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.
"The provenance of Egyptian cotton sheets and towels is immediately in the spotlight. However, several execs expect all premium fiber claims will receive greater scrutiny very soon." See below.
http://www.homeandtextilestoday.com/article/534677-targetwelspun-cotton-controversy-upends-industry
Rode....I share that sentiment. eom.
This fiasco is going to put us on the map, big time. And in a hurry. IMO.
Mike. I don't know for sure if APDN had anything to do with "outing" this misrepresentation by Welspun. IMO, they would be the most qualified to do so. Regardless, the most important points we should take away from this news are:
1) This is a watershed event in the evolution of product authentication. The result of which will lead to either,
2) Welspun, in quick fashion, signing up for Signature T or better yet,
3) Target, Walmart, Bed Bath and Beyond and others insisting on absolute verification of claims regarding integrity of purity claims by manufacturers.
It's all good!
I wonder how Target found out about the misrepresentation! (tic)
apdn......That's right. We have no idea what FY2016 cotton revenues will be. However, IMO, with the 2 gins being delivered in Q4 and "other installations being discussed", we should not be surprised if FY17Q1 contains significant ink revenues. I think even Q2 could have meaningful cotton revs. (Ginning season usually goes to late January, early February).
houtheman....to quote Dr. H from the Annual Meeting, when talking about pharma and cosmetics: "We look forward to making progress in both categories this year". (I believe, during the Q2 presentation, he made a similar comment). First question is: Is he talking about fiscal or calendar year. Second, and more important: What kind of "progress" could he be talking about other than deals with other companies that will position APDN for the future?
I take him for his word. Whether it happens in Fiscal or calendar 2016, I believe we will hear about deals that will give us the visibility of potentially significant revenues in the coming years. AIMO.
Mike...Told by someone who would know. Thanks to Rode for providing the European timeline.
houtheman... the company is moving slowly and deliberately and prefers large marketing partnerships like the one they have with Louis Dreyfus.
Bingo! Sorry we did not get a chance to meet at the ASM. I appreciate the work you put into reporting to this board on the ASM. As a result of talking with Jim and others at the meeting (and follow-ups afterward), I believe the Company will employ this very same methodology (i.e., a marketing partnership) in the pharmaceutical vertical. IMO, they will do a deal with a drug distribution company like a Cardinal Health, who will then do deals with the Pharma companies.
In view of the above, your depiction of a one-man marketing entity for Pharma (i.e., Miglano), knocking on Pharma doors is too pessimistic and, I believe, inaccurate. Every major pharma company is already aware of APDN and its marking technology. The biggest impediment to uptake in the pharma industry is the lack of urgency in the industry to adopt dosage marking, thanks to a 2023 deadline in the U.S. to implement dosage marking. The good news is that this same deadline is July, 2016 (next month) in Japan and (don't hold me to this, but I believe) 2018-19 in EU. I think the U.S. will be pressured to move the date up a few years. AIMO
Thanks again for your insights.
IMO. No real shares for sale and manipulators are not doing their usual walk-down of the stock for fear of being on the wrong side of a big move.
That is what is known as tape-painting. Used to be illegal. Probably still is.
houtheman..I'll will also be there. Hope to meet up.
mcsharkey...The purpose of appearing at that tech conference was purely an effort to build institutional interest and ownership (i.e., open-market purchasing). Given more than 12 months of cash (with present burn rate), the Company will not be selling shares at the current share price level. Depending on the degree of EBITDA profitability in the second half of this FY, they may not need to raise again. However, IMO, at a stock price of $5-7.00, they might sell a bit for general purposes.
Bottom line: there is no need for a capital raise in the near term.
mcsharkey..Haven't gone anywhere. Just very little interest in 95% of the dialogue on this board. As I have said several times: IMO, APDN will be a 10 to 20-bagger (minimum), in the 3-5 year time frame. My experience is that, ruled by the fear and greed cycle, most people can't buy and hold for that long.
There will be several announcements this year that could double the stock from its current level. Usually, nobody rings a bell when it's time to buy. If one does happen to ring, it will be too late. AMO.
BUY AND HOLD
mcsharkey.. I put in an order for 10K around 1:00 at $2.88. Got 4K all day.
houtheman....He never specifically said Q4 would be profitable. He intimated that an extrapolation of the revenue trend pointed toward near-term profitability (i.e., Q4 or Q1). Q4 revenue came in pretty much the way I thought it would. The only question was how much had the headcount grown. And it had grown to the extent that about $500K was lost. Q1 will be profitable. I believe every quarter of 2016 will be sequentially higher than the previous quarter. If they are not, then I have totally misread what is happening here and will sell every share.
houtheman.. With all due respect, if you think 2016Q1 will come in at $2M (50% below 2015Q4), take your money somewhere else. Save yourself the heartache. Don't forget: the Doctor has already essentially told us that Q1 will be profitable. That will require, IMO, at least $5M in revenue. To justify a current valuation of $80M+ we need parabolic growth..And, I believe we will get it it. You gotta be more positive!
One has to wonder why this "news" would be released on a Sunday afternoon.
mr.big...I'm going to assume you intended to respond to a post other than mine. Let me be clear: my outrage with how markets and stocks are manipulated has nothing to with corporate accounting. Enron, APDN, or otherwise.
jd...Sad but very true. eom.
Yes. There was a market order of approx. 5000 shares. No shares were for sale near yesterday's close. Market makers will sell stock short at a price they are confident they can cover at lower prices during the day.
houtheman... Be prepared to be "shocked".. Ramp up of new DLA contract will dwarf cotton tagging. IMO.
Rode. Manipulation IS normal trading.
I guess you're right. Thanks.
apdn and mcsharkey (and houtheman).....Thank you for your responses. I'm sure you can see the basis for my inquiry. Now that we have 146M items to tag in front of us, that per-unit fee is very significant. It would be constructive to know whether that quote came from an uninformed chat-board poster or somebody working in the industry who would actually have a realistic view of what might be reasonable. Thanks again.
apdn1mill and mcsharkey: With reference to apdn's posting of the excerpt from the Breaking Defense article, the following paragraph is not part of the article. Can anyone tell me where this paragraph came from? Thank you.
After pilot is complete, depending on which company is selected for what classiciations (fsc) then contract amount may be decided.They are not marking 140 million parts now. Its the future poential for 6 FSGc (66 FSCs).Even if they mark 60 million parts its like $24.75 million revenue FSC wise. Parts wise its more than $100 million revenue
Thanks, Shark. Much appreciated. eom.
apdn...Sorry to bug ya', but would still like to see that article, if you have it. Thx.
I believe that is the case. eom.
apdn.....Do you have that article handy? TIA.
apdn1mill....Thanks for that. I assume that the 2nd company is no longer in the mix, since Dr. Hayward intimates that APDN has the 146M parts to mark?
Sure...The reason the SEC has set this limitation is simply because after two weeks prior to the end of a quarter, until the quarterly results are actually reported, the insiders have an unfair advantage in that they have a very good idea about, or specifically know, the results of the quarter. Hope this helps.
houtheman...I have listened again to the Southwest presentation and, specifically, to the part about DLA going from marking 100,000 units to 146,000,000. Even though I have repeatedly replayed that section, I still am unclear as to the disposition of the 146M units. Do we have a contract to mark these units in the near future? Are we currently working on marking these units? Are we negotiating an agreement? Any insight would be appreciated. TIA.
uncle cash.. Now that I think about it, December 17 will be 2 weeks before the end of Q1! So, looks like they won't be able to buy until mid-february!
uncle cash.......FYI. According to SEC regs., insiders have not been able to buy stock since 2 weeks before the end of Q4 and will not be able to buy until 3 days after the reporting of the quarter, i.e. December 17.
houtheman..Do you still have the link to the Southwest presentation? TIA.
mcsharkey.......RE: violations of SEC regulations.
It is not illegal to be stupid or make "mistakes" or not understand what one is talking about, like PS. It is not illegal to short massive amounts of stock without first borrowing shares. It is not illegal to short on downticks.
What is illegal is stock manipulation. What is criminal is colluding to defraud. It's called racketeering.
ND....In my long experience, the SEC rarely tracks anything down. And, there is nothing illegal about covering a short position. Who is harmed by their participation in the offering?
houtheman....Yes. There is no other explanation. To reiterate, since the deal was a "best-efforts" deal, the 2 buyers were well aware that the stock would not be supported by the IB and yet they signed a definitive agreement anyway. What legitimate long would do that?