want to create projects of their own, etc
Thee end of what I saw? I don't see any other possible "interpretation" as it's all in plain spoken English and very clear- no ambiguity or confusing use of language that I just watched? A little over 6 minutes of vague, broad (often cut and edited obviously, causing topics to jump around) video- a micro interview that amounts to or means nothing much to me, IMO. ZERO as related to OCAT.
NO "promise fulfilled"??
The article makes that abundantly clear- DOUBTS and numerous unproven issues and even the potential for bias via the study construct is clearly pointed out in the article sited:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/838391
Most important take-away lines and specific wording in the entire article are the following IMO:
"
The results should be interpreted with cautious optimism. The idea of transplanting retinal cells is not new, but the method of transplanting the cells at the edge of the atrophic zone to enhance blood supply to the transplanted tissue is a novel strategy.
Although none of the anticipated major safety concerns, including teratoma formation, immune rejection, and uncontrolled differentiation, actually occurred in the study, six of the 18 participants (33%) experienced other major adverse effects. The sample size was so small that no statistical analyses were possible, calling into question the validity of the data.
The results should also be interpreted with caution because the company that funded the study, Advanced Cell Technology, was involved in all aspects of the study, creating the potential for bias.
Despite the aforementioned concerns, this study provides evidence that even in advanced cases of AMD and Stargardt macular dystrophy, ESCs can survive and even restore some level of visual acuity—a major achievement. This is obviously a very early study in the development of ESCs, and certainly larger ones will follow that will provide a more accurate and comprehensive description of the treatment effect. "
Says it all right there- from an "expert" source and analysis IMO. It's essentially what my own opinion has been.
1) Sample size too small to conclusively "prove" anything withing statistical certainty.
2) Self funded, phase I's open to most chances for bias and data skewing, selective data presentations, etc
3) Too small, too early to prove anything, much, much larger, longer and enormously more expensive studies needed- a long, long, long way to go.
Simple as that.
Sure. GE is locating a major capital project- an entire plant and facility in Marlborough because of some micro-cap penny stock company that's located there?
And this is all proven supposedly because of a supposed few lines some guy, some "M.D. or Ph.D." from GE said in a "video"? I highly doubt that M.D.'s and/or Ph.D's have much to do with business unit level decisions about where GE acquires real estate and plans major capital infrastructure projects, etc.
Usually has to do far more with land prices, local govt deals like utility rate and tax rate incentives, labor force issues, the possibility they already own and operate other facilities there or owned that land since who knows when, etc.
Chuck can spare the video for me- no "pleasure" in it for me, not even interested in viewing it. Makes zero difference to me personally. I didn't "forget" or miss a thing. Thanks.
I agree. Two factors at play here- per all 3 statements made in a row by the 3 posts.
1) The lower it drifts on it's own now- that tells me the secondary is gonna price just that much lower. Underwriters ALWAYS pay a discount to market- and the higher the risk, thinner the volume a stock is, the bigger that discount gets. Selling a $5 range OTC "transfer" stock is gonna be a much steeper discount IMO than a "traditional" secondary for say a NASDAQ listed stock with earnings, cash flow, product sales, etc. If it's selling for $5 and change to the retail, low vol market- then what's 10 million bulk, wholesale shares worth? $4.50 maybe? Wouldn't surprise me a bit.
2) They can't seem to uplist w/o the secondary money to prop up their balance sheet and give them the positive shareholder equity they need to meet the NASDAQ requirements (and NO, there's no mythological waiting or "quiet" periods or anything else in play on this now- none.) They just appear to be having trouble getting pricing power and probably buying demand at a price they find acceptable. They're in the pickle box IMO.
3) As stated by other poster- all of this means they're then continually, or at least on-going tapping Lincoln for survival cash which then just puts more dilution shares into the hopper, which the longer they wait, will hit the sell-side and further drop the price making the secondary lower and lower. They're sitting in a circular quandary if they can't make a decision soon and figure this out and get off the dime.
Question is- is this mgt ineptness that blew the end of yr supposed uplist-we-really-didn't-uplist that put them on the FINRA radar and now maybe put scrutiny all over the secondary offering- causing it to have problems? Or is it they just can't make swift decisions and are afraid of accepting a low secondary offering price- even though perhaps that's their reality? Maybe they think they can stage and get the stock to pop and have hopes of somehow selling the secondary into that pop strength later, which IMO would be risky as it drifts lower and lower- and what if the "pop" hype attempt doesn't work, etc?
Something IMO has clearly not gone quite according to plan. The Dec 18th, 2014 we-uplisted-sorry-not-really was the watershed, key data point IMO. Something happened right than and there- now it's a question of what exactly and what has that caused short or long term here? Right now this is like watching paint dry- and that's after they fired off ever big ole "PR" and "story" and whatnot that they had in their bag of tricks. If you fired all your ammo, all your big arrows- and you're stuck here now, then what do you do??
My 2 cents.