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.
" @ some moment this year that run to $12 and change will look like child's play."
Present REALITY is a 50% total loss to $6.09, and a dip into the $5's just prior to that.
"Went from a biotechnology stock w nothing fda approved to having product and services "???
"I'm glad you agree that Mike is doing a great job!!" Not my words?? Never said um and you don't speak for me.
They're still a biotechnology company (sort of I guess) with NO FDA APPROVED ANYTHING (except a catheter that goes off patent in 2017?) and no products or services approved for sale by the FDA or any other similar agency per their own SEC filings.
Last 10-K filing, yr end 2013:
PAGE 39:
"We do not currently have product liability insurance because none of our product candidates has yet been approved for commercialization. While we plan to seek product liability insurance coverage if any of our product candidates are sold commercially, we cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain product liability insurance on commercially acceptable terms, if at all, or that we will be able to maintain such insurance at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect against potential losses.
Claims may be made by consumers, healthcare providers, third party strategic collaborators or others selling our products if one of our products or product candidates causes, or appears to have caused, an injury. We may be subject to claims against us even if an alleged injury is due to the actions of others. For example, we rely on the expertise of physicians, nurses and other associated medical personnel to perform the medical procedures and processes related to our product candidates. If these medical personnel are not properly trained or are negligent in using our product candidates, the therapeutic effect of our product candidates may be diminished or the patient may suffer injury, which may subject us to liability. In addition, an injury resulting from the activities of our suppliers may serve as a basis for a claim against us.
We do not intend to promote, or to in any way support or encourage the promotion of, our product candidates for off-label or otherwise unapproved uses. However, if our product candidates are approved by the FDA or similar foreign regulatory authorities, we cannot prevent a physician from using them for any off-label applications. If injury to a patient results from such an inappropriate use, we may become involved in a product liability suit, which will likely be expensive to defend.
"
PAGE 31 (same 10-K filing):
"Our product candidates may never be commercialized due to unacceptable side effects and increased mortality that may be associated with such product candidates.
Possible side effects of our product candidates may be serious and life-threatening. A number of participants in our clinical trials of MyoCell have experienced serious adverse events potentially attributable to MyoCell, including six patient deaths and 18 patients experiencing irregular heartbeats. A serious adverse event is generally an event that results in significant medical consequences, such as hospitalization, disability or death, and must be reported to the FDA. The occurrence of any unacceptable serious adverse events during or after preclinical and clinical testing of our product candidates could temporarily delay or negate the possibility of regulatory approval of our product candidates and adversely affect our business. Both our trials and independent trials have reported the occurrence of irregular heartbeats in treated patients, a significant risk to patient safety. We and our competitors have also, at times, suspended trials studying the effects of myoblasts, at least temporarily, to assess the risk of irregular heartbeats, and it has been reported that one of our competitors studying the effect of myoblast implantation prematurely discontinued a study because of the high incidence of irregular heartbeats."
Same 10-K, PAGE 31:
"we are still in the process of seeking to demonstrate that our product candidates do not pose unacceptable health risks. We have not yet treated a sufficient number of patients to allow us to make a determination that serious unintended consequences will not occur."
What exact so called "products" and/or "therapies" are they selling exactly again? Approved for use in humans by what agencies again? I don't "get it"?? Not by reading their own SEC filings in which they emphatically state they won't even "help promote" any off label or unapproved use of their product candidates.
By definition of their own SEC filings, "Adipocell" is a "product candidate", just as one example:
Same 10-K filing, PAGE 53:
"In our pipeline, we have multiple product candidates for the treatment of heart damage, including MyoCell, Myocell SDF-1 and AdipoCell. MyoCell and MyoCell SDF-1"
Thus, by simple logic and use of the English language, Adipocell as one example is clearly labeled in their own words as a "product candidate" and in other language in their own SEC filings, they state emphatically and clearly that NONE of their "product candidates" is yet to be proven safe, or tested enough yet, etc to be safe for use in humans outside of carefully controlled, FDA monitored or similarly monitored clinical trials- and by no means in any way "commercialized" or to be supported or even "promoted", let alone sold freely on an open market as being safe for routine use in, or on human beings. Pretty clear language IMO?
Again, what exactly are they selling that's been proven and tested and approved as safe for use in and on humans, as a "commercialized" product(s)? I'm very confused?
NO again. " Nasdaq Capital having met ALL criteria as I have previously posted. "
They DO NOT meet the minimum shareholder equity requirements of $4 MILLION. PERIOD. END OF STORY.
From the prospectus, PAGE S-15:
Total stockholders' equity (deficit) 723,010
That's about $3.2 MILLION shy of what's needed.
FROM THEE NASDAQ, their published listing requirements for the LOWEST TIER one can qualify for:
https://listingcenter.nasdaqomx.com/assets/initialguide.pdf
Stockholders’ Equity (lowest tier) $4 million
Page 9 of the document, 2014, published by NASDAQ
Being above $4 a share in NO WAY, NO SHAPE and NO FORM "waives" the shareholder equity requirement somehow. Simply not true. Not even close.
That NASDAQ publication is crystal clear and in very simple wording in that table. There is not a single note or "*" or anything else explaining away or waiving the need for $4 million in shareholder equity which OCAT DOES NOT HAVE as per their own prospectus recently filed.
Wow, a micro "blog"??
Or, there's major publications that quote Lanza verbatim, directly, such as this one and many others:
""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. "
http://www.telegram.com/article/20141014/NEWS/310149525&Template=printart
Year 2020 for a "maybe" at being "FDA READY" and a "we hope to", etc? That a lot of uncertainty, a lot dilution, a lot of cash to burn, and a lot of time in which this can be tripped up a 100 different ways, possibly totally fail, or be beat out by some better funded competitor, etc. seems to me.
2020? I'd say there's some dead money and dilution ahead IMHO. A lot more than likely. 5 yrs is an eternity in the ultra fast moving, ever changing world high technology and in a very unstable world in which markets and financing and whatnot can flip faster than one can blink an "eye".
NO. "Jan 7 on Wed means the end of the 90 trading days at or above $4 PPS as req'd by the Nasdaq criteria for Nasdaq Capital uplisting. "
They still do not meet the $4 million minimum shareholder equity requirements. They had about $700K in total shareholder equity as of the financials in the recently filed prospectus.
From the prospectus, PAGE S-15:
Total stockholders' equity (deficit) 723,010
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1140098/000104746914009660/a2222363z424b5.htm
They're short in the stockholder's equity department. Simple as that.
See minimum shareholder equity needed in the NASDAQ standards. It's not "waived" or anything simply by remaining above $4 share for 90 days or whatever? Further, the need to be above $4 a share commences PRIOR to filing, it says so right in the NASDAQ document, thus that period is already past. It's the $4 million in shareholder positive equity that's their problem. And they likely can't meet that w/o a secondary offering, as Lincoln line most likely can't be tapped for a single draw large enough to give um $3.2 million approx. plus what they need to run day to day operations.
https://listingcenter.nasdaqomx.com/assets/initialguide.pdf
Stockholders’ Equity (lowest tier) $4 million
Page 9 of the document, 2014, published by NASDAQ
"Mike you are killing it!!!"
Yep, sounds like a very accurate statement to me. Since "Mike" took over control of running the company as CEO, the stock has lost a tremendous amount of share value while at the same time being massively diluted. Quite a "killing" of the common shares and market cap- to say the least.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/bioheart-announces-mike-tomas-appointed-ceo-97013034.html
"Mike" took over as CEO around June of 2010. A simple google or similar search will reveal that the share price of BHRT was about .50 cents a share to as high as a spike of .70 cents a share then. It was also when their major, key FDA trials stopped and have never started or progressed again - just stalled out and un-funded, with a carrot being dangled for 4 yrs, going on 5 yrs now that "big funding" was/is near and they would re-start those trials supposedly.
The O/S share count around June 2010 was approx:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1388319/000114544310002514/d27487.htm
"As of September 30, 2010 there were 29,366,985 outstanding shares of the registrant’s common stock"
See SEC filing for share count about the time "Mike" took control of the company.
Thus the O/S share have been diluted from about 30 million in 2010 to about minimum 650 MILLION today, heading for probably 800 MILLION by early 2015 due to Magna deals, all while no progress has ever been made on a single one of their phase II/III FDA trials and no major, non-dilutive "big financing" has ever materialized as has been promised for yrs, etc
That's a loss in shareholder value by "Mike" (who just boosted his pay to over $1 MILLION annually) - a shareholder loss of about:
50 cents to 1 CENT a share or approx.
50-1 = 49/50 = .98 X 100 = 98% LOSS to the common shares under the mgt of "Mike", while diluting from 30 million shares to again, about 650 million minimum today, a factor of 21X plus. The market cap would have also collapsed by about 2/3 from around $15 million in 2010, to now just above $5 million as of yesterday's closing price- most certainly "killing it". Yes.
Yes, that is surely "killing it" IMO. One couldn't do much more to "kill it" than that. 98% loss is pretty epic "killing it" for a CEO. Yep. And then to be part of a BOD that self votes oneself large base pay increases and bonuses while turning in that kind of "killing it" performance just adds that special OTC-ville "flare" to it, IMO. About as penny stock as it gets.
The ole "revenues"- they haven't made a bit of difference to the company's dire financial conditions. Because expense growth has far out grown any supposed "revenue" growth.
From the most recent filed 10-Q, PAGE 5:
Top line sales/revenues was $579,536
But cost of sale was $523,222
Which means the cost of sales was enormously high, meaning the gross margin was about a lousy 10%, meaning BHRT banked almost NO MONEY from the sales.
$579,536 - $523,222 = $56,314
Yep, $56K lousy bucks for an entire qtr is all they "made" to bank on $579K in "revenue", against massive growth in other expenses also, such as their SG&A expense line, and why it's obvious they'll never be profitable at this pace, as they're presently spending essentially nothing on R&D, aka "trials" and similar, only about $3K a month, total. They've hacked the R&D spending line to near zero to give the illusion they've made financial progress. But that means they're no longer an FDA "trial" company and their SEC filings show just that, that their FDA "trials" are going nowhere and have not progressed going on 5 yrs now. It's not even clear anymore IMO what "business" they're actually in anymore, other than to exist to pay a few key insiders a large salary and bonuses and similar. The entire "company" is 2 people essentially with an occasional 2 other full time tossed in for 4 full time and 1 part time as the entire "company" per their SEC filing (less people than my local pizza joint, which has more sale I'm sure)
How much did that top line "revenue" even amount too?
Well, it at best, had a "bottom line" result of $56K to BHRT (as they have no taxes, as they take and produce only large losses)
So $56K for 3 months of revenue = $56/3 = $18,700 a month to BHRT
They just handed Tomas a $500K cash bonus for turning in such a stellar yr in which the stock is now at ONE CENT.
$500K / 12 = $41K per month it costs just for that bonus.
That means that entire qtr of "revenue", the amount BHRT would bank after subtracting the cost of sales- it didn't even pay 2 months of just the bonus for "Mike", let alone his huge base salary increase, let alone Comella's new $300K bonus and her large base salary increase, let alone the tremendous growth in the SG&A (sales, general and admin) cost/expense line- meaning the "revenue" made no difference, they spent far more than they took in, paying essentially all of it back to just 2 people and then some.
Thus, they need to tap Magna for more desperation "financing" despite conducting essentially no R&D and certainly no "trial" spending taking place and no major trial(s) advancing or progressing.
They generate only losses, are no where near ever being profitable and that's when they're not even funding trials, which would make their dire financial condition 100X or more worse- if they spent even a fraction of what they spent on R&D when they were a legit "FDA trial" company.
Look at R&D and trial spending and how it's been gutted, yet they are still cash broke and teetering on BK ( they ended last qtr with $46K cash in the bank against just accounts payable of $2 million plus, and over $10 million in other debts owed)
From the 10-K filing, yr ended 2010 (when Tomas took over to "kill it" as was posted prior)
10-K,Yr ended 2010, PAGE F-3:
Total assets $308,796
(which also means, the pittance of the assets the company has, also declined under "Mike's" watch. Latest 10-Q filing, Q-3 2014 shows total assets of $248,454. Which means the company assets also have declined by about 20% even as the shares have massively increased, and "revenues" have supposedly shown "huge increases" and the share price has been crushed, all as "Mike" has been "killing it". Yep, what little assets they had, even those are declining.)
PAGE F-4 (revenues and gross profit for yr 2009, FAR better margin then than now)
Revenue 359,800
Cost of sales 205,014
Gross profit 154,786
(which means they managed their expenses far better before Mike ran the show then and produced a gross profit margin of about 42%, a more typical industry "norm" versus the dismal 10% margin from last qtr, Q-3 2014 10-Q filing)
And how much was R&D, aka "trials" spending back then?
PAGE F-4 (10-K filing, 2010)
Research and development 1,467,078
Yep, they spent $1.4 million on R&D and which is still dismal and pretty much a joke IMO for a company that would be claiming to be "conducting FDA level phase II/III trials", but at least they still had some actual staff and still spent some actual money on R&D on "something".
From the most recent 10-Q filing, Q-3 2014, what are they spending on R&D now (which by gutting R&D spending, would help paint a rosier picture of already desperate financial conditions)?
Most recent 10-Q, PAGE 5: (for the 9 months ended Sept 30, 2014)
Research and development $33,916
Yep, $33 THOUSAND lousy dollars on R&D for a supposed medical research and development company who "claims" on twitter and similar to be the "world leader in clinical phase II/III blah, blah" or something to that effect. $33K, not even a mid level luxury car. Noise level money, a pittance for medical R&D. Comical IMO. And that's down from about $500K R&D spending in just 2013, the yr prior (see same 10-Q page 5)
It's easy to "goose" the financials to look less dire (they're dire though) - when one chops out all the R&D spending, but turns around and hands it to 2 people in the form of huge base salary increases and then large cash bonuses. The "bonuses" for yr 2014 to just 2 people are $500K + $300K = $800K, while they're gonna spend a tiny fraction of that on medical research and development, good ole R&D.
It's clear from those financials they're never gonna be profitable IMO, not on the course they're on now- how would it be possible given the realities in those financial SEC filings? It'd never pencil out, no matter how one crunched the numbers.
They're now gonna tap a massively dilutive Magna credit line and it's not even going to be enough to pay the new, huge base salaries and bonuses for just the 2 people, plus just recent accounts payable which exceed $2 million now (see latest 10-Q SEC filing expenses "accounts payable), let alone their high SG&A expenses which were $3,182,397 for just the 9 months ended Sept 30, 2014 (see same 10-Q filing).
Latest 10-Q, PAGE 5: (9 months ended Sept 30, 2014)
Marketing, general and administrative 3,182,397
It was essentially HALF that in the same period in 2013, yet they've not really hired any staff, they haven't grown their facility, they added no assets, etc? In 2013 that same entry was $1,750,276. Thus expenses have exploded, far outstripping any revenue after cost of sales.
$3 MILLION in SG&A (it's gonna be more than that, that's the 9 month number) for a company of 4 full time and 1 part time, who are conducting no real medical "trials" or any medical R&D for the most part ($3K per month R&D spending, see same 10-Q)? Where is that money going? To a lot of legal expenses, and vague entries like "consultants" and who knows what else?
They're not gonna be profitable? Not a chance in heck IMO. They're on financial life support and their SEC financial filings prove that IMO. Their own auditor's "going concern" and the "going concern" warning also from Sr. Mgt I believe also makes that also abundantly clear.
"revenues" make no difference when one spends far more than any "revenue" brings in. People with huge salaries and "revenue" (rock stars, NFL and NBA players being and Hollywood actors being the most notorious) they go BK all the time- because no matter how much "revenue" they brought in, they spent just that much more, and thus became "insolvent", meaning unable to pay current debts and obligations as they come due.
Just look at BHRT, even with all the toxic, convertible debt financing, they still end up cash broke each qtr and pay common bills by issuing out millions and millions of shares of common stock- as they HAVE NO CASH to pay even "common" business bills and day to day obligations.
Latest 10-Q, PAGE 27: (an entire wash-list of shares issued as they HAD NO CASH, even with so called "revenues" coming in)
"Subsequent issuances
On October 3, 2014, the Company issued 514,886 shares of its common stock as payment of $70,521 interest on its Northstar (related party) debt.
In October 2014, the Company issued 1,818,182 shares of its common stock in settlement of $20,000 of convertible debt.
In October 2014, the Company issued 1,293,103 shares of its common stock in settlement of $15,000 of convertible debt.
In October 2014, the Company issued 2,260,764 shares of its common stock in settlement of $18,000 of convertible debt and accrued interest of $2,120.
In October 2014, the Company issued 552,846 shares of its common stock in settlement of $5,500 of convertible debt and accrued interest of $1,300.
In October 2014, the Company issued an aggregate 2,773,549 shares of common stock for consulting services.
In October 2014, the Company issued 538,875 shares of common stock in settlement of accounts payable."
Yeah, "killing it", pretty accurate description IMO. 21X more shares diluted out and a 98% loss to shares while spending essentially nothing on R&D and trials that are dead and parked for heading into 5 years now. Yep, it's pretty much "killed it" the way I see it. Great description IMO.
Oh, and they HAVE NO EARNINGS. NONE. Not so much as ONE PENNY of "earnings". NONE. It's in their SEC filings. LOSSES, not "earnings". Clearer than crystal.
Most recent 10-Q, PAGE 12: (management's own words)
"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."
BHRT has NO "EARNINGS". NONE. ZERO. Not even remotely close to producing earnings.
BHRT only produces LOSSES and is not even remotely close to producing "earnings" which is a VERY specific accounting term and a very specifically defined term when applied to stock based companies.
BHRT is not even remotely close to be profitable, not even close to producing positive cash flow and nowhere even remotely close to producing any "earnings". NONE.
It takes PROFIT to produce "earnings" and again, BHRT is nowhere even remotely close to being profitable in any way, shape or form. They're gonna lose upwards of $2 MILLION this yr based on the 9 month results in the last 10-Q.
EARNINGS in the most basic definition would be "After Tax Net Income" and is a definition of a company's profitability. Again, BHRT HAS NO PROFIT, they only generate LARGE LOSSES.
Basically the general formula would be:
Total revenue - operating expenses - interest paid - depreciation -taxes.
Last 10-Q, PAGE 5 for BHRT: (9 months ended Sept 30)
Condensed statement of operations:
(an accounting entry = a negative number, aka a LOSS)
NET LOSS 2014: $(1,247,199) (only 9 months worth)
NET LOSS 2013: $(2,416,000)
Again, the only reason 2014 is showing that reduction over 2013, is a one-time entry for a debt write down. That will not be their on future entries for 2015 and their LOSS, NO EARNINGS, will increase. They are losing about $2 MILLION per yr at this point.
They produce NO "earnings" and no "earnings per share", they only produce losses and consume cash, they do not internally generate any cash or positive cash flows, not even close.
"Ocata doesn't fit the description of penny stock by any definition our there! "
Actually they fit the EXACT description of a "penny stock" by pretty much every generally accepted definition "out there".
1) They are unlisted and on the OTC. That alone will typically equate to "penny stock" status.
2) They have a micro cap market cap
3) They have little to no shareholder equity
4) As of a few months ago, pre R/S they were a 5 or 6 cent stock, a true penny stock by every definition known.
They are still essentially a penny stock as they are not listed on a major exchange and are just barely above $5 a share. There's no institutional buyers, almost none, that will touch an OTC stock, no matter what the price. Call up a retail broker and ask for short inventory on OCAT, and they'll have all kinds of restrictions on it, cause it's essentially considered a penny stock and also OTC, which means they rarely will allow a margin account on it or give, or stock, short inventory on it.
It's not complicated.
"34 Million total shares outstanding!"
There's not a single thing "off" about my numbers.
They just did a 100:1 R/S in case that major event was missed.
As of the prospectus recently filed they now have about 35 million shares O/S. Back out the R/S to get a realistic compare to when they first went public-
35 million X 100 = 3.5 BILLION shares they issued since they became a pubic traded company. One always must look at "split adjusted" - either forward or reverse splits when trying to see the true history of a stock traded company, from inception to the current date. (if they were doing this secondary, pre R/S, they'd then have about 4.5 BILLION share O/S after issuing the 10 million 30% dilution shares, as in 45 million X 100)
The common shares have lost about 98.8% of their value since becoming public traded, while diluting out to approx. 3.5 BILLION shares and reaching a fairly recent low of about 5 CENTS on 3.5 billion shares- essentially diluting out any common share holder's value to pretty much toilet paper status.
They went public on the OTC at $5 a share essentially. $5 a share is 500 cents. Pre R/S this is now trading at essentially 6 cents as of today's close.
500 cents - 6 cents = 494 cents. 494/500 = .988 X 100 = 98.8% loss to the value of the original common shares.
That is dilution 101 and its real world effects. They're about to dilute by another 30% to possibly as much as 60% or so in the coming yr. It's highly likely it will have similar, negative effects to the price/value of the common shares as the company is only going to burn and consume cash- producing no sales/revenues, no positive cash flows, no growth via adding cash to grow, no earnings, no ROI, etc. Just cash burn and cash use and cash consumption.
It's got a long, long road ahead and cash is the key. CASH IS KING, probably the oldest and truest statement in all of biz history. Apple for example, is a powerhouse juggernaut right now because they generate and throw off more raw cash than probably the U.S. freaking govt. Google the same. They can buy or bury anyone they want. Why? Cause they have vaults full of cash, mountains of it.
The opposite- a cash poor, cash struggling company like OCAT, faces mountains and hurdle after hurdle. They're in the position of weakness and not strength, mainly because they lack cash- no matter how good a pitch or idea they have. No cash, no dice, harder the chance to win and tougher to compete against competitors who have more cah. Cash is what makes this world go round. Simple as that.
Companies only get cash from 3 methods: They either self generate it via sales and revenues at a profit, or they borrow it which is debt, or they raise if via equity which is dilution. That's it. Maybe a 4th way- if they get it donated as in a charity or grant, but that's rare.
$6.09, down on last trade of the year.
Heck of a close to their supposed "biggest year ever" and all?
They fired off essentially every "big deal news" or "PR" or whatever one wants to call it, prior to yr end, and they just closed down near their 52 week low. Wow.
This doesn't bode well IMO for trying to get any pricing power on that secondary offering. Even a typical, 10% discount to the underwriters, based on this close, end of yr price would be:
$6.09 X .9 = $5.41
And given their risk profile, IMO, they're gonna pay a bigger discount than that. I think it's gonna price in the $4's if they do the deal. And I don't see how they don't do the deal as they must have more cash to move ahead. If they can't get a single, large infusion of cash booked, then that phase II is really going nowhere IMO.
Lets say $5 a share even (the high side IMO) on 10 million shares:
That's $50 million and they'd probably net about $45 million after all the fees and expenses to the underwriters.
$45 million ain't $60 million, but it would get them off the dime and moving. I think they're gonna have to bight the bullet at this point and take what they can get. They'll then hope for the best later into the yr, hopefully get uplisted and then will hit that $100 million shelf filing for another dilution draw, maybe on that one tap out the other $50 million or so to carry um into 2016.
It's gonna be a lot of dilution no matter how one slices it and IMO, at least some pretty heavy down pressure on the share price, at least in the near term.
.009 bid now. It's officially gone sub ONE CENT on the bid.
Way to close out the year !
IMO, it's only gonna get worse from here as the Manga mega dilution hits full force. I highly doubt they've even tapped the Magna "credit line" even once yet- which will add 10's of millions of more low priced shares onto the pile, just for a single "draw" on that line from Magna who already appear to be burying this thing.
31 million shares to Magna for the $200K "note" plus 9 million shares for "fees" and the "credit line" most likely hasn't even been tapped once yet.
I'd expect two zeroes after the decimal might be the new "normal" by early 2015.
CDEL "Citadel" a "notorious" MM, just went on the bid and ask at the same time at 13:42, a few moments ago.
Bid .0061 100K
Ask .0119 100K
Man, if they try and hit that bid, they're gonna sink this big today.
Someone else, ATDF has 650K parked on the bid at .008
Looks like they may try and bury it down for the big, end of the yr blow-out, perhaps?
These are the dilution boys in action big time IMO. A classic "ratchet" going on for over a week, maybe over a week now?
Amazing IMO. All traced back I believe to when they finalized and inked the deals with Magna, especially the Magna "note" going into effect first. That $200K note is 31 million shares right there to Magna and also 9 million more shares to Magna for "fees" so far.
" Bhrt is going have some big earnings "???
Earnings? This company isn't anywhere remotely close to producing any "earnings", or positive cash flow? Not by a long, long, long shot? Their yr over yr loss from operations actually increased in 2014 over 2013?
How are they going to produce any earnings? Their expense growth has far out grown any "revenue" growth? They aren't even close to being profitable, let alone even cash flow positive? W/o the ability to endlessly dilute and dump shares for cash (doubling O/S shares in about a 1 yr period, to the tune of 100's of millions of shares) they'd of been BK a long, long, long, time ago. Earnings?
Last filed 10-Q, PAGE 5:
NET LOSS FROM OPERATIONS, for the 9 months ended Sept 30
2014 $4,109,567
2013 $2,246,365
They almost DOUBLED their operational loss, year over year. It's not getting "better" it's far, far WORSE. That loss grew because of a massive increase in their expense line and the massive cost of sales which ate up essentially any effect of "revenue".
And they still took a $1.2 million net loss (not earnings) and that was only a smaller number because of a one-time entry on a reduction in debt they discharged, but that's a one time deal. Their loss will go back up when that entry disappears next qtr.
They didn't profit or make a penny, and not even close. They have no "earnings" and no near term prospects, not even a remote chance, at producing any "earnings" given their dire financial condition.
"we have human success now instead of rodents."
Wow, after ONLY 20 years and over $300 MILLION in sunk capital? And how many CEO's and how much Sr. mgt turnover and how many SEC violations (including prosecutions) and how much accounting fraud (uum, "restatements") and how many "claims" and "promises" that never even remotely came true and on and on and on?
20 yrs to get from the rodents to the human. Wow. So that leaves what, about 5 to 8 yrs now for a "remote" shot at an FDA approved "human", commercialized product that can be sold, let alone "possibly" generate so much as one dime in profit- as they have no manufacturing infrastructure, no sales and marketing team or other needed structures in place to even be remotely close to being a large, commercialized entity.
ONLY, about 500 ways to get tripped up along the way still, now that it's made the first micro-step to get from rodents to humans. Oh, and then more dilution to come of course on top of a present loss of about 98% to their common shares and over 3 BILLION shares issued since going public via their reverse merger on the OTC, not a traditional IPO as a listed company, due to their constantly weak financial condition going back essentially to their inception.
Yeah, looks real solid now since getting off the "rodent program" thing? Sure thing IMO.
"When phase 1 news came out this stock soared up"
And rapidly collapsed back to where it was priced what, 5 yrs ago? It's lost 50% in value in 2 months or so? That's supposed to be "impressive", after what is being touted and promoted as their supposed biggest year ever?
It's at the same share price essentially where it was at while managed by Gary Rabin, and through SEC violations and all the rest?
So what was gained? More dilution in the mean time.
If this is the best it can do after firing off all the "good news" they've been touting for years, it seems like a bit of a dud and fizzle IMO? The big "article", a major "re-branding" effort and new name, new logo, lots of "PR" about "stuff" and "news" and all, and it's down near the 52 week low? That's it?
" Imagine yourself a REGN"
Selectively, very selectively picking one stock, one stock out of 1000's that trade on the OTC and then "trying" to extrapolate that because they beat the odds, making them the statistical outlier, that this somehow equates to a certain success for OCAT is based in no reason or reality IMO.
It's a well researched fact that most stocks that reach true "penny" stock status (most that fall even under $1 a share), most that trade on the OTC, most that lose 99% of the value of their common shares- never, ever, ever regain their losses and amount to some imagined riches or mega success.
The statistical odds are quite the opposite- most OTC stocks, true "penny" stocks, stocks that lose 99% of their common share value and dilute out to the BILLIONS of shares, most of them end in either BK, or simply dissolving and vanishing and end in a total, final wipe out of all common shareholder value. OCAT has lost 98% to 99% of common share value already since becoming public traded, so there's only 1 or 2% left to go to zero.
Those are the harsh realities of penny stock "gambles" and OTC-ville. The OTC is a graveyard of companies heading to BK and being dissolved, most of the time, the vast, vast majority of the time. Not the reverse- the imagined stories of "riches" and what not.
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/microcapstock.htm
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/050803.asp
"Nice but blood program would take ten years at least"
Totally agree.
Further, the idea that where GE has located some plant or facility, a capital improvement or major capital expenditure which is planned for years in advance- to even hint that it would be in any way tied to where some micro-cap company is located, or even remotely be related, is IMO pure fantasy territory.
GE has over 300 THOUSAND employees all over planet earth, as well as 100's, if not 1000 or more facilities, literally all over the planet.
The idea that where a GE plant is located even remotely ties into who they do business with or partner with or whatever would be pure mythology and beyond speculative fantasy.
Using that logic, I can show that a Walmart or probably a dry cleaner or fast food place opened "somewhere near" OCAT headquarters in the past 6 months to 1 yrs, therefor it's a foregone conclusion that "something" must be related to OCAT and what Walmart does and/or a dry cleaner or fast food joint choosing to open in a particular location "nearby"???
This type of thinking makes zero sense. None. Just tossing out the name GE, as if there's a remote, remote chance they're gonna do biz with little ole OCAT, especially because of where some GE plant got planted, is past mythology in my book.
I know what a "partial fill" is. And 82 CENTS worth of stock, 75 shares worth at .011 is not a "partial fill" IMO.
No way. Not when it's been trading at least 100's of thousands of shares a day, and recently, 1 to 4 MILLION shares a day.
That's no "partial fill" of some retail order - not a chance in heck IMO. Not when it sits, parked, for almost an hour now and no more "fill" on that pittance of 82 cents worth.
Not a chance. This is some pro trading desk IMO, making a "print" on the tape for some reason. Probably sitting on the bid and ask at the same time.
That's no retail order, not even a "partial", not for a lousy 82 cents worth. 30 or 45 minutes later and they can't find a single match or cross a single order for the remainder of this imaginary "partial" order? No, no way. In that amount of time, there'd have to be a further match and order crossing on that supposed "partial".
No one would waste their time with that IMO.
Update:
And BOOM, just as I hit click, there's the REAL REALITY- they just sunk it 9% on 500K shares. That's what's really going on. That 75 share "print" was some pro desk "set up" IMO, to lock and load to get ready to drop it on that mega sell they just printed. No "partial" fill on those 75 shares IMO.
BKMM just shifted over to the bid now at .01, what a surprise. It's being "worked" IMO.
From I-HUB as one example:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=87854583
"BMAK is a market maker synonymous with dilution and shorting. Same as VFIN, VNDM, PERT, and a handful of others"
https://stockwiki.org/index.php/Dilution
Quote:
"A very low share count by a market maker on the ask that never seems to fill is about the best indicator you could spot."
Some "notorious" market maker symbols showing up- often sitting on both the bid and ask at the same time.
BMAKN (BMAK) is per some web article pretty well known for being associated with Magna, Asher and others. Not a good reputation when they show up as far as I've read. Known as "manipulators" and share price crushers per many articles and commentary on the web from those who follow and track penny stocks.
BKMM
CDEL
And a few others of penny "fame" plastered all over the bid and ask now it looks like.
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/BHRT/quote
Almost 1 hour into the trading day and it's parked at 75 shares traded, 82 CENTS worth? After trading down hard, for days and days, on 1.5 to 3 MILLION shares or more a day? Now 75 shares and it goes parked? How can that be?
Tell me this is not "odd"???
"That article which includes OCAT "
Well, all except the pesky little part that the word OCAT or OCATA doesn't appear anywhere in the few lines of the "article" (more like a blurb than an "article" IMO. I could do a word count, but it's a few lines at best). It actually says Advanced Cell Technology, which as far as I'm aware, is no longer in existence?
Search the "article" (blurb) and see if "OCAT" or "OCATA" appears anywhere in the "article"?? I used a word search and got nothing?
Also, "it" or "OCAT" didn't "win" any poll. It's at #12 or something like that. A "winner" is typically the #1 position, not some additional "honorable mention" or whatever position on a list. "Winner" is FIRST PLACE anywhere I've ever competed. No points for 2nd place or below, as far as "winning" is concerned.
Volume of 75 shares, 20 seconds after open??
75 X .011 = .82 or 82 CENTS worth? OK? Works for me?
Nothing wrong with that, I "guess"??
So now it's trading in actual blocks of "pennies"?? No, nothing "odd" about this one? A $9.95 commission or whatever one pays to trade 82 CENTS worth of stock?
Right on.
"Discover and $OCAT"??? They said Advanced Cell Technology, the word "OCAT" doesn't appear anywhere in the little blurb of a mention "article"
QUOTE from "article" in Discover:
"asks Robert Lanza, chief scientist at Advanced Cell Technology "
Help me out here- but I personally don't find the word OCAT or OCATA or anything even remotely similar to that term in the "article"???
Personally, I don't think little "articles" sell stock or increase shareholder value anyway. The stock symbol or the fact it's a public traded company is not even mentioned, let alone the publication date shows Dec 30, 2014 and "OCATA" is mentioned nowhere (including not with the little dollar sign added $OCATA to make it, I guess, appear more "valuable" or something?)
Articles, schmarticles, doesn't do a thing for me personally. 15 plus yrs of self promoting and "articles" and where are they today? A 98% total loss to common shares. How bout executing on a business plan that produces some ROI to common shares, maybe insiders buying instead of selling, maybe no more SEC violations or Dec 18th screw ups like claiming to be NASDAQ listed when not, and causing retail accounts to go blank and mis-quote and not trade properly, making the FINRA "daily list" as "OTC re-instated", etc?? Maybe "pesky" little stuff like that is more important than "articles" IMO.
Run the business correctly, maybe focus on that and not so much effort on "articles" and maybe this "might" go somewhere? Maybe?
No help needed, cause there's no point being made.
"Ms. Kristin C. Comella, M.S. ....huh it's A Master of Science glad i could help"
And THAT is not a "doctor" in any way, shape or form. An "M.S." degree in anything does not gain one the title of "doctor" as in a Ph.D. nor does it even remotely begin to qualify one to sit in front of a medical board to gain the licensing and title of "M.D." or "doctor of medicine" etc.
It helps to understand what "doctor" means in professional and academic circles, versus holding an "M.S." degree- there is zero relationship between them. An "M.S." is merely a precursor step along the way to a "possible" title of "doctor".
Again, no help at all and no help was needed.
If that's even accurate info - look at the dates and names. Those aren't "institutional" holders, as in "mutual funds". They're mostly hedge funds or "wealth mgt" type firms and similar and the holdings are a joke, likely not even real numbers they're so low.
Think it would be a coincidence it has nearly every last one selling out on the exact same day of 9/30/2014? Better sniff around and figure out what happened around that time frame?
0.05% holdings? That's a rounding error. 5/100th's of a percent of the O/S shares? That's comical. That's not "institutional ownership"? 8 firms all unloading on 9/30/2014, some as few as a lousy 200 or 600 shares each or whatever?
I'd put bank on it that these firms were handling order flow and selling for an insider or Lincoln or someone related to the company- Gary Rabin even, or a law firm they paid in shares or something along those lines. These are firms that do "wealth mgt" and stock sales/disposal for pro clients who don't want their identity revealed. They have their own trading desks, etc The numbers of shares is noise level- no "institution" buys $600 or even $2K of stock to "hold" as a portfolio position. No freaking way.
If that's one's belief in "institutional ownership", well good luck with that.
If it hits 10% or 20% of float, I'll take notice. Even 5% of float and it "might" start to mean those numbers are real.
One of the last entries is for 100 shares? $600 bucks worth of "institutional ownership"??? I'd have to do some checking- but I'd bet some of those names there are even penny stock broker dealers and MM's in this stock more than likely. That's how they got a "print" on that table- some info got scraped erroneously from somewhere.
Means nothing to me. Again. if that's exciting at 0.05% "holdings" (numbers that are probably bogus anyway), then great. Wonderful.
"HUH..... ANY PROOF THEY DO NOT?? "
1) "Institutions" DO NOT buy or own OTC penny stocks. Ever. OCAT is a penny stock.
http://www.sec.gov/answers/penny.htm
2) Go to any number of financial reporting services such as Thomson-Reuters or similar and they track and report "institutional holdings/ownership" of any given stock. Large holders must disclose their holdings.
For OCAT:
% Held by Institutions: N/A
It's not that complicated. Markets 101.
"An institutional investor that wants to buy 500K or more shares would need to pay a premium over market,"??? Huh?
It's the EXACT OPPOSITE. A "big boy" gets a discount, every single time. Further, there's no "institutional" interest or buyers in this yet- none is listed or any proof they exist?
The underwriters are gonna flip-trade every last share right into the common market more than likely, and maybe to some hedge fund boys and that's about it. They say right in the prospectus they're gonna be market makers themselves in the stock.
But back to a "large" share buyer of any stock. If you're the teacher's pension fund manager or whatever- you don't buy through freaking E-trade or whatever. You have an institutional, 100% pro trading desk who handles all your order flow for you. You tell them you want 10 million shares of stock XYZ at price "X", and then they will set about "making that happen" for you. They can issue "research" a common technique, such as a "sell recommendation" which often means they want retail schlubs to sell, while they're actually buying on the low and building a position for a large institutional client. Opposite is true on "buy recommendations". When CITI bank or whoever issues a "buy" recommendation, you can pretty much take it to the bank that their own trading desk are unloading a large position either for themselves or for a big client. It's FRAUD STREET for a reason.
So no big boy buyer is ever gonna pay one CENT above what some mom n pop buyer pays- not a chance in heck. Not how it works. Wall Street is as rigged, if not more rigged, than Vegas and the big firms are the "house" and their large paying clients are their "whales" and they take super good care of them.
The underwriters are the buyers of the OCAT 10 MILLION shares. And again, one more time- they will NEVER, EVER pay full retail for those shares. If one of them really wanted to own OCAT, they could have been building a position in it on the open market for the past 1 month or more. But they DO NOT want to "own" and "hold" OCAT. That's not the biz they are in. They make their money on the spread and in fees and expenses. They're a lender/bank and a middle-man. And for their services, OCAT or whoever PAYS and PAYS a lot. Simple as that.
Secondly, there is no "demand exceeding supply"?? It's the exact opposite effect. When one dumps 10 MILLION free trading shares on the market- they just flooded the supply side of the equation, and thus the price drops and it takes time to hunt down demand to "try" and suck up all that newly, printed out of thin air, supply. THAT is the exact definition of pure dilution. It's raw "supply" and that's why it's dilutive. Econ 101.
I don't know what the "mutual fund" mythology is even talking about with "letters on the side" and all? It's not happening, doesn't happen- not how it "works"? Just making up wild scenarios doesn't make them true. There's no mutual funds buying this stock at this point? And if they did- I don't know what "sending letters" and all this other "stuff" would have to do with anything?
Tufts? Who even cares? It's a million miles from being a commercial product or monetized or anything else. This company can't even fund a single phase II right now. Who cares about "Tufts" or whatever at this point? They just pitched an entire "re-branding" effort and spent a boat load to do it- to tell the world they're AN EYE COMPANY NOW. EYE. EYE. OCATA EYE. Not some "dog" company or whatever? Who cares?
This is a financially weak, no cash flow, no sales, low cash, tainted past OTC stock. It's not freaking Facebook or Twitter or whatever. It's a tough sell and a high risk client for an underwriter. They make you pay for risk. HOW? Via the share discount being larger and higher fees and expenses.
Just like a person with a poor credit score pays more for an auto loan or house loan, etc. Same principle.
Also, just like a fleet buyer PAYS LESS for a single, large order of trucks or vans or whatever, never more. They pay wholesale and that's what an underwriter is, they're a wholesaler of shares of stock.
You go to any Ford or GM or whatever dealer you want in this country. You say I want to pay CASH, CASH for 50 brand new work trucks. You don't pay what Joe Q. Public pays? They send you into the fleet manager's office- they probably take you to a $150 per plate dinner that night and they hash out what kind of DISCOUNT you're gonna pay for those vehicles. If you don't like the price- you say, "SAYONARA", I'm going down the road to Bob's FORD and he already guaranteed me a 20% discount to retail or whatever.
The "explanation" given of paying a premium makes ZERO sense. None. It's not even markets or econ 101. It's the exact opposite of how a free market deal works.
Market cap about $5.6 million now. A stunning collapse and loss of value.
As of the last 10-Q filing, just their short term debts were over $4 million, they had $46K cash left and total assets of about $250K.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1388319/000114544314001305/d31740.htm
PAGE 4: last 10-Q filed:
Cash and cash equivalents $46,592
Total current assets $226,619
Accounts payable $ 2,068,256
Accrued expenses $2,291,809
Total current liabilities $10,336,315
And look at those "revenues" so called "sales"- they made almost no money on them, totally eaten up in cost of sale. Didn't amount to a hill of beans.
Total revenue $579,536
Cost of sales $523,222
So on $579K in "revenue" they only netted:
$579,536 - $523,222 = $56,314
Yep, a lousy $56K cash went in their account from $579K in "revenues". About a 10% gross margin. Those "revenues" amounted to almost no gain or cash to the company. $56K for an entire qtr, all eaten up by out of control costs and expenses.
I guess Magna is not known as a "share price crusher" for no reason looking at present share price, just since it was announced they'd inked deals for "financing" with Magna. And IMO, BHRT hasn't even made their first draw on the credit line yet.
If they were to draw $500K, which they may not even be able to draw that much in a single draw now, as there are limitations they can't exceed 9.99% of O/S share or something like that- but supposed they would make a draw now, which one would assume they must do soon as they must be near cash broke- all they had was the Manga $200K "note" and I'd assume that's already spent with their massive short term debts and now legal fees, plus huge base salaries and bonuses owed, etc. So what would a $500K "draw" from Magna look like now?
$500K at 1 cent a share. Magna pays 1 cent X .93 at the most = .93 cents or .093.
$500,000 / .093 = 53,763,440. 54 MILLION shares of pure, raw dilution it would now cost to get $500K dollars, which wouldn't even settle up the $800K bonuses presently owed to just 2 people per the last SEC filing, let alone all their other $4 million or so in accounts payable and other short term obligations plus basic overhead, rent and now increasing legal fees.
So in a period of a month or so- they'd have "spent" and diluted shares with Magna =
31 million on the $200K note + 54 million ($500K draw) + 9 million in Magna fees plus apparently potentially 15 million more shares to Maga for "additional fees" (see the filing) = 109 MILLION new dilutive, low priced share to just Manga if BHRT made one, single $500K "draw" on that credit line at this point in time. Staggering IMO.
And that $200K + $500K from Magna wouldn't even fund BHRT for more than a few months at most, given the reality of their financials in their last 10-Q filing.
There's a reason it appears they upped their A/S to 2 BILLION in mid 2014. They're gonna bust through their present 970 MILLION share limit here real soon IMO. Real soon.
Most recent 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."
Look at that furious rate of share dilution- it's staggering IMO.
No end in sight to massive, share price crushing dilution on this one, not that I can see. By the 10-K coming out in early 2015, I'd not be surprised to see near 800 MILLION or so fully diluted shares outstanding, somewhere in that neighborhood, on what is presently a 1 CENT, $5.x million market cap nano-nano, 4 or 5 person "company".
Looking real, real weak here IMO. They're on life support IMO.
Ask the DOCTOR???
"http://www.stemcellpioneers.com/showthread.php?9002-Ask-the-Doctor-January-questions-now-being-accepted&p=22184"
Well, all except the pesky little part about the FACT she is not a "doctor" in any way, shape or form that I'm aware of? Kinda a violation of medical ethics laws, among potentially many other state and Federal laws to represent oneself falsely as being a medical doctor when not licensed or even holding an M.D. degree or similar credentials?
Sorta a bit of a pesky little "misrepresentation" there it seems to me?
It's not the first time she's presented herself as being a "doctor" even though she is not.
It was done in Vail, not that long ago and she appears to have made no attempt to correct the 100% false information for the speaker "flyer/handout". She clearly IMO allowed herself to be lumped in as an "M.D." and listed as an "M.D." with other speakers who actually are licensed "M.D.'s" :
http://www.stemcelldoctors.org/tag/vail
"VAIL The Vail Symposium hosts Dr. Scott Brandt, Dr. Kristin Comella and Dr. Stan Jones who will lead an interactive discussion "
And she was also listed as a "doctor" on this website, in 2013. Accepting the labeling of being a "doctor", yet she's not an "M.D." or a holder of a Ph.D. and is thus a "doctor" of nothing per her own resume on the Bioheart corporate website, her own Google+ page, her own public on-line resume and numerous other sources:
http://www.stemcellpioneers.com/showthread.php?7000-Installment-61-Ask-the-Doctor-with-Kristin-Comella-CSO-of-Bioheart-Inc
Not real ethical IMHO to be falsely presenting oneself as a "doctor". It's more than likely illegal in many states as far as I'm aware- especially if one is implying they are an "M.D." and hold a medical license.
Look at the disclosure on that micro-blog, the "ask the doctor" little site:
"Please Note: THIS FORUM IS PATIENT MODERATED AND IS NOT CONNECTED TO ANY CLINIC OR DOCTOR. IF YOU WISH TO CONTACT A CERTAIN DOCTOR OR CLINIC, PLEASE LOOK IN THE ASK THE DOCTOR SECTION FOR DOCTOR OR CLINIC PHONE NUMBERS AND EMAIL ADDRESSES."
They are implying, IMO, that these are actual medical "doctors" being interviewed. Comella is not a "doctor" by any stretch as far as I'm aware?
" The current $6.21 in the offering for the $62 mil is understood to be the starting PPS which could be higher but definitely not lower." = 100% FALSE statement.
Could not be more wrong. That $6.21 number is simply a "template" price plugged in based on the closing price the day the document is printed, it even says so right in the document. It in NO way, shape or form is some imaginary "floor" price for the offering. Not even close.
Underwriters DO NOT pay more than retail for shares as they're taking risk and tying up a large amount of capital. For doing so they get a share discount and fees and expenses in return for that risk.
As of today, this AM the share price is $6.11. A "standard" share discount to an underwriter is 7% minimum typically, maybe 10%. For a high risk penny stock moving from the OTC, it will be higher than 7% to 10%, as there is ZERO chance the underwriter is going to take the risk of getting stuck holding a bag of OTC, tainted past, poor financial condition OCAT shares. Those underwriters want to flip-trade out of those shares ASAP and fora profit- and to do that they need a "spread".
At even a 10% discount to today's price, the offering would price at:
$6.11 X .9 = $5.49 a share. IMO, it will be much lower than that as it's already dipped into the $5's. No sophisticated hedge fund or investors are gonna pay ONE PENNY over what they could have bought it for in the past few weeks, not for larger, single chunk transactions. No way, no how. Never gonna happen.
Add in 30% of pure, raw, 100% dilutive shares, all 10 MILLION hitting the market in short order- and it's a major down force to the share price, nearly always unless of course acredive to earnings or growth or similar, which of course is not the case in this situation. This is pure, cash-burn-rate money to be consumed and only more dilution will follow it as they generate no cash, have no investors, no other way to fund their operations.
Simple as that.
" for the $62 mil of the new 10 mil shs placement will be over.
"??
What $62 million of 10 million shares? There's no price on that offering yet? So how is it known that 10 million shares will = $62 million???
That's impossible to know, and further, they're under no "quit period" presently. That secondary is open, live and can/could place/sell at any time.
The amount the offering will "net" to OCAT will be equal to:
10 million shares (and if the underwriters take the over-allotment then 1.5 million more) X the share price the underwriter is willing to pay including their share discount - underwriters fees - minus underwriter expeneses
THAT is how much OCAT will bank and there is no way to know if it will be $62 million. Given the present share price, it's highly, highly likely that 10 million shares will net OCAT far less than $62 million. Not even close to that amount.
"Didn't you know ocat is the scam of the century?"
So it's a "scam" according to all those facts presented.
Very interesting take IMO. Well researched facts and a cogent viewpoint that the company is a total SCAM.
I don't personally share that viewpoint but I find the facts and the "case" outline to have been very thorough and well presented.
I'll personally have to consider all that factual input to further formulate my own opinion about the company. Quite a bit of fact based info presented there.
Appreciate the great post and facts. Thanks.
What about all the lawsuits BHRT seems to be involved in? They seem to spend more on legal fees than any research and development IMO?
This was another case besides the two recent ones, the most recent seeking $2.3 million plus interest in damages and naming every director and Sr mgt member of the company.
https://www.clerk-17th-flcourts.org/Clerkwebsite/BCCOC2/OdysseyPA/CaseSummary.aspx?CaseID=7862332&hidSearchType=party_case&DisplayCitation=no&CaseNumber=CACE14021256&SearchType=
That's the recent one.
This was an older one:
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? I wonder if they got "paid" in shares of stock or something by the company? They appear to have been "hired" by the company IMHO. How else would BHRT even find those two, let alone contact them?
Between bonuses and large base salaries for a few people and lots of seemingly never ending legal fees- what else to they use their cash on I wonder? It never seems to go to fund "trials" or any actual R&D per their own SEC filings?
Very interesting IMO.
NO. "Higher Highs!!! Higher Lows!!!"
The stock is in a total free-fall, major down trend and no "PR" or "news" or anything they've tried to put out has even made a slight dent at reversing it, not in the slightest. It technically and financially in serious weakness. About to add another zero after the decimal point IMO.
That is one FUGLY UGLY chart and a 50% plus LOSER just since late Oct, only about 2 months ago. It's a classic of LOWER HIGHS and LOWER LOWS. Textbook for use of convertible debt and the resulting death spiral IMO. Textbook. There is no bid support below this downtrend, none.
And all they got is massive, continuous dilution hitting in wave after wave. That chart, was produced, right through the middle of probably the greatest bull market cycle in world history and after BHRT just paid 2 people, all the cash they have and then some in the form of massive base pay increases and cash bonuses, $800K of cash bonuses to just 2 people of a company of 4 full time and 1 part time "employee" per their own SEC filings, despite finishing a qtr w/ $46K total cash left on-hand, huge debts and essentially ZERO spent on "R&D" ($3K per month, lousy dollars per their own 10-Q SEC filing). Huge "bonuses" for 2 people- to produce nothing "results", and total negative shareholder ROI like those in that chart above.
A picture is worth a 1000 words.
$6.11, down, red -1.45%.
Kinda hard to imagine if this was their "best year ever", and they fired off every key "PR" and "event" they've ever had- the "article" and the name change "re-branding" effort and talk of the "uplist" and the "road show" and "trial results" and all the rest- that this is how it closes out 2014?
Just seems like nothing has moved the needle on this, which is a bit troubling IMO? They pretty much fired off their entire salvo of PR and what not, and the stock is gonna close out the yr parked near its 52 week low? That's not a real sign of strength IMO.
Not when we're passing through the middle of probably the greatest bull market in the history of planet earth- when even the weak boats were lifted with the ever rising tides. It's been hard to trade down or decline in these markets. Nearly everything is up to some degree- the money's been flowing so easy and the trend so strong to the upside.
Going to be interesting to say the least, to see what they can do to get 2015 going. "If" they price and place this secondary (at what price, how much of a discount to this present market price?), let alone "uplist" in the near term and all. If they can't put some serious coin on the books- then they can't launch into funding a serious phase II in any way. That's the hinge pin right there. They gotta play the dilution game to get moving and at the same time hope the dilution doesn't hurt the share price any more than it's already been hurt. It's a "box" they gotta get out of to move forward.
I think one way or another at least one bitter pill has to be swallowed, then take the initial lumps, then try and move forward and execute the plan to 100% near perfection, w/o snafus. The market now for them appears very unforgiving of anything except near perfect execution and delivery on promises and results.
My 2 cents.
" I haven't even seen a flicker as of yet"??
More like the landing lights on a 747 IMO. Glaring.
Their financial condition is past desperate. They don't go to Magna, a toxic lender of last resort for no reason, or Asher or Daniel James, etc.
The stock touched ONE CENT yesterday, down 90% from the March/April high. A glowing "success" story to be sure. And no, no supposed "revenues" or "PR" or "news" has made a wit of difference.
Read the SEC filings. They finished out last qtr with $46K lousy cash on hand against over $4 MILLION in just short term debts like accounts payable and other immediately due bills. They're so broke they pay common bills by issuing out 10's of millions of shares of common stock every single qtr.
The "revenue" last qtr was nearly totally consumed in massive expense increases and also had a lousy 10% gross margin, meaning they put almost nothing in the bank from it due to it's high costs. (READ the SEC filings, the last 10-Q for starters)
The Magna "credit line" gets more and more dilutive the lower the share price drops and they can draw less and less per draw per the stipulations in the credit line as the price drops lower - READ the prospectus/share registration statement.
Sell Myocell? To who and for what, a dollar? They don't even hold patent on Myocell anymore? SEE SEC FILINGS. How can they sell what's not even proprietary to them anymore? How?
Read their AUDITOR GOING CONCERN warning- they have one foot in the BK grave yard and now huge legal expenses too boot, with a new lawsuit seeking $2.3 million plus interest in damages, for a nano cap company with essentially no cash, $250K total assets to their name, not even the value of a small, low income condo in my neck of the woods. They also now owe $800K cash bonuses to just two people in the company- that will consume essentially everything they can "draw" on the Magna credit line.
They don't conduct any FDA trials and haven't for years. They have no money to conduct trials. Their key trials will be dead and parked for 5 yrs now entering 2015. And there's not a chance in heck they have dime one to fund them given their desperate financial condition right now. Just a carrot they keep dangling IMO, but that never happens and never materializes.
Also, what "products/therapies" do they supposedly "sell" or "teach" others to use, as their own SEC filed 10-K says they HAVE NONE and NOTHING they have has been proven safe for use in humans according to their own SEC filings?
Last filed 10-K, PAGE 39:
"We do not currently have product liability insurance because none of our product candidates has yet been approved for commercialization. While we plan to seek product liability insurance coverage if any of our product candidates are sold commercially, we cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain product liability insurance on commercially acceptable terms, if at all, or that we will be able to maintain such insurance at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect against potential losses.
Claims may be made by consumers, healthcare providers, third party strategic collaborators or others selling our products if one of our products or product candidates causes, or appears to have caused, an injury. We may be subject to claims against us even if an alleged injury is due to the actions of others. For example, we rely on the expertise of physicians, nurses and other associated medical personnel to perform the medical procedures and processes related to our product candidates. If these medical personnel are not properly trained or are negligent in using our product candidates, the therapeutic effect of our product candidates may be diminished or the patient may suffer injury, which may subject us to liability. In addition, an injury resulting from the activities of our suppliers may serve as a basis for a claim against us.
We do not intend to promote, or to in any way support or encourage the promotion of, our product candidates for off-label or otherwise unapproved uses. However, if our product candidates are approved by the FDA or similar foreign regulatory authorities, we cannot prevent a physician from using them for any off-label applications. If injury to a patient results from such an inappropriate use, we may become involved in a product liability suit, which will likely be expensive to defend."
PAGE 31:
"Our product candidates may never be commercialized due to unacceptable side effects and increased mortality that may be associated with such product candidates.
Possible side effects of our product candidates may be serious and life-threatening. A number of participants in our clinical trials of MyoCell have experienced serious adverse events potentially attributable to MyoCell, including six patient deaths and 18 patients experiencing irregular heartbeats. A serious adverse event is generally an event that results in significant medical consequences, such as hospitalization, disability or death, and must be reported to the FDA. The occurrence of any unacceptable serious adverse events during or after preclinical and clinical testing of our product candidates could temporarily delay or negate the possibility of regulatory approval of our product candidates and adversely affect our business. Both our trials and independent trials have reported the occurrence of irregular heartbeats in treated patients, a significant risk to patient safety. We and our competitors have also, at times, suspended trials studying the effects of myoblasts, at least temporarily, to assess the risk of irregular heartbeats, and it has been reported that one of our competitors studying the effect of myoblast implantation prematurely discontinued a study because of the high incidence of irregular heartbeats."
PAGE 31:
" We have not yet treated a sufficient number of patients to allow us to make a determination that serious unintended consequences will not occur."
So what exact "products" or "therapies" do they "sell" and "teach" exactly again? Which ones?
Same 10-K PAGE 40:
"Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property
We hold limited patent and other intellectual property rights, and our success will be dependent in large part on safeguarding our existing intellectual property rights and obtaining patent and other proprietary protection for our product candidates.
We hold limited patent rights in our product candidates. Our MyoCath product candidate is protected by a patent, expiring in September 2017, in which we have an irrevocable co-exclusive license. Our MyoCell product candidate is no longer protected by patents, which means that competitors will be free to sell products that incorporate the same or similar technologies that are used in MyoCell without infringing our patent rights. As a result, MyoCell, if approved for use, may be vulnerable to competition in the form of products that use the same or similar technologies. We have previously licensed certain patents and patent applications relating to our MyoCell product candidate. These licenses have all lapsed as of the date of this report, although we have had discussions with the relevant licensor regarding a potential reinstatement of our rights in such licenses."
Last filed 10-Q, most recent qtr:
PAGE 23: (there goes any "revenues", they're already spent)
"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."
That's $525K + $500K + $250K + $300K = $1,575,000 to just TWO PEOPLE for a cash broke company that pays common bills in common stock and ends the qtr with $46K cash, TOTAL left on-hand. It's classic penny-ville IMO. "bonuses" for WHAT? For a near total loss to the common shares and near record lows? A market cap now in the bottom basement of about $6 million bucks total, barely equal to even their short term debts, let alone their long term debt exceeding $10 MILLION plus? The "company" is basically two people- that's it. One or two other "full time" and one part time, and one is to believe they conduct FDA level medical trials and "world wide" operations and all the rest?
The "revenues" made no difference- they've already issued them to themselves in massive base pay increases and cash bonuses. They don't even have the cash on-hand to pay the bonuses so they then issue themselves "promissory notes" and will pay themselves FIRST from any Magna or other money that comes in, while they spent a grand total of $3K lousy per month on "R&D" for a supposed "heart research" and "heart trails" company. There's no trials being funded or conducted and the cash is not there, not even remotely there to fund any trials.
10-Q, PAGE 27 (typical wash-list of issuing out common shares of stock to pay common bills as they're so cash broke at any given time. They can't even make their accounts payable using cash, they're so cash poor and no, the "revenue" made no difference, again, cost of sales consumed almost all the revenue. They netted barely 10% of it, see the 10Q under revenue and cost of sales)
"Subsequent issuances
On October 3, 2014, the Company issued 514,886 shares of its common stock as payment of $70,521 interest on its Northstar (related party) debt.
In October 2014, the Company issued 1,818,182 shares of its common stock in settlement of $20,000 of convertible debt.
In October 2014, the Company issued 1,293,103 shares of its common stock in settlement of $15,000 of convertible debt.
In October 2014, the Company issued 2,260,764 shares of its common stock in settlement of $18,000 of convertible debt and accrued interest of $2,120.
In October 2014, the Company issued 552,846 shares of its common stock in settlement of $5,500 of convertible debt and accrued interest of $1,300.
In October 2014, the Company issued an aggregate 2,773,549 shares of common stock for consulting services.
In October 2014, the Company issued 538,875 shares of common stock in settlement of accounts payable."
From the latest Magna "credit line" share registration statement and disclosures, PAGE 75
http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=64900333
"Legal Proceedings
On November 10, 2014, the Company was served with a lawsuit by an alleged assignee and a guarantor to a Loan Guarantee, Payment and Security Agreement. These parties claim breach of that Agreement and damages of approximately $2.3 Million plus interest. The assignor and assignee also sued the Company’s directors and a past director and an affiliate shareholder for breach of fiduciary duty, claiming damages as alleged creditors arising out of these parties' alleged participation in Northstar Biotech Group, LLC, a secured creditor of the Company."
https://www.clerk-17th-flcourts.org/Clerkwebsite/BCCOC2/OdysseyPA/CaseSummary.aspx?CaseID=7862332&hidSearchType=party_case&DisplayCitation=no&CaseNumber=CACE14021256&SearchType=
https://www.clerk-17th-flcourts.org/Clerkwebsite/BCCOC2/OdysseyPA/CaseSummary.aspx?CaseID=7155410&hidSearchType=party_case&DisplayCitation=no&CaseNumber=CACE13024037&SearchType=
They are "lawyering up" in a major way to defend this suit- more cash and expenses with money they do not have. Their financial condition is desperate IMO. Their own auditors and Sr mgt says the same in their "going concern" warning that are in every key SEC filing and their expenses have only grown larger in 2014, requiring more cash to survive for a "company" of essentially 4, maybe 5 people. All as they conduct no trials and spend essentially nothing on research and development. So what exact "business" are they even in, anymore? I can't even figure that out? If they're not an FDA trial company seeking a legit, FDA approved product, then what is their actual "business" they're in?
" the time a company files a registration statement with the SEC until SEC staff declared the registration statement effective."
And their registration statement, OCATS, is already "effective" and has been since Nov 14th, 2014.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1140098/999999999514003368/xslEFFECTX01/primary_doc.xml
Thus, they are not under any "quiet" period regarding the placement of the secondary. It's "live" and documented with the SEC and can price and place at any time. It's in the hands of the underwriters to pitch the shares, gauge the risk and demand, and then make OCAT their share price offer, which they may have already done and maybe OCAT balked. That's what I think caused the events of Friday, Dec 18th. I don't see any other explanation for what major screw up happened that day. The LAST freaking thing they needed was doubt and uncertainty about them or their stock or ability to look professional, but Dec 18th screwed the pooch big time.
Presently, using the financials, the balance sheet as included in the recently filed prospectus, OCAT does not meet the minimum shareholder equity requirement of $4 million to list on the lowest tier of the NASDAQ. OCAT presently has a positive share holder equity of about $723K dollars (see either last 10-Q filing or same info which is in the balance sheet financial section of the prelim prospectus).
They need that secondary equity on their balance sheet to uplist or need to find about $3.2 million, minimum, somewhere else- as in tapping Lincoln possibly. I don't know (will need to read the SEC filings) if they can tap Lincoln in a single draw that large or not?
That's the pickle and constraints they're facing. They want to uplist but they need shareholder equity. Their secondary won't price and sell as easy when they are an OTC traded stock with a pretty tainted past and very weak financials, etc. They need one to do the other and vice versa. My guess, they're gonna need to bite the bitter pill, and take a first round of financing on a lower than expected priced secondary. That'll put some cash on the books giving them shareholder equity well exceeding the $4 mil requirement but cause a share price hit. But it gets them able to list to the lower tier NASDAQ and be able to proclaim the start of key trials getting off the dime.
They then will tap the rest of that $100 million shelf again later in the yr for more dilution and then still more than likely need to file another shelf and do it again for more financing. They're gonna burn cash for the next few yrs and burn a lot of it. Unless someone steps in to partner somewhere along the way or put up some major equity stake financing- it's dilution, dilution and more dilution. It's all they got or lights out. They're burning about $2 million a month right now, with no phase II underway. That number is going to explode upward due to their R&D expense line ramping up big time as soon as they get seriously underway funding an FDA quality phase II.
I don't see any way out of the box they're in now other than something close to that scenario above, unless they pull a magic rabbit out of the hat somehow.
"This page was blank as well and now its not? "
NO, the page has had that generic template info on it clear back to Dec 18th, the "we-uplisted-didn't-really-uplist" disaster day.
One more time, companies file regulatory documents with the SEC. PERIOD. They do not and are not required to file anything with the NASDAQ as a public traded company. The NASDAQ has no regulatory powers or enforcement powers. NASDAQ is a public traded company same as OCAT and is regulated by the SEC the same as OCAT.
Any info that the NASDAQ posts is "scraped" from SEC filings or other public information sites.
If it's not on the SEC EDGAR database, again, it doesn't mean a thing. There's 50 or more financial sites out there and MOST have wrong company info on any given day. Yahoo finance is epic wrong most of the time- for the same reason. They use auto-bots to "scrape" all the company info off of the SEC and other sites. Thus, because of errors in the formatting and similar; their info as to share count, float, ROI and similar are often just plain wrong. The info is also often out of date- as they must "crawl" the other sites periodically and then update.
You watch when a company files a 10-Q or 10-K filing on the SEC site. THAT instant, all the new numbers for shares outstanding, fully diluted shares, cash on hand, etc are 100% correct and the Gospel on that SEC filing- that is thee only document that matters. But go and compare to other "finance" sites- they will lag, often for weeks while their auto-bot programs finally make a pass and update to catch up to the latest SEC filings.
Imagine away, "think" the NASDAQ site means something, read all the erroneous sites and info one wants. Until it's on that SEC site, I can guarantee it's not correct and not "live" and not real. Just the way it works. Not even debatable. OCAT doesn't care a wit about sending info to NASDAQ or whatever- but the SEC, the SEC and FINRA can shut the company down, halt their stock from trading and put um out of business in the blink of an eye. The REGULATORY bodies, the SEC are who they, OCAT, owe their documents and filings to, not the NASDAQ. The SEC enforces the securities laws and filing requirement in this country, not the NYSE or NASDAQ or any other markets.
That SEC "EDGAR" database was created and is maintained for the very reason- to be the singular repository and singular point source for ALL public traded company regulatory filings as required under SEC law in this nation. Again, until that "preliminary" prospectus is updated there, until those blank fields are filled in there- it DID NOT HAPPEN YET. It's thee first place that will know and be updated.
NO. "The secondary public offering price is set at $6.21"
NO, NO IT'S NOT. That is a generic template page "parked" on the NASDAQ site and doesn't mean a thing. They use "auto-bot" software programs that "scrape" that info off of SEC and other filing sites. No human edits that page or checks it. That $6.21 was nothing but the share price on the day of the filing. That's the reason the CEO is incorrectly listed as Gary Rabin among other errors. It's "scraped" template info. Worthless.
The template page has been there, for going on 2 weeks now. It has nothing to do with the pricing of the offering. SEC. GO TO THE SEC for the only info that matters. In the markets it's GOD, THE SEC, FINRA and DTC in that order. No one else matters. If it's not on the SEC EDGAR database- then it did not happen yet, especially when it's a document as critical as a final prospectus. Companies don't file documents with the NASDAQ, there's no law requiring that. They file um with the regulators- the SEC. Any info NASDAQ operates from is taken from the SEC FILINGS.
The ONLY place one will find the final, offical offering price correctly- is when the "preliminary" prospectus becomes a "final" document and is uploaded to the SEC EDGAR database. That is the first place that will be notified- and it will occur almost instantaneous with the pricing of the offering- if and when it's priced and sold.
As of right now, the prospectus is "preliminary" and "blank" in every key field- as it's been since first filed. There is NO PRICING completed yet.
If it's not on the SEC, then it hasn't happened- it's that simple.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1140098/000104746914009660/a2222363z424b5.htm
FIRST PAGE:
"Public offering price
$ BLANK $ BLANK
Underwriting discounts and commissions(1)
$ BLANK $ BLANK
Proceeds, before expenses, to Ocata Therapeutics, Inc.
$ BLANK $ BLANK
(1)
See "Underwriting" for additional disclosure regarding underwriting commission and expenses.
We have granted the underwriters an option for a period of 30 days from the date of this prospectus supplement to purchase up to 1,500,000 additional shares of our common stock at the public offering price, less the underwriting discounts and commissions. If the underwriters exercise this option in full, the total underwriting discounts and commissions payable by us will be $ BLANK and the total proceeds to us, before expenses, will be $ BLANK .
The underwriters expect to deliver the shares to the investors on or about BLANK , 2014.
Jefferies Cowen and Company Piper Jaffray
The date of this prospectus supplement is , 2014.
"
END QUOTE. Until every one of those BLANKS is filled in- then it hasn't priced or sold yet. PERIOD. END OF STORY. First ones who will be told are the SEC via that document being finalized and uploaded to that database.
"$OCAT is in quiet period until the offering completes itself in 1 to 2 weeks."?????
NO, no they're not. There is NO statement, SEC filing, written wording, anywhere or anyplace indicating some mythological "quiet period" and that the offering is thus going to "complete" in 1 to 2 weeks.
What SEC filing or line in the prospectus or anywhere else is this written, by the company and not via some commentary on a msg board or similar?
I'd love to read the details.
"Prospectus said substantially higher??
The prospectus didn't say anything of the sort? Higher than what? There is NO price given in the prospectus and certainly not $12 a share?
Where? What page number and exact verbiage?
Simply not true. Not even close.
The price will be set by the market, via the underwriters- based on demand and pricing power. PERIOD. Like all secondary offerings. There's no stated price in the PRELIMINARY prospectus? Every field regarding a price is presently blank. Empty. No number entry in the field as it should be, as the deal is yet to price and no one has clue one where it will price, other than the underwriters are guaranteed a share price discount to market.
Latest filed prospectus update, SEC EDGAR database:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1140098/000104746914009660/a2222363z424b5.htm
PAGE S-6:
"Use of proceeds
We estimate that the net proceeds from this offering will be approximately $ ____________ million (or approximately $________ million if the underwriters exercise their option to purchase additional shares in full) after deducting estimated underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us. We intend to use the net proceeds from the sale of the offered securities for general corporate purposes, which may include, but are not limited to, working capital, strategic acquisitions and other potential business development activities, ongoing research and development activities, funding clinical trials and regulatory approval application processes, and capital expenditures."
NOTICE, the fields are BLANK regarding a price, but the underwriters are to receive a DISCOUNT to market, as they do on any deal like this.