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.
Agree with your over mindset (though I do cringe a bit at your last notion about future—and presumably stronger—earnings ALREADY being priced in!
Just think about how many headlines about unfulfilled sex lives you’ve seen on magazine covers in checkout lines. More scientifically, some studies have concluded that as many as 40-50 of women have some sort of anorgasmic condition or noteworthy difficulty achieving orgasm. In my opinion this market could be MUCH bigger than CaverStem (which should itself be fairly substantial).
Only thing against your angle is that the presentation source you cite is kinda dated (Sept 2018). Have there been no updates worth mentioning since then?
That would be AWESOME, as I think it would lead to substantial increases in PPS. Need to see what information is available regarding the recent balance sheet of Dronesbyus
What is the difference between the entity you name and “Drone USA,” our former ticket DRUS?
Yes—I see that. However, that’s REVENUES, what are the PROFIT margins?
Let’s assume that their PROFIT is $50M per year (which it almost assuredly will NOT be anytime soon), the EPS based on 4.66B OS is .01!
Well, I’ll put it this way: another investment I have—a supermarket with a long-standing reputation for quality and shareholder value, even if in a market space with notoriously LOW profit margins—has a PPS a little over $42 based on a little less than 687M OS and earnings (profit) per share of just under $3.50 for the most recent year.
Staggering thought: do you have any idea how much revenue they would have to generate to elevate the PPS on 4.66B OS to even 1¢?! This is some CRAZY MATH
Reminds me of a play I made in some tiny firm about 15 years ago. An original $500 stake (which I had honestly forgotten about), through a RS and ultimately an acquisition by “100”link, came to be worth a little less than $10K
Makes LESS than ZERO sense for world renowned physicians and researchers to jeopardize their reputations, livelihoods, and careers by being associated with anything other than an uber-legit endeavor. Period.
(From a post of mine last July: alas, I know how Cassandra from myth must have felt—speaking the truth, but cursed never to be believed!)
Some Russia/CaverStem DD:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia#Natural_increase_current
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia (unless trends corrected, population could fall by 1/3 by 2050
Look under “sex ratio” on the far right: roughly 54M males aged 15+, and Pravda reports that upwards of 90% of these suffer from some degree of ED=roughly 48 MILLION men.
If CELZ nets $1,200 per kit (probable based on inferential math from last 10-Q) and ONLY 1/4 of the eligible men get treated with CaverStem=12 MILLION men * $1,200 per kit=$ 14.5 BILLION FROM RUSSIA ALONE…
Regarding Switzerland, Germany, Austria, and Russia (see “Europe”):
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care
This is potentially HUGE for CaverStem; not only do CELZ doctors have direct professional connections with physicians in these countries (who become, it seems, instant ambassadors for CaverStem), but these nations also maintain varying degrees of state-run/largely subsidized medical care. I’m not quite sure why the market is so slow on the uptake here...
Perhaps not in THIS country—but in countries with nationalized medicine AND an infertility problem (like Russia) it could be a COMPLETELY different ball game.
More to the point (at least for me), developing brand awareness EARLY is critical for CELZ. To my mind, this is the main reason they should want to be conspicuous in leading the pack...
True—though some things are more plausible and consistent with available information than others.
Is there any other option at this point? We are already seeing “0” bid and have settled at .0001. What is the rationale for believing that the PPS can recover organically (i.e. without R/S, liquidation, etc)?
Makes TOTAL sense. Need to compare efficacy for two meaningfully different processes. Having said that, what does the publication look like (in terms of time and scope)? Are they engaging in a second phase of trials using the new procedure? What constitutes a “trial”? If they conduct the new one using the same sort of timeline as with the first, then would we not be looking at roughly a year from whenever that second iteration began?
Several different ways to approach this, but I think managing expectations is important. Based on the only explicit communication to date, folks are naturally awaiting word on the results of the trial that ended on 8.28.2018. Moreover, at least TWO questions are worth addressing—and they do not necessarily need to be addressed at the same time: (1) what is the documented data for the efficacy of ANY CaverStem procedure? (2) how does CaverStem 2.0’s efficacy compare to the method used in the recently ended trial?
To the extent that the original centrifuge method was effective (to around 90%, as has been informally advertised by several principals for roughly a year) and the new 2.0 version is preliminarily as effective (if not more), would you not want to establish on the record the effective results that you CAN demonstrate—with the proviso that 2.0 is yielding similar effectiveness at lower costs to the performing physicians?
Even if they don’t publish the results of the original trial (for whatever reasons they deem necessary), they SHOULD issue SOME communication about that trial—especially if, as may be the case, they are now engaged in a second and fairly time-consuming set of variant trials. Managing expectations is ALWAYS key...
BINGO. Garon is UBER-LEGIT
Any recent news (this is dated Feb 2017)?
Having a hard time getting the link to load. Found a seemingly similar story (about the same patient), but that article doesn’t mention CELZ. Beyond being in the “same space,” is there a more direct connection that I am missing?
This possible use reminds me of the cachexia news from last summer. Speaking of that: MORE crickets???
That’s what I (mistakingly) thought about 9 months ago. Still pisses me off almost to no end. Now I know I Cassandra from Greek mythology felt. Lol
Correlation between trading range of last several months and warrants to purchase shares at around .02 that were granted last fall (September, I think) to the financial institutions that agreed to (1) convert our existing debt and (2) assist with financing of commercial operations going forward? As always, I’m happy to be educated by those who know more and can point to verifiable factors.
Agree completely. All I can figure is that folks in the OTC must not pay attention closely to such things—otherwise the factors you point out (and others that can reasonably be inferred) would already be pushing this up.
It certainly has been for the last 6-9 months. Prior to that there was lots of daily movement (15-25% moves were fairly common, making fairly easy pickings for flippers). Then we generated insane interest that propelled the PPS up to .07–but nothing but gradual declines since then—even though the IDEAS presented in the updates are of a type that should drive the PPS up (unfortunately the absence of virtually any QUANTITATIVE FINANCIAL INFORMATION to support those ideas has been the major delta). Until someone offers a compelling analysis WITH EVIDENCE (even if we can’t piece it all together until AFTER the fact), I will remain confident in my conclusion that the very controlled and PROLONGED trading range that we’ve seen over the last 3 months or so is purposeful and conforms with some as yet unknown elements of CELZ business plan.
It has been six months since the trial ended on 8/28/18. Thinking back, they recently said, “we are working on our paper”—which is very different from something like “we are awaiting publication” or “have submitted the paper for editorial comment.” I certainly hope whoever has written some of their stockholder updates is NOWHERE near this piece. Eeek
Awesome evaluation.
FYI: clinical trial closed 6 months ago today (on 8/28/18).
Less and less cred by the day. Get ‘em, doc!
Fair enough—but it’s not SIX billion.
Slightly false premise: OS is around 1.2B, while your valuation exercise uses 6B shares (the AS).
And anyone can read “0” on the bid.
Link to source? Thanks, gint!
After MANY months of thought and analysis, the ONLY logical explanation I can come up with for what we have seen and continue to see is the following.
In the first place, I cannot fully subscribe to the notion that “they don’t care about the PPS,” as some have maintained. To assert that they are not engaged in a PND is not the same thing as saying they don’t care about the PPS. Moreover, the price action seen over the last several months (with the PPS trading in a very narrow and controlled channel) confirms to my mind that they are not particularly interested in seeing significant movement in either direction—but ESPECIALLY up.
My gut tells me that those of us who, through personal resources and connections to others with means (who saw what we saw and threw more money at this) drove the action to .07–and that this spike was directly contrary to CELZ’ business purposes and gameplan. Thus the maintenance of their marketing and communications posture—which has been TREMENDOUSLY minimalistic (for whatever reasons they deem that approach either preferable or necessary).
To this point I have speculated (in other posts) that their lack of interest in seeing the PPS rise—in which they themselves are HEAVILY invested too—may correlate with a business strategy that involves the assignment of shares to physicians in some form or fashion (whether when they sign up and/or on some ongoing basis): in this analysis, higher PPS leaves FEWER shares for such designations (assuming a relatively fixed budget allocation for such purposes).
In addition to this explanatory possibility, another idea struck me today: if they were looking to sell just the CaverStem brand (keep in mind that CaverStem International is explicitly designated as a SEPARATE ENTITY) in order to generate a huge infusion of cash with which they would fund all other development and commercialization endeavors, then we might have another legitimate business reason to be apathetic toward a higher PPS: a higher PPS would command a higher price for CaverStem than their financial analysis suggests that CaverStem could easily support, at least in the near term (remember: their explicit goal is to have revenues sufficient to sustain CELZ in 2019).
I recall in the early 90s a rumor that Publix Supermarkets was interested in buying Ingles Markets: when Ingles’ stock tripled, that idea got scrapped (and that was LONG before the age of swift and abundant information that we have today!).
If they were to build CaverStem just enough to sell in this manner, even as they are developing FemCelz right behind it, they just might have the best of both worlds: sell CaverStem for cash to some existing entity in the MALE ED market space, and then establish FemCelz as THE brand within the comparatively non-existent female sexual dysfunction space—with which they would, in this analysis, fund operations going forward.
Can you spare some more tea leaves? Lol
A fortiori, you make the point I’ve been trying to make for a year EVEN STRONGER!
I’m afraid you’re right—but what kind of naive, short-sighted market doesn’t see more? Just the declaration that they expect to be generating revs sufficient to finance and sustain operations THIS YEAR should be sending this thing bonkers
Unfortunately this VERY logical and reasonable line of thinking leads nowhere: we engaged in this very sort of exercise 9-12 months ago—and yet here we sit, in many respects WORSE off than we were even at that time (when we were around .018–to say nothing of when it was even much higher than that!). It’s the most incredible and counterintuitive thing I’ve seen in my life.
Operating from memory here, but it was April/May when we spiked to .07. Then immediately corrected to the mid 5s to mid 6s, followed by gradual decline since then. Clinical trial ended on August 28. I see no connection.