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.
"For the first time E*TRADE showing "
E-Trade can show whatever they want. It NEVER trumps what FINRA says. FINRA rules the market and can shut E-trade down with a simple memo. FINRA and the SEC are essentially one in the same.
FROM FINRA, live this AM:
http://otce.finra.org/DailyList
Daily List Comment Market Center move to NASDAQ postponed.
Market Category Other OTC
12/17/2014 05:25:29 Reinstatement 12/16/2014 21:00:00 OCAT Ocata Therapeutics, Inc. Common Stock undefined Other OTC
Until FINRA says it, then it's moot and has not happened. Nothing trumps FINRA in the markets-they're the ones that regulate all the brokerage houses such as E-trade.
Going to the FINRA site is getting it straight from the source. E-Trade is like getting it 2nd hand news or via the rumor mill.
"go to icell"???
I can't think of a worse place to get accurate information about stocks or companies. More wrong info and pure speculation there than probably any other website source IMO. Nothing but amateurs who are in love with this stock and never post an objective statement that I've ever seen. Most statements appear to be by total financial illiterates who never read SEC filings or similar, or if they do, they get the meaning 100% incorrect more often than not. They only state to buy more, no matter what happens.
The icell track record of "predictions" coming true or being accurate is less than throwing darts at a board of random choices from what I've seen. Last place I'd go for any stock information.
You got far more objective and a better cross section of info and opinions right here on I-HUB than one will ever find on icell, IMO.
My 2 cents.
FINRA, live now, OTC "reinstatement".
http://otce.finra.org/DailyList
They appear to be unable to get the secondary priced and sold IMO. Low demand and low pricing more than likely. If this sold in the $5's yesterday, then how low would the secondary have to be priced? Lower than yesterday's lowest price IMO, because no "sophisticated" buyer would ever pay a premium over what they could have just bought it for on the free market.
Since Friday, this has been a pretty big mess IMO. Can't be helping to sell 10 million shares the way this is going.
From FINRA, the only source that counts IMO (forget what any other brokerage or quote screen says, FINRA is god to the markets)
12/17/2014 05:25:29 Reinstatement 12/16/2014 21:00:00 OCAT Ocata Therapeutics, Inc. Common Stock undefined Other OTC
Market Category Other OTC
Daily List Comment Market Center move to NASDAQ postponed.
"If your reading comprehension was astute"
MY reading comprehension is QUITE astute. Thanks for the tip though.
One needs to read that statement on page S-17/S-18 in full context.
The ONLY thing it's referring to being "locked up" is in regards to the sale OF SIMILAR SECURITIES. It has nothing to do with some supposed "lock up" of shares the underwriters are purchasing as part of the secondary offering.
Here's the ENTIRE PASSAGE and not a "selective" cut n paste where the word "lock up" was found via a search function or similar. It's pretty crystal clear. It has ZIP to do with any restriction of the shares that the underwriters are purchasing in the offering and any "restriction" to sell them at-will, free of any delay or "lock up" period.
PAGES S-17/S-18: THE FULL CONTEXT, titled, "SALE OF SIMILAR SECURITIES"
"No Sales of Similar Securities
We and each of our executive officers and directors have agreed, subject to specified exceptions, not to directly or indirectly:
•
sell, offer, contract or grant any option to sell (including any short sale), pledge, transfer, establish an open "put equivalent position" within the meaning of Rule 16a-l(h) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or
•
otherwise dispose of any shares of common stock, options or warrants to acquire shares of common stock, or securities exchangeable or exercisable for or convertible into shares of common stock currently or hereafter owned either of record or beneficially, or
•
publicly announce an intention to do any of the foregoing for a period of 90 days after the date of this prospectus supplement without the prior written consent of Jefferies LLC, Cowen and Company, LLC and Piper Jaffray & Co.
S-17
Table of Contents
These restrictions terminate after the close of trading of the common stock on and including the 90th day after the date of this prospectus supplement. However, subject to certain exceptions, in the event that either:
•
during the last 17 days of the 90-day restricted period, we issue an earnings release or material news or a material event relating to us occurs, or
•
prior to the expiration of the 90-day restricted period, we announce that we will release earnings results during the 16-day period beginning on the last day of the 90-day restricted period,
then in either case the expiration of the 90-day restricted period will be extended until the expiration of the 18-day period beginning on the date of the issuance of an earnings release or the occurrence of the material news or event, as applicable, unless Jefferies LLC, Cowen and Company, LLC and Piper Jaffray & Co. waive, in writing, such an extension.
Jefferies LLC, Cowen and Company, LLC and Piper Jaffray & Co. may, in their sole discretion and at any time or from time to time before the termination of the 90-day period release all or any portion of the securities subject to lock-up agreements. There are no existing agreements between the underwriters and any of our stockholders who will execute a lock-up agreement, providing consent to the sale of shares prior to the expiration of the lock-up period."
It's referring to the fact that OCAT INSIDERS are under 90 day "lock" so that THEY can't sell their options or dump other shares, raise cash dumping other shares, etc. It's to protect the underwriters price and sales by not having more dilution shares dumping into the market while THEY, the UNDERWRITERS are busy selling their 10 MILLION shares.
READ THINGS IN CONTEXT, THAT is what is known as "astute reading comprehension". It's about restricting OCAT insiders from selling, NOT the underwriters. It's crystal clear IMO.
In other words- the underwriters are like the "house" in VEGAS and they DO NOT LIKE COMPETITION, so they added that clause to give them 90 days, competition free selling- where no one else can dump shares into THEIR market essentially. The underwrites write everything in these deals to TILT IT ALL IN THEIR FAVOR. That's how it works when YOU GOT THE CASH and someone else DESPERATELY NEEDS IT. You're in the driver's seat.
"Do you think the uplisting will help them unload those shares at higher prices"
I have no idea. I'm a total amateur and as in the dark as anyone. My personal experience is that regardless of exchange (NASDAQ, even NYSE) - is that dilution tends to put downward pressure on the shares (often called share overhang). Unless that dilution is what they call immediately "accretive" (additive) to earnings. Meaning for example the dilution is used to buy a competitor and the synergy of the two new merged companies means they immediately cut costs, increase sales and make more earnings. But pure cash burn dilution like this, are usually a down force on share price in my experience. Meaning first, all those 10 million shares need to kind of get "sucked" up and absorbed initially into the market- sort of an initial shock as that many more free trading shares just hit all at once.
Also, if "institutions" were to buy- I'm not share who they'd be? This is still a very speculative micro-cap and will probably be barely above $5 a share on an uplist if this week's trading action/price is any indication. That kind of price per share is skirting the edge of what "institutions" will buy normally IMO.
Further, the bigger worry IMO is that the underwriters are going to engage in selling to hedge funds and even be making a market in the stock- which to me, spells all kinds of possible shanigans. Shorting being the prime candidate I'd be worried about, with dilution weakness to back them up in their shorting efforts. I've seen a lot of companies raise desperate cash via this very method over the years, one's I owned, and their shares often took a serious pounding for an extended period of time, some recovering, some never getting out from under the thumb of the "big boys".
So I have no idea. Look at the company Wooten, the new OCAT CEO just left and came from as a prime example IMO. It's NASDAQ listed and has about $45 MILLION, cold hard cash in the bank and zero debt, but is trading just above about $2 bucks a share right now and a high of maybe $5 a share. I doubt it's got much "institutional" ownership IMO. I can run a simple filter and find probably 100 NASDAW listed companies in under 5 minutes all who trade for $2 to $3 bucks a share- w/o a doubt in my mind.
In other words, an "up-list" by no means IMO guarantees any price appreciation, or price "stabilization" or freedom from shorting, etc. I'd argue just the opposite- that shorting once on the NASDAQ just gets that much easier to do. Call up any discount broker in the country and ask um for short inventory on an OTC "penny" stock. Almost impossible to get and if they do- it's gonna be super restrictive margin account with reams of paperwork, etc. Call up any discount broker on a NASDAQ stock around $5 or more a share- and even Joe Q. Public can probably get short inventory. When it gets below $5 a share, the brokerages will tighten up on the requirements/margin restrictions typically. But the hedge funds? IMO, they salivate for stocks like this to come along- one with several yrs to a product, one that's gonna be burning cash by the dump truck full to fund these trials and projects, no earnings or cash flow for a distant couple of years and only dilution, dilution, dilution to live on, per their own wording, for at least several yrs. I can see the hedge boys just piling on to this w/o mercy.
Wall Street is a brutal place. Shorting is 100% legal per our Congress. This kind of stock is in a weak spot right now and the sharks on Wall St live to sniff out blood and weakness IMO. I'd say it's speculative in here now which way this will go. I sure don't think they helped themselves either with this Friday "thing" and Monday AM thing, whatever it was.
Can it "pop" and spike along the way- for sure, not a doubt in my mind. But does it face mega headwinds to accomplish what they're trying to do- and a long road, I think for certain w/o a doubt. This is not even close to some slam-dunk, done deal, moving onto easy street from here. No way IMO.
Where it prices and what the price does after the underwriters get their Wall St mitts into it- I have no idea. My experience, maybe a little pop, then they might bury it for a while. That's been the experience of some I've owned prior when I was a lot younger and a lot more naive. But it's all a crap shoot- literally. Wall St and Vegas, very similar placed, unless one is talking about owning Coca Cola or Exxon- Modile or something and buying um for the dividend for life. My 2 cents.
"I believe all of those shares will have restrictions barring them from being sold at least for a year. "
Reading the Prospectus, I don't find any verbiage that any shares are, or will be, "restricted" in any way, shape or form. It is pure dilution of the most basic kind and the 30% dilution shares (10 million) can and will hit the market as "free trading" as soon as the underwriters can "flip trade" um IMO.
In this type of deal, the underwriter (in this case qty-3 underwriters got together, which implies to me they want to spread the risk)- the 3 underwriters purchase all 10 million shares and have a pretty common "over-allotment option" to pick up, as much as 1.5 million more if they feel they can make money on them.
What is the fundamental business model of how an underwriter makes money? (the term underwriter is from old English/British insurance biz language, it's related to understanding, quantifying and then assuming RISK). Risk being the key word. The underwriters hand OCAT say $45 Million dollars (say $50 million gross for 10 million shares at $5 per share - $5 mil in fees and expenses) and then the underwriters now own the 10 million shares and the associated RISK that they can sell those shares FOR A PROFIT, their entire business model.
Underwriters have basically 3 ways they make money:
1) The initial share discount they get on the shares they buy (the "spread")
2) Fees and expenses
3) Over allotment sales
The underwriter is the classic "middle man" who puts up money for RISK and "bets" on "taking a cut of the action" on the "spread" for being in the middle.
Thus, right at the front end, the underwriter pays a "discount" to market for the 10 million shares for their "risk" they're taking. If OCAT closes at $6 today for example, then the underwriter pays say a 10% discount or .9 X $6 = $5.40 a share.
But underwriters are not "investors" or long term holders of stock. They're essentially lenders/banks and want to "turn" their money as fast, and as often as possible and earn effectively a "return", commonly called "interest" or a "rate of return". The more times they can "flip" the same money for a profit in a given yr, the greater their returns.
So prior to buying the 10 million shares, the underwriters "run book" (make sales calls and build a "book" list of potential buyers of the shares) and go out and pound the phones, speak to hedge funds, talk to brokers,etc and try and gauge the demand to re-sell, quickly, all 10 million shares of OCAT, aka on the "flip trade".
Now the underwriter has 10 million shares they paid $5.40 for or whatever and OCAT got the cold, hard cash they wanted, paid to them by the underwriters (minus fees, expenses, etc of course, ie. the "net" amount). Now the underwriter(s) want to unload those shares ASAP, "make the spread" and pocket those profits. Thus the "book" they pre made, they start re-selling those discounted shares, now at say $5.80 a share. BUT WAIT, someone says, a lousy .40 cents per share profit? But DO THE MATH, .40 cents on 10 million shares is $4 MILLION dollars for a month's "work" (if one can call it that), plus large sales commissions, fees and expenses. They might make $10 million for putting up $50 million and do it in a matter of a few months or less. Do that 2X in a yr and you just made $20 MILLION on $50 million dollars, or an annual rate of return of 40% on your money. Other than mafia or payday loans or theft- what else in this world pays 40% annual returns on your money?
See why underwriting is a big business for the big boys of Wall (FRAUD) Street? It's like printing money it can be so lucrative. They're just sales people and actuaries who asses risk and charge handsomely for it.
The higher the risk a stock, then the more the underwriter discount and fees, etc. I'd say OCAT, being cash poor, in biz for yrs but never producing a product, no cash flow from operations, no product approvals, a bit of a tainted past with SEC violations, accounting problems, etc is in the "high risk" category would be my guesstimate. You underwrite Facebook, a massively successful money printing machine, soaked in the who's who of prime venture capital money before even going public- and underwriters beat the door down to get a piece of the action and demand that monster will bring. A tiny OTC company "trying" to eek onto the lowest tier NASDAQ and the underwriters are gonna want more upfront fees and bigger discounts- as they DO NOT want to get stuck with any shares of OCAT, not being able to sell and "flip trade" them quickly.
Further, read the prospectus carefully- it makes it 100% CRYSTAL CLEAR that the underwriters themselves, as well as hedge funds or others they may sell shares too, can and WILL "short" the stock "at will" and "as needed" up to and including "naked shorting" so as to protect their down side, increase their profits, blah, blah, blah as they see fit. It also makes it clear that the underwriters intend to "make a market" in OCAT stock, aka, become MM's themselves in the stock; think trading, shorting, hedging their own holdings as they sell them, etc
THAT is the "underwriting" process in a nut shell. There's no "share lock up" such as a traditional IPO where certain insiders may not be able to sell into the initial IPO- as the underwriters are the share buyers here and the insiders really have no role. This is a secondary "shelf" offering of an already public traded company.
Here's a few highlights from the prospectus that emphasize the points above:
Recently filed OCAT secondary prosepectus:
PAGE S-6:
"Common stock to be outstanding following this offering
44,612,718 shares (or 46,112,718 shares if the underwriters exercise their option to purchase additional shares in full)."
PAGE S-12
"After giving effect to the sale by us of 10,000,000 shares of common stock in this offering at an assumed public offering price of $ per share, and after deducting the underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses that we will pay,"
PAGE S-16:
"The underwriting agreement provides that the obligations of the several underwriters are subject to certain conditions precedent such as the receipt by the underwriters of officers' certificates and legal opinions and approval of certain legal matters by their counsel. The underwriting agreement provides that the underwriters will purchase all of the shares of common stock if any of them are purchased. If an underwriter defaults, the underwriting agreement provides that the purchase commitments of the nondefaulting underwriters may be increased or the underwriting agreement may be terminated. We have agreed to indemnify the underwriters and certain of their controlling persons against certain liabilities, including liabilities under the Securities Act, and to contribute to payments that the underwriters may be required to make in respect of those liabilities.
The underwriters have advised us that, following the completion of this offering, they currently intend to make a market in the common stock as permitted by applicable laws and regulations. However, the underwriters are not obligated to do so, and the underwriters may discontinue any market-making activities at any time without notice in their sole discretion. Accordingly, no assurance can be given as to the liquidity of the trading market for the common stock, that you will be able to sell any of the common stock held by you at a particular time or that the prices that you receive when you sell will be favorable.
The underwriters are offering the shares of common stock subject to their acceptance of the shares of common stock from us and subject to prior sale. The underwriters reserve the right to withdraw, cancel or modify offers to the public and to reject orders in whole or in part. In addition, the underwriters have advised us that they do not intend to confirm sales to any account over which they exercise discretionary authority."
PAGE S-18:
"Stabilization
The underwriters have advised us that, pursuant to Regulation M under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, certain persons participating in the offering may engage in short sale transactions, stabilizing transactions, syndicate covering transactions or the imposition of penalty bids in connection with this offering. These activities may have the effect of stabilizing or maintaining the market price of the common stock at a level above that which might otherwise prevail in the open market. Establishing short sales positions may involve either "covered" short sales or "naked" short sales.
"Covered" short sales are sales made in an amount not greater than the underwriters' option to purchase additional shares of our common stock in this offering. The underwriters may close out any covered short position by either exercising their option to purchase additional shares of our common stock or purchasing shares of our common stock in the open market. In determining the source of shares to close out the covered short position, the underwriters will consider, among other things, the price of shares of common stock available for purchase in the open market as compared to the price at which they may purchase shares through the option to purchase additional shares.
"Naked" short sales are sales in excess of the option to purchase additional shares of our common stock. The underwriters must close out any naked short position by purchasing shares in the open market. A naked short position is more likely to be created if the underwriters are concerned that there may be downward pressure on the price of the shares of our common stock in the open market after pricing that could adversely affect investors who purchase in this offering.
A stabilizing bid is a bid for the purchase of shares of common stock on behalf of the underwriters for the purpose of fixing or maintaining the price of the common stock. A syndicate covering transaction is the bid for or the purchase of shares of common stock on behalf of the underwriters to reduce a short position incurred by the underwriters in connection with the offering. Similar to other purchase transactions, the underwriters' purchases to cover the syndicate short sales may have the effect of raising or maintaining the market price of our common stock or preventing or retarding a decline in the market price of our common stock. As a result, the price of our common stock may be higher than the price that might otherwise exist in the open market. A penalty bid is an arrangement permitting the underwriters to reclaim the selling concession otherwise accruing to a syndicate member in connection with the offering if the common stock originally sold by such syndicate member is purchased in a syndicate covering transaction and therefore has not been effectively placed by such syndicate member.
Neither we nor any of the underwriters make any representation or prediction as to the direction or magnitude of any effect that the transactions described above may have on the price of our common stock. The underwriters are not obligated to engage in these activities and, if commenced, any of the activities may be discontinued at any time.
The underwriters may also engage in passive market making transactions in our common stock on The NASDAQ Capital Market in accordance with Rule 103 of Regulation M during a period before the commencement of offers or sales of shares of our common stock in this offering and extending through the completion of distribution. A passive market maker must display its bid at a price not in excess of the highest independent bid of that security. However, if all independent bids are lowered below the passive market maker's bid, that bid must then be lowered when specified purchase limits are exceeded."
Just some of the tid-bits in the prospectus. NOT A WORD I find about any "lock up period" or anything similar. IMO, the underwriters will be SELLERS/flippers of OCAT stock the instant they get their discounted shares. That's what they do. To who and at what price they will be willing to sell those shares, who knows? But it's 100% pure, free trading, 10 million shares, 30% dilution to common and will be instantaneous upon the instant the secondary is placed IMO. The Prospectus makes it clear IMO, it lists the share count in black n white at 44 MILLION shares "upon close" of secondary. Doesn't get much clearer than that.
.0138, it just made the new 8 to 9 month LOW BID looks like. Wow.
From .08 in March or so, to .06 and now all the way to .0138. About a 80% loss to common shares since March/April of this year. And that's with a very large amount of share dilution also occurring in that same, 8 or so month time frame.
Appears to be no floor whatsoever under this bid anymore. I can easily see 1 cent before long at the pace it's been in decline and a steady, unbroken downtrend w/ lower highs and lower lows being made.
Market cap is now at about $7.7 million, with just accounts payable debt on last 10-Q of $2 million plus, $46K cash left and $10 million or more in total debt.
Looking pretty dicey in here IMO. And now this Manga "credit line" funding deal appears at least delayed at best, based on the amended S-1/A filing just posted to the SEC.
If the Magna "credit line" were to fund, and they needed to tap it now (which the SEC filing stated they intend to fully tap it for immediate cash needs) -
Then the price per share right now to Magna, at best would be .140 X .93 = .0130 per share. Meaning a lot more dilution to get the money they need, the lower the share price goes.
Wow.
Just traded $5.91, Wow !!
"That is still 50 million dollars in OCAT coffers."
They don't net $50 million if priced at $5 a share, on 10 million shares sold. Underwriter fees and expenses are stiff. The company always nets a fair amount less than the offering gross proceeds.
$45 million, maybe? Who knows?
Just broke down hard below $6, now at $5.91 on OTC.
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/OCAT/quote
Might need to lower even that $5 a share target for secondary pricing perhaps? This is looking real weak in here, IMO. Not good.
Dilution, and lots of it (30% in this case, just on round one of this shelf offering), unless it adds positive to a company's earnings, typically puts strong down pressure on a stock's share price IMO. That's historically what I've always learned and observed.
OTC bid $6.01 X $6.05 ask
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/OCAT/quote
Looks like some tough sledding in here IMO. "If" they price the secondary now (and they desperately need the cash if they're even to begin all that they've recently presented, especially a down payment on a start of a FDA quality phase II trial)-
If they price the secondary now, a minimum, traditional share discount to an underwriter is about 7% (just Google stocks underwriter discount or the underwriting of a stock offering, numerous sources state 7% is traditional) and probably more for a high risk micro-cap stock trying to move off the OTC, and one with no sales, no cash flow, no ROI, no prospects of cash flows, no earnings for yrs out in the future, lots of on-going dilution, etc
Even at 7% discount that would be $6 per share X .93 = $5.58 that the underwriters "might" be willing to pay to take on the risk of needing to move and sell 10 ma million shares, aka 30% pure dilution to common.
I'd guesstimate they're gonna want a steeper discount than that 7% traditional IMO. Meaning it prices less than $5.50 IMHO.
"according to finra, OCAT postponed uplist another day.. "
Here's the link direct to FINRA if any want to see it/read it for themselves.
http://otce.finra.org/DailyList
OCAT will clearly be seen listed on a row of the "daily table" of events dated today. Go to the right and click the little "notebook" or "page" symbol and it will open a pop-up that lists all the details just given by cty.
Interesting IMO that they've now had to appear twice on this FINRA "daily list" and post as "Reinstatement" to the OTC?? Cause they made the same FINRA table of announcements yesterday with the same "Reinstatement" message. How many times must they "Reinstatement" to the OTC I wonder and why? Are they on some daily review or something now until this Friday thing/mess is sorted out, such that FINRA gives um a daily provision as "Reinstatement" and trading or something? Very interesting IMO. It would seem that once "Reinstatement" was made yesterday at FINRA, then one is on the OTC until further notice and the "NASDAQ postponed" the same until further notice? Why a daily announcement on FINRA?
" boilerplate message"?? I thought they're called SEC FILING FACTS.
Versus slide show "presentations" and vast claims of "we hope" and "we possibly expect" and "we think it might" and "if all goes well, then" and "we may possibly" and "it could result in" and see all our disclosures and safe harbor and "other" disclaimers when reading any of these PR and "presentations".
I prefer to go with the meat of the SEC docs, the ones that bind them legally and hold their feet to the fire. They don't put anything "boiler plate" in a SEC filing. Every last word is in those filings for a reasons- because they know if they fudge it there or stretch it there or over-hype it a bit there or tell the story a little too "rich" there- then they can be held 100% accountable for it. It's the facts versus the sales pitch.
SEC docs for me. All else, just presenting the happy side of the "story". Words like "maybe" and "hope to soon" and "if this, then maybe"- they got 10 plus years of all that. And it just went below $6 bucks a share this AM, the same as 6 CENTS pre R/S split.
That's the reality of it IMO. Where's all the "big money" beating a path to their door if this is all the greatest medical miracle since sliced bread? How many years- yet dilution is all they live on? Why? Why is that? The greatest bull market of the past 100 yrs, swimming in easy money- yet no one has stepped up to pitch these guys a bundle of non-dilutive cash? Why would that be? There are dump trucks full of money in these past 3 plus yrs. Some of the most successful IPOS in history just took place: Facebook, Linkedin, GoPro a lousy camera company just raised a bundle, Alibaba, Twitter, Sprouts market, Michaels stores, numerous bio-tech and med product companies, Dropbox, Spotify, and on and on. SWIMMING in money on the Street and at venture firms. But none has flowed to OCAT, who's supposedly sitting on this "medical miracle"?? Why?
It makes no sense IMO. Money, the "big money" finds it's way if one has the goods- they'd beat a path to your door normally. Yet no "big money" has come anywhere near OCAT. Dilution is what they live on and have lived on and are still planning to live on. Tells a lot of the "story" IMO.
"The ceo leaves his secured excellent paying job to come here and he has no clue about whay you shared with us."
The CEO left a company who's stock was going in the tank on his watch. He was also a prolific seller and dumper of shares at that company. He's receiving very similar compensation here- so what did he "give up"? Who knows? For all anyone knows- he was on his way out at the last company. That's how it usually works at that level.
Further, his FIRST STEP upon getting to OCAT was to arrange an insider self-vote to further enrich the Sr mgt members with a perks n goodies booster plan program. Nothing "new" going on IMO.
It makes no difference who the CEO is until he performs and shows some tangible results- none of which has happened yet. The share price, it's parked in the same price range where Gary left it- despite all the "big news" and the "article" being published and all the rest. It's at about 6 CENTS, pre R/S split. It entered the 5's this AM. What has that done for shareholders? It's priced where it was what, 8 or more yrs ago if I'm not mistaken? They're about to dilute the common by another instant 30%, the equivalent of 4.4 BILLION pre R/S shares.
I don't see anything to show "performance" yet IMO. It's like watching a replay of the past 5 or more yrs to this point.
"Just a quick reminder from the horses mouth - not hear say!!! "
Interesting stuff. Here's some other info that's also non "hear say", it's taken straight from the most recently filed OCAT 10-Q qrtly SEC filing:
Just some tid-bits from the 10-Q:
Page 39:
"We have a history of operating losses and we may not achieve future revenues or operating profits.
We have generated modest revenue to date from our operations. Historically we have had net operating losses each year since our inception. As of December 31, 2013, we have an accumulated deficit of $313,844,357 and a stockholders’ deficit of $22,533,610. As of September 30, 2014, we have an accumulated deficit of $342,309,490 and stockholders’ equity of $723,010. We incurred net losses of $31,022,248, $34,584,115, and $55,192,803 for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011, respectively. We have limited current potential sources of income from licensing fees and we do not generate significant revenue from any other source. Additionally, even if we are able to commercialize our technologies or any products or services related to our technologies if approved, it is not certain that they will result in revenue or profitability."
PAGE 40:
"We may not be able to obtain regulatory approvals for any of our products (see the subsection entitled “Regulatory Risks” below), or commence or continue clinical trials for any of our products, or commercialize any products. Any of our therapeutic and product candidates may prove to have undesirable and unintended side effects or other characteristics that could cause adverse effects on patient safety, efficacy or cost-effectiveness that could prevent or limit their therapeutic use, commercialization or acceptance in the medical community. Clinical trial results that we view as positive or proof of safety and/or efficacy may not be viewed in the same manner by regulators or potential collaborators. Any product using any of our technologies may fail to provide the intended therapeutic benefits, or even achieve therapeutic benefits equal to or better than the standard of treatment at the time of testing or production, or may not be safe for use in humans. In addition, we will need to determine whether any of our potential products can be manufactured in commercial quantities or at an acceptable cost, with or without third-party support. Our efforts may not result in a product that can be or will be marketed successfully. Physicians may not prescribe our products, patients may not use our products, or third-party payors may not cover or provide adequate reimbursement for our products. For these reasons we may not be able to generate product revenues."
"We have never generated any revenue from product sales and may never be profitable.
We have limited clinical testing, regulatory, manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sales experience capabilities, which may limit our ability to generate revenues. Due to the early stage of our therapeutic products, including regenerative medical therapies and stem cell therapy-based programs, we have not yet invested significantly in regulatory, manufacturing, marketing, distribution or product sales resources. We cannot assure you that we will be able to invest or develop any of these resources successfully or as expediently as necessary, either alone or with strategic partners, to generate revenue. Our ability to become profitable depends upon our ability to generate revenue. We do not anticipate generating revenues from product sales for the foreseeable future, if ever. "
Page 41:
"We have a limited operating history on which investors may evaluate our operations and prospects for profitable operations.
If we continue to suffer losses as we have in the past, investors may not receive any return on their investment and may perhaps lose their entire investment. Our prospects must be considered speculative in light of the risks, expenses and difficulties frequently encountered by companies in their early stages of development, particularly in light of the uncertainties relating to the new, competitive and rapidly evolving markets in which we anticipate we will operate. A substantial risk is involved in investing in us because, as an early stage company, we have fewer resources than an established company, our management may be more likely to make mistakes at such an early stage, and we may be more vulnerable operationally and financially to any mistakes that may be made, as well as to external factors beyond our control. We also have no experience bringing therapeutics candidates through the regulatory approval process to commercialization, and we operate with little budgetary margin for error. To attempt to address these risks, we must, among other things, further develop our technologies, products and services, successfully implement our research, development, marketing and commercialization strategies, respond to competitive developments and attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel. Any failure to achieve any of the forgoing would result in an inability to achieve profitability."
PAGE 44/45:
"Risks Related to Intellectual Property
Certain aspects of our business are dependent upon maintaining licenses with respect to key technology; if we are unable to obtain or protect intellectual property rights related to our product candidates, we may not be able to compete effectively in our markets.
Several of the patents we utilize are licensed to us by third parties. These licenses are subject to termination under certain circumstances (including, for example, our failure to make minimum royalty payments or to timely achieve spending, development and commercialization benchmarks). The loss of any of such licenses, or the conversion of such licenses to non-exclusive licenses, could harm our operations and/or enhance the prospects of our competitors. Certain of these licenses also contain restrictions, such as limitations on our ability to grant sublicenses that could materially interfere with our ability to generate revenue through the licensing or sale to third parties of important and valuable technologies that we have, for strategic reasons, elected not to pursue directly. The possibility exists that in the future we will require further licenses to complete and/or commercialize our proposed products. We cannot assure you that we will be able to acquire any such licenses on a commercially viable basis.
Certain parts of our technology are not protectable by patent.
Certain parts of our know-how and technology are not patentable. To protect our proprietary position in such know-how and technology, we require all employees, consultants, advisors and collaborators to enter into confidentiality and invention ownership agreements with us. We cannot assure you, however, that these agreements will provide meaningful protection for our trade secrets, know-how or other proprietary information in the event of any unauthorized use or disclosure. Further, in the absence of patent protection, competitors who independently develop substantially equivalent technology may harm our business."
And from the most recent filed secondary offering "Prospectus" PAGE S-2:
"We have no therapeutic products currently available for sale and do not expect to have any therapeutic products commercially available for sale for a period of years, if at all. These factors indicate that our ability to continue research and development activities is dependent upon the ability of management to obtain additional financing as required."
It's a long, long, long way from a tiny, phase I with 18 patients or whatever it is, to even a remote shot at completing phase II and then phase III trial(s) potentially multiple needed, then a shot at even submitting to the FDA, then a remote shot at FDA approval. The number of candidate drug products/therapies that enter phase I and ever make it to market as a FDA approved, commercial, let alone successful product is a VERY, VERY small percentage.
To "claim" this "works" and is conclusively "proven science" now and is "close to market" and all these other things- I think is a 10,000 mile stretch IMO. The number of hurdles to be overcome, the number of places along the way a complex drug/therapy like this can get tripped up along the way is a daunting, daunting gauntlet to be completed- and they're just barely out of the starting gate with a tiny phase I. Thus, to claim it's "settled" and 100% guaranteed "proven" and what not, IMO, is not facing the reality of how far this has to go. They are years, YEARS AWAY per their own commentary and probably $200 MILLION dollars or more away from a "shot" an "attempt" at an approval- it's a long, long, long road ahead to plow. Meantime? Dilution and lots of it- as that's the only source of funds it looks like they got going at this point. 30% dilution for just "round 1" and they'll be going back for more, as that first round won't even fund a high quality phase II trial ramping up, for much more than 1 yr, given their present burn rate, plus the rapid rise in expenses they've already stated will occur once they fully ramp into a phase II trial enrollment and undertaking.
It's far from a done deal or even "settled" anything at this point IMHO. Not even close. This is just the beginning steps the way I see it and per their own words in their own duly filed SEC documents such as those above. My 2 cents.
3rd or 4th tab....
It's a general "blog" little mini mag-article publication that GE puts out, OK? It mentions literally, 100's of names, across a multitude of industries, and little one or two liner blurbs, quotes and who know what else.
It's a million mile stretch IMO to "try" and infer that GE somehow has some formal business relationship or interest in OCAT because of a single slide, among many other slides in a tiny, tiny "article" (if one can even call it that?), discussing many other companies/people, and one of them mentions a few lines about what OCAT "dreams/hopes" to accomplish??
Unless a formal agreement has been made public (SEC filing, formal PR disclosed, etc) it doesn't mean a thing to me. Nothing. I just glanced at blurbs about all kinds of industries and company names on that little "GE blog magazine" and not one of them has a formal investment or biz relationship with GE that I could spot.
I don't know what this little 3 or 4 line "blog" is supposedly supposed to infer about some imagined business relationship between OCAT and GE? Again, if no money changes hands, no contracts, no formal agreements, etc- then it's a non event in my book.
With what just occurred with the OCAT "trading disaster" on Friday (IMO, or whatever one wants to call it) w/ spillage of it still occurring today, including a FINRA AM post about "re-instatement to OTC" and whatnot, I'd say OCAT has way bigger issues on their hands to be concerned about than some micro blog and 3 lines or whatever in some little GE industry mini-magazine/blog. My 2 cents.
"Oh goodness. Here we go..."
Yep, gotta agree, today's collapse in price was dramatic to say the least.
Any delays in funding are pretty critical IMO, given the very precarious financial condition this company is in, with $46K cash left as of last 10-Q filing and very large accounts payable, just as short term debts that are due (over $2 MILLION on 10-Q filing).
So that S-1 being delayed, and thus apparently the Magna "credit line" being delayed, appeared to be taken pretty rough by the market today.
Just lower highs and lower lows continually. The bid now regularly dropping to the .0140 range, even breaking into the .013's now and on pretty good volume.
Nothing has stemmed this multi-month, strong down-trend the stock has been in now for months. It's well below both the 200 and 50 DMA. And no "PR" or "news" or the 10-Q , nothing has appeared to even make a dent at even slightly reversing the trend so far.
Today was a pretty rough looking trading day. Down 10% plus on good volume. Wow.
"OCAT is leading in the science, even GE Healthcare confirms this."???
I don't know, and am not aware of any concrete evidence (actually no evidence at all) that "GE Healthcare" is in any business or any formal relation whatsoever with OCAT? Where has this ever been made public? Where has GE ever "confirmed" anything about the "science" of OCAT?
Is there any SEC filing, or jointly published PR or 8-K or anything similar with a page number that specifically describes the business relationship between OCAT and GE and how specifically GE has "confirmed the science" of OCAT? That would be a big help.
Excellent Reetala. So you and others are vindicated that you didn't make this stuff up as none of us have. I too saw it list/state it was NASDAQ Friday, with the NASDAQ site itself filling in what was blank information. Getting people to buy as high as near $7.50 on Friday, based on the assumption they were buying a NASDAQ listed stock, when in fact it never appeared to be true- is not trivial stuff.
Then, to have it collapse and break $6 a share today, Monday, as an OTC stock, all while a very large, and very dilutive secondary is attempting to be pitched and sold? Not good in my book, no matter how one slices it. Smacks of manipulation or something not right going on?
FINRA Investor Complaint Center
9509 Key West Avenue
Rockville, MD 20850-3329
Phone: (240) 386-HELP (4357)
Fax: (866) 397-3290
Just go to FINRA complaint page (Google FINRA Complaints, the site page will come right up)- there's an on-line form and it takes probably less than 5 or 10 minutes to fill out and can be anonymously.
Inaccurate price quotes, being misled that it was OTC versus NASDAQ, seeing account values go blank and then bounce all over the place, lack of order execution in many occurences, etc. Just fill it in and give um as much info as one can. I believe they, FINRA really need to get to the bottom of this- it's not a trivial matter. You got some folks that potentially lost a lot of money between Friday and today and others just confused and lacking clarity and confidence as to what they even own- and that's not right in our markets. Not even on the OTC is that acceptable IMO.
"See my post number 77512 where I provided the link to the OCATA webpage where it states (or at least stated this morning) that the company trades on Nasdaq."
Reetala, I'll try and get a capture of that web page. It might still be there or be cached someplace. That is exactly what we're talking about.
(looks like they "scrubber" their web page and now have OTCQB, I just looked. I'll see if a cached version of it might still be on the net somewhere. That sure didn't take um long to get that "fixed", yet they haven't released a word to the shareholders. Guess one's gotta have their priorities right?)
This isn't some "minor" or trivial snafu IMO. This seriously misleading retail "little people" in a public traded market. It can have serious level consequences involving the SEC and FINRA, etc.
Claiming you're on the NASDAQ and then running the stock to almost $7.50 on Friday, and now it broke $6 a share today ON THE OTC, is pretty serious in my book.
I don't see anything trivial or laughable about it. If the SR. Mgt isn't responsible, and the legal council and firms they hire and pay to advise them, then who is? The buck stops at the desk of the big boys. That's why they get paid the big bucks.
Wow, hit a low of $5.98 so far to today on very high volume. Holy smokes. Back in the $5's.
This, IMO, sure can't be a help to trying to place 10 million shares of pure dilution into the market. Two days of total uncertainty and they haven't said a peep about how this even happened?
Were trades executed on Friday even valid you wonder, when they ran it up to close to $7.50 on a false indication it was on the NASDAQ, including screen shots that showed "NASDAQ" market on them and people's brokerage accounts that said NASDAQ in them?
How did this possibly happen and who and what mechanisms let it happen I wonder? This is another taint on this company and their shares IMO.
There's been a few attempts to imply mgt can't/shouldn't be blamed, etc. When you go and play in the big leagues and you just self-vote yourself a big-league pay n perks increase program as one of your first moves, then you better bring your "A" game to the table IMHO. This is "C" level mgt in a public traded firm. This is not a mom n pops dry cleaning biz or whatever.
These guys are taking home some serious compensation, up to and including "bonuses" and lots of stock options and other "kickers" to sweeten their pot- so they better play like they're on their top game. Else, what are they being paid for? Bonuses, perks n goodies, selling shares into $12 spikes, etc- that should come AFTER they've delivered the goods, after they've performed and sent some ROI to the common shares, AFTER they've been proven to be pros who "get it done". This thing, it's always been done backwards IMO. They pay themselves large and live large as if they've already created and sold the greatest thing in the world, made the profits, delivered the products, etc. Very typical of OTC-ville IMO.
But lets face it, the common shares of this company, to date, are a 99% LOSS to common since inception and first entering the public markets. They traded initially at about $5 a share after the KACHINA merger and onto the OTC markets.
Since that time, they diluted out to over 3 billion shares of common stock and drove the price down, literally to a nickel. 5 cents a share. Today, right now, we're sitting at pre R/S 100:1 split at essentially 6 cents a share. Right where this thing was at over 5 or 6 or more years ago.
$5 a share is 500 cents. 6 cents as a percentage loss of IPO 500 cents ($5 per share) is 500-6 = 494/500 = .988 X 100 = 98.8% loss to the common shares. That's the cold, hard reality of the situation. Just the way it is.
"Theoretically, if following uplist rules, NASDAQ listing will not be until after Jan , 2015. However NASDAQ committee can make exceptions and permit Dec 2014 uplisting."??
Then who and what entity created the mess called FRIDAY and now this AM? Notice, the stock feeds like here on I-HUB, Yahoo finance and similar still can't update properly and people still got erroneous quotes and mis-information from their brokerage houses this AM.
This isn't like minor "snafu" stuff IMO. Someone's messed this up in the royal category- and all while you got what looks like manipulation trades/shorting going on in the middle of attempting to price and sell to the retail public, via underwriters, a very large, very dilutive secondary offering?
How is this supposed to end good for this company and inspire confidence that this "new" supposed management actually knows what they're doing, other than swiftly passing self enriching pay n perks packages?
$6.26 a share, as we speak on thee OTC Markets web site. The info looks "live" and accurate.
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/OCAT/quote
Man, if they're trying to pitch and sell a large, dilutive secondary in the middle of this mess, I just don't see how this ends good or better, IMO?
I would think they just turned the FINRA and other regulator's spotlights to the bright setting and got um aimed right at um, right about now.
Is there anything these guys can't screw up?
Bid .0141, DOWN solid red. Wow. Smacking that low bid again. Not far from the 8 month low bid it put in at .0139, last week.
I guess the Magna "credit line" funding being delayed per the S-1/A amended filing can't be a help? They gotta be really, really low on cash at this point IMO.
They had just $46K total left as of last 10-Q filing against very large, just short term debts that would need to be paid very soon such as their accounts payable entries and "other" short term expenses.
They got $200K off the Magna dilution "note", but that's gonna be over a month ago now. So how long will that last? Maybe a little more than a month?
Looking pretty "tight" cash wise here IMO. Real tight.
PAGE 4, Last filed 10-Q:
Accounts payable: $ 2,068,256
$2 MILLION in just immediate accounts payable against $46K cash as of that filing. Wow. And they only got $200K on the Magna "note" and now the "credit line" is delayed?
"Well my TD Ameritrade account has clearly reverted to Pink Sheets "
It's 100% CERTAIN it's on OTC now per FINRA. FINRA is god to the markets- no one trumps FINRA. The brokers live and die by FINRA rules. FINRA can crush a brokerage or company stock out of existence if they think their rules are being violated. FINRA is one step to the SEC and acts as the "gatekeeper" to oversee all market issues of legal trading,etc. Them and the DTC (Depository Trust Corp)- DTC and FINRA are the two most poweful regulatory market entities, right beneath the SEC. They are essentially the gate-keepers and eyes and daily work horses of the SEC.
Here is the FINRA notice for OCAT this AM. All brokers would rely on this FINRA info, anything else stated can't be trumped by FINRA:
http://otce.finra.org/DailyList
OCAT is right there on the list, dated 12/15/14.
12/15/2014 05:37:56 Reinstatement 12/14/2014 21:00:00 OCAT Ocata Therapeutics, Inc. Common Stock undefined Other OTC
Art, couldn't agree more.
"Way too many red flags have surfaced that are far too similar to other now defunct companies that had no product, just promises and hope - NAME CHANGE being just one of them."
I also felt the name change and logo thing is a typical "re-branding" type deal some "consulting" firm and "image" company dreams up when they want to help some company try and run from their tainted past. Like attempting to do an Orwell style "scrub" of all things tainted from 15 plus yrs of shananigins.
Problem is, those pesky ole SEC filings and now via the WEB, every last PR and "vast claim" the company ever made that didn't come true and the corrupt CEO and the messed up accounting and what not- it's all there for the reading. They need to face up to it and not try and "scrub" it or run from it IMO.
Name change to me also smacked of a lame attempt at a "make over" while everyone else is saying in simplicity, "SHOW US THE RESULTS", "SHOW US THE MONEY" just "PERFORM AND DO YOUR JOBS" and quit trying to blow happy sunshine at us all the time.
To add insult to injury IMO, they finish the "re-brand" via a name change, a website change and then this new "logo" thingy (which makes no sense to me, that logo, I sure don't get it) but STEP ONE after all that was to pass, via their own controlling vote, an insider booster perks n pay increase package. What the heck?? The new guy hasn't even warmed the seat yet and the first thing he needs to "accomplish" and get done is a pay-n-perks booster program for the insider boy's club?
Holy smokes, that was bad timing IMO. And they had insider selling taking place into that spike to $12, only 2 months ago, and never, not once so much as one dime of insider buying, even when this thing was literally 5 CENTS a share, a dirty nickel one can find in a super market parking lot- but no insiders opened their wallets.
I'm with ya, it's got a lot of "taint" on it IMO. This recent Friday thing and now a FINRA notice this AM, coinciding with this hugely dilutive secondary trying to be priced and sold now as a "good thing"- they sure aren't building any confidence or winning any converts in my book.
"It appears the SEC has simply requested that these documents alternatively be attached directly to the registration prospectus as exhibits"
W/o insider trading info or being fed protected information direct from BHRT Sr. Mgt or council or similar, how could one possibly know what the SEC has or has not "requested" regarding the S-1 and why it's been delayed, which is what the S-1/A amendment process is for- that it's past the 20 day deadline and not approved automatically?
How could anyone possible know this w/o someone on the inside telling them?
S-1 filing "news" appears to mean it's been delayed.
Initial S-1 was filed/uploaded to SEC on 11-21-14. They filed S-1/A, "amendment one" on Friday 12/12/14, after market close. I believe it's normally 20 days that the SEC approves, automatically "declares effective" the registration statement, unless they've subjected it to further review, questioning it, a hold, etc.
That's what a Google search of Section 8-A of the Securities Act 1933 reveals. From 11-21-14 to 12/12/14 looks like they would be passing that 20 days, thus filed a "amendment" to the original S-1, I think per the verbiage in it per Magna, as it's not yet been declared "effective" by the SEC, which would occur more or less automatically when it passes 20 days, unless they've been notified of "review" or similar questions by the SEC (that's my 2 cent take on it from reading it and googling section 8-A, securities act of 1933)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/securities_act_of_1933
Thus, the original S-1 filing past 20 days now, and they didn't get an automatic SEC "declared effective" on the registration statement and they will then file these "amended" versions as needed until if and when it's declared "effective", which in my amateur opinion, would mean the Magna "credit line" is not in use yet and can't be used yet. They did the Magna "note" for about $200K, but they would be low on cash very, very soon it appears IMO. Wonder if they can/will tap Asher or similar again in the mean time?
This S-1/A filed Friday 12/12/14 is an amendment to the original S-1 filing for the Manga deal. There's all kinds of verbiage that states (paraphrasing) - that if they can't get it SEC approved (registration of shares "declared effective" by the SEC) by final by date XYZ, then they must file amendments to keep it "open" until which time they can close/finalize it and I guess, get the Magna "credit line" funded.
Thus it appears perhaps they're having trouble of some sort getting this Magna line SEC approved or the shares approved or something. That's my read on this S-1/A ("A" for amended filing, after close of market, on a Friday)
From PAGE 1, S-1/A just filed on Friday:
"FORM S-1
AMENDMENT ONE
REGISTRATION STATEMENT
UNDER
THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 "
PAGE 3, S-1/A:
"The Registrant hereby amends this Registration Statement on such date or dates as may be necessary to delay its effective date until the Registrant shall file a further amendment which specifically states that this Registration Statement shall thereafter become effective in accordance with Section 8(a) of the Securities Act or until this Registration Statement shall become effective on such date as the Commission, acting pursuant to said Section 8(a), may determine."
PAGE 4: (in BOLD)
"Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor any state securities commission has approved or disapproved of these securities, or determined if this prospectus is truthful or complete. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal offense.
The date of this prospectus is [_________], 2014."
Notice, the date is still a blank, meaning the S-1 filing, IMO, has not been SEC approved or accepts yet and is thus the Magna "credit line" is not even in effect yet? Interesting IMO?
PAGE A-3:
"2. Registration.
(a) Mandatory Registration. The Company shall prepare and, as soon as practicable, but in no event later than the Filing Deadline, file with the SEC an initial Registration Statement on Form S-1, or such other form reasonably acceptable to the Investor and Legal Counsel, covering the resale by the Investor of Registrable Securities in an amount equal to 143,812,591 shares of Common Stock, 9,109,128 of which shares of Common Stock shall be registered as Initial Commitment Shares and 15,890,872 of which shares of Common Stock shall be registered as Additional Commitment Shares. Such initial Registration Statement shall contain (except if otherwise directed by the Investor) the “Selling Stockholder” and “Plan of Distribution” sections in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Company shall use its commercially reasonable efforts to have such initial Registration Statement, and each other Registration Statement required to be filed pursuant to the terms hereof, declared effective by the SEC as soon as practicable, but in no event later than the applicable Effectiveness Deadline."
Original S-1 filing, PAGE 16:
"Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Financing
We will need to secure additional financing in order to continue to finance our operations. If we are unable to secure additional financing on acceptable terms, or at all, we may be forced to curtail or cease our operations.
As of September 30, 2014, we had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $46,592 and an accumulated capital deficit of approximately $119,428,183. As such, our existing cash resources are insufficient to finance even our immediate operations."
From original S-1 and Magna "purchase agreement" PAGE 12:
"Registration Rights Agreement
In connection with the execution of the Purchase Agreement, on the Closing Date, we and Magna also entered into a registration rights agreement dated as of the Closing Date, which we refer to as the Registration Rights Agreement. Pursuant to the Registration Rights Agreement, we agreed to file the registration statement of which this prospectus is a part with the Commission to register for resale 143,812,591 shares of our common stock, which includes the 9,109,128 issued on October 27, 2014 as Initial Commitment Shares and 15,890,872 Additional Commitment Shares, on or prior to December 8, 2014, which we refer to as the Filing Deadline, and have it declared effective at the earlier of (A) the 90th calendar day after the earlier of (1) the Filing Deadline and (2) the date on which the registration statement of which this prospectus is a part is filed with the Commission and (B) the fifth business day after the date the Company is notified by the Commission that the registration statement will not be reviewed or will not be subject to further review, which we refer to as the Effectiveness Deadline. The effectiveness of the registration statement of which this prospectus is a part is a condition precedent to our ability to sell common stock to Magna under the Purchase Agreement. "
If "they" (OCAT) "announced" it, then where? If it's not public, then it's insider info IMO. Someone knowing an exact date is pretty specific (and is it close of market or open of market on the 16th?)
Where's a link to a fully public source like a PR, or formal announcement?
"someone on another board said" is not exactly public info or a real credible source of "reported" information IMHO.
Any links to a typical, fully public market PR or a SEC filing or similar? I believe E-trade told you that, but where did E-trade get this info that no one as the retail trading public has seen? That's interesting?
I mean it's probably true, I don't doubt what you're saying, as I don't believe this stock traded as anything other than an OTC stock on Friday. But a little more than "they said" would sure be a help.
Yep, and it looks like these dudes were master painters/shorters, no doubt. The Van Gogh's of the "tape painters". Real pros for sure, IMO.
Gastro, yep. The only thing that everyone appears "solid" and in 100% agreement on, is that it closed at $6.49 on the money, Friday.
It appeared to be one of the most perfectly executed "slam it to the desired closing price" short orders one can ever see. Played like a well tuned Stradivarius.
Some of the daily charts now seem to be "catching up" and showing what Friday's trading really looked like- and it's a stunner, with the close being a thing of beauty. (well fugly ugly for Joe Q. Public, but beauty for stock manipulation 101 players and pro shorts).
They parked the thing like bringing a 787 Dream Liner up to the gate on-time and putting the wheels right to the chalk marks. To the penny in this case it appears.
Memories of old ACTC and the big boy's, short n pro trading club in action, for sure.
"Well...my E*trade portfolio page is screwed up again. OCAT shows all zeros, including zero$ total market value.....minus 100.00 %...WTF....Hope it all gets ironed out Monday."
AMAZING !! I pointed out earlier the NASDAQ page itself appeared to change from blank template form last night and this AM, to now changed/updated some time middle of today? Those places (NASDAQ, E-trade, etc) don't typically work weekends (brokerages, almost all Wall St closes solid for weekends) so where is all these data feed, apparent changes even coming from?
I've never seen a stock do all this "stuff" before, in years of watching, following and buying/selling everything from penny to the bluest of blue chips. Not once seen a deal like this Friday and now all the way to a weekend where people's accounts are going screwy, going blank, not quoting right, and brokerages even on the phone can't figure it out? I've had a few loser stocks even go full BK over the yrs, and they still quoted and traded correctly right to the end, when they halted trading- never just "blanking" out or whatever? That's wild.
I stated prior- those brokerage folks when one calls them on phone support, you hear the beep typically, that your call is being recorded and one can hear the background noise of a trading floor/room type environment typically- they're in front of essentially a pro-trading desk level terminal, they see 20X what Joe Q. Public can see. Meaning sophisticated Level II, all routes to all major trading networks, order flow and routing, depth of all trades matching on networks, where their own company order flow is being routed, real time data right off the exchange floors and all electronic trading networks, real time news, SEC/FINRA alerts, etc
But how many calls were placed just from I-HUB folks here- and not one appeared to get a definitive answer, up to and including, not even knowing on what exchange the stock was trading on with certainty, on Friday, or how it was trading and for most folks here that tried by phone? The brokers weren't even sure how to even route a buy or sell order for their customer in several testimonies.
Amazing. Monday AM "interesting" to say the least.
Here is a link to thee OTC MARKETS site.
They show that OCAT traded 373,024 shares for the entire day (Friday) and closed at $6.49.
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/OCAT/quote
Here is the site to thee NASDAQ. Last night and earlier today, this site showed a blank, generic page for OCAT, like a place holder page.
Interesting, now it's showing a page with Friday's trading range and number of shares traded, etc that exactly matches the OTC MARKETS site linked above.
This is getting more interesting every moment IMO. People saying their brokerage account pages have changes this AM from what they saw last night, and now the NASDAQ site changing since last night and early AM (I'm 100% confident I viewed it late yesterday and this AM, as I linked to it in a prior post and it was essentially blank except for the company name)
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/ocat
Who the heck knows? This is just a big mess IMO. Info being changed moment by moment and not even brokerages able to give definitive answers?
"I've noticed on my scottrade account that changes made..."
That's a lot of good information and reflects the mass of confusion that was Friday, IMO.
Here's the thing though IMO, and to some similar statements to that post and some of the replies:
If the company, the brokers, the people handling the transition from OTC to NASDAQ, the underwriters, whoever; or the fact is was meant to go to NASDAQ but maybe they pulled the plug last minute- who knows, but whatever all those explanations may be (and we may never know the correct story)- the point is:
The market place has provisions and protections that are supposed to be implemented when those things happen. The "circuit breakers" essentially. The main one IMO would have been a TRADING HALT. Then, let the powers that be have sorted it all out, get the technical glitches corrected, then resume trading either on NASDAQ or OTC or whatever the case may be.
But it appears like it was almost pre-planned, like they gave the pro trading desks a freebie day, or at least a freebie 2 to 3 plus hours in the AM, while the retail public was left stranded in a mass of blacked-out confusion. It smells IMO of having some relation to the "big boys" attempting to price this secondary (can't prove it and I'm a total amateur, but people have gut instinct and know something not right when they see it)
I think the main complaint is that many, many retail "little people" were left in a huge state of confusion, no PR was issued (and I can't believe the company didn't have some word of what a mess Friday was, I just wouldn't buy that)- so retail buyers and sellers, many were shut-out of the market. Again, while OCAT traded and volume by "someone" was clearly taking place. Also, the little people were blinded from accurate and up to date quotes- the backbone of a free and open market.
People in the public markets have rights. If a stock is tanking, they have a right to sell and get out. If they saw OCAT spike to $7.25 or whatever and decided that was a profit for them and wanted to place a sell order and take money off the table, that's a protected right in the way our regulated markets work. Accurate, up to the moment pricing is sacred in our markets; up to the moment accurate quotes so that people can decide what they want to do with their money.
It appears, IMO, that a mass breach or mess, or whatever one wants to call it occurred on Friday violating pretty much every fundamental of our free and open markets, and no one threw the circuit breaker and halted this thing till they could sort it out and get it right.
Further, the way it traded Friday, in violent swings, in a near perfect saw-tooth or chop pattern, then slamming it back on the close to a perfect $6.49, like magic, smacks (IMO) of manipulative "big boy" shorting, in no way involving mom and pops retail buy and sell orders.
They are about to try and place a large, very dilutive secondary- I can't think of a worse time to taint the confidence in one's stock than right now, or raise suspicion of manipulation trading taking place.
If this was supposed to be the big move off the OTC, it sure left a bad taste IMO of OTC-ville in many people's mouths. It appears to have had all the classic trappings of penny and OTC-ville according to many's experience here.
OTC Market site versus NASDAQ market site.
Compare the two.
The NASDAQ site is blank - it shows no trades, no graph, no last trades history for the day, nothing for OCAT today.
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/ocat/real-time
Now go to thee OTC Markets site. (in other words, these two sites are THEE companies that run these exchanges, it's where everyone else gets their feeds from such as an E-trade or Fidelity or Yahoo finance - they in one way or another "buy" their info and feed direct from the source, which is these two web sites)
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/OCAT/quote
Now look at the OTC Market site. It looks "live" and active like it does end of trading day, every day. Meaning it shows OCAT's end of day price and total volume traded accurate to today's volume, last price quoted etc.
Which tells me, IMO, this traded on the OTC today. That's my 2 cents from comparing the two sites. NSADAQ.com blank, no info. OTC MARKETS has data and it looks updated as of today.
"I notice that this morning on my Ameritrade account OCATA was listed as been in NASDAQ, but checking tonight is back to over the counter, any ideas why?."
Hi Marinemom (if that's for Marine, as in Corps, then Semper Fi).
Per your question- there are many savvy, very experienced investors/traders, stock market followers here with many years of experience (not professionals, but dedicated amateurs, some w/ probably 20 yrs or more watching the public markets)-
And you asked the same question that has literally stumped probably 50 or more "regulars" here today, who I'd consider very market savvy. Some even spent extended amounts of time to their brokerage houses on phone support and couldn't get a definitive answer to your same question.
I personally, can't with confidence, guess where or how this traded today- officially on NASDAQ or I heard on some sort of hybrid of a low tier NASDAQ market but on the OTC networks - is what someone thought (don't know if that's even possible per my experience?)
Short answer- I don't think anyone knows. Look at the I-HUB quote feed, it's still blank. Yahoo finally appeared to update their price/graph but it says OTC. I went to the NASDAQ site itself and the OTC market site itself- and between the two, can't tell if OCAT is on one or the other?
I'd say many, many on here are "confused" and befuddled by this entire experience today (more "choice" words many would have I'm sure).
So, hope that helps- everyone's in the same boat and will have to sit tight, it appears, till at least Monday at 9:30 AM Eastern to know any more than we know now unless a PR or something public is put out as news.
"Someone has the ability to coordinate an increase of 12% in a few hours and then to sell it all off to the tune of a 25% gain with the short."
Aberlowi, gotta say I agree and, more importantly I believe- was this seemingly apparent "glitch" or pre-planned mess up, call it whatever one wants- but this thing, especially in the AM, appeared planned so that it effectively shut-out retail folks, and blinded them to accurate price quotes, info and in many testimonials the ability to even trade.
So lets say little ole us, Joe Q. Public, the un-important ones apparently to this company and the MM's and whoever; it's like we're watching a bad car crash unfold in the AM, with mass confusion and all- and people scrambling to call their brokers, I was searching every web site I could find to try and figure if it was even trading or at what price or on OTC versus NASDAQ and all- many of us were totally blind sided and in the dark..and for the ultimate insult to injury-
suppose we said, "I don't like what I'm seeing and want to sell" or suppose out of 1000's of investors someone had said I need money for my family because of an illness and it looks like this went to $7.00 this AM from what some people are seeing- I want to sell and get my money, but guess what- they couldn't sell. They tried on-line and their account showed empty boxes where it should quote the price, or it showed yesterday's OTC price frozen in time. So they jumped on the phone support to their broker (which usually means a higher commission) and they said I want to sell OCAT.
The broker sits and tells them I can't get a quote or price- where is this stock, OCAT, even trading? Person says, you tell me- you're the broker !! Gets passed to 3 or 4 people/departments (actual I-HUB poster stated that happened to them)- and no one gives a definitive answer, let alone executes that sell order for them swiftly and at best price. Stock later closes down at $6.49.
Wow. That's not a "minor snafu" on some "up-list" day IMO. Not when it looks like pro traders were popping off trades left and right and as you pointed out, right from market open, and ran it up sharply, then collapsed it right back down in a mega wide spread? How can that be possible? Something went major amiss today on this stock IMO. What and how and who's responsible- I have no idea. But they want to now sell a 30% dilution secondary of 10 million shares after today's mini-fiasco and everyone is supposed to just swallow the pill and feel their shares are safe and not going to be manipulated or whatever?
I don't know IMO. Wild ride and "sketchy" looking at best. I'd sure expect a PR or someone to step up to the plate and explain this trading day to the public. I think half the people here aren't even clear still, what market this is now listed or trading on- and couldn't even get their brokerage house to give them a definitive answer. Several were apparently told next Tuesday, NASDAQ, by major, well known broker firms. So where the heck did it trade today, all day? Wow.
"Apparently it was all a scam for shorty."
I gotta agree- that today almost appeared to be an "arranged" trading day of some sort (especially several hours in the AM) where the retail little people were literally shut-out and blinded to quotes for pricing even (let alone it seems no one at a retail brokerage can even clearly state what market its now trading on, which is stunning).
I think it was almost a day made for the MM's or the underwriters/pro trading desks to trade- which IMO, and I can't prove a thing, smacks real bad of manipulation and even some serious treading into SEC/FINRA danger zone area. Meaning, this looks more complicated IMO than some minor ole "technical glitch". Cause certain, select people, aka pros, seemed to be able to trade at will right from the open as there was clearly volume and trades- while Joe. Q. Public was shut out, even begging their brokers by phone for help and transparency of price, etc.
I just don't see how this can't raise a red flag over the secondary efforts- I mean you talk about a bad time to raise flags about the integrity of how your stock trades?? Holy cow that's bad timing.
"News out. "
Interesting, it's an "amended" version of the original Magna deal S-1 SEC registration form.
Not sure how one figures out the "amended" parts or not? Don't know if it's at the end, or just changes throughout? Curious to figure out what they changed?
Will try and give it a read later on, and compare to the first version of this original filing and try and see what changed?
FORM S-1
AMENDMENT ONE
REGISTRATION STATEMENT
UNDER
THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933
farview, thanks. It's looking like more and more people's accounts have sort of settled down a bit- but you still couldn't get full answers via phone support which is pretty amazing IMO.
I mean, those are the brokers, they sit at professional trading terminals- they see and have access to 20X the info Joe Q. Retail guy has. So when they say they can't quite figure it out, I gotta believe that even triggers some automatic internal triggers- maybe FINRA and DTC messages being sent out, etc.
Remember, at the end of the day, given how screwy the AM was, someone's on the hook to insure that every penny of every last trade was on the up and up and balances out- that's the DTC (depostitory trust corp. who "clears" pretty much every trade in the U.S.) and overseeing them is FINRA like the other gate-keeper to make sure it's all honest and to the law, etc.
I'd wonder if this is gonna set off any red flags about this secondary trying to be placed and priced- when the trading went all screwy right in the middle of the process? It sure can't help but put a spot light on the stock IMO.
Again, I'd think just by routine internal controls- that an E-trade broker or whoever has to fire off some kind of msg to FINRA or whoever when they say, "Hey, I've got customers hammering me on the phone and my quote terminal can't even find this stock or give the customer a clear quote or I can't process an order and am not even sure what exchange this order should route to or whatever". I'm sure it's not good for the brokerages business- to have customers saying, "Hey, I wanted to sell a little there above $7, but your system wouldn't let me. What's that all about, and, my account was full of screwy numbers and a no quote for 2 hours this AM or whatever."
All very strange and still looking strange a bit right into market close according to several, still on-going first person testimonials.
"I think that is broken up orders"
I've had that theory a bit myself, but I think the others are correct- not when it's like literally $11 bucks worth or $9.67 cent worth for 17 shares or whatever and always seems to hit the low bid.
On a higher dollar stock- I'd buy into and used to see the "broken up orders" thing. I agree. Like on a 200 share order for a $8 stock, they might post 120 shares and then 80 or whatever. But like 20 shares at .0147 cents? Now I'm not so sure?
I'm leaning heavy to the manipulation camp at this point anymore. Remember, all these "financing" deals have some pricing formula that says something like, "the avg share price of the past 10 days, blah, blah".
It makes me think some "big boy" is tapping that bid with some micro, $11 trade so they can print that low bid trade onto the tape. I could be totally wrong- but it sure looks suspicious and near perfectly timed lately.
And it's happening more often IMO. Little hits to that bid, dropping it slowly, ever lower and lower, the "ratchet" effect. Creeping the bid down a bit every 3rd day or so, sometimes with one or two small trades out of the entire day.
This is the stuff I've read about that is rumored to be notorious when any "convertible debt" financing is used. And also Magna, just from reading the I-HUB pages has a pretty notorious reputation for all kinds of ways to "work" a stock to their advantage.
It's probably all legal unfortunately, at the mercy of the ole OTC market place- which is kinda the WILD WILD WEST of the stock markets, which are wild enough to begin with.
farview - don't know, but what ever the reason it looks really, really bad and is a problem IMHO.
If a stock/company knows there is a problem, where retail folks can't get quoted accurate prices to make decisions, let alone even get a buy or sell order to process, even via paying for additional phone assistance at their chosen brokerage- then
All my experience tells me that's typically when a SEC or FINRA halt is put in place till they can sort it out and insure a fair and transparent market to all. They often even have to go back and review all prior trades, how they were settled, where they came from, who processed and matched um, etc.
Having people effectively locked out of their accounts for certain this AM, and some still giving testimony as of now, almost 2 PM Eastern, again, is mega a problem IMO.
I still can't find an accurate looking, up to date quote myself or even discern with certainty what market this is trading on. And I've looked direct at NASDAQ.com and OTC Markets site and Yahoo and I-HUB and in TD Ameritrade and it's just not updating for me, and I believe many others here and on some other boards are still seeing the same.
Are you seeing what you believe is a "live" and accurate quote somewhere and if where would you mind stating? Just to help others out here? If you have a brokerage or account that's quoting that would help us figure out who seems to have good info and who still doesn't?
Thanks