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.
Christopher,
You're welcome!
Sarah is, I believe it's reasonable to conclude, a DNAPrint employee. I called DNAPrint Genomics, at 941-366-3400, and pressed 0, and she is the one who answers.
P.S., congratulations on your becoming the new moderator here.
Daniel
Another update:
I just spoke with Sarah, with DNAPrint Genomics, on the phone, again. This is what I learned today, from her:
While the test turnaround time is normally 6 to 9 weeks, she spoke with the lab (as she said she would, yesterday,) and learned that one of their instruments is currently down. Sarah said the instrument should be back up and running within a few weeks. She suggested I call back in 3 weeks and place my AncestryByDNA order then.
Daniel
souzagotcha,
Thanks, that's also good news!
Daniel
Update: I just called the company and spoke with Sarah. She said the turnaround for receiving the ANCESTRYbyDNA™ 2.5 test results is normally 6 to 9 weeks.
She said she's going to talk to the lab staff and see if she can get a more accurate number for me (and perhaps get the results to me sooner,) and call me back. So yes, it sounds like their lab is still operating, which is good news.
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
Hi Christopher,
Yes, I'm still buying. I'll be filing another Form 4 with the SEC, today. (I filed a Form 4 and a Form 5 yesterday, pertaining to last year's trades, and I need to report some trades I've already done this year, as well.)
Good luck to you, and all of us "good guys."
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
Of course. As I said, I've emailed the company (today,) asking how long I should expect it will take, for my test results to come back. Naturally, I should know more definitively, when the results actually do arrive, but a statement from the company about this is relevant.
Regarding the question of whether or not the lab is still active, this item might be of interest. It has been reported to me, by a third party, that Shannon Boyd returned his/her call, on December 23, 2008. (I could say whose call was returned, but it was a private communication, so I won't. I respect people's privacy in such matters.) (Note, no material nonpublic information was given to me.)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=shannon+boyd+dnaprint
"...Shannon Boyd, Senior DNA Analyst for DNAPrint Genomics..."
Infer whatever you wish...
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
They are still taking orders directly through their website.
http://ancestrybydna.com/welcome/ordernow/
I would think that, if the product was no longer being offered, and test results provided, it would have been removed. (And from the many distributors' websites; the products are still listed there, as well.)
I've emailed the company to see if they can give me an idea of the time frame, of how long it would take for me to see my test results. We already know there is a backlog. The question is, how much of a backlog? And is this unproven claim of yours, that they are no longer delivering test results, true or false?
Believe it or not, I haven't yet taken the test, though I've intended to, for a long time. My intention now is to take the test as soon as possible.
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
"frogdreaming,"
Some of the mentions I've seen in recent months were on usenet. Unfortunately, I didn't save those links, because I didn't anticipate that someone would start claiming that test results were no longer being delivered. (It seems like there is some new, unsubstantiated, negative claim every week.) The messages are often not very search-friendly (keywords like DNAPrint and AncestryByDNA not always present, but reading the body of the message, it is obvious what they are talking about.)
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
"frogdreaming,"
Links of that sort have been posted here. I don't know why you wouldn't be aware of them.
A couple links, to material from recent months:
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2008/11/28/segments/113754
http://www.ancestrymagazine.com/2008/07/features/cousin-barack-and-me/
I've seen other links to blog entries, in my email (news and search alerts that I subscribe to,) but I didn't see those links posted here, and I have since deleted those emails (else I would be happy to post those links, as well.) From memory, they were just links to blog entries, from recent months, from people discussing their AncestryByDNA test results, and (in at least one case) the results of the blogger's spouse.
Keeping abreast of what's posted here, and subscribing to search alerts, can go a long way in keeping up with recent developments, concerning DNAG.
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
Christopher,
Sorry, but I couldn't say. (Your guess is probably as good as mine.)
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
Hi Christopher,
Well, either they are selling AncestryByDNA, or they are selling some unknown product that uses the same names/terminology. It's like, if a company is selling products that are named the same as (for instance) DuPont products, it is reasonable to assume that those are, actually, DuPont products. (Unless it is plausible that a counterfeit product is being sold, or other form of infringement.) There aren't a lot of companies doing autosomal ancestry testing, so it's pretty easy to infer which company is doing the testing, if it isn't explicitly stated on the website, using the information that is provided. I hope that helps.
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
"frogdreaming,"
Yet, we have reports from others, including journalists/bloggers, of AncestryByDNA test results having been delivered to customers, in recent months. Your claim, that "apparently DNAG is no longer providing test results to it's vendors," does not appear to be supported by the available evidence.
Is there a backlog, and associated delays? Reportedly, yes. Could there be cases where longer-than-usual delays occur? Yes. Does that mean the company is "no longer providing test results..."? I don't think so.
As I mentioned before, a backlog is what is known as a "quality" problem to have. It is a problem, certainly. But one that could, conceivably, be resolved favorably. There are much worse problems that companies can have, than a backlog that occurs during a financing pinch.
Always assuming the worst is not a strategy I employ, because I do not find it useful, nor do I consider it to be fair or constructive. I try to take a much broader, and more realistic, view, based on all available evidence, and reasonable assessments of the company's potential future earnings, returns for shareholders, and likelihood thereof. People who invest in microcap research and development stocks, particularly ones that have known issues (like a financing pinch,) should understand the risks they are assuming, or they should not invest in such stocks.
I make my own assessments and decisions, and assume risks as I so choose. Everyone needs to make their own informed decisions. I've never asked anyone to invest in anything, or avoid investing in anything, merely because of my own opinions.
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
Thanks, Sam! It's definitely a positive, to see the list of AncestryByDNA distributors continue to grow.
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
Hi all,
I'm back from vacation... My wife and I were in Yucatan, Mexico for a few weeks. It was fun and relaxing.
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
LOL. I'm still buying. Today, I had the good fortune of picking up some shares at .0003, even while my buy limit orders at .0004 are still in place. That is strange, but I won't complain. (Previously, I wasn't getting any more shares at .0003 -- the supply at that price dried up -- which is why I started buying at .0004. Who knows what strangeness allowed me to buy a small number of shares at .0003 again, today?)
I just filed another Form 4, to cover some buying I did last week. I'll have to file another, soon.
Good luck and Happy Holidays to all DNAG shareholders!
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
Thanks, Sam!
Just a note to all, I probably won't be posting much for the next 3 weeks, as I'm going to be very busy, involved in family holiday-related activities, etc.
I hope everyone has a great holiday season.
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
"Porgie Tirebiter,"
Another alias, "UkiwiS," tried pushing that defective insinuation over on Google Finance's DNAG discussion forum.
Below are excerpts from what I posted, in that thread.
Link to the thread in question:
http://finance.google.com/group/google.finance.717321/browse_thread/thread/7dab037cf70a9e9b/5449091158956f8e?hl=en&lnk=gst
--
The record shows the trademark abandonment date as September 12, 2006. This isn't recent news. And we know that DNAWitness has continued to be used, by law enforcement agencies, since then. The trademark status does not affect DNAPrint Genomics' ownership of the intellectual property, or of the product. It only pertains to the name. I suppose they have greater issues to worry about, more pressing ways to spend money. (We know they are in a difficult spot, with the financing issue.) If some other company wants to start using the name, "DNAWitness," that probably isn't a significant problem. The intellectual property, product, and relationships with customers, would still belong to DNAPrint Genomics.
Similarly, we know the corporate registration of DNAPrint Genomics lapsed for a few months, but that it was recently restored (the fee was paid.) This isn't end-of-the-world stuff. If there weren't issues, I certainly wouldn't be able to buy DNAG stock so cheaply, anyway. (In other words, OF COURSE there are issues.)
--
The trademark only pertains to the name. Not the product, the intellectual property, or the relationships with customers. Look it up. Nobody should talk about trademarks and be ignorant of this basic consideration. If one trademark is abandoned, and another company happens to trademark that name, it is simple enough to just trademark a new name for the thing. Some trademarks are critical, of course, like "Coca Cola." That's quite different from the case of DNAWitness.
--
[bleep] Please be specific, when you say, "The DNAWitness one is interesting because there is a pending application for DNAWitness tha is not in the name of DNAPrint." You do not identify the application in question, nor do you say whether it is a trademark application, or patent application. [bleep] [bleep]
If you are referring to patent application #20080027756, it clearly attributes DNAPrint Genomics.
--
I don't have a definitive answer, for why they filed that patent application that way.
At least, in the body of the application, DNAPrint does appear. The parts that clearly attribute DNAPrint are:
"[0047] 3. Human eye color (developed by DNAPrint Genomics, Inc.);"
"[0051] 7. Determination of the origin of genetic ancestry by using a commercial product such as AncestrybyDNA, EURODNA or other similar or derivative products (developed by DNAPrint Genomics, Inc. or other companies, corporations, individuals, groups of individuals, entities or institutions)."
"[0082] We have also used the 176 AIM panel and DNAPrint admixture program to study intra-population distributions of admixture."
"Unfortunately, this has only been accomplished satisfactorily so for iris color (by DNAPrint laboratories, and Frudakis et al., 2003, supra) and to a lesser extent, variable skin pigmentation."
"DNAPrint has constructed one such database with IGAA estimates obtained from the 176 AIMs discussed herein."
"DNAPrint analyzed a sample common to several of the rape/murder scenes and determined the donor was a person of 85% sub-Saharan African/15% Native or Indigenous American mix, and more importantly, likely to express a darker skin shade with other overtly African characteristics (FIG. 11)."
In my opinion, this patent application is obviously for a derivative work, largely based on DNAPrint Genomics' intellectual property. The applicants made no attempt to hide that connection, in the body of the application.
Just a guess, but perhaps this application was filed differently (DNAPrint Genomics not listed among the inventors/applicants,) partly due to the restructuring that was attempted. (Funding was sought, that would permit a spinoff of the pharma side of things, etc.) Related to the attempted spinoff, you can see that three corporate names were created, in Florida, but have since become inactive:
http://www.sunbiz.org/index.html
(Search for DNAPrint)
DNAPRINT FORENSICS, INC. P07000124657 INACT/UA
DNAPRINT GENOMICS, INC. P00000047905 INACT/UA
DNAPRINT PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. P05000136869 INACT/UA
As I have previously mentioned, the corporate registration in Utah was renewed (after it had lapsed for some months,) so the original corporation, DNAPrint Genomics, Inc., still exists.
As Investor Relations consistently reports, in email responses, they continue to seek funding. A great deal depends on that. I'm optimistic about what could occur with the right funding. My opinion only, of course.
--
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
Sazsquatch,
You're welcome! Merry Christmas to you, too (and to all)!
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
"frogdreaming,"
That does not indicate complete equivalency.
A Corvette moves someone down the road. So does a Yugo. That does not indicate that the intellectual property backing the Corvette has no value, or confers no advantage.
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
"Porgie Tirebiter,"
This statement of yours, is a baseless claim that contradicts the available evidence:
"...the fact that DNAPrint seems to have ceased doing business..."
Major players in the DNA testing industry continue to offer AncestryByDNA test kits, for sale. When you said, "What if these people start wanting their money back?," you are implying that these companies are doing something dishonest. I think, rather, what you are claiming has zero credibility.
P.S., I have no intention of spending a lot of time dancing with chronic hecklers who make plainly false accusations and claims. My objective is to buy DNAG shares. I'm doing that.
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
"frogdreaming,"
Nowhere does that quote contradict the fact that DNAPrint Genomics' intellectual property, in the Ancestry Informative Markers, is an advantage. My evidence is in the literature, and press reports, describing DNAPrint Genomics' AIMs (Ancestry Informative Markers,) which is readily accessible.
P.S., you flip-flopped on the insider trading restrictions issue. You were clearly claiming I was subject to insider trading restrictions (I am not, because I possess no insider information.) What I am subjected to is disclosure requirements, merely because I own more than a certain percentage of the outstanding shares of common stock. You flip-flopped in then trying to claim that's what you were talking about, all along. The argument is won: I am not, contrary to what you claimed, subject to insider trading restrictions. Merely disclosure requirements (disclosing my buys and sells, and information derived from that, specifically, percentage of outstanding shares that I own.) If you continue to flip-flop, and continue to refuse to retract anything you claimed that was since proven to be false, I will simply not take your statements seriously, at all, but will have to dismiss them as being nothing more than dishonest harassment.
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
Note, there appears to be substantial demand for AncestryByDNA testing. When I spoke with DNA Profiles of America, on the phone today, they indicated that there is a substantial backlog of tests to be processed. That's what is called a "quality" problem to have.
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
List of Distributors, DNAPrint Genomics' AncestryByDNA Products
(According to the distributors' websites)
Updated December 15, 2008
Notes: I currently count 30 distributors with no issues detected, and 1 distributor with issues detected (included at the end of the list.) Note, the issue with DNA Profiles of America, that I was unable to reach them by phone, has been resolved. The company confirmed on the phone, today, (December 15,) that they are still selling AncestryByDNA.
All My Roots ["African-American DNA Tests"]
U.S.A. [Chicago, Illinois]
http://www.allmyroots.com/order.html
Andergene Labs
U.S.A. [Oceanside, California]
http://www.andergene.com/famhist.html
Caribbean Genetics
Jamaica, with collection sites in Tobago, Antigua, St.Lucia, Belize, Trinidad, Dominica and Barbados
http://www.caribbeangenetics.com/ancestry%20intro.html
Determigene
U.S.A. [collection sites throughout the U.S.A.]
http://www.determigene.com/detail_ancestry.asp
DNA Ancestors
Multiple locations, including Australia, Canada, Ireland, U.S.A., and U.K.
"...has experienced tremendous growth and expanded in to over 35 countries across the globe. Specializing in DNA testing services & focused on the development of innovative genetic testing services & associated products. Our laboratory procedures have achieved the highest standards with the prestigious award of the ISO 17025 accreditation."
http://www.dnaancestors.com/
DNA Ancestry
U.A.E. [Dubai]
http://www.dnaancestry.ae/
Alternate link:
http://www.easternbiotech.com/dnaancestry/Euro_DNA_TM.php
DNA Bioscience - Ethnicity Testing
U.K. [London]
http://www.dna-bioscience.co.uk/service_ethnicity.shtml
DNA Diagnostics
U.K. [Liverpool]
http://www.dnadiagnostics.co.uk/dna_paternity_testing.php?product_name=Ancestry%20by%20DNA
DNA Dimensions
U.S.A. [Metro-Detroit, Michigan]
http://www.detroitdna.com/euro.php?button=4
DNA Direct
U.S.A. [San Francisco, California]
http://www.dnadirect.com/patients/tests/genealogy_testing/what_are_the_tests.jsp
DNA Paternity Justice
U.S.A. [Virginia, USA. "...we supply Ancestry testing in any state." (from email response)]
http://www.dnapaternityjustice.com/ancestrytesting.html
DNA Profiles of America
U.S.A. [Texas]
http://www.dnapoa.com/Ancestry.html
DNA Reference Laboratory
U.S.A. [San Antonio, Texas]
http://www.dnareferencelab.com/ancestry.html
DNA Roots
U.S.A. [Cincinnati, Ohio]
http://www.dna-roots.com/index.html
DNA Test Express
U.S.A. [Houston, Texas]
http://www.ddstest.com/dnatestx/ancestry.html
DNA Testing Solutions
U.S.A. [Collection sites in Florida and Georgia, and "We also serve international clients in over 168 countries."]
http://www.dnatestingsolutions.com/html/ancestry.html
DNA Testing Systems (formerly DNA Consulting)
U.S.A. [Scottsdale, Arizona]
http://dnaconsultants.com/Detailed/437.html
DNA Worldwide
U.K. [Frome]
http://www.dna-worldwide.com/ancestry-testing/combined-ancestry/
EarthOrigins™ DNA Ancestry Testing
U.S.A. [Las Cruces, New Mexico]
https://www.gtldna.net/earth_origins_dna_ancestry.html
Gene Tree
U.S.A. [Maria Stein, Ohio]
http://www.testsymptomsathome.com/gti77.asp
Genelex
U.S.A. [Seattle, Washington]
http://www.healthanddna.com/ancestry/dna-testing.html
Genetest Corporation
Canada, U.S.A., and U.K. [info per phone call to company, December 9, 2008, 12:55 PM, PST.]
"Our affiliate collection site database consists of thousands of global sites."
http://cytogenetics.genetestlabs.com/services/cytogen_ethnic_ancestry_dna.htm
Genetic Identity
U.S.A. [Eugene, Oregon]
http://ancestrytest.com/Ancestry_Testing/ancestry_testing.html
HomeDNA Home Ancestry Testing
U.S.A. [Keller, Texas]
https://www.homedna.com/ancestry_tests.html
homeDNAdirect
Multiple locations, including Australia, Canada, E.U., France, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, U.K., and U.S.A.
http://www.homednadirect.com/content/index.php?section_id=20
IDENTIGENE
U.S.A. [Salt Lake City, Utah]
http://www.dnatesting.com/resources/ancestry-test-results.php
International Biosciences
Canada [Edmonton, Alberta]
http://www.ibdna.com/regions/CA/EN/?page=ancestry
Nimble Diagnostics
U.K.
http://www.nimblediagnostics.co.uk/ancordertest_uk.html
Paternity Experts LLC
U.S.A. [Eugene, Oregon, and Las Vegas, Nevada]
http://paternityexpert.com/ancestry_testing.html
RDNAP (Royal DNA Pharmacy)
U.S.A. [Brooklyn, New York]
http://www.royaldnapharmacy.com/Ancestry-DNA-Testing.html
Issues detected with the following distributor listing:
Medical Genomics
U.K., "and Europe" [London address]
http://www.medicalgenomics.co.uk/ordering.php
Issue: Listed product name appears to be outdated ("Euro-DNA 1.0") -- I have emailed them for a clarification, at info@medicalgenomics.co.uk
-----end of list-----
The above list is accurate to the best of my knowledge. I encourage everyone to do their own investigations of all facts. Don't just take my word for anything; find out for yourself.
According to the information provided by the distributors, AncestryByDNA is available in the following parts of the world:
Australia
Canada
Caribbean (Jamaica, Tobago, Antigua, St.Lucia, Belize, Trinidad, Dominica, and Barbados)
European Union
France
Ireland
Italy
New Zealand
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States of America
Also, DNA Ancestors says it has "has experienced tremendous growth and expanded in to over 35 countries across the globe," and DNA Testing Solutions says, "We also serve international clients in over 168 countries."
I'm excited to see that AncestryByDNA is already becoming so global.
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
"frogdreaming,"
I vehemently disagree. Where is your evidence?
Danial Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
"Porgie Tirebiter,"
You claim, regarding DNAPrint Genomics, "they do not seem to be actively engaged in business anymore."
That's funny, the products haven't been pulled from the numerous distributors' websites - including the websites of major players in the DNA testing industry.
Also, the company continues to respond to emails. (Investor Relations, etc.) We also have seen quite a few positive mentions, including from this year, from various third parties (even a Forensic Files Episode, "Good as Gold,") of the company. Do you really believe so many third parties would be reporting favorably on a company that isn't engaged in business anymore?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We aren't even facing an absence of evidence, in this regard. Your claim that, "they do not seem to be actively engaged in business anymore," is not supportable, and is directly contradicted by the facts we do have.
You make a claim, you substantiate it. Otherwise, it does not have any credibility.
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
Hi, Christopher,
You can email me at: dgplexus1@yahoo.com
I'm using a free account here on I-Hub, so I have no private message writing access, but I can read them, when others send them to me. My apologies to those who have PM'd me, at variuos points in time, and I wasn't able to respond... that's the reason for it.
P.S., the latest information I have, tells me that Ancestry.com isn't one of the distributors of AncestryByDNA. Other major (and minor) players are, however. Note that, not all ancestry testing is created equal. The old paradigm of mtDNA and yDNA testing, produces no information about the vast majority of ancestry, so it doesn't provide the information that many seek. AncestryByDNA does provide that information, because it's an autosomal test, utilizing Ancestrally Informative Markers from throughout the genome (not restricted to just the mitochondrial DNA, or the Y chromosome.)
Cheers,
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
Hi fsail52,
I'm not sure what the most dramatic sub-penny success stories have been. I haven't really delved into the history of that. I know the successes can be very dramatic. Sorry I don't have the definitive figures on that, with which to answer your question.
Here's something I just posted on Google Finance, to a detractor who was asking (deceptively, of course,) if DNAPrint Genomics can compete with Google (Google doesn't offer ancestry testing, but they are linked to the company, 23andMe) :
--
DNAPrint Genomics has an advantage over competitors (such as 23andMe, the competitor linked to Google,) in that they own the Ancestry Informative Markers intellectual property.
Unlike the broad scattergun approach the few competitors employ, these markers are reportedly much more informative, and produce more clearly delineated clusters, when the results are graphed. In other words, those markers are more informative (hence the word, "informative," in "Ancestry Informative Markers.")
--
Daniel Gannon
Potland, Oregon, USA
Update on DNA Paternity Justice, the latest AncestryByDNA distributor added to the list:
Etta Hankerson (the company's founder) responded to my message, seeking location/region information.
She discloses, "The home office is in Virginia but we supply Ancestry testing in any state." I've updated the list, accordingly.
> .... another addition to the list >>>
>
> DNA Paternity Justice
>
> DNAPaternityJustice.com offers DNA products from a
> nationally known certified AABB lab whose research
> scientists seek to discovery DNA analysis answers to serve
> our clients in genealogical research. We can help you trace
> your origin and discover your heredity lingage. Explore
> your ancestry and heredity lingage today by purchasing an
> AncestryByDNA 2.5, EurasianDNA 1.0 or EuropeanDNA2.0 test.
> the tests are easy, reliable, painless, affordable and
> safe. Get an analysis of your geographic origins simply by
> submitting to a painless DNA swab sample.
>
> http://www.dnapaternityjustice.com/ancestrytesting.html
>
> FOUNDER
>
> Etta Hankerson, a legendary pioneer whose passion for
> justice changed the lives of millions of Americans. She is
> the first person in the United States of America to win the
> right to use genetic testing in court. In a paternity case
> she challenged the constitutionally of Virginia's slave
> status law by requesting to use genetic testing as a method
> of establishing parentage though the use of the Leukocyte
> Antigen test. The Leukocyte Antigen Test (HLA) was backed
> by the World Health Organization and received the support
> of the American Bar Association.
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
Thanks for the link, Sam. I notice the December, 2008 (current month) publication date, for this one:
Linkage and association analysis of spectrophotometrically quantified hair color in Australian adolescents: the effect of OCA2 and HERC2.
Shekar SN, Duffy DL, Frudakis T, Sturm RA, Zhao ZZ, Montgomery GW, and Martin NG
The Journal of investigative dermatology 128(12):2807-14 2008 Dec
Four of the others have 2008 (current year) dates, as well.
> Papers written by Frudakis T:
> http://www.labmeeting.com/papers/public_author/Frudakis%20T
Daniel Gannon
Potland, Oregon, USA
Hi Tia (mlb4nd,)
Needless to say, I'm very bullish on DNAG.
I first learned of DNAPrint Genomics some years ago, through my reading and participation in various paleoanthropological (and related) groups and forums, when others mentioned the superior AncestryByDNA product(s.) I became impressed with the company's cutting edge technology, at that time, and the more I've learned about the company's technology, the more impressed I have become. Real-world successes and accolades also reinforce this assessment.
I estimate the company's chances of succeeding are significantly greater than 50% (my opinion only,) but I hesitate to try to put a firm number on it. I'll leave that as an exercise for others. Each investor much make up his or her own mind, anyway.
I'm not actually extremely wealthy, but I have some resources and income, and my aggressive portfolio has been growing. As it's been growing more, I've been buying more DNAG shares. As I mentioned in another post, I'm not opposed to the idea of helping finance DNAPrint Genomics directly. The time frame and amount(s) would largely depend on my portfolio's performance, and I haven't committed to anything specific. For now, I just continue to accumulate DNAG shares, which I consider a very strong buy.
Good luck to you, as well! And I hope you have a wonderful weekend.
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
Hello bag8ger, chiggah, and Detonate,
Thanks for your posts. I agree with what you all said. Chiggah, you're right. I won't be dissuaded by such tactics.
Good luck to all of us!
Sazsquatch,
No specific purpose, but it is satisfying to occasionally relay information to others, that disproves the false and twisted claims that certain "detractors" have claimed so frequently, in multiple forums (that nobody is interested in this stock, etc., etc., etc.) Most of the times I purchase shares, I didn't mention it at all, but occasionally, I have. As I said, no specific purpose for it. DNAG buys are news that pertains to the stock, at any rate, so it is on topic in DNAG discussion forums. Now that I have to file Form 3/4/5 and Schedule 13D (and amendments,) I suppose my trades become public knowledge, anyway, whether I post about them or not. I hope I've answered your question.
> what is the purpose of posting your holdings?
> just wondering what it has to do with the mb.
I hope everyone has a great weekend!
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
"frogdreaming,"
Simply not true.
The restrictions that apply to Frudakis, Gabriel, Gomez, and others who are truly insiders, do not apply to me. I do not have access to material nonpublic information ("insider information.")
What I am subject to are _disclosure_requirements_, not at all the same as the restrictions you allege. If I should ever gain access to material nonpublic information, _then_ I would be subject to the insider trading restrictions. That is not, presently, the case. The rules that govern general participants in the stock market, are the rules that pertain to me, and I obey those rules.
I only mentioned the prosecution issue, in yet another attempt to make this simple matter clear to you. The insider trading restrictions are all backed by threat of prosecution, by the SEC. Where there are no such restrictions, there is no threat of such prosecution, and vice versa.
None of this is even remotely secret or arcane.
Please try to get a handle on the basics, here. This non-issue has already taken up more than enough of this forum's bandwidth.
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
That was, as the relevant SEC filing indicates, a "Grant in recognition of service pursuant to Stock Option Plan," reported by Dr. Frudakis. It has no bearing on my _purchases_.
See Dr. Frudakis' Form 4 filing, here:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1127354/000114420405037222/xslF345X02/v030170_ex.xml
A few excerpts:
--
Title of Derivative Security: Options
Conversion or Exercise Price of Derivative Security: $0.0174
Transaction Date: 11/17/2005
Number of Derivative Securities Acquired: 15,000,000
Price of Derivative Security: "Grant in recognition of service pursuant to Stock Option Plan"
--
As I said, the SEC filings are the place to go, for such information. My SEC filings accurately report that I bought all of my shares, with cash. Absolutely none were gifted to me.
Enough already...
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
"frogdreaming,"
Prosecution for illegal insider trading is _always_ contingent on access to material nonpublic information! I have no such access! Buying enough shares to become considered an "insider" does not magically beam insider information into my head! We have been over this! The definition of "insider" has nothing to do with it; people are not prosecuted merely for being "insiders," nor for trading while being "insiders." They are prosecuted for using material nonpublic information while trading -- even non-insiders are prosecuted for that (trading with the benefit of material nonpublic information, which is called insider trading.) Trading with the benefit of material nonpublic information _is_ the prosecutable offense.
Please try to get a handle on the basics, here. It isn't hard. And please stick to the facts. You make a claim, you substantiate it. Weak innuendo, or other form of fallacy, does not count as any sort of substantiation.
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
As you can plainly see, by following that link:
http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/insiderTrading?symbol=DNAG.PK
_All_ buys under .01 (1 cent) are rounded to .00 on that page and labeled as "gifts"! The SEC filings show the real info. The SEC filings are obviously where Reuters is deriving its information, reported there. Rounding or dropping the decimal places and calling the buys "gifts" is clearly erroneous, but that's obviously what Reuters is doing.
Consult the SEC filings for the real information.
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
Totally false. I never bought DNAG above a penny. I started buying early last year, at .007 (below a penny.)
I've received an automated response from Reuters, telling me that someone will read my complaint. It appears obvious that it's a sub-penny rounding error -- you see those trade prices are listed as .00 on that Reuters page. Chopped off, or rounded off, at the penny value, not showing the prices.
As I stated yesterday, on Google Finance, in the thread you read and posted to after I stated it, Reuters obviously got their information from my SEC filings, and my SEC filings clearly show I purchased those shares. I have not been gifted one single DNAG share, ever.
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
Lori (gracemwjt2000 / llgraves72,)
Actually, the "gift shares" issue had already been cleared up, _yesterday_, in a Google Finance thread you posted to, _after_ it was cleared up. Which makes your post here deliberately deceptive and libelous. You've been caught red handed.
The Google Finance thread in question:
http://finance.google.com/group/google.finance.717321/browse_thread/thread/3045dd9f916eb07f
I posted there yesterday:
"I paid cash for every DNAG share I own.
That 'gift' glitch is probably related to the sub-penny cost per share (I'm guessing.)"
"It's obvious they are getting that info from my SEC filings, which do indicate that I purchased those shares, with specific amounts of U.S. currency."
You posted to that thread this morning, with your "llgraves72" alias:
"Wow Dan! I would have to say you are busted!"
Which means you read the thread, and deliberately chose to ignore the information I posted, which debunked this whole "gift shares" claim.
Also this morning, you blatantly declared this falsehood on Yahoo Finance, right there in the subject line:
"dgplexus was gifted his shares!"
Link to this libelous message you posted:
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_D/threadview?m=tm&bn=79611&tid=609&mid=609&tof=1&rt=2&frt=2&off=1
Deliberately posting false information about me is libel. Cease and desist your libeling of me.
Deliberately posting false information pertaining to a stock is an SEC prosecutable offense. I suggest you contact the SEC regarding these matters.
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
"frogdreaming,"
Wrong again! I have looked it up. There are no such restrictions, as long as I don't have inside information (material nonpublic information.)
The scare tactics are getting quite old.
I challenge you to provide any documentation whatsoever, for your claims. Links, any sort of citations, legal case history. Anything. You can't just make things up and reasonably expect me to believe what you are saying.
A couple Google searches to get you started:
material nonpublic information
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=material+nonpublic+information&aq=f&oq=
insider trading
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=insider+trading
You make a claim, you substantiate it, or I do not believe it... especially if I already have information that directly contradicts the claim!
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
Regarding that erroneous Reuters "gift" designation (I actually paid cash for all DNAG shares I own,) I have just filed a request with Reuters (Editorial and News correction request.) Here is the text of my request:
--
Reuters:
My share purchases of DNAG (DNAPrint Genomics, Inc.,) are erroneously listed as "Gift," instead of "Buy." I bought every share, as my SEC filings show. There were no "gift" shares.
Here is a link that shows this error:
http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/insiderTrading?symbol=DNAG.PK&name=GANNON+DANIEL
I've been receiving accusations that these were "gifts," rather than purchases, based solely on this error. Can you please correct it, or at least email me with an explanation?
Thanks in advance,
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
--
P.S., to reiterate what I have plainly stated before, I am only considered an "insider" in the sense that I have purchased so many DNAG shares on the open market, and have filed accordingly with the SEC (Form 3, Form 4, and Schedule 13D. Soon to file another Form 4, and a Schedule 13D amendment (13D/A.)) There is nothing else that would characterize me as a DNAG "insider." I'm merely purchasing shares on the open market. I do not have any inside info., etc., etc.
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
Lori,
It is an oddity. Reuters obviously got those numbers from my SEC filings. Those SEC filings show that I _bought_ all those shares. (I paid cash for every DNAG share I own. There were no "gift" shares.)
Since they're getting the info. from my SEC filings, they are obviously ignoring the price I paid, which I find objectionable. My best guess is, because the price per share is sub-penny, they just flag the purchases as "gifst." I don't know what their internal price threshold might be, for what they consider a "gift" or not.
I haven not received any DNAG shares, except for those I have paid cash for, buying on the open market. I began buying early last year, at around .007. I've averaged down, since then, obviously.
P.S., I don't know where you are getting this idea from, that I have a lot of "computer glitches," or that the world is "out to get me." Neither is true. Nor does your "13yo" have anything to do with DNAG, or with me. Please do not engage in personal attacks. Thank you.
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA