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.
NO. "Based on the latest 10-Q issued for Sept 30 $OCAT had $7.8 mil cash and cash equivalents"
Cash on hand and cash equivalents is NOT anything remotely the same as shareholder equity. Shareholder equity is an entirely separate entry on a balance sheet.
Shareholder equity = assets - total liabilities
It's called SHAREHOLDER EQUITY by the NASDAQ ( and not cash on hand or cash and cash equivalents) for a reason. It's what the public SHAREHOLDERS have as "value", what they have in "share value" if the company were to liquidate and pay all liabilities using all cash on hand and other assets. It's the "balance" of the balance sheet. If SHAREHOLDER EQUITY is negative, as it's been in all recent yrs past for OCAT, then the shareholder really have nothing of value, especially in a liquidation event.
This is biz accounting 101
From the prospectus, PAGE S-15:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1140098/000104746914009660/a2222363z424b5.htm
It is CRYSTAL CLEAR from that accounting BALANCE SHEET, in thee latest filed PROSPECTUS, that OCAT DOES NOT meet the minimum NASDAQ shareholder-equity requirements of $4 million.
The ONLY way to do that, to INCREASE ONE's SHAREHOLDER EQUITY is given by the fundamental accounting equation again:
SHAREHOLDER EQUITY = ASSETS - LIABILITIES
Thus the only way to increase SHAREHOLDER EQUITY is ONLY TWO options, either INCREASE ASSETS (cash) or pay down LIABILITIES. PERIOD.
1) Pay down debt/liabilities
2) Or increase cash on hand, aka a large secondary offering or a large Lincoln financing that would need to exceed about $3.2 million, as that's how much they're short.
It's clear to me they are/were banking on the secondary offering placing and selling which instantly boosts that cash line entry way, way up and then shareholder equity is instantly way past the $4 million required.
I believe that was/is their plan, but the secondary has not sold at a value they are happy with (probably steep discount by underwriters due to the stock's weakness, current low shareprice and low demand, requiring a stiffer than normal share discount to the underwriters. However, even at $4.50 or something a share, it easily makes them enough cash to clear the $4 million shareholder equity requirement and gets them on the NASDAQ. That's the pickle they're in IMO)
Thus, OCAT DOES NOT presently meet the $4 MILLION minimum SHAREHOLDER EQUITY (NOT cash and cash equivalents) as required by the NASDAQ CAPITAL MARKETS. As I've said all along and just proven using their own balance sheet entries from their own duly filed SEC documents.
You're looking at the NASDAQ global market on page 8, it's a higher tier, harder to qualify market than the lower tier, NASDAQ capital market.
I don't know if OCAT meets those much stricter and more exclusive requirements for the global market, it's a much smaller club? It's also much more expensive to list on in terms of up front and annual fees.
I'd be surprised if they'd make the global market tier straight off the OTC. Almost every company I've ever seen list off the OTC goes to the lowest tier capital market place (CM) after their symbol. That table is a general summary- there's pages of details in the codes to be met for each tier, the codes are 5705, 5710, 5711, etc. All those requirements must be met, not just what that summary, general guideline table shows.
The table is just a summary outline - one must click the top "blue highlighted codes" to read the fine print- and it's lengthy and complex and gets into derivative share issues, warrants, all kinds of stuff.
Notice, the "global market" involves qualifying under sections 5405A and 5405 B3, B4, etc.
The "capital markets" is via sections 5505(A) and 5505(B)(2) etc.
Read all the details in those explanations- it's complicated. Again, the "global" being the tougher to qualify, more stringent, more expensive, etc. That's what I know. I've seen several "uplists" from OTC and I think every one of them went to NASDAQ(cm) the capital markets, like the starting, lower tier. That's what my assumptions are based on.
It's not that simple as that summary table, that's just the very starting point of the rules. It's a complex matter. OCAT isn't "in dialogue" with NASDAQ cause this is like filling out some one page form.
NO insider "buying"?? It's a share grant for "compensation"
Straight up shares, not even options. Just free money essentially.
They didn't cough up so much as one dime of their own money for those shares. Those are "free" options being given to them.
See "note 1" in the reference section of the form 4:
"1. Issued directly to Reporting Person by Issuer representing Board of Director Compensation."
It's also essentially "cash" as they are "instant vest" shares- meaning not a option/derivative with any vesting schedule. Just instantly available as the date is marked 12/31/14 and no vesting, etc.
Thus, at about $6 bucks a share market price that day, that's 6 X 1250 = $7,500 "compensation" approx.
There's no insider buying. Totally false.
"Jan 7, next Wed and $OCAT completes its listing requirement to be eligible for the Nasdaq Capital."???
How exactly is that going to work when they don't meet the minimum, $4 million in shareholder equity requirements? Per their prospectus filing and the last 10-Q, they presently have about $723K (thousand) in positive shareholder equity. That's about $3.3 million shy of the lowest tier NASDAQ requirements? READ the NASDAQ listing requirements.
https://listingcenter.nasdaqomx.com/assets/initialguide.pdf
PLAINLY stated, minimum $4 million in shareholder equity- which this company DOES NOT HAVE presently.
Also, there's nothing about the date of Jan 7th that has anything to do with their ability to list or not list on the NASDAQ?
They traded it today back on the old low vol, WIDE SPREAD mode.
It couldn't hold any real gains- they sunk it into the close on some very, very small, low dollar trades. So typical of this one.
Looks like the dumping was finished yr end and now they took it back to ultra wide spread and very low vol mode. They got some buyers today on a 10% plus spread, then sunk it into the close on um. Ouch.
Typical pattern on this one IMO. Seen it so many times in this 8 month plus, sustained down trend. The "ratchet" effect.
Some days like this now to "walk it up" a bit, then the big boys will sink it again more than likely.
Remember, the vast, vast majority of the major dilution shares to Magna haven't even hit the market yet. The end of the yr was likely mostly just Asher and Daniel James and Fourth Man. I don't think Magna has really even gotten cranked up into high gear yet with the enormous amount of dilution shares they will be holding.
Still looking very, very weak here IMO. No sign of any trend reversal whatsoever. Just sustained downtrend.
Noise is deafening as it makes a low volume, near nothing bounce on a little short covering by the likes of Asher, Magna, Fourth Man, and other toxic debt financiers. (Maybe $8K total traded today)
The volume today is a fraction of the large, recent sell and dump days- where it's been doing 3 to over 4.5 million shares a day in hard sell of volume, often down 10% or more in single, high vol moves. It's trading a fraction of that vol today, not even reaching "avg daily vol" today, at just over 700K shares traded.
The stock has been flat-lining for long periods today where for 1 to 2 hours, not a single trade would post. Just sitting parked, dead in the water.
It's called a death-spiral "ratchet" for a reason. They (Asher, Magna, etc) take it down in "ratchet" stair steps and periodically cover. It's how a Magna or other toxic lender "does what they do".
Further, there is no sign, none of BHRT reaching any cost reduction scaling or cost reductions from sales? Costs and expenses have exploded upward, despite being a company of essentially only 2 people, with a few others added in once in a while (4 full time, 1 part time as of last SEC filing 10-Q).
Thus, w/o hiring any people, w/o expanding any facilities, w/o adding any assets, etc their costs and expenses have close to doubled yr over yr, and the sales and revenues made no difference to their desperate cash situation, as they again finished out the last qtr with only $46K cash on hand, against just immediate, very short term obligations such as accounts payable totaling $2 million plus (about as close to BK as one can get IMO, or insolvent, except for dilution and tapping desperation lenders such as Asher, Fourth Man, Daniel James and now Magna for trickles of survival cash).
There's nothing improving or getting "better" in their dire financial condition- their losses to operations this yr are as large as ever and their cash position as desperate as ever.
"retaining the right people"??? They're a "company" of 2 people for the most part with a hand full of others that get hired and fired every once in a while (4 full time, 1 part time as of last 10-Q, and maybe 3 or 4 total employees prior to that per the 10-K of last yr).
No expenses are going down- not a single indication of that from their most recent SEC filing; the opposite is true, their expenses are exploding upward, off-setting and negating the effects of any "revenues". No "streamlining" of anything is occurring- how much more "streamlined" can a "company" (barely) get than 4 people in a tiny, low priced, leased facility in Florida, that's about the size of an avg doctor's office or other very, very small business?
They're making continual LOWER HIGHS and LOWER LOWS in a sustained, unbroken, 8 to 9 month down-trend and closed out 2104 essentially near or at the 52 week low.
And now, they're gonna have increased legal costs, potentially large legal costs with the addition of another new lawsuit being brought against them- that they had to disclose it appears per Magna making them insert is as part of the recent share registration statement:
This most recent lawsuit is seeking $2.3 million in damages plus interest, which would more than likely bankrupt this nano cap company with a market cap of barely $6 million and about $250K total assets and almost no cash at any given time (see most recent SEC filings). It looks like 2 more directors have now "lawyered up" including the CEO now showing as having retained counsel for defense. How much is all this gonna cost this cash poor company one wonders?
https://www.clerk-17th-flcourts.org/Clerkwebsite/BCCOC2/OdysseyPA/CaseSummary.aspx?CaseID=7862332&hidSearchType=party_case&DisplayCitation=no&CaseNumber=CACE14021256&SearchType=
https://www.clerk-17th-flcourts.org/Clerkwebsite/BCCOC2/OdysseyPA/CaseSummary.aspx?CaseID=7155410&hidSearchType=party_case&DisplayCitation=no&CaseNumber=CACE13024037&SearchType=
Recently filed prospectus for the Magna "credit line" financing deal, the modified, updated version just recently filed on the SEC EDGAR database:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1388319/000114544314001603/d31959.htm
Quote, PAGE 75:
"Legal Proceedings
On November 10, 2014, the Company was served with a lawsuit by an alleged assignee and a guarantor to a Loan Guarantee, Payment and Security Agreement. These parties claim breach of that Agreement and damages of approximately $2.3 Million plus interest. The assignor and assignee also sued the Company’s directors and a past director and an affiliate shareholder for breach of fiduciary duty, claiming damages as alleged creditors arising out of these parties' alleged participation in Northstar Biotech Group, LLC, a secured creditor of the Company."
Doesn't look like anything is "better" or "getting better" to me? Not in my opinion. Looks as dire as it's ever been to me. They aren't tapping some desperation lender like Magna IMO, cause things are going great or anything?
"New Retinas in 2 weeks! 100K_a_Pop What's_Not_To_Like?"??
Well, all except the part that NO SUCH THING or "treatment" exists anywhere on planet earth that I'm aware of? And certainly not as a safe, commercialized, FDA or Euro or similar approved "treatment"?
Is there a link to a place, a medical facility that shows this imaginary "treatment" being done, today for the "$100K a pop" and all?
I might know someone who'd like to travel there and get this treatment that doesn't exist yet.
Any links or actual medical facilities locations/addresses or specific doctor's names who perform this mythological "treatment" and their published price lists, etc would be a big help. Does any major medical insurance carrier cover this non existent "treatment" yet that one knows about?
How many "new retina" imaginary "procedures" exactly have been successfully performed and documented to date? Is their any medical literature one can read on this? Sounds amazing, all except for the part that it doesn't seem to even exist yet?
Thanks.
NO. "And still HIGHER HIGHS AND HIGHER LOWS than this point last year"
Actually, at early Jan of last yr, it was at ONE CENT which is exactly where it's at today. It's gone nowhere. DEAD MONEY, during one of the greatest bull markets in world history.
The stock has been making LOWER HIGHS and LOWER LOWS for 9 plus months now, a sustained, unbroken downtrend. A major downtrend and technical weakness of every form.
And that's despite a doubling of the O/S shares via massive dilution and while increasing the A/S to 2 BILLION in preparation to dilute continuously, non-stop, for forever essentially, for as long as they can keep the gig going. Dilution is all they got.
From latest 10-Q filing, Q-3, 2014, PAGE 9:
" Fully diluted shares outstanding were 659,543,477 and 323,296,916 for the three months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, "
That is a staggering amount of share crushing dilution with nothing to show for it but a ONE CENT share price, a massively collapsed market cap now parked at about $5.x to maybe $6 million and massive debts and short term obligations due with little to no cash and 4 or 5 yr old trials that have gone nowhere, never budged a single step forward, just stagnating, going nowhere.
A picture is worth a 1000 words. The reality of it. Staggering losses. Dilution, endless dilution has consequences, as does continuous reliance on toxic, convertible debt financing, most of which goes to pay the ever increasing base salaries and now very large cash bonuses to just 2 people in the "company".
From last 10-Q, PAGE 23:
"Employment agreements
On July 28, 2014, the Company’s Board of Directors approved the 2014/2015 salary for Mike Tomas, Chief Executive Officer, at $525,000 per year, beginning July 1, 2014 with an incentive bonus ranging from $150,000 to $500,000. In addition, the Board of Directors will grant Mr. Tomas options to be determined on or before June 30, 2015. The Company’s Board of Directors approved a bonus of $500,000 and options to acquire 10,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock for ten years with four year vesting and a cashless exercise provision at an exercise price equal to the five day average closing price of the Company’s common stock as of August 1, 2014. The cash bonus may be paid in the form of a six month promissory note.
On July 28, 2014, the Company’s Board of Directors approved the 2014/2015 salary for Kristin Comella, Chief Scientific Officer, at $250,000 per year, beginning July 1, 2014 with an incentive bonus ranging from $100,000 to $300,000. In addition, the Board of Directors will grant Ms. Comella options to be determined on or before June 30, 2015. The Company’s Board of Directors approved a bonus of $300,000 and options to acquire 5,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock for ten years with four year vesting and a cashless exercise provision at an exercise price equal to the five day average closing price of the Company’s common stock as of August 1, 2014. The cash bonus may be paid in the form of a six month promissory note."
That is $525K + $500K + $250K + $300K = $1,575,000 dollars per yr to just 2 people, in a company of 4 full time and 1 part time (see SEC filing)- $1.575 MILLION dollars a yr to 2 people, in a company that just finished their last qtr with $46K, $46 thousand, lousy cash total to their name (See SEC filing, most recent 10-Q, cash on hand entry).
Notice the bonuses were of course the top of the stated range- the very maximum amount. The 2 receiving the bonuses make up 2 out of the 6 BOD members, 1/3, so they're self voting their own pay increase to a large degree.
The company is so cash poor, they often pay ordinary bills in shares of common stock, yet issue out enormous bonuses to just 2 people. And even the bonuses can't be paid immediately as the company is so cash poor- so they issue themselves "promissory notes" until they can dilute some more to pay themselves.
OTC-ville to the tee IMO. Classic.
Bid parked solid at ONE CENT. .01
Looks like this is the "new normal" in here. The 1 CENT range, maybe even below if those "big boys" unload in the millions of shares like they've done for weeks now.
It's just trading on the 4% or so spread right now on very low volume.
About $1,400 bucks so far for that little 4% bump.
For the past 2 weeks or so, it dropped when an exact 500K block was popped off each time. Exactly at 500K shares each, big down day. Sometimes 2 in a day. A perfect red-line on the vol part of the chart, at exactly 500K shares.
As in last trading day. It opened on like .82 cents traded, then sat, parked for something like 1 hour. Then a perfect, 500K block was printed and dropped it 9% plus in a blink. That's been the pattern now for 2 weeks or so.
Wonder who can print and pop-off perfect, 500K blocks, apparently "as needed", many, many days in a row? Must be a "big boy" selling IMO.
MM BMAKN still sitting on the Ask with tiny share amounts like $100 bucks worth. Google brings up a lot of commentary that BMAK (BMAKN) is notorious as Magna and Asher and similar. A dilution MM of penny "fame".
"Such a Pharmaceutical Veteran with Science Degrees as Dr. Paul Wotton would have requested and thoroughly reviewed such info before making his dramatic decision to leave Antares and join $ACTC, now $OCAT. The results for the better vision 20/100 is absolutely key for the planned Phase2B Protocol agreement with the FDA and as well for the purchaser(s) of the new 10 mil shares, $62 mil. "
What????? Wow?
So having or claiming to have a "science degree" of some sort gives one all the apparent following, near miracle like, "powers"???
1) That via holding or claiming to hold a "science degree(s)" one gets special powers beyond those who don't hold such degrees such that being able to "infer" and "project" and "see future" yet to happen events as related to a stock and a public traded company become "beyond obvious", whereas the one's who don't hold these "science degrees" just don't know simple things and can't "see" the future etc? Amazing IMO. Fantastic what a "science degree" must give one in terms of special "powers" over others who don't have that or those particular "degrees"??
2) That via holding or claiming to hold a "science degree(s)" one gets the ability to read another's mind (say a public company CEO, for example) and know why they made a career decision to leave one company for another in a "dramatic" decision? Fascinating IMO. As opposed to say, leaving a company with a "dramatically" falling share price that's now sitting at rock bottom right at about $2 buck and change which means for all anyone knows - he was about to get the boot anyway, among a 100 other reasons why CEO's and other Sr Mgt routinely change companies and "might" have decided to leave a prior company. Also, that this CEO, knew perhaps his pay package at OCAT would be similar (near identical) and then via one of his first moves joining the company he'd further enrich it via a self-vote being passed to make "dramatic" boosts to the insider's, select few, pay and perks program. "Maybe" possibly?
3) That having or claiming to have a "science degree" also gives one near magic and "miracle" like powers to know in acute detail why a CEO of an OTC public traded company makes every detailed, behind the scenes business decision that they do, and why and when, such as details regarding a clinical trial, etc? That via holding or claiming to hold a "science degree" that one can even "see" and know what exact documents a public company CEO specifically would have "requested" and "reviewed" prior to making a key, major business decision for a public traded company? Wow !! THAT is truly an amazing power and I never knew that holding a "science degree" came with such incredible "powers"?
4) That having or claiming to have a "science degree" also gives one near miracle powers to be able to know the amount a secondary offering will net to a company before that secondary offering has even been priced and sold, etc- but that just via having a "science degree" one can name the exact amount ($62 million, to the dollar) of a yet to be completed secondary offering?? This is beyond amazing IMHO. It's actual miracle like territory.
I have several "degrees" and I've worked in science and very "high technology" related fields for many, many years- and I've never come across these particular "powers" or abilities while crossing paths and/or working extremely closely with 100's, if not 1000 or more people who hold "science degrees", and often even many other degrees (advanced degrees) in a variety of fields.
This is pretty groundbreaking stuff IMO. It's past amazing to me?
"IMO such new unpublished TLD has already been shared on a Confidential Signed Agreement with the 10 mil new shares $62 mil placement Investor(s). "?????
1) There is nothing, not a thing that guarantees $62 million in this secondary sale of 10 MILLION pure dilution shares. The offering is not even priced yet, it's not sold yet and thus no one knows what it will net to OCAT. No one. Given the $6 present share price, it's highly unlikely they will net anywhere near $62 million on 10 million shares, as they will be steeply discounted to the present $6 market price. It's not even determined yet "if" they'll even do the deal and when. No one knows.
2) The underwriters are who are purchasing the shares and they will always pay a discount to the market price, which as of last trade was about $6.09. There's no mythological "investors" buying these shares? The underwriting firms buy the shares, pay OCAT their net amount and then the underwriters sell those shares off to whoever they choose- including "making a market" in the shares (see the prospectus) -which means selling those shares into the retail market, as day to day free trading shares. They'll be selling them to hedge funds and anyone else who'll buy- including professional shorts and firms that may likely short the stock. It says so right in the prospectus.
3) To share any proprietary info, that's also not being shared with the open-market, retail public would be a criminal violation of SEC law. There's no such thing occurring. Not a chance. No imaginary "confidential signed agreements" or whatever. It's a free and open sale of shares that will hit the public markets as free trading shares- no one has any dibs or rights to proprietary information. That's a myth.
" @ some moment this year that run to $12 and change will look like child's play."
Present REALITY is a 50% total loss to $6.09, and a dip into the $5's just prior to that.
"Went from a biotechnology stock w nothing fda approved to having product and services "???
"I'm glad you agree that Mike is doing a great job!!" Not my words?? Never said um and you don't speak for me.
They're still a biotechnology company (sort of I guess) with NO FDA APPROVED ANYTHING (except a catheter that goes off patent in 2017?) and no products or services approved for sale by the FDA or any other similar agency per their own SEC filings.
Last 10-K filing, yr end 2013:
PAGE 39:
"We do not currently have product liability insurance because none of our product candidates has yet been approved for commercialization. While we plan to seek product liability insurance coverage if any of our product candidates are sold commercially, we cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain product liability insurance on commercially acceptable terms, if at all, or that we will be able to maintain such insurance at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect against potential losses.
Claims may be made by consumers, healthcare providers, third party strategic collaborators or others selling our products if one of our products or product candidates causes, or appears to have caused, an injury. We may be subject to claims against us even if an alleged injury is due to the actions of others. For example, we rely on the expertise of physicians, nurses and other associated medical personnel to perform the medical procedures and processes related to our product candidates. If these medical personnel are not properly trained or are negligent in using our product candidates, the therapeutic effect of our product candidates may be diminished or the patient may suffer injury, which may subject us to liability. In addition, an injury resulting from the activities of our suppliers may serve as a basis for a claim against us.
We do not intend to promote, or to in any way support or encourage the promotion of, our product candidates for off-label or otherwise unapproved uses. However, if our product candidates are approved by the FDA or similar foreign regulatory authorities, we cannot prevent a physician from using them for any off-label applications. If injury to a patient results from such an inappropriate use, we may become involved in a product liability suit, which will likely be expensive to defend.
"
PAGE 31 (same 10-K filing):
"Our product candidates may never be commercialized due to unacceptable side effects and increased mortality that may be associated with such product candidates.
Possible side effects of our product candidates may be serious and life-threatening. A number of participants in our clinical trials of MyoCell have experienced serious adverse events potentially attributable to MyoCell, including six patient deaths and 18 patients experiencing irregular heartbeats. A serious adverse event is generally an event that results in significant medical consequences, such as hospitalization, disability or death, and must be reported to the FDA. The occurrence of any unacceptable serious adverse events during or after preclinical and clinical testing of our product candidates could temporarily delay or negate the possibility of regulatory approval of our product candidates and adversely affect our business. Both our trials and independent trials have reported the occurrence of irregular heartbeats in treated patients, a significant risk to patient safety. We and our competitors have also, at times, suspended trials studying the effects of myoblasts, at least temporarily, to assess the risk of irregular heartbeats, and it has been reported that one of our competitors studying the effect of myoblast implantation prematurely discontinued a study because of the high incidence of irregular heartbeats."
Same 10-K, PAGE 31:
"we are still in the process of seeking to demonstrate that our product candidates do not pose unacceptable health risks. We have not yet treated a sufficient number of patients to allow us to make a determination that serious unintended consequences will not occur."
What exact so called "products" and/or "therapies" are they selling exactly again? Approved for use in humans by what agencies again? I don't "get it"?? Not by reading their own SEC filings in which they emphatically state they won't even "help promote" any off label or unapproved use of their product candidates.
By definition of their own SEC filings, "Adipocell" is a "product candidate", just as one example:
Same 10-K filing, PAGE 53:
"In our pipeline, we have multiple product candidates for the treatment of heart damage, including MyoCell, Myocell SDF-1 and AdipoCell. MyoCell and MyoCell SDF-1"
Thus, by simple logic and use of the English language, Adipocell as one example is clearly labeled in their own words as a "product candidate" and in other language in their own SEC filings, they state emphatically and clearly that NONE of their "product candidates" is yet to be proven safe, or tested enough yet, etc to be safe for use in humans outside of carefully controlled, FDA monitored or similarly monitored clinical trials- and by no means in any way "commercialized" or to be supported or even "promoted", let alone sold freely on an open market as being safe for routine use in, or on human beings. Pretty clear language IMO?
Again, what exactly are they selling that's been proven and tested and approved as safe for use in and on humans, as a "commercialized" product(s)? I'm very confused?
NO again. " Nasdaq Capital having met ALL criteria as I have previously posted. "
They DO NOT meet the minimum shareholder equity requirements of $4 MILLION. PERIOD. END OF STORY.
From the prospectus, PAGE S-15:
Total stockholders' equity (deficit) 723,010
That's about $3.2 MILLION shy of what's needed.
FROM THEE NASDAQ, their published listing requirements for the LOWEST TIER one can qualify for:
https://listingcenter.nasdaqomx.com/assets/initialguide.pdf
Stockholders’ Equity (lowest tier) $4 million
Page 9 of the document, 2014, published by NASDAQ
Being above $4 a share in NO WAY, NO SHAPE and NO FORM "waives" the shareholder equity requirement somehow. Simply not true. Not even close.
That NASDAQ publication is crystal clear and in very simple wording in that table. There is not a single note or "*" or anything else explaining away or waiving the need for $4 million in shareholder equity which OCAT DOES NOT HAVE as per their own prospectus recently filed.
Wow, a micro "blog"??
Or, there's major publications that quote Lanza verbatim, directly, such as this one and many others:
""We treated the last UK patients last month, and they also have not seen any safety issues related to the transplanted tissues themselves, either," Dr. Lanza said.
Advanced Cell now hopes to launch a 100-patient, phase 2 study in Stargardt's patients by the end of the year, according to Dr. Lanza.
A second, smaller phase 2 study in patients with age-related macular degeneration would follow, he said. Any treatment might not be ready for FDA approval until 2020, Dr. Lanza said. "
http://www.telegram.com/article/20141014/NEWS/310149525&Template=printart
Year 2020 for a "maybe" at being "FDA READY" and a "we hope to", etc? That a lot of uncertainty, a lot dilution, a lot of cash to burn, and a lot of time in which this can be tripped up a 100 different ways, possibly totally fail, or be beat out by some better funded competitor, etc. seems to me.
2020? I'd say there's some dead money and dilution ahead IMHO. A lot more than likely. 5 yrs is an eternity in the ultra fast moving, ever changing world high technology and in a very unstable world in which markets and financing and whatnot can flip faster than one can blink an "eye".
NO. "Jan 7 on Wed means the end of the 90 trading days at or above $4 PPS as req'd by the Nasdaq criteria for Nasdaq Capital uplisting. "
They still do not meet the $4 million minimum shareholder equity requirements. They had about $700K in total shareholder equity as of the financials in the recently filed prospectus.
From the prospectus, PAGE S-15:
Total stockholders' equity (deficit) 723,010
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1140098/000104746914009660/a2222363z424b5.htm
They're short in the stockholder's equity department. Simple as that.
See minimum shareholder equity needed in the NASDAQ standards. It's not "waived" or anything simply by remaining above $4 share for 90 days or whatever? Further, the need to be above $4 a share commences PRIOR to filing, it says so right in the NASDAQ document, thus that period is already past. It's the $4 million in shareholder positive equity that's their problem. And they likely can't meet that w/o a secondary offering, as Lincoln line most likely can't be tapped for a single draw large enough to give um $3.2 million approx. plus what they need to run day to day operations.
https://listingcenter.nasdaqomx.com/assets/initialguide.pdf
Stockholders’ Equity (lowest tier) $4 million
Page 9 of the document, 2014, published by NASDAQ
"Mike you are killing it!!!"
Yep, sounds like a very accurate statement to me. Since "Mike" took over control of running the company as CEO, the stock has lost a tremendous amount of share value while at the same time being massively diluted. Quite a "killing" of the common shares and market cap- to say the least.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/bioheart-announces-mike-tomas-appointed-ceo-97013034.html
"Mike" took over as CEO around June of 2010. A simple google or similar search will reveal that the share price of BHRT was about .50 cents a share to as high as a spike of .70 cents a share then. It was also when their major, key FDA trials stopped and have never started or progressed again - just stalled out and un-funded, with a carrot being dangled for 4 yrs, going on 5 yrs now that "big funding" was/is near and they would re-start those trials supposedly.
The O/S share count around June 2010 was approx:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1388319/000114544310002514/d27487.htm
"As of September 30, 2010 there were 29,366,985 outstanding shares of the registrant’s common stock"
See SEC filing for share count about the time "Mike" took control of the company.
Thus the O/S share have been diluted from about 30 million in 2010 to about minimum 650 MILLION today, heading for probably 800 MILLION by early 2015 due to Magna deals, all while no progress has ever been made on a single one of their phase II/III FDA trials and no major, non-dilutive "big financing" has ever materialized as has been promised for yrs, etc
That's a loss in shareholder value by "Mike" (who just boosted his pay to over $1 MILLION annually) - a shareholder loss of about:
50 cents to 1 CENT a share or approx.
50-1 = 49/50 = .98 X 100 = 98% LOSS to the common shares under the mgt of "Mike", while diluting from 30 million shares to again, about 650 million minimum today, a factor of 21X plus. The market cap would have also collapsed by about 2/3 from around $15 million in 2010, to now just above $5 million as of yesterday's closing price- most certainly "killing it". Yes.
Yes, that is surely "killing it" IMO. One couldn't do much more to "kill it" than that. 98% loss is pretty epic "killing it" for a CEO. Yep. And then to be part of a BOD that self votes oneself large base pay increases and bonuses while turning in that kind of "killing it" performance just adds that special OTC-ville "flare" to it, IMO. About as penny stock as it gets.
The ole "revenues"- they haven't made a bit of difference to the company's dire financial conditions. Because expense growth has far out grown any supposed "revenue" growth.
From the most recent filed 10-Q, PAGE 5:
Top line sales/revenues was $579,536
But cost of sale was $523,222
Which means the cost of sales was enormously high, meaning the gross margin was about a lousy 10%, meaning BHRT banked almost NO MONEY from the sales.
$579,536 - $523,222 = $56,314
Yep, $56K lousy bucks for an entire qtr is all they "made" to bank on $579K in "revenue", against massive growth in other expenses also, such as their SG&A expense line, and why it's obvious they'll never be profitable at this pace, as they're presently spending essentially nothing on R&D, aka "trials" and similar, only about $3K a month, total. They've hacked the R&D spending line to near zero to give the illusion they've made financial progress. But that means they're no longer an FDA "trial" company and their SEC filings show just that, that their FDA "trials" are going nowhere and have not progressed going on 5 yrs now. It's not even clear anymore IMO what "business" they're actually in anymore, other than to exist to pay a few key insiders a large salary and bonuses and similar. The entire "company" is 2 people essentially with an occasional 2 other full time tossed in for 4 full time and 1 part time as the entire "company" per their SEC filing (less people than my local pizza joint, which has more sale I'm sure)
How much did that top line "revenue" even amount too?
Well, it at best, had a "bottom line" result of $56K to BHRT (as they have no taxes, as they take and produce only large losses)
So $56K for 3 months of revenue = $56/3 = $18,700 a month to BHRT
They just handed Tomas a $500K cash bonus for turning in such a stellar yr in which the stock is now at ONE CENT.
$500K / 12 = $41K per month it costs just for that bonus.
That means that entire qtr of "revenue", the amount BHRT would bank after subtracting the cost of sales- it didn't even pay 2 months of just the bonus for "Mike", let alone his huge base salary increase, let alone Comella's new $300K bonus and her large base salary increase, let alone the tremendous growth in the SG&A (sales, general and admin) cost/expense line- meaning the "revenue" made no difference, they spent far more than they took in, paying essentially all of it back to just 2 people and then some.
Thus, they need to tap Magna for more desperation "financing" despite conducting essentially no R&D and certainly no "trial" spending taking place and no major trial(s) advancing or progressing.
They generate only losses, are no where near ever being profitable and that's when they're not even funding trials, which would make their dire financial condition 100X or more worse- if they spent even a fraction of what they spent on R&D when they were a legit "FDA trial" company.
Look at R&D and trial spending and how it's been gutted, yet they are still cash broke and teetering on BK ( they ended last qtr with $46K cash in the bank against just accounts payable of $2 million plus, and over $10 million in other debts owed)
From the 10-K filing, yr ended 2010 (when Tomas took over to "kill it" as was posted prior)
10-K,Yr ended 2010, PAGE F-3:
Total assets $308,796
(which also means, the pittance of the assets the company has, also declined under "Mike's" watch. Latest 10-Q filing, Q-3 2014 shows total assets of $248,454. Which means the company assets also have declined by about 20% even as the shares have massively increased, and "revenues" have supposedly shown "huge increases" and the share price has been crushed, all as "Mike" has been "killing it". Yep, what little assets they had, even those are declining.)
PAGE F-4 (revenues and gross profit for yr 2009, FAR better margin then than now)
Revenue 359,800
Cost of sales 205,014
Gross profit 154,786
(which means they managed their expenses far better before Mike ran the show then and produced a gross profit margin of about 42%, a more typical industry "norm" versus the dismal 10% margin from last qtr, Q-3 2014 10-Q filing)
And how much was R&D, aka "trials" spending back then?
PAGE F-4 (10-K filing, 2010)
Research and development 1,467,078
Yep, they spent $1.4 million on R&D and which is still dismal and pretty much a joke IMO for a company that would be claiming to be "conducting FDA level phase II/III trials", but at least they still had some actual staff and still spent some actual money on R&D on "something".
From the most recent 10-Q filing, Q-3 2014, what are they spending on R&D now (which by gutting R&D spending, would help paint a rosier picture of already desperate financial conditions)?
Most recent 10-Q, PAGE 5: (for the 9 months ended Sept 30, 2014)
Research and development $33,916
Yep, $33 THOUSAND lousy dollars on R&D for a supposed medical research and development company who "claims" on twitter and similar to be the "world leader in clinical phase II/III blah, blah" or something to that effect. $33K, not even a mid level luxury car. Noise level money, a pittance for medical R&D. Comical IMO. And that's down from about $500K R&D spending in just 2013, the yr prior (see same 10-Q page 5)
It's easy to "goose" the financials to look less dire (they're dire though) - when one chops out all the R&D spending, but turns around and hands it to 2 people in the form of huge base salary increases and then large cash bonuses. The "bonuses" for yr 2014 to just 2 people are $500K + $300K = $800K, while they're gonna spend a tiny fraction of that on medical research and development, good ole R&D.
It's clear from those financials they're never gonna be profitable IMO, not on the course they're on now- how would it be possible given the realities in those financial SEC filings? It'd never pencil out, no matter how one crunched the numbers.
They're now gonna tap a massively dilutive Magna credit line and it's not even going to be enough to pay the new, huge base salaries and bonuses for just the 2 people, plus just recent accounts payable which exceed $2 million now (see latest 10-Q SEC filing expenses "accounts payable), let alone their high SG&A expenses which were $3,182,397 for just the 9 months ended Sept 30, 2014 (see same 10-Q filing).
Latest 10-Q, PAGE 5: (9 months ended Sept 30, 2014)
Marketing, general and administrative 3,182,397
It was essentially HALF that in the same period in 2013, yet they've not really hired any staff, they haven't grown their facility, they added no assets, etc? In 2013 that same entry was $1,750,276. Thus expenses have exploded, far outstripping any revenue after cost of sales.
$3 MILLION in SG&A (it's gonna be more than that, that's the 9 month number) for a company of 4 full time and 1 part time, who are conducting no real medical "trials" or any medical R&D for the most part ($3K per month R&D spending, see same 10-Q)? Where is that money going? To a lot of legal expenses, and vague entries like "consultants" and who knows what else?
They're not gonna be profitable? Not a chance in heck IMO. They're on financial life support and their SEC financial filings prove that IMO. Their own auditor's "going concern" and the "going concern" warning also from Sr. Mgt I believe also makes that also abundantly clear.
"revenues" make no difference when one spends far more than any "revenue" brings in. People with huge salaries and "revenue" (rock stars, NFL and NBA players being and Hollywood actors being the most notorious) they go BK all the time- because no matter how much "revenue" they brought in, they spent just that much more, and thus became "insolvent", meaning unable to pay current debts and obligations as they come due.
Just look at BHRT, even with all the toxic, convertible debt financing, they still end up cash broke each qtr and pay common bills by issuing out millions and millions of shares of common stock- as they HAVE NO CASH to pay even "common" business bills and day to day obligations.
Latest 10-Q, PAGE 27: (an entire wash-list of shares issued as they HAD NO CASH, even with so called "revenues" coming in)
"Subsequent issuances
On October 3, 2014, the Company issued 514,886 shares of its common stock as payment of $70,521 interest on its Northstar (related party) debt.
In October 2014, the Company issued 1,818,182 shares of its common stock in settlement of $20,000 of convertible debt.
In October 2014, the Company issued 1,293,103 shares of its common stock in settlement of $15,000 of convertible debt.
In October 2014, the Company issued 2,260,764 shares of its common stock in settlement of $18,000 of convertible debt and accrued interest of $2,120.
In October 2014, the Company issued 552,846 shares of its common stock in settlement of $5,500 of convertible debt and accrued interest of $1,300.
In October 2014, the Company issued an aggregate 2,773,549 shares of common stock for consulting services.
In October 2014, the Company issued 538,875 shares of common stock in settlement of accounts payable."
Yeah, "killing it", pretty accurate description IMO. 21X more shares diluted out and a 98% loss to shares while spending essentially nothing on R&D and trials that are dead and parked for heading into 5 years now. Yep, it's pretty much "killed it" the way I see it. Great description IMO.
Oh, and they HAVE NO EARNINGS. NONE. Not so much as ONE PENNY of "earnings". NONE. It's in their SEC filings. LOSSES, not "earnings". Clearer than crystal.
Most recent 10-Q, PAGE 12: (management's own words)
"NOTE 2 — GOING CONCERN MATTERS
The accompanying unaudited condensed financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis, which contemplates the realization of assets and the satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business. As shown in the accompanying unaudited condensed financial statements, during nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company incurred an operating loss of $1,247,199 and used $747,184 in cash for operating activities. As of September 30, 2014, the Company had a working capital deficit (current liabilities in excess of current assets) of approximately $10.0 million. These factors among others may indicate that the Company will be unable to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time.
The Company’s existence is dependent upon management’s ability to develop profitable operations and to obtain additional funding sources. There can be no assurance that the Company’s financing efforts will result in profitable operations or the resolution of the Company’s liquidity problems. The accompanying statements do not include any adjustments that might result should the Company be unable to continue as a going concern."
BHRT has NO "EARNINGS". NONE. ZERO. Not even remotely close to producing earnings.
BHRT only produces LOSSES and is not even remotely close to producing "earnings" which is a VERY specific accounting term and a very specifically defined term when applied to stock based companies.
BHRT is not even remotely close to be profitable, not even close to producing positive cash flow and nowhere even remotely close to producing any "earnings". NONE.
It takes PROFIT to produce "earnings" and again, BHRT is nowhere even remotely close to being profitable in any way, shape or form. They're gonna lose upwards of $2 MILLION this yr based on the 9 month results in the last 10-Q.
EARNINGS in the most basic definition would be "After Tax Net Income" and is a definition of a company's profitability. Again, BHRT HAS NO PROFIT, they only generate LARGE LOSSES.
Basically the general formula would be:
Total revenue - operating expenses - interest paid - depreciation -taxes.
Last 10-Q, PAGE 5 for BHRT: (9 months ended Sept 30)
Condensed statement of operations:
(an accounting entry = a negative number, aka a LOSS)
NET LOSS 2014: $(1,247,199) (only 9 months worth)
NET LOSS 2013: $(2,416,000)
Again, the only reason 2014 is showing that reduction over 2013, is a one-time entry for a debt write down. That will not be their on future entries for 2015 and their LOSS, NO EARNINGS, will increase. They are losing about $2 MILLION per yr at this point.
They produce NO "earnings" and no "earnings per share", they only produce losses and consume cash, they do not internally generate any cash or positive cash flows, not even close.
"Ocata doesn't fit the description of penny stock by any definition our there! "
Actually they fit the EXACT description of a "penny stock" by pretty much every generally accepted definition "out there".
1) They are unlisted and on the OTC. That alone will typically equate to "penny stock" status.
2) They have a micro cap market cap
3) They have little to no shareholder equity
4) As of a few months ago, pre R/S they were a 5 or 6 cent stock, a true penny stock by every definition known.
They are still essentially a penny stock as they are not listed on a major exchange and are just barely above $5 a share. There's no institutional buyers, almost none, that will touch an OTC stock, no matter what the price. Call up a retail broker and ask for short inventory on OCAT, and they'll have all kinds of restrictions on it, cause it's essentially considered a penny stock and also OTC, which means they rarely will allow a margin account on it or give, or stock, short inventory on it.
It's not complicated.
"34 Million total shares outstanding!"
There's not a single thing "off" about my numbers.
They just did a 100:1 R/S in case that major event was missed.
As of the prospectus recently filed they now have about 35 million shares O/S. Back out the R/S to get a realistic compare to when they first went public-
35 million X 100 = 3.5 BILLION shares they issued since they became a pubic traded company. One always must look at "split adjusted" - either forward or reverse splits when trying to see the true history of a stock traded company, from inception to the current date. (if they were doing this secondary, pre R/S, they'd then have about 4.5 BILLION share O/S after issuing the 10 million 30% dilution shares, as in 45 million X 100)
The common shares have lost about 98.8% of their value since becoming public traded, while diluting out to approx. 3.5 BILLION shares and reaching a fairly recent low of about 5 CENTS on 3.5 billion shares- essentially diluting out any common share holder's value to pretty much toilet paper status.
They went public on the OTC at $5 a share essentially. $5 a share is 500 cents. Pre R/S this is now trading at essentially 6 cents as of today's close.
500 cents - 6 cents = 494 cents. 494/500 = .988 X 100 = 98.8% loss to the value of the original common shares.
That is dilution 101 and its real world effects. They're about to dilute by another 30% to possibly as much as 60% or so in the coming yr. It's highly likely it will have similar, negative effects to the price/value of the common shares as the company is only going to burn and consume cash- producing no sales/revenues, no positive cash flows, no growth via adding cash to grow, no earnings, no ROI, etc. Just cash burn and cash use and cash consumption.
It's got a long, long road ahead and cash is the key. CASH IS KING, probably the oldest and truest statement in all of biz history. Apple for example, is a powerhouse juggernaut right now because they generate and throw off more raw cash than probably the U.S. freaking govt. Google the same. They can buy or bury anyone they want. Why? Cause they have vaults full of cash, mountains of it.
The opposite- a cash poor, cash struggling company like OCAT, faces mountains and hurdle after hurdle. They're in the position of weakness and not strength, mainly because they lack cash- no matter how good a pitch or idea they have. No cash, no dice, harder the chance to win and tougher to compete against competitors who have more cah. Cash is what makes this world go round. Simple as that.
Companies only get cash from 3 methods: They either self generate it via sales and revenues at a profit, or they borrow it which is debt, or they raise if via equity which is dilution. That's it. Maybe a 4th way- if they get it donated as in a charity or grant, but that's rare.
$6.09, down on last trade of the year.
Heck of a close to their supposed "biggest year ever" and all?
They fired off essentially every "big deal news" or "PR" or whatever one wants to call it, prior to yr end, and they just closed down near their 52 week low. Wow.
This doesn't bode well IMO for trying to get any pricing power on that secondary offering. Even a typical, 10% discount to the underwriters, based on this close, end of yr price would be:
$6.09 X .9 = $5.41
And given their risk profile, IMO, they're gonna pay a bigger discount than that. I think it's gonna price in the $4's if they do the deal. And I don't see how they don't do the deal as they must have more cash to move ahead. If they can't get a single, large infusion of cash booked, then that phase II is really going nowhere IMO.
Lets say $5 a share even (the high side IMO) on 10 million shares:
That's $50 million and they'd probably net about $45 million after all the fees and expenses to the underwriters.
$45 million ain't $60 million, but it would get them off the dime and moving. I think they're gonna have to bight the bullet at this point and take what they can get. They'll then hope for the best later into the yr, hopefully get uplisted and then will hit that $100 million shelf filing for another dilution draw, maybe on that one tap out the other $50 million or so to carry um into 2016.
It's gonna be a lot of dilution no matter how one slices it and IMO, at least some pretty heavy down pressure on the share price, at least in the near term.
.009 bid now. It's officially gone sub ONE CENT on the bid.
Way to close out the year !
IMO, it's only gonna get worse from here as the Manga mega dilution hits full force. I highly doubt they've even tapped the Magna "credit line" even once yet- which will add 10's of millions of more low priced shares onto the pile, just for a single "draw" on that line from Magna who already appear to be burying this thing.
31 million shares to Magna for the $200K "note" plus 9 million shares for "fees" and the "credit line" most likely hasn't even been tapped once yet.
I'd expect two zeroes after the decimal might be the new "normal" by early 2015.
CDEL "Citadel" a "notorious" MM, just went on the bid and ask at the same time at 13:42, a few moments ago.
Bid .0061 100K
Ask .0119 100K
Man, if they try and hit that bid, they're gonna sink this big today.
Someone else, ATDF has 650K parked on the bid at .008
Looks like they may try and bury it down for the big, end of the yr blow-out, perhaps?
These are the dilution boys in action big time IMO. A classic "ratchet" going on for over a week, maybe over a week now?
Amazing IMO. All traced back I believe to when they finalized and inked the deals with Magna, especially the Magna "note" going into effect first. That $200K note is 31 million shares right there to Magna and also 9 million more shares to Magna for "fees" so far.
" Bhrt is going have some big earnings "???
Earnings? This company isn't anywhere remotely close to producing any "earnings", or positive cash flow? Not by a long, long, long shot? Their yr over yr loss from operations actually increased in 2014 over 2013?
How are they going to produce any earnings? Their expense growth has far out grown any "revenue" growth? They aren't even close to being profitable, let alone even cash flow positive? W/o the ability to endlessly dilute and dump shares for cash (doubling O/S shares in about a 1 yr period, to the tune of 100's of millions of shares) they'd of been BK a long, long, long, time ago. Earnings?
Last filed 10-Q, PAGE 5:
NET LOSS FROM OPERATIONS, for the 9 months ended Sept 30
2014 $4,109,567
2013 $2,246,365
They almost DOUBLED their operational loss, year over year. It's not getting "better" it's far, far WORSE. That loss grew because of a massive increase in their expense line and the massive cost of sales which ate up essentially any effect of "revenue".
And they still took a $1.2 million net loss (not earnings) and that was only a smaller number because of a one-time entry on a reduction in debt they discharged, but that's a one time deal. Their loss will go back up when that entry disappears next qtr.
They didn't profit or make a penny, and not even close. They have no "earnings" and no near term prospects, not even a remote chance, at producing any "earnings" given their dire financial condition.
"we have human success now instead of rodents."
Wow, after ONLY 20 years and over $300 MILLION in sunk capital? And how many CEO's and how much Sr. mgt turnover and how many SEC violations (including prosecutions) and how much accounting fraud (uum, "restatements") and how many "claims" and "promises" that never even remotely came true and on and on and on?
20 yrs to get from the rodents to the human. Wow. So that leaves what, about 5 to 8 yrs now for a "remote" shot at an FDA approved "human", commercialized product that can be sold, let alone "possibly" generate so much as one dime in profit- as they have no manufacturing infrastructure, no sales and marketing team or other needed structures in place to even be remotely close to being a large, commercialized entity.
ONLY, about 500 ways to get tripped up along the way still, now that it's made the first micro-step to get from rodents to humans. Oh, and then more dilution to come of course on top of a present loss of about 98% to their common shares and over 3 BILLION shares issued since going public via their reverse merger on the OTC, not a traditional IPO as a listed company, due to their constantly weak financial condition going back essentially to their inception.
Yeah, looks real solid now since getting off the "rodent program" thing? Sure thing IMO.
"When phase 1 news came out this stock soared up"
And rapidly collapsed back to where it was priced what, 5 yrs ago? It's lost 50% in value in 2 months or so? That's supposed to be "impressive", after what is being touted and promoted as their supposed biggest year ever?
It's at the same share price essentially where it was at while managed by Gary Rabin, and through SEC violations and all the rest?
So what was gained? More dilution in the mean time.
If this is the best it can do after firing off all the "good news" they've been touting for years, it seems like a bit of a dud and fizzle IMO? The big "article", a major "re-branding" effort and new name, new logo, lots of "PR" about "stuff" and "news" and all, and it's down near the 52 week low? That's it?
" Imagine yourself a REGN"
Selectively, very selectively picking one stock, one stock out of 1000's that trade on the OTC and then "trying" to extrapolate that because they beat the odds, making them the statistical outlier, that this somehow equates to a certain success for OCAT is based in no reason or reality IMO.
It's a well researched fact that most stocks that reach true "penny" stock status (most that fall even under $1 a share), most that trade on the OTC, most that lose 99% of the value of their common shares- never, ever, ever regain their losses and amount to some imagined riches or mega success.
The statistical odds are quite the opposite- most OTC stocks, true "penny" stocks, stocks that lose 99% of their common share value and dilute out to the BILLIONS of shares, most of them end in either BK, or simply dissolving and vanishing and end in a total, final wipe out of all common shareholder value. OCAT has lost 98% to 99% of common share value already since becoming public traded, so there's only 1 or 2% left to go to zero.
Those are the harsh realities of penny stock "gambles" and OTC-ville. The OTC is a graveyard of companies heading to BK and being dissolved, most of the time, the vast, vast majority of the time. Not the reverse- the imagined stories of "riches" and what not.
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/microcapstock.htm
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/050803.asp
"Nice but blood program would take ten years at least"
Totally agree.
Further, the idea that where GE has located some plant or facility, a capital improvement or major capital expenditure which is planned for years in advance- to even hint that it would be in any way tied to where some micro-cap company is located, or even remotely be related, is IMO pure fantasy territory.
GE has over 300 THOUSAND employees all over planet earth, as well as 100's, if not 1000 or more facilities, literally all over the planet.
The idea that where a GE plant is located even remotely ties into who they do business with or partner with or whatever would be pure mythology and beyond speculative fantasy.
Using that logic, I can show that a Walmart or probably a dry cleaner or fast food place opened "somewhere near" OCAT headquarters in the past 6 months to 1 yrs, therefor it's a foregone conclusion that "something" must be related to OCAT and what Walmart does and/or a dry cleaner or fast food joint choosing to open in a particular location "nearby"???
This type of thinking makes zero sense. None. Just tossing out the name GE, as if there's a remote, remote chance they're gonna do biz with little ole OCAT, especially because of where some GE plant got planted, is past mythology in my book.
I know what a "partial fill" is. And 82 CENTS worth of stock, 75 shares worth at .011 is not a "partial fill" IMO.
No way. Not when it's been trading at least 100's of thousands of shares a day, and recently, 1 to 4 MILLION shares a day.
That's no "partial fill" of some retail order - not a chance in heck IMO. Not when it sits, parked, for almost an hour now and no more "fill" on that pittance of 82 cents worth.
Not a chance. This is some pro trading desk IMO, making a "print" on the tape for some reason. Probably sitting on the bid and ask at the same time.
That's no retail order, not even a "partial", not for a lousy 82 cents worth. 30 or 45 minutes later and they can't find a single match or cross a single order for the remainder of this imaginary "partial" order? No, no way. In that amount of time, there'd have to be a further match and order crossing on that supposed "partial".
No one would waste their time with that IMO.
Update:
And BOOM, just as I hit click, there's the REAL REALITY- they just sunk it 9% on 500K shares. That's what's really going on. That 75 share "print" was some pro desk "set up" IMO, to lock and load to get ready to drop it on that mega sell they just printed. No "partial" fill on those 75 shares IMO.
BKMM just shifted over to the bid now at .01, what a surprise. It's being "worked" IMO.
From I-HUB as one example:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=87854583
"BMAK is a market maker synonymous with dilution and shorting. Same as VFIN, VNDM, PERT, and a handful of others"
https://stockwiki.org/index.php/Dilution
Quote:
"A very low share count by a market maker on the ask that never seems to fill is about the best indicator you could spot."
Some "notorious" market maker symbols showing up- often sitting on both the bid and ask at the same time.
BMAKN (BMAK) is per some web article pretty well known for being associated with Magna, Asher and others. Not a good reputation when they show up as far as I've read. Known as "manipulators" and share price crushers per many articles and commentary on the web from those who follow and track penny stocks.
BKMM
CDEL
And a few others of penny "fame" plastered all over the bid and ask now it looks like.
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/BHRT/quote
Almost 1 hour into the trading day and it's parked at 75 shares traded, 82 CENTS worth? After trading down hard, for days and days, on 1.5 to 3 MILLION shares or more a day? Now 75 shares and it goes parked? How can that be?
Tell me this is not "odd"???
"That article which includes OCAT "
Well, all except the pesky little part that the word OCAT or OCATA doesn't appear anywhere in the few lines of the "article" (more like a blurb than an "article" IMO. I could do a word count, but it's a few lines at best). It actually says Advanced Cell Technology, which as far as I'm aware, is no longer in existence?
Search the "article" (blurb) and see if "OCAT" or "OCATA" appears anywhere in the "article"?? I used a word search and got nothing?
Also, "it" or "OCAT" didn't "win" any poll. It's at #12 or something like that. A "winner" is typically the #1 position, not some additional "honorable mention" or whatever position on a list. "Winner" is FIRST PLACE anywhere I've ever competed. No points for 2nd place or below, as far as "winning" is concerned.
Volume of 75 shares, 20 seconds after open??
75 X .011 = .82 or 82 CENTS worth? OK? Works for me?
Nothing wrong with that, I "guess"??
So now it's trading in actual blocks of "pennies"?? No, nothing "odd" about this one? A $9.95 commission or whatever one pays to trade 82 CENTS worth of stock?
Right on.
"Discover and $OCAT"??? They said Advanced Cell Technology, the word "OCAT" doesn't appear anywhere in the little blurb of a mention "article"
QUOTE from "article" in Discover:
"asks Robert Lanza, chief scientist at Advanced Cell Technology "
Help me out here- but I personally don't find the word OCAT or OCATA or anything even remotely similar to that term in the "article"???
Personally, I don't think little "articles" sell stock or increase shareholder value anyway. The stock symbol or the fact it's a public traded company is not even mentioned, let alone the publication date shows Dec 30, 2014 and "OCATA" is mentioned nowhere (including not with the little dollar sign added $OCATA to make it, I guess, appear more "valuable" or something?)
Articles, schmarticles, doesn't do a thing for me personally. 15 plus yrs of self promoting and "articles" and where are they today? A 98% total loss to common shares. How bout executing on a business plan that produces some ROI to common shares, maybe insiders buying instead of selling, maybe no more SEC violations or Dec 18th screw ups like claiming to be NASDAQ listed when not, and causing retail accounts to go blank and mis-quote and not trade properly, making the FINRA "daily list" as "OTC re-instated", etc?? Maybe "pesky" little stuff like that is more important than "articles" IMO.
Run the business correctly, maybe focus on that and not so much effort on "articles" and maybe this "might" go somewhere? Maybe?
No help needed, cause there's no point being made.
"Ms. Kristin C. Comella, M.S. ....huh it's A Master of Science glad i could help"
And THAT is not a "doctor" in any way, shape or form. An "M.S." degree in anything does not gain one the title of "doctor" as in a Ph.D. nor does it even remotely begin to qualify one to sit in front of a medical board to gain the licensing and title of "M.D." or "doctor of medicine" etc.
It helps to understand what "doctor" means in professional and academic circles, versus holding an "M.S." degree- there is zero relationship between them. An "M.S." is merely a precursor step along the way to a "possible" title of "doctor".
Again, no help at all and no help was needed.
If that's even accurate info - look at the dates and names. Those aren't "institutional" holders, as in "mutual funds". They're mostly hedge funds or "wealth mgt" type firms and similar and the holdings are a joke, likely not even real numbers they're so low.
Think it would be a coincidence it has nearly every last one selling out on the exact same day of 9/30/2014? Better sniff around and figure out what happened around that time frame?
0.05% holdings? That's a rounding error. 5/100th's of a percent of the O/S shares? That's comical. That's not "institutional ownership"? 8 firms all unloading on 9/30/2014, some as few as a lousy 200 or 600 shares each or whatever?
I'd put bank on it that these firms were handling order flow and selling for an insider or Lincoln or someone related to the company- Gary Rabin even, or a law firm they paid in shares or something along those lines. These are firms that do "wealth mgt" and stock sales/disposal for pro clients who don't want their identity revealed. They have their own trading desks, etc The numbers of shares is noise level- no "institution" buys $600 or even $2K of stock to "hold" as a portfolio position. No freaking way.
If that's one's belief in "institutional ownership", well good luck with that.
If it hits 10% or 20% of float, I'll take notice. Even 5% of float and it "might" start to mean those numbers are real.
One of the last entries is for 100 shares? $600 bucks worth of "institutional ownership"??? I'd have to do some checking- but I'd bet some of those names there are even penny stock broker dealers and MM's in this stock more than likely. That's how they got a "print" on that table- some info got scraped erroneously from somewhere.
Means nothing to me. Again. if that's exciting at 0.05% "holdings" (numbers that are probably bogus anyway), then great. Wonderful.
"HUH..... ANY PROOF THEY DO NOT?? "
1) "Institutions" DO NOT buy or own OTC penny stocks. Ever. OCAT is a penny stock.
http://www.sec.gov/answers/penny.htm
2) Go to any number of financial reporting services such as Thomson-Reuters or similar and they track and report "institutional holdings/ownership" of any given stock. Large holders must disclose their holdings.
For OCAT:
% Held by Institutions: N/A
It's not that complicated. Markets 101.
"An institutional investor that wants to buy 500K or more shares would need to pay a premium over market,"??? Huh?
It's the EXACT OPPOSITE. A "big boy" gets a discount, every single time. Further, there's no "institutional" interest or buyers in this yet- none is listed or any proof they exist?
The underwriters are gonna flip-trade every last share right into the common market more than likely, and maybe to some hedge fund boys and that's about it. They say right in the prospectus they're gonna be market makers themselves in the stock.
But back to a "large" share buyer of any stock. If you're the teacher's pension fund manager or whatever- you don't buy through freaking E-trade or whatever. You have an institutional, 100% pro trading desk who handles all your order flow for you. You tell them you want 10 million shares of stock XYZ at price "X", and then they will set about "making that happen" for you. They can issue "research" a common technique, such as a "sell recommendation" which often means they want retail schlubs to sell, while they're actually buying on the low and building a position for a large institutional client. Opposite is true on "buy recommendations". When CITI bank or whoever issues a "buy" recommendation, you can pretty much take it to the bank that their own trading desk are unloading a large position either for themselves or for a big client. It's FRAUD STREET for a reason.
So no big boy buyer is ever gonna pay one CENT above what some mom n pop buyer pays- not a chance in heck. Not how it works. Wall Street is as rigged, if not more rigged, than Vegas and the big firms are the "house" and their large paying clients are their "whales" and they take super good care of them.
The underwriters are the buyers of the OCAT 10 MILLION shares. And again, one more time- they will NEVER, EVER pay full retail for those shares. If one of them really wanted to own OCAT, they could have been building a position in it on the open market for the past 1 month or more. But they DO NOT want to "own" and "hold" OCAT. That's not the biz they are in. They make their money on the spread and in fees and expenses. They're a lender/bank and a middle-man. And for their services, OCAT or whoever PAYS and PAYS a lot. Simple as that.
Secondly, there is no "demand exceeding supply"?? It's the exact opposite effect. When one dumps 10 MILLION free trading shares on the market- they just flooded the supply side of the equation, and thus the price drops and it takes time to hunt down demand to "try" and suck up all that newly, printed out of thin air, supply. THAT is the exact definition of pure dilution. It's raw "supply" and that's why it's dilutive. Econ 101.
I don't know what the "mutual fund" mythology is even talking about with "letters on the side" and all? It's not happening, doesn't happen- not how it "works"? Just making up wild scenarios doesn't make them true. There's no mutual funds buying this stock at this point? And if they did- I don't know what "sending letters" and all this other "stuff" would have to do with anything?
Tufts? Who even cares? It's a million miles from being a commercial product or monetized or anything else. This company can't even fund a single phase II right now. Who cares about "Tufts" or whatever at this point? They just pitched an entire "re-branding" effort and spent a boat load to do it- to tell the world they're AN EYE COMPANY NOW. EYE. EYE. OCATA EYE. Not some "dog" company or whatever? Who cares?
This is a financially weak, no cash flow, no sales, low cash, tainted past OTC stock. It's not freaking Facebook or Twitter or whatever. It's a tough sell and a high risk client for an underwriter. They make you pay for risk. HOW? Via the share discount being larger and higher fees and expenses.
Just like a person with a poor credit score pays more for an auto loan or house loan, etc. Same principle.
Also, just like a fleet buyer PAYS LESS for a single, large order of trucks or vans or whatever, never more. They pay wholesale and that's what an underwriter is, they're a wholesaler of shares of stock.
You go to any Ford or GM or whatever dealer you want in this country. You say I want to pay CASH, CASH for 50 brand new work trucks. You don't pay what Joe Q. Public pays? They send you into the fleet manager's office- they probably take you to a $150 per plate dinner that night and they hash out what kind of DISCOUNT you're gonna pay for those vehicles. If you don't like the price- you say, "SAYONARA", I'm going down the road to Bob's FORD and he already guaranteed me a 20% discount to retail or whatever.
The "explanation" given of paying a premium makes ZERO sense. None. It's not even markets or econ 101. It's the exact opposite of how a free market deal works.
Market cap about $5.6 million now. A stunning collapse and loss of value.
As of the last 10-Q filing, just their short term debts were over $4 million, they had $46K cash left and total assets of about $250K.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1388319/000114544314001305/d31740.htm
PAGE 4: last 10-Q filed:
Cash and cash equivalents $46,592
Total current assets $226,619
Accounts payable $ 2,068,256
Accrued expenses $2,291,809
Total current liabilities $10,336,315
And look at those "revenues" so called "sales"- they made almost no money on them, totally eaten up in cost of sale. Didn't amount to a hill of beans.
Total revenue $579,536
Cost of sales $523,222
So on $579K in "revenue" they only netted:
$579,536 - $523,222 = $56,314
Yep, a lousy $56K cash went in their account from $579K in "revenues". About a 10% gross margin. Those "revenues" amounted to almost no gain or cash to the company. $56K for an entire qtr, all eaten up by out of control costs and expenses.
I guess Magna is not known as a "share price crusher" for no reason looking at present share price, just since it was announced they'd inked deals for "financing" with Magna. And IMO, BHRT hasn't even made their first draw on the credit line yet.
If they were to draw $500K, which they may not even be able to draw that much in a single draw now, as there are limitations they can't exceed 9.99% of O/S share or something like that- but supposed they would make a draw now, which one would assume they must do soon as they must be near cash broke- all they had was the Manga $200K "note" and I'd assume that's already spent with their massive short term debts and now legal fees, plus huge base salaries and bonuses owed, etc. So what would a $500K "draw" from Magna look like now?
$500K at 1 cent a share. Magna pays 1 cent X .93 at the most = .93 cents or .093.
$500,000 / .093 = 53,763,440. 54 MILLION shares of pure, raw dilution it would now cost to get $500K dollars, which wouldn't even settle up the $800K bonuses presently owed to just 2 people per the last SEC filing, let alone all their other $4 million or so in accounts payable and other short term obligations plus basic overhead, rent and now increasing legal fees.
So in a period of a month or so- they'd have "spent" and diluted shares with Magna =
31 million on the $200K note + 54 million ($500K draw) + 9 million in Magna fees plus apparently potentially 15 million more shares to Maga for "additional fees" (see the filing) = 109 MILLION new dilutive, low priced share to just Manga if BHRT made one, single $500K "draw" on that credit line at this point in time. Staggering IMO.
And that $200K + $500K from Magna wouldn't even fund BHRT for more than a few months at most, given the reality of their financials in their last 10-Q filing.
There's a reason it appears they upped their A/S to 2 BILLION in mid 2014. They're gonna bust through their present 970 MILLION share limit here real soon IMO. Real soon.
Most recent 10-Q, PAGE 9:
" Fully diluted shares outstanding were 659,543,477 and 323,296,916 for the three months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively and 605,015,919 and 336,682,241 for the nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively."
Look at that furious rate of share dilution- it's staggering IMO.
No end in sight to massive, share price crushing dilution on this one, not that I can see. By the 10-K coming out in early 2015, I'd not be surprised to see near 800 MILLION or so fully diluted shares outstanding, somewhere in that neighborhood, on what is presently a 1 CENT, $5.x million market cap nano-nano, 4 or 5 person "company".
Looking real, real weak here IMO. They're on life support IMO.
Ask the DOCTOR???
"http://www.stemcellpioneers.com/showthread.php?9002-Ask-the-Doctor-January-questions-now-being-accepted&p=22184"
Well, all except the pesky little part about the FACT she is not a "doctor" in any way, shape or form that I'm aware of? Kinda a violation of medical ethics laws, among potentially many other state and Federal laws to represent oneself falsely as being a medical doctor when not licensed or even holding an M.D. degree or similar credentials?
Sorta a bit of a pesky little "misrepresentation" there it seems to me?
It's not the first time she's presented herself as being a "doctor" even though she is not.
It was done in Vail, not that long ago and she appears to have made no attempt to correct the 100% false information for the speaker "flyer/handout". She clearly IMO allowed herself to be lumped in as an "M.D." and listed as an "M.D." with other speakers who actually are licensed "M.D.'s" :
http://www.stemcelldoctors.org/tag/vail
"VAIL The Vail Symposium hosts Dr. Scott Brandt, Dr. Kristin Comella and Dr. Stan Jones who will lead an interactive discussion "
And she was also listed as a "doctor" on this website, in 2013. Accepting the labeling of being a "doctor", yet she's not an "M.D." or a holder of a Ph.D. and is thus a "doctor" of nothing per her own resume on the Bioheart corporate website, her own Google+ page, her own public on-line resume and numerous other sources:
http://www.stemcellpioneers.com/showthread.php?7000-Installment-61-Ask-the-Doctor-with-Kristin-Comella-CSO-of-Bioheart-Inc
Not real ethical IMHO to be falsely presenting oneself as a "doctor". It's more than likely illegal in many states as far as I'm aware- especially if one is implying they are an "M.D." and hold a medical license.
Look at the disclosure on that micro-blog, the "ask the doctor" little site:
"Please Note: THIS FORUM IS PATIENT MODERATED AND IS NOT CONNECTED TO ANY CLINIC OR DOCTOR. IF YOU WISH TO CONTACT A CERTAIN DOCTOR OR CLINIC, PLEASE LOOK IN THE ASK THE DOCTOR SECTION FOR DOCTOR OR CLINIC PHONE NUMBERS AND EMAIL ADDRESSES."
They are implying, IMO, that these are actual medical "doctors" being interviewed. Comella is not a "doctor" by any stretch as far as I'm aware?
" The current $6.21 in the offering for the $62 mil is understood to be the starting PPS which could be higher but definitely not lower." = 100% FALSE statement.
Could not be more wrong. That $6.21 number is simply a "template" price plugged in based on the closing price the day the document is printed, it even says so right in the document. It in NO way, shape or form is some imaginary "floor" price for the offering. Not even close.
Underwriters DO NOT pay more than retail for shares as they're taking risk and tying up a large amount of capital. For doing so they get a share discount and fees and expenses in return for that risk.
As of today, this AM the share price is $6.11. A "standard" share discount to an underwriter is 7% minimum typically, maybe 10%. For a high risk penny stock moving from the OTC, it will be higher than 7% to 10%, as there is ZERO chance the underwriter is going to take the risk of getting stuck holding a bag of OTC, tainted past, poor financial condition OCAT shares. Those underwriters want to flip-trade out of those shares ASAP and fora profit- and to do that they need a "spread".
At even a 10% discount to today's price, the offering would price at:
$6.11 X .9 = $5.49 a share. IMO, it will be much lower than that as it's already dipped into the $5's. No sophisticated hedge fund or investors are gonna pay ONE PENNY over what they could have bought it for in the past few weeks, not for larger, single chunk transactions. No way, no how. Never gonna happen.
Add in 30% of pure, raw, 100% dilutive shares, all 10 MILLION hitting the market in short order- and it's a major down force to the share price, nearly always unless of course acredive to earnings or growth or similar, which of course is not the case in this situation. This is pure, cash-burn-rate money to be consumed and only more dilution will follow it as they generate no cash, have no investors, no other way to fund their operations.
Simple as that.