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.
"after great news "? When? What "great news" was there?
What "abnormalities" in trading are being observed? Pull up a 2, or 2.5 yr chart, or a 5 yr chart- don't know of anything "abnormal" about a general down trend in this stock, and a few, brief, what might typically be called "pump up" cycles and then sharp downturns that follow. (typically around April, just prior to April, interestingly: look at April of 2013, it peaked around .06 or so, and then was at about 2 cents a share by June or so, and 1 cent by Aug)
It peaked at .08 about one month ago, within two trading days of reaching .08, plunged rapidly back as low as about .035, then back to about .06 or so, then back now to the .04X range? It's down pretty close to 50% now in one month from the .08 peak- which, IMO was based essentially on nothing that I would find noteworthy, "new", huge "news", and most importantly, nothing I could find as having any significant changing effect on the rather "dire" (my opinion) cash position, etc? What is abnormal right now?
Not seeing it? If the past 2, 2.5 yrs of trading patterns are any indicator, this will more than likely be headed for the 2 cent range IMO. Don't see any reason why it wouldn't? What has changed in their cash/cash flow situation, which is probably the single greatest issue they face IMHO (there own 10-K warning statements, IMO essentially echo that same sentiment)- I'll list their own words verbatim from the 10-K as proof:
Most recent 10-K, PAGE 25:
"Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Financing
We will need to secure additional financing in 2014 in order to continue to finance our operations. If we are unable to secure additional financing on acceptable terms, or at all, we may be forced to curtail or cease our operations.
As of March 24, 2014, we had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $211,632.80 and a working capital deficit of approximately $13.4 million. As such, our existing cash resources are insufficient to finance even our immediate operations. Accordingly, we will need to secure additional sources of capital to develop our business and product candidates as planned. We are seeking substantial additional financing through public and/or private financing, which may include equity and/or debt financings, research grants and through other arrangements, including collaborative arrangements. As part of such efforts, we may seek loans from certain of our executive officers, directors and/or current shareholders. We may also seek to satisfy some of our obligations to the guarantors of our loan with Seaside National Bank & Trust, or the Guarantors, through the issuance of various forms of securities or debt on negotiated terms. However, financing and/or alternative arrangements with the Guarantors may not be available when we need it, or may not be available on acceptable terms.
If we are unable to secure additional financing in the near term, we may be forced to:
· curtail or abandon our existing business plan;
· reduce our headcount;
· default on our debt obligations;
· file for bankruptcy;
· seek to sell some or all of our assets; and/or
· cease our operations.
If we are forced to take any of these steps, any investment in our common stock may be worthless."
That $211K cash they list- if you do the math given their spending/burn rate elsewhere in the 10-K, is probably about one month's worth of cash left. Meaning, if they haven't already raised more cash by today, April 9th, via Asher, or selling/diluting more shares, or whoever/whatever- then they'd probably be down to about zero cash on hand IMO.
Just pull up a Jan 2011 to today, chart- there is nothing "unusual" occurring here IMHO?
Chart please, would like to see it.
What is the avg characters per post presently- would like to see a number
What is the 2 hour EMA at this moment, would like to see the number.
What is the 7 1/2 EMA, a number please?
Love looking at these "charts" and what they purport to prove and all. Fascinating. Thanks.
Agree- and that includes speculating on huge future sales, future big market caps, future valuations of extremely high figures, FDA approvals being soon or imminent or even ever going to occur, of trials leading to XYZ or outcome ABC, or meetings/conferences causing ABC to happen, or a "big" investment/investor is "imminent" , etc. ALL is pure "speculating" and "conjecture".
ALL is speculation on any stock chat board IMO, unless anyone has insider info or a crystal ball that we all don't know about- that works "magic". Yep- just opinions, speculating, guessing, hoping,etc. In other words- a bunch of stock followers, traders, speculators, people maybe specifically interested in this particular tech (I believe your case- you have a strong interest in stem cells, specifically it appears- which is all cool, it's an interesting field, no doubt), people purely out to make a buck on a stock and could care less if it's widgets or a bar of soap maker(for example- I don't buy cig stocks, it just somehow rubs me wrong, but they pay great dividends), horse traders, flippers- whatever name anyone wants to put on us who "play the markets".
Some people "flip" houses or real estate- I've done it myself. I had no emotional attachment to the house or neighborhood whatsoever. It was just a piece of property and costs and potential profit and the time value of money, etc. A pure flip. I've had other homes where I care about the neighborhood long term, lived in the home for more than a few yrs, cared more about the specific house- maybe the style/time it was built, what period it was from, etc. People buy/sell all kinds of stuff for profit (hopefully profit and not losses) antiques, art, cars, almost anything you can think of or name; someone "trades" in it, or buys and sells it in hopes of a profit- and that's the name of the game in the end, it's about money and profit IMO, else it's a "hobby" and not business or about making or losing money.
Maybe for some here, there's more emotional attachment to the particular tech as they want to hope it will "save lives" someday and all- and that's fine too. I've invested a lot of my personal time and work in products that save lives- but it doesn't necessarily mean I care about every stock or trade that way- that's my free choice.
The majority, if not all of the statement I just made about that Seaside loan (other than saying, for me personally a few parts maybe make me "wonder" to say the least, and the times/dates given seem a bit "urgent" perhaps IMO, and some of the fees/interest look a bit out of whack IMO)- is word for word right out of their 10-K, not a lot of room for "speculation" there, though? It is what it is. And the warnings are their words, not mine- I never put out words that are warnings or otherwise- unless a straight cut n paste from the company's own documents.
"announcement" - I'd suppose as in the past, something to the effect that, "We successfully renewed and/or re-negotiated the Seaside loan on date of XYZ and the terms are ABC and all is cool".
That's what is what's happened so far in the past two "renews". Anything else would be pure speculation. Is there a chance there could be a "problem" in this "renew/re-negotiate" process? Of course- it's business and investors and banks and who knows what. But so far- the track record is at least two or more successful "renews" or whatever you want to call it- and at some point they have made a point to announce it as being "taken care of".
That's all.
Not "implying" anything- other than the facts as stated in the 10-K. That a pretty major loan, one that has "guarantors" was due to mature in end of 2013, it, according to the 10-K statement needs to be "renewed/renegotiated" and that they also, in their warning statement, specifically spell out that they, BHRT "may" have to "work things out" (paraphrasing) with said "guarantors".
That's what the document says, in pretty plain English. Also, they inserted a specific statement that the loan was not in default as of Dec 31st, 2013.
What is there to "imply"? It all says what it says? Also, for a loan that has a pretty great interest rate, IMO, of 4.XX percent, they seem to be racking up a lot of other fees and "interest accumulated" related to it- per, again, their own 10-K statements. The annual interest payments on that loan of $980K or whatever the balance is, would only be about $40K a yr?
What is there to "imply"? They for some reason have to "renew" it apparently every yr it appears or "renegotiate" or whatever - it's their words, not mine? Make of it whatever you will. I find it interesting that a loan that would only take about $40K in annual interest payments, that the bank is making them apparently come in on a yr to yr basis and "re-guarantee" it or whatever you want to call it.
Simple as that. That, and I'd never caught the explanation in the 10-K about this entire "renew" issue surrounding this key loan- simply pointing out that in looking at the 10-K related to the 8-K news yesterday of the "debt reduction" - this Seaside "renew" statement just jumped out at me. That's all- I'd completely missed it before and that surprised me is all, given the dates involved as to when it matures, when they need to "renew" and all.
The key dates given in the 10-K are past- that much is clear IMO.
Or, just wait for an announcement. What got me- was I'd totally missed it in the 10-K before. Had not even seen that part about needing to renew by Q1 (meaning these past few months) and the loan maturing end of 2013? That's the main point. Don't know how, in reading the 10-K, it just slipped by?
Seems kinda important IMO? So far, it seems they've renewed every time as needed. But found it interesting to put in the "not in default as of Dec 31, 2013" language. That could just be standard language given that the loan was to mature/end on that date- but they obviously had to be well aware of that and were already in the talks or whatever it is they have to do, to sit down and do the "renew" or re-negotiate part.
Just not sure why they don't get one of these guys to just pay it off though? If the "guarantor" has the clout to put up some sort of "letter/line of credit" or whatever it is they have to put on "deposit" at Seaside bank- then it seems they could certainly come up with that principal amount w/o too much sweat? Seems like they're (BHRT) accumulating more fees and interest and stuff than it would cost to pay it off? Why not let the "guarantor" become the debt holder and pay them a nice interest rate? That's all? If the guarantor believes enough in the future of the biz, then why not help um out and just buy-out that loan from the bank and become the note holder? It seems like perhaps it's not getting any re-payment made on it as they, BHRT just don't have adequate cash/cash flow to make any payments on it? So it sort of hangs out there, in 2nd position to Northstar in a sort of holding pattern, accumulating interest and all- but never getting paid down, at least not as of yet? But it's been since 2010?
Had others seen this loan being "renewed" and "re-guaranteed" essentially every year, I wonder? Cause that one, I gotta admit, I had totally missed- never even jumped out at me on the page or even caught my eye in any read of the 10-K or similar?
Seaside Bank loan is specifically discussed in the most recent 10-K as having a need to be "renewed" in, or by, Q1 2014 (that would have already ended, end of March, 2014 ?), didn't notice the verbiage about it before. Went back and read some other PR/blog/past 10-K and it looks like this major loan only gets renewed for about 1 or 2 yrs max at a time, each time, or has at least had to be "renewed" already, previously?
10-K, PAGE F-21: This is the part that caught my eye and didn't see before:
"Seaside Bank
On October 25, 2010, the Company entered into a Loan Agreement with Seaside National Bank and Trust for a $980,000 loan at 4.25% per annum interest that was used to refinance the Company’s loan with Bank of America. The obligation is guaranteed by certain shareholders of the Company. The Loan Agreement was scheduled to mature on December 23, 2013, however the Company is renewing the loan with Seaside National Bank and Trust during the first quarter of 2014 to extend the maturity date. The loan is NOT IN DEFAULT as of December 31, 2013."
So, apparently that loan was "scheduled to mature on Dec 23, 2013" (Past date now) and BHRT is "renewing" to "extend" the maturity date in the first qtr of 2014? Well, the first qtr, March 31, 2014 has already passed that I am aware of? Wonder if it got successfully "renewed"? And they make a note, inserted language to point out, "The loan is not in DEFAULT as of December 31, 2013."??
What's interesting too IMO, is the section of the 10-K on "Northstar" - implying they are in "first position" on everything- so it appears this Seaside loan is not even getting any principal or interest payments being made on it- it's just being "guaranteed" - which is fascinating IMO and to me?
10-K page 27:
"As of December 31, 2013, we had an aggregate of $5.7 million in principal amount of outstanding indebtedness, excluding accounts payable and accruals. This amount includes approximately $362,000 outstanding indebtedness pursuant to a loan and security agreement held by Northstar Biotech Group, LLC, or Northstar, which is owned in part by certain of our existing directors and shareholders, including Dr. William P. Murphy Jr., Dr. Samuel Ahn and Charles Hart), approximately $980,000 outstanding pursuant to a Loan Agreement with Seaside National Bank, and approximately $1.5 million outstanding to the Guarantors in respect of payments made by them on our behalf in connection with our original loan with Bank of America." and "make any principal, interest or other payments arising under or in connection with our loan from Seaside National Bank or any other debt subordinate to Northstar loan;"
Meaning, it looks, IMO that the Seaside bank loan principal amount is unchanged at about $980K or so since 2010? Like it's not even getting paid down out of BHRT cash raising activities and is just accumulating interest I guess? Or is interest only being paid on it by someone? It's all very confusing IMHO?
I looked back at some past PR, a blog, and the 10-K of past and it appears this Seaside loan has had to be "renewed" more than once already? Like the bank is giving them only like a year or so at a time and then re-evaluating it or something? I totally missed that before when reading 10-K's and it seems pretty important- especially the part about inserting the "not in default as of this date"? Why put that in there? Is it at risk of possibly going into default?
A March 2012 blog said,
" We renewed our $980,000 loan from Seaside National Bank and Trust with the continued support of long time shareholders, Dan Marino and Jason Taylor, who reaffirmed their support of Bioheart by guaranteeing the Seaside Loan."
March 11th, 2013 blog said,
"We renewed our $980,000 loan from Seaside National Bank and Trust with the continued support of long time shareholders (via their letters of deposit) and they once again reaffirmed their support of Bioheart by guaranteeing the Seaside Loan"
So that's only 1 yr between those two "re-news" and now it has to be "re-newed" again by Dec 31st, 2103 again according to the 10-K? Interesting IMO?
And then the "guarantors" (looks like Marino among others) apparently have to go in and re-guarantee it, or the terms of this major loan have to be "re-negotiated" or something? Can't be a lot of confidence IMO on the part of Seaside Bank when they are going along with 1 yr "re-news", it appears, at a time? The "accrued interest" expense page on page F-20 of most recent 10-K shows also, that they owe those "guarantors" a total of $1,373,775 big ones.
http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2010/07/26/daily1.html
Oct 1, 2010 PR
" announced today that the company received a preliminary commitment from Seaside National Bank and Trust for a $980,000 loan that will be used to refinance the Company’s loan with Bank of America. The loan is subject to completion of definitive documentation and the delivery to Seaside of certificates of deposit of third parties. The Company further advised that $367,244 of the Bank of America loan would be paid down by a member of the Company’s Board of Directors. In exchange, the Board Member will receive restricted common shares and warrants."
So it appears that $367K difference between the two loans was already "covered" with restricted common shares and warrants? So where is the $1.3 million owed to the "guarantors" now coming from- on a loan that originated in 2010? That a lot of fees and interest built up IMHO for 4 or so yrs on a $980K principal "guarantee"? For example, even at a high, 10% interest rate- that's about $100K a yr X 4 yrs or so would be about $400K total? But somehow it’s reached $1.3 million or more now? Wonder why these "key investors" didn't just step in and pay-off the remaining B of A loan balance and let BHRT make the loan payments/interest payments to them directly? Seems like it would have been cheaper for BHRT, better for cash flow, etc? Now they have a Seaside loan with a $980K balance or whatever, plus owe the "guarantors" like $1.3 million in "fees and interest" from the 10-K statement? Seems like the guarantors are owed as much or more than the original loan balance that was due at one time? Doesn't make sense to me? Maybe they made payments on the old B of A loan and have accumulated interest owed on that too? Just seems like a lot of fees and interest accumulating and being owed to lots of people still for an original loan that went into default with about $1.3 mil left on it to be paid (B of A loan default)?
Recent 10-K page F-20:
"Amounts payable to the Guarantors of the Company’s loan agreement with Bank of America and Seaside Bank, including fees and interest
$1,373,775"
Under the risks section of 10-K, page PAGE 25:
"Item 1A. Risk Factors
The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones facing us. Other events that we do not currently anticipate or that we currently deem immaterial also may affect our results of operations and financial condition. If any events described in the risk factors actually occur, our business, operating results, prospects and financial condition could be materially harmed. In connection with the forward looking statements that appear elsewhere in this annual report, you should also carefully review the cautionary statement referred to under “Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward Looking Statements.”
Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Financing
We will need to secure additional financing in 2014 in order to continue to finance our operations. If we are unable to secure additional financing on acceptable terms, or at all, we may be forced to curtail or cease our operations.
As of March 24, 2014, we had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $211,632.80 and a working capital deficit of approximately $13.4 million. As such, our existing cash resources are insufficient to finance even our immediate operations. Accordingly, we will need to secure additional sources of capital to develop our business and product candidates as planned. We are seeking substantial additional financing through public and/or private financing, which may include equity and/or debt financings, research grants and through other arrangements, including collaborative arrangements. As part of such efforts, we may seek loans from certain of our executive officers, directors and/or current shareholders. We may also seek to satisfy some of our obligations to the GUARANTORS of our loan with SEASIDE National Bank & Trust, or the Guarantors, through the issuance of various forms of securities or debt on negotiated terms. However, financing and/or alternative arrangements with the Guarantors MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE WHEN WE NEED IT, or may not be available on acceptable terms.
If we are unable to secure additional financing in the near term, we may be forced to:
• curtail or abandon our existing business plan;
• reduce our headcount;
• default on our debt obligations;
• file for bankruptcy;
• seek to sell some or all of our assets; and/or
• cease our operations.
If we are forced to take any of these steps, any investment in our common stock may be worthless."
Notice it points out that "reaching acceptable terms" with the "guarantors" and being able to work things out with the "guarantor" to certain, acceptable terms WHEN WE NEED IT (Q1, 2014 apparently?) is a key need/event/undertaking, whatever you want to call it.
"We may also seek to satisfy some of our obligations to the GUARANTORS of our loan with SEASIDE National Bank & Trust, or the Guarantors, through the issuance of various forms of securities or debt on negotiated terms. "
Meaning, it looks like they have to give them (guarantors) more stock shares, or warrants or more interest owed, or whatever to their satisfaction for them to re-up as the "guarantors" perhaps? It's interesting IMO to say the least?
As I read the 10-K, it seems that the only place "guarantors" is used is in relation to those who are "guaranteeing" that Seaside bank loan and I believe in regards to Northstar. Interesting stuff IMO? A bank that gives the loan terms for about, what appears to be about 1 yr periods at a time, then they have to go in and "renegotiate" with them each time?
Not sure what all the verbiage and needing to "renew" so often means or why it would be done that way and why they stuck that statement in that the loan was not in default "as of" Dec 31st, 2013?
Again, will have to wait and see and wait for some announcement I guess? Anyone else wants to crunch the 10-K numbers, or re-read all the info on the Seaside loan would be good input. I could be missing something here or be mis-reading it? But this need to “renew” in and by the first qtr 2014 and that the loan was maturing or ending at Dec 31st, 2013, and that wording, “it’s not in default as of Dec 31st, 2013”, is something I totally missed in prior reads of the 10-K. I'm also confused as to the amount of "fees and interest" owed the "guarantors" versus what the entire original, or now outstanding balances/remaining balances of the original loans were? Seems out of proportion or something, IMO?
That "memory problem" also probably caused one to forget that there's a huge difference in "cleaning up"- as in a new financier having to PAY OFF the old debt, versus knowing that the debt was just "written off" as in never had payments made on it and was "negotiated away" apparently.
Kinda a big difference. Creditors, finance people, lenders, deal-makers, people who sign/enter in to legal contracts, whatever you like to call them: like to get paid back per the original terms, be it in agreed installments with interest, or in lump sums or whatever. It's the entire reason they enter "deals" with a "contract" and then expect a "return on their investment" -else, why even do it?
When one party "discharges" a debt/obligation via not paying it back, someone on the other end just took a "write down" or "write off" of an asset on their books, typically IMO. That asset of money they were owed, or money they would have been receiving is now probably moved to the "expense" side of the ledger- and all they can hope is it gains them maybe a tax off-set or something against any profits/earnings as far as I am aware of. But the loss they just took is still as real as it gets- it's real money they were owed/expected to receive to help their business, grow their business, pay their expenses or whatever and now it's just "gone". It's not just "funny money" or something- especially when it's in the $2 million plus range. Not like the guy supplying office paper or something wasn't paid a $472 bill due or something. $2 million dollars is sorta, IMHO a lot of money no matter who you're dealing with. Don't know what Beaumont Hospital's annual budget is for a yr- but I'd guess/speculate that $2 million plus dollars is pretty real and significant to them and their operations?
Learning the difference between paying back debt, versus having it discharged, negotiated away, gotten rid of (BK court for example) might be a good thing. Taking a statement in its most simpleton form, "such as XYZ reduced debt ABC" is not really getting the entire picture by a long shot IMO. Reading 140 character "tweets" versus the entire details in say, a SEC document is two different things entirely. Focusing only on one, and only promoting and boasting about one, versus the other is leaving a lot out of the true story IMO. Paying back, versus "discharging" or "negotiating a settlement" cause you can't and never will pay back the debt/obligation per the original terms, they're two different concepts entirely IMO. One has nothing to do with the other. Just "getting rid of debt" or saying a "debt was eliminated" has many, many connotations being left out of it, IMO.
"Huge" why? It appears to have zero effect on their cash flow, or cash expenditures or imminent and critical cash needs (see their going concern and other warning in recent 10-K) as they've been paying nothing on it (to Beaumont) anyway? Cash is their most dire, critical need IMO?
Elaborate on why it's "huge"? What material effect will it have on their financial condition or ability to pay current creditors/debt obligations? They paid, according to the last 10-K cash flow statement, $521K in interest in 2013 from cash raised, all other "notes due" and "cash paid obligations", "accounts payable", etc according to the Statements of Cash Flows appear to have been paid in "shares issued" deals (dilution) (10-K page F-14) and none of that was related to this recent 8-K "accrued" interest?
Again, what makes it "huge"? Why? If you still don't have cash to meet day to day obligations (which they are very close to, on any given day, week, month according to their financial statements and 10-K warning statments), and this "material event" doesn't change that- then how is it "huge"?
Their biggest need is cash, cash coming in, in a timely matter to meet creditors demands who have the ability to declare "default" if not paid on time or adequately, IMO. I don't see anything from today changing that situation? They were not using any cash or cash from financing activities (Asher, share sales, etc) to pay anything to Beaumont anyway- so what would be/will be different now?
It's essentially an accounting entry IMO, and it's one that shows they had to negotiate a "debt forgiveness" deal with a creditor they apparently could not, or did not want to use cash from financing operations to pay back? Not sure how that is "Huge"?
Unless there are details otherwise- it's another big "conjecture" statement largely about nothing, "Huge" IMO? What does that mean, "Huge"? How? Why?
How are they a "growing" business when they didn't use cash from sales, or cash even from "financing" to pay back this debt obligation? They "negotiated" a settlement on it- that's what the document says? Meaning, it was a write-off, loss for the creditor? A growing business would have paid them with cash from sales, or cash from financing, etc IMO and not needed to seek to have the debt extinguished? How is that a "growing business"? Makes zero sense IMO? That's a business in cash/debt trouble IMO?
"twitter" to me means nothing- sorry, just my own opinion. It's the SEC filings, and SEC filings only that matter. And what that 8-K indicates/says IMO is that this debt was not "paid off" but was "settled" - meaning someone, as in the originator didn't get paid apparently per the original agreement. That's a HUGE difference, again IMHO than say, the company, or say any company- making a statement such as, "We used a portion of cash on hand or recent earnings or recent cash flow or cash raised in a secondary offering and PAID OFF OUR XYZ DEBT or creditor ABC".
See the difference? Debt paid off is one thing IMO. Debt "negotiated away" as in taking an accounting entry for it- is another. How do you think ole Beaumont Hospital feels about that $2.1 million apparently owed to them - just vanishing off their side of the books? As in taking, apparently a loss on it? Think they think it's a "net positive" or a "good thing"? I don't know their side or input- maybe will google to see if they have a public statement about it- but I'd suspect they entered that original agreement to get paid and make money and receive the negotiated payments from it?
It's seems clear how the market apparently took it today- not real exciting apparently IMO?
Well, it doesn't "exactly" say that, "Bioheart announces a reduced debt of $2,000,000.000"??
It's a SEC 8-K filing. And what it says, verbatim is the following:
"Item 1.02 Termination of a Material Definitive Agreement."
(THAT is the title of what this filing refers to/is discussing- the terminating of a previously entered into, "material" agreement. What many I suppose in the biz world would call a "contract" or "contractual arrangement")
This 8-K then goes on to make the following statement and nothing more- and nowhere do the words "Bioheart announces a reduced debt of $2,000,000.000" appear, unless my English language reading skills are failing me?
8-K filing, remaining body-text verbatim language says:
"In June 2000, we entered into an agreement with William Beaumont Hospital, or WBH, pursuant to which WBH granted to us a worldwide, exclusive, non-sublicenseable license to two U.S. method patents covering the inducement of human adult myocardial cell proliferation in vitro, or the WBH IP. The term of the agreement is for the life of the patents, which expire in 2015. We did not use this license in any of our technologies. We have not made any payments to WBH other than the initial payment to acquire the license. On April 2, 2014, the Company received confirmation that it has no obligation under the patent license agreement and WBH agreed to terminate the patent license agreement.
Accordingly, the Company will recognize approximately $2,100,000 in settlement of debt which represents the accumulative accrual and related interest from past years under the 2000 patent license agreement.
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized."
It's then signed by the company CEO and that's it. End of wording.
Great analysis- totally agree. It's more or less where my thoughts had been pondering. As in:
a) Is it just "clearing the books" as the license was never really used? But what does it mean when they state even in the recent 10-K of "obligations" (their words) of something like $200K for 2012 and 2013 respectively not being paid, due on this Beaumont arrangement? Again, that's like a creditor not being paid- which another potential creditor/investor might view as weak, not honoring a past commitment IMO?
b) Flip side, it does reduce that bottom balance sheet entry of total debt/obligations via subtracting out that accrued expense line. But if you're the guy on the other end, Beaumont Hospital, also a business- how do they like "negotiating away" what would have been apparently $2.1 mil or so coming to them supposedly in installments, but never any payments made, and carried forward to essentially to today, when they decided to just "let it go" and I guess take an accounting entry/write down loss of some sort?
c) In latest 10-K just out, BHRT paid themselves/indicated things like increased salaries (pretty big increases IMO) for some key people, including bonuses in the most recent 10-K, spent over $600K cash on R&D, almost 3X that on SG&A expenses, but didn't make an attempt to pay Beaumont anything? Don't know how that's viewed by outside investors/professional types- it's beyond my knowledge and scope? Who knows? If Beaumont was truly owed - wouldn't even some partial payments have perhaps been paid to them?
All kinds of questions come up as stated. Is it that Beaumont was making a "demand" on this debt/obligation as stated previous post- and this is Cassel "working their magic" at being good at what they do and "negotiating a settlement" of this obligation? Maybe? Is it an indicator as stated, that cash/cash flow is even tighter than maybe even anyone is speculating from the last 10-K?
All good questions. And as several have stated - it's conjecture, guesses, opinions, thoughts as to is it a "net" good or bad at this point and what does it mean in the "big picture"? Don't know myself? I just always wonder about a "debt discharge" or "debt negotiated away" type deal- as it means someone, another business/creditor or in this case some type of license agreement didn't apparently get paid something owed/promised. Not that this stuff doesn't happen I'm sure all the time in business- but is it a net "good" or "bad" for which party, is hard to say IMO?
There must have been a reason BHRT carried it as an "expense" on the books all this time- as in they say they had an "obligation". But when I read that 10-K statement about the original deal- it also indicates that if certain sales thresholds and stuff weren't met, then BHRT would lose "exclusivity"- meaning it almost sounds like they didn't owe the royalty then if they never met the threshold and gave up exclusivity? But that seems like it can't be true- else, they wouldn't have had to use "accrual" accounting and carry it as a obligation/expense with interest due for all this time building up to $2.1 mil, and the 8-K is also describing it as a "settlement of debt" as in the two parties appear to have somehow mutually agreed to a termination and then debt forgiveness to BHRT, who it appears must now book it as a "gain" for accounting purposes on the other side of the ledger as the expense is being erased.
Anyway, good input/thoughts IMO, and it's not clear or cut n dry as we don't have all the "inside baseball" or negotiation details or accounting details. Perhaps the next 10-Q is going to add a little more verbiage as to the exact details and accounting entries as to how this was handled? We'll see.
Exactly ! Bingo. As is essentially all "discussions/opinions" on something like a public stock chat board. Of course. It's all "conjecture" unless specifically posting direct quotes from a 10-K or similar legal, SEC filed document. All have opinions/thoughts, hopes, doubts, whatever- one way or another. All anyone does is express them, speculate on them, sometimes buy or sell on them, etc. All opinions/conjecture here is just that- and most are always careful to state it as nothing more than a thought, guess or opinion. And most, if not all here seem good about discussing only things that are in public disclosure, 10-K, PR, etc and are not personally attacking or making "libel" (whatever you want to call it) which is all a good thing. It's what civil and thoughtful debate is all about IMHO. Go to some other boards- especially like the big companies (Apple, MSFT, Google, especially Facebook- holy smokes, etc) and it all gets ugly and personal against the management, the products (as in wording like they suck, or so and so CEO is a #$%# cuss word, etc) and none of that goes on here or is necessary or is right. Just discuss, conjecture, hope, have doubts about where the company might be going, why they might be having for example cash flow problems, or as was raised previously- the question "why hasn't an investment (big one) been made in a long time?", why isn't the Mirror being updated more, or why someone else thinks some "news" is good and exciting- all good stuff and the entire purpose of debating and discussing a public traded firm IMO. Good luck. Your counter arguments/opinions are often good and make sense, we even agree sometimes on many things, sometime not- it's all good as long as it sticks to the business, the stock price, etc and not the posters personally or mgt other than what is their performance as perceived to be good or bad from a strictly business standpoint. Agree- it's all conjecture of course at our level- as we only have PR, 10-K, opinions, blogs, guesses, personal thoughts/opinions, speculations to go on of course. Else, we'd be insider trading or some other activity- and me personally, from what I read- I don't think any of that is occurring here. Just a bunch of stock traders/investors often with strong opinions and sometimes a bit emotional opinions/debate which is normal IMO. Always good luck to you- which ever way the trade or position goes.
This is conjecture.
This is conjecture.
This is conjecture.
This is conjecture.
Indeed, I don't understand how anyone can not see how not paying a creditor, or past debt owed, or not making timely payments when owed, is often viewed harshly in the "credit/lending/investment" environment IMO ?
It's common sense. Creditors don't like to get "stiffed" on debts or payments they are owed. Ask Citi or JP or any other major bank that just went through the lending crisis heard round the world- how they feel about "loans" or "credit" agreements they made that went bad, were not getting paid on time? Ask the U.S. govt. Federal Reserve bail-out team what they think/thought about it? It's probably the thing they dislike most in this world IMHO.
"Still less debt is a good thing. Pretty much common sense"?? Really?
When a person exists BK, they have zero debt. So you're saying that's a "good thing" and "common sense" according to creditors? Funny, it stays on your credit report for 7, or even I think 10 yrs now and you won't get a loan for several yrs afterward? So "less debt" = automatic "good thing"?
Where is that the gospel of the credit industry? Often, having more debt, as stated previously, if it's "good debt" (real estate that's valuable, machines that produce rich cash flow, etc) will actually get you more credit/investment if needed. All debt is not "bad", ask an oil company major or ask Apple why they just took on some debt, despite being swimming in cash, given the ultra low interest rate environment?
Um, not necessarily when they see you just went bad/belly up to a bunch of other creditor(s), not IMHO? Don't think other creditors/investors see what you just didn't pay and walked away from? Why are they going to trust you won't do the same thing to them? Huuum?
Why do you think they run multiple credit report(s) on that ole mortgage app? They want to know IF YOU PAY your prior OBLIGATIONS and IF YOU PAY THEM ON-TIME, and very importantly, CONSISTENTLY. It's the thing they (potential creditors) care about probably more than anything else, even your income situation. Way more than they care about your current debt load too. You can have a boat load of current debt to income, but if you have a long, long history of always paying, and always paying on-time, they often want to extend you even more credit. Hhuuuum?
Writing down a debt cause you can not pay it- as you have no cash/cash flow, is not necessarily a "good thing" IMO. It's "negotiating" one step before BK in many situations. Creditors don't like to see "bad debts" just disappear IMO. The creditor on the other side of the deal is the one who didn't get paid the "accrued" expenses and is taking a loss on their balance sheet entry. See?
Take it for whatever it's worth. Like it, don't like it. Good. Bad. Makes no difference in the cash situation IMO, and that's the real pinch they're in that I can see. The other big debts, the one's that have to be paid each month and can't be "accrued/carried" are still there and unchanged and need cash flow, same as yesterday. Will a potential new "creditor/investor" like that they were able to work out a deal, "negotiate away" and clear off an old, bad debt they've been "carrying" on the books, accruing, but never making payments on? Maybe? Don't know? It's possible, off course.
They never paid anything on the "debt/royalties" whatever you want to call it - so it makes no difference IMO. Yes, it will lower the "current liabilities" debt total on the balance sheet- but not have any effect on cash use/cash flow that I can see since they were never paying on it anyway, IMO. It's essentially an accounting/bookkeeping entry w/ perhaps some sort of potential tax implication on the gain is all, IMO? Am already seeing "claims" this somehow generates cash-flow or something? They never paid a single payment or royalty against it according to the 10-K; so it's just an accrual gain, clean-up of carried "accrual" expense entries or whatever (need a tax attorney), the other side (Beaumont) probably writing it off as a loss/bad debt IMO (not an accountant and we don't know all the details). BHRT never has made payments on it- so it's not going to give them any cash that they didn't have as far as I can tell IMO? Just another "license" they bought or whatever, announced in some PR "deal" and then apparently never used, and/or it never amounted to anything, IMO.
What's also interesting IMO, is the 8-K today says the following, "We DID NOT use this license in ANY of our technologies."?
But you read the latest 10-K entry below and it states, "We utilize the methods under these patents in connection with our BioPace and certain other product candidates in development."
So did they use it, or didn't they? One statement says it was "used in biopace" and "certain other products" - in plain English that I'm reading, IMO?
Recent 10-K page 18/19:
Other License Agreements
In June 2000, we entered into an agreement with William Beaumont Hospital, or WBH, pursuant to which WBH granted to us a worldwide, exclusive, non-sublicenseable license to two U.S. method patents covering the inducement of human adult myocardial cell proliferation in vitro, or the WBH IP. The term of the agreement is for the life of the patents, which expire in 2015. WE UTILIZE the methods under these patents in connection with our BioPace and certain other product candidates in development. We do not have rights to patents outside the United States relating to BioPace. In addition to a payment of $55,000 we made to acquire the license, we are required to pay WBH an annual license fee of $10,000 and royalties ranging from 2% to 4% of net sales of products that are covered by the WBH IP. In order to maintain these exclusive license rights, our aggregate royalty payments in any calendar year must exceed a minimum threshold as established by the agreement. The minimum threshold was
$50,000 for 2005, $100,000 for 2006, $200,000 for 2007 and 2008. This minimum threshold will remain $200,000 for 2009 and thereafter. To the extent that our annual net sales of products covered by the WBH IP do not exceed the minimum threshold for such year, we have the option of paying any shortfall in cash to WBH by the end of the applicable year or having our license to the WBH IP become non-exclusive. In addition to the patents licensed from WBH, we purchased a U.S. patent and its corresponding Japanese filing, which are directed to biological pacemakers, by assignment from Angeion Corporation on September 1, 2000.
As of the date of this report, we have not made any payments to WBH other than the initial payment to acquire the license. Accordingly, WBH may terminate the license to the WBH IP at any time at their sole option. We are currently in negotiations with WBH to amend the terms of the license agreement. Unless earlier terminated by WBH or by either party upon the other party’s breach of the agreement, the agreement will terminate upon the expiration date of the last patent covered by the WBH Agreement. ""
It looks like it will come off the "accrued expenses" line of the balance sheet (see 10-K page F-35) -
" At December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the Company’s liability under this agreement was $2,122,130 and $1,825,675, respectively, which is reflected as a component of accrued expenses on the balance sheets (see Note 5).
F-35
During the year ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, the Company incurred expenses of $210,000, $210,000 respectively, and $2,122,130 from August 12, 1999 (date of inception) to December 31, 2013. The Company has accrued interest for the past due commitment at 2% over the prime rate per the terms of the agreement. The Company has included $2,122,130 in accrued expenses as of December 31, 2013."
So all it looks like IMO is that Beaumont is terminating the agreement per the terms above as BHRT never paid them, or made any payments and thus had lost "exclusivity" and Beaumont had the right to terminate based on no payments ever received. Beaumont looking at BHRT's situation, probably also figures they never will get paid anything- so just terminate it IMO and take the accounting entry. Looks like what Cassel does among other things- debt restructuring I believe is on their web site. This move, plus the cashing out of debt for equity and other things looks interesting to me? Like they're cleaning up a bunch of "stuff" for who knows what reasons?
Well, that's seems like some pretty thorough, interesting info. But again- problem's seen IMO are:
a) Why is it only in what appears to be a private email conversation between an individual and the CEO of a public traded company, and not distributed to all as public disclosure? Also, did "Mike" a CEO really write that- as it's got a bunch of poorly written sentences, punctuation problems and more in it? "we will definitely will roll out "? "Will" is used twice, incorrectly? And that's not the only place it's got major sentence construction problems? "Prior to the Bioheart"? That should read, "Prior to Bioheart" (no "the" needed), etc In all other emails I've ever seen posted from "Mike" it ends in "Warmest regards" or some similar closing salutation. Never "Mike"? But again, that's just my memory and what I've seen quoted many, many times?
b) Most important IMHO, is man, sure looks like a crowded space from all those names listed? If all BHRT does is "license" it- then what do they have that's proprietary or special? How then do they ever make any money off of all of this? What's the patentable portions, special "tech/process" that will belong to BHRT, that some 10,000 gorilla like a Baxter can't just step in and license, or more importantly, just buy-out on their own from that wash list of names?
Still, doesn't make real sense to me? Just not "getting it"? Those posts, that last one have a lot of info in them, but more questions than answers IMHO? A lot of "players", and who knows who has patent that makes um special, then BHRT has to license what they don't own- and then do what with it to make it a money maker? Also, are those license deals exclusive? Can anyone else step-in and license/use the same thing? That's what it makes me wonder? As stated, it's a lot of names, info, appears to perhaps explain a few things (vague IMO), but it also opens a big round of more questions as I see it. At least you were chasing due diligence and saw some missing puzzle pieces, that seem obvious also to me, and began to ask the questions. Only thing, it still doesn't make a "big picture" sense IMO, especially as to how it now gets monetized and protected and proprietary and all those other big, important "tech" type "stuff" that has to fit together to have a big seller/winner as I see it.
How old is that "news" article which is on, what appears to be nothing more than a very small time "blog" page (not a major "news" or med journal or similar by a long, long shot), just a blog designed, it appears, to be a google "ad-word" key word page system about any topic that has medical sounding terms in it, who's only contact info is a google gmail address? They also list their contact as "Medical and healthcare advertising, Small or large projects, Direct-to-consumer, educational campaigns, Reasonable rates
Write to us: medfrontiers@gmail.com"
What's interesting, since it's being linked to as some sort of "source" of info- is that
a) Nowhere in it, this blog article, does there appear the word lipocell (the Ageless supposed precursor product to Adipocell, see 10-K for statement of licensing change from Ageless to Invitrex or whatever it's called)- the blog article only mentions Myocell by name, a product called the TGI 1200 and something called Bioheart’s Acute Cell Therapy, which it states is "being designed" as in it was not even complete at time of this blog statement? So, where is the linkage that this is now Adipocell? Not seeing it IMO? It says this TGI 1200 system/method was licensed from "Tissue Genesis"- so it seems they would own the process/tech behind it- again, way more than a simple name change IMO to arrive at "Adipo" or whatever? Don't see any connection to Adipocell, or the precursor, Lipi or Lipocell or whatever it was called, the Ageless licensed product- where is that linkage? Is there a PR or other official company statement stating such? It appears to me, just my opinion, that in each case so far, BHRT was licensing something from someone else and it's not even their own? Genesis, then Ageless, etc?
b) What's real interesting IMO, is this blog link posted says in it, via the then CEO apparently speaking, being quoted, that, "Bioheart is currently marketing these systems outside the US in countries recognizing the CE Mark approval." as in referring to this TGI 1200??
So where was the revenue/sales from that? Why didn't it ever "take-off" and sell as a product if it/this technology was/is supposedly so "good" or "so great" I guess? That's a natural question that comes to mind IMO? Where did it go? Where were the sales ramping up? Never have seen any sales or revenue mentioned from it in a 10-K or 10-Q that I can remember? I might have missed it- is there a 10-K or 10-Q that mentions sales and revenue from this TGI 1200 that is said to have been selling and "being marketed" in many places?
That is super "curious" and interesting IMHO? Where did it go? What happened to that? Why did it not sell apparently? Why didn't it generate any revenue to move forward all the "several promising trials" that is quoted in that same blog "article"? That link IMO, raises more questions than gives any answers IMO? Not seeing it, or any connection to anything going on today- especially as to how it would explain going back to a phase I in Mexico, when you have/had at least a phase II/III and now a phase III as stated as "enrolling" - when you are extremely low on cash, have very few employees or resources, etc. Not seeing the connection- but hey, that's just me?
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recognizes "death spiral" (i.e. convertible share based financing) as a 100% legitimate and industry wide used term.
https://www.sec.gov/answers/convertibles.htm (see bottom of page titled "Convertible Securities")
"By contrast, in less conventional convertible security financings, the conversion ratio may be based on fluctuating market prices to determine the number of shares of common stock to be issued on conversion. " (SEC speaking)
"Because a market price based conversion formula can lead to DRAMATIC stock price reductions and corresponding negative effects on both the company and its shareholders, convertible security financings with market price based conversion ratios have colloquially been called "floorless", "toxic," "DEATH SPIRAL," and "ratchet" convertibles." End quote, United States SEC.
That is the SEC speaking, using their words: "toxic", "death spiral", "ratchet", "convertibles", etc.
They state (the SEC):
"Because the market price based conversion formula.." (SEC speaking)
- SEE BHRT, latest 10-K, PAGE F-41:
"The Note is convertible into common stock, at Asher’s option, at a 45% discount to the average of the three lowest closing bid prices of the common stock during the 10 trading day period prior to conversion. "
(THAT is the conversion, market price based ratio formula, i.e. what the SEC describes as a "convertible" with "toxic" properties and is "floorless" as it does not matter what the price is (occurs 10 days prior trading period, and is the avg of LOWEST 3 days of price), or how low it goes, nor does it have any other limits/stipulations on it, IMO. The lower the share price goes, the more shares Asher gets upon conversion- thus they are motivated to get the share price as low as possible, IMO and that of experts (the SEC) who write about this type of financing deals)
Lets see? Who to trust, who is credible, who knows what they're talking about IMHO? United States SEC? Or? LOL !
"spun in so many different, and at times even in opposing ways,"?? Really?
Would like to see proof and examples of how the company's own words, as cut n pasted from their own 10-K have been "spun"? Will be anxiously awaiting to see these "spun", direct cut n paste, word for word copies of the company's own 10-K.
This will be fascinating to see how copying a document's own words, verbatim, turns into being "spun". Thanks in advance. Looking forward to it. Should be very interesting IMO.
And the share price was about 1/4 of what it is today. (market cap closer to 4 million if memory serves) and as stated, lets see where the price goes- give it time, if the past pattern of 2/2.5 yrs is any indicator. It's already down almost 50% from the .08 peak of March 6th, and went as low as .035. Give it time, IMO. If the share count was just what it was 3 months ago per 10-Q Sept 30th, that .035 per share, only about 3 weeks ago, gave a market cap of 347 million shares X .035 = $12 million. It's bounced around between $4 million and $10 million or so for the past yr. Big whoop IMO. That's a nano-nano cap.
If the price were to return to the multi-year historic norm- that market cap is going right back to about where it was. 420 million X .01 = $4.2 mil or at 2 cents = $8.4 mil, big deal IMO. $5 or $6 mil or so average again. It is only increased right now via a) Massive share dilution and b) A price spike, which IMO is based largely on no underpinnings such as sales, an approved product, any significant financing, etc. It's not new in the slightest to see this "pumped"- in fact this time of yr is typical for the "pump" IMO looking at a historic chart (as same price spikes of past 2 plus yrs- which went right back down over a month/two month period to settle back at 1 to 2 penny range)
BHRT's market cap, less than about 2 months ago, was 1/4 or so of what it is today. Lets see how long it lasts. Further, when you "grow" your market cap, simply via endlessly diluting shares out onto the market, like water IMO, it really doesn't mean much. Each share is now diluted, worth a fraction of what it once was, and the price per share is the reflection of that. Pennies versus dollars for a market cap that has grown very little. As opposed to say Apple for instance or MSFT, who's market cap has grown by 100's if not a 1000X or more from their IPO dates, due to organic and tremendous sales and profit growth- not issuing shares, near worthless shares in this case.
Market caps of successful companies are based generally on multiples of sales and profitability and also underlying cash/assets on hand, etc. Not via simply issuing shares into near infinity. The concept that BHRT had a very poor (IMHO) market cap at IPO time, because the IPO was a "bust" by all commonly accepted market norms (again my opinion) and to now say it has "increased", not by share price increase, but simple via the near endless issuing of shares- well, IMO, it doesn't mean much.
If it gets someone excited or trips their trigger- then more power to um. Good luck.
Price per share- when looking at/comparing two stocks is 100% meaningless. It' market cap that matters.
ACTC: 7 pennies a share, has a market cap of $176 Million dollars.
BHRT: 4.6 pennies, has a market cap of about $19.6 Million dollars.
Meaning, the market is valuing ACTC as being about 176/19.6 = 9X (nine times) more valuable than BHRT as of today's close. Note too- ACTC has at least a "little" net cash to it's debt it appears, maybe a little over a $million or so. It's not much, but BHRT essentially has no cash at any given moment right now against a large debt.
A typical example would be Apple, versus say Exxon Mobile- two of the biggest market cap, most valuable companies in the world. Apple hasn't done a share split in a long time so it trades at a high price per share.
Apple: $531 per share, total market cap = $474 Billion
Exxon Mobile: $97 per share, total market cap = $420 Billion
The two companies are being valued at nearly the exact same amount by the market. Apples stock is over 5X the price of Exxon Mobile. But the value of the companies is nearly the same. And that's despite Apple sitting on about a net $30 Billion in cash, to Exxon's "net" cash being negative, as in they have about $18 billion in debt. People don't worry about Exxon carrying a net "debt" as they own so many assets, oil/gas reserves in the ground and generate so much cash flow- they can easily pay off their debt if needed. Apple needs a lot of cash, as technology is more fickle and if they have a "dud" product, or their growth and market share slips, they may use/need cash for a long time, until they create another big hit, or use the cash for acquisitions to grow, buy into new technology or whatever. Exxon Mobile also pays the better dividend- meaning they return more of their quarterly generated cash/profits back to the shareholders, and have done so for many, many yrs, and steadily increase their dividend over time - also adding to their tremendous value as seen by the market.
Or for example:
Google: $543 per share, market cap $365 Billion
Microsoft: $39 per share, market cap $330 Billion
"The market" is valuing Google and MSFT about the same, despite Google's share price being 543/39 = about 14X that of MSFT
That's the way it works. Price per share, is near meaningless in comparing two stocks. It's market cap, cash on hand, profitability and profit margin, dividend paid or not, dividend ever increasing growth/increase in payout or not, growth- both top and bottom line (top is sales, bottom is profits/earnings per share), assets, return on investment, strength and track record of mgt, etc. (that would be the Warren Buffet valuation, 30 second company analysis in a nut shell for the most part)
Look at that spread- wow. The broker/dealer still trying to milk it, IMO.
Down 8% or so on just a little up-tick in sell volume, then back to +2% on a tiny buy. For all you know that buy is them, the broker/dealer. Not unusual in penny-ville. Now they can fill more sell orders on that big "up", 10% or more spread the way I see it, IMO.
Volume is dropping off sharply though. It was only 200K or so shares at over 2 hours into the trading day. That's a big fall-off from a week ago. Probably petering out here, IMO. Any sell of any size, now takes it down big- like a few minutes ago IMO. That sell was $2000 or so total it looked like, and it took it down 7% or more real quick. Anyone wanting to sell, is going to see the price ratched down real quick IMO again. Just the way these penny broker/dealers do what they do. Brutal to have a 10% or so spread, when the volume is still higher than normal. Normally, when volume moves up, the spread should get tighter and tighter, not the opposite, as there should be in theory, more liquidity. But hasn't happened here as far as when I've watched the trades.
Interesting IMO. That wide spread is "someone" working this thing IMO. Who? Have no clue. "Asher"? Who knows?
"They signed with Cassel and Septer and are working to get funding."
And they've "signed" or "announced agreements" or whatever with lots of people over the past 4 or so year "working to get funding"? Want the links to all the PR's and other announcements, "term sheet agreements" and similar?
Cassel whoever does a lot of other things besides "get funding" according to their own web site? Is there any specific info that a "bridge loan" is in process or other info that "funding" is imminent as has been claimed here, multiple, multiple times now? If not, it's all just conjecture and pure speculation IMHO. That's all- just putting out conjecture when no one knows anything concrete IMO.
"They're waiting on funding that's why"?
They've been "waiting on funding" for at least several yrs, if not more? Want link to all the PR and other statements, going back yr of "funding" that was "about to materialize" or that they were "waiting on"? I can post a lot of links if it will help?
Or can post all the 10-Q/10-K statements going back several yrs, saying (paraphrase), "we need substantial more funding and are attempting to get it" and/or the "going concern" portion of each SEC 10-Q or 10-K saying that funding is critical and that they are in risk of default or ceasing operations of meeting even day to day "funding" needs? I can cut and paste or post links to those if needed- since those facts seem to be "missed", IMO?
What is new about "waiting on funding"? What implication(s) is there that anything is different at this moment in time? Don't get the point, IMO? There seems to be some attempt to imply that some imminent, "large" funding is lurking out there "this time" -but IMO and as far as I can tell, it's nothing more than made-up statements by people who can't or couldn't possibly know if that's true or not? Unless they had/have insider trading information? There was nothing in the 10-K or anywhere else IMO that indicates some "imminent" big "funding" is out there? I'd argue the opposite, they, BHRT posted a quite, "dire" warning again in this 10-K, that their cash position was not even sufficient to "meet IMMEDIATE" needs, and that "substantial" funding would need to be obtained, or XYZ will happen. They then did "Asher" deals, typical of Asher deals they done many, many times before- and they did um right up until late Feb 2014, and for a grand total of $100K bucks. A $100K doesn't even last BHRT a month at their stated cash use rates (see latest 10-K)?
Latest 10-K, PAGE 25: (WHY is this statement in the document?)
"Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Financing
We will need to secure additional financing in 2014 in order to continue to finance our operations. If we are unable to secure additional financing on acceptable terms, or at all, we may be forced to curtail or cease our operations.
As of March 24, 2014, we had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $211,632.80 and a working capital deficit of approximately $13.4 million. As such, our existing cash resources are insufficient to finance even our immediate operations. Accordingly, we will need to secure additional sources of capital to develop our business and product candidates as planned. We are seeking substantial additional financing through public and/or private financing, which may include equity and/or debt financings, research grants and through other arrangements, including collaborative arrangements. As part of such efforts, we may seek loans from certain of our executive officers, directors and/or current shareholders. We may also seek to satisfy some of our obligations to the guarantors of our loan with Seaside National Bank & Trust, or the Guarantors, through the issuance of various forms of securities or debt on negotiated terms. However, financing and/or alternative arrangements with the Guarantors may not be available when we need it, or may not be available on acceptable terms.
If we are unable to secure additional financing in the near term, we may be forced to:
· curtail or abandon our existing business plan;
· reduce our headcount;
· default on our debt obligations;
· file for bankruptcy;
· seek to sell some or all of our assets; and/or
· cease our operations.
If we are forced to take any of these steps, any investment in our common stock may be worthless."
"unregistered securities and short term loans" = a "bridge loan"?
a) Unregistered securities are just that- common stock that has already been sold for cash, adding to dilution.
b) Only short term "loans" I am familiar with, per the 10-K, are "convertible share deals" that carry a "note" attached to them. Again, typically resulting in more common shares being dumped, more dilution and have been used for at least a yr or more by BHRT for a continuous stream of month to month, maybe a few months of cash at a time.
c) A bride loan is just that, a "loan". What indication is there that BHRT is getting or going to get a "bridge loan"? Where? Bridge loan always, as far as I've ever seen, like all loans require collateral- real estate, plant and equipment, inventory- something tangible to secure the loan for the bank/lender. I am not aware of BHRT having any real "assets" IMO? How would they get a "bridge loan" - which is a very specific finance term and a very specific type of loan, only used typically in very specific situations?
Just tossing the word/term "bridge loan" out there, doesn't mean it's even remotely likely to happen or that there's any data to support that one is impending, IMHO. Where is this "bridge loan" and from who and backed by what collateral, etc? Where? Was it discussed in the 10-K or any recent company public documents?
"Once approval occurs"?? Oh, FDA "approval" is just a few tiny steps, maybe a few pieces of paper, a few dollars away? HUH?
Baxter has a registered, phase III trial of heart-stem-cell treatment, it's posted right now on clinicaltrials.gov. The phase III began in 2012. It is not expected to even have "final data" until 2016. Two more yrs away for a total of 4 yrs for the trial. And that is not even "submitting" to the FDA, let alone how long a review can take- easily 10 months a yr or more, let alone do they ever approve it?
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01508910?term=baxter+stem&rank=9
Enrollment: 291
Study Start Date: April 2012
Estimated Study Completion Date: June 2016
Estimated Primary Completion Date: June 2016 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
What does BHRT have that is even remotely close to FDA "approval occurring", when they are functioning on cash that lasts a month or two each time and spent a total of about $600K R%D last yr (per the last 10-K) - which would be the "trial" funding money from what the 10-K indicates, IMO? $600K is noise level money IMO when it comes to conducting a phase II or III trial? Companies routinely spend $10's of million at the phase III level, often in the $100 million or more range.
Just tossing it out there that "when approved" or as soon as "it's approved" doesn't mean anything is going to "Get approved" by a long shot, IMHO. There has to be reality and some cold, hard facts to back up major claims like that. MIRROR barely got a passing mention in recent SEC docs and the big blog update? Why?
Or, one could just pull up a two, 2.5 yr chart and see how many times the exact same thing (spike/plunge/rise/slow return to 2 cent range) has happened, multiple times?
Maybe that would be worth a look? This is nothing "new" IMO or the indicator of the "verge of something big"? They just did qty-3 Asher convertible share deals as recent as Feb. 2014, for a grand total of $100K cash because it's "about to go big"? At their burn rate- the cash listed in that 10-K is almost gone in a few more weeks - unless there is already more shares being sold or some other form of "financing" already producing more cash?
Or, one can just read the 10-K statement- you know, that "boiler plate" ole "stuff" they just toss in for no reason I guess:
10-K, PAGE 25:
Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Financing
We will need to secure additional financing in 2014 in order to continue to finance our operations. If we are unable to secure additional financing on acceptable terms, or at all, we may be forced to curtail or cease our operations.
As of March 24, 2014, we had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $211,632.80 and a working capital deficit of approximately $13.4 million. As such, our existing cash resources are insufficient to finance even our IMMEDIATE operations. Accordingly, we will need to secure additional sources of capital to develop our business and product candidates as planned. We are seeking substantial additional financing through public and/or private financing, which may include equity and/or debt financings, research grants and through other arrangements, including collaborative arrangements. As part of such efforts, we may seek loans from certain of our executive officers, directors and/or current shareholders. We may also seek to satisfy some of our obligations to the guarantors of our loan with Seaside National Bank & Trust, or the Guarantors, through the issuance of various forms of securities or debt on negotiated terms. However, financing and/or alternative arrangements with the Guarantors may not be available when we need it, or may not be available on acceptable terms.
If we are unable to secure additional financing in the near term, we may be forced to:
· curtail or abandon our existing business plan;
· reduce our headcount;
· default on our debt obligations;
· file for bankruptcy;
· seek to sell some or all of our assets; and/or
· cease our operations.
If we are forced to take any of these steps, any investment in our common stock may be worthless."
$211K cash is about one month's worth of survival from their cash use spending/expense pages of same 10-K: so from March 14th, to today- it says that cash money ($200K or so) is about gone IMO, unless more has "materialized" as in more share sale deals or some other means- maybe warrants being exercised? Who knows? Doesn't seem like a statement you put in your SEC doc when you're "flush" or about to "go big", not IMHO? But, who knows, eh?
"420m o/s and float has churned nicely. " Huh? When? Where? It traded 1.5 million shares today and maybe 3-4 million a day max, for the past 20 or so of trading days. The peak of the bubble day, the 6th, at .08 was what, 11 million shares traded I think? It then tanked to as low as .035 the next day I believe.
The float and o/s shares being "churned" or "turned over" hasn't even come close- not by a mile. Maybe 100 million shares "turned or churned" over 25 days or so since bubble day. The float of 350 million shares hasn't even come close to being turned even one time. It's now trading off .0486/.08 = .60 = 100-60 = 40% down from peak bubble day. Off 40% of the high for bag holders from pump peak day.
Further, the spread is opened Grand Canyon wide for days IMO- which says the actual demand is to the low side, and it's more broker/dealer manipulation causing the 10%-12% "up" illusion spikes like today- and why it closes flat when they are done at end of day IMO.
Simpleton math versus hype statements. No more complicated than that IMO.
Previous PR said Angel patients were treated/injected with "Lipicell". Read it right in the text of this PR:
http://stemcellceo.com/wp/bioheart/404/
" Most recently we concluded enrollment and treatment of the patients in the Phase I Angel trial for LipiCell™. Patients with chronic heart ischemia received transplantation of LipiCell™ through endocardia implantations with an injection catheter." (CEO speaking)
So it is said they were treated with a product specifically named "Lipicell".
Now you read this SEC document: 10-Q, PAGE 29, Sept 30, 2013 and it seems confusing, as it indicated that "Adipocell" is a "different" product "licensed" from a different source?
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1388319/000114544313002166/d30730.htm
PAGE 29:
"AdipoCell
Bioheart has successfully completed various trials using adipose stem cells. In August 2013, the Company canceled its license agreement with the Ageless Regenerative Institute for adipose derived stem cells called LipiCell. Bioheart has entered into a term sheet agreement with Invitrx to License their adipose derived stem cell products. Bioheart has changed its adipose derived stem cell product name to AdipoCell. "
Just confusing IMHO? If you treated people with a product from Ageless, as in a very specific product/process called "Lipocell" and then you "licensed" something apparently "different" from Invitrix and named it "Adipocell"- then how did the people treated with Lipocell per the CEO PR above, now get labeled as having received "Adipocell"- something "licensed" from a different source?
Unless the two products/processes are IDENTICAL to the tee- I don't see how you can interchange them freely in PR, having said the group originally received "Lipicell" (that's what CEO says above), but now the PR says they received something called "Adipocell"?
Again, just very confusing to me IMO only. That's just me. It seems like two different products- since it involves licensing from "Invitrex"- so I don't know how "on the fly" you can just change a name- but say the "treatment" they received was now for "Adipocell" - when it's clear in former communications, that it's stated with 100% clarity IMHO, that they were actually injected with "Lipicell"? Oh well, maybe I'm not smart enough to follow it- or understand all the changes and changes to PR as they go along? Who knows?
Uh, but if Ageless "owns" the underlying tech and intellectual rights (as in being asserted somewhere in Broward county) - then an ole name change/trademark does not suddenly just "make it yours" I would think, IMHO? I think it goes way deeper than a "trademark"- it's a process and a specific technique/trade secret process from some things I have read about Ageless- but could be totally wrong? Just my 2 cents. Who knows?
But again, that's just me and my opinion. Seems some just easily "explain away" every change, every PR that was later "altered", etc. No problem IMO.
Again, no biggy. Just me reading what was put out as original PR in a lot of places/outlets and I'm not aware of any "updates" - but I could have missed them easily I guess. Oh well. When it says U. Miami and "experts" and all, and that PR is on dozens of sites in a simple google search- just seems, well, "odd" to me when it ends up in Mexico later, with no real "updates" that I saw. But I could have missed them, as stated. No big deal IMO. It is what it is I guess. Mexico it is, and Adipocell it is- just "toss" those original ole PR's I guess. Not a big deal.
"Adipocell"? Oh right, that's "Lipicell" that was "suddenly" renamed after the initial PR releases about the trial? Got it- remember now.
Oh, and it was going to be at the University of Miami, forgot about that too. Just remembering old news, that's all. Probably doesn't mean anything, IMO of course.
Wonder why that was "re-named" though from Libicell? What else has been mentioned that might involve this technology/process and intellectual property rights, around that time? Oh well, just remembering some things, that's all. Probably means nothing, IMO.
http://globenewswire.com/news-release/2012/02/28/469246/247371/en/Bioheart-Announces-University-of-Miami-as-Clinical-Site-for-ANGEL-Trial-of-LipiCell-TM.html?print=1
""Dr. Joshua Hare and the University of Miami are world leaders in the field of stem cell research," said Mike Tomas, President and CEO of Bioheart. "We look forward to working with these acclaimed experts and bringing the LipiCell™ technology to patients in the U.S."
"Joshua Hare, MD, Director of the Interdisciplinary Stem Cell Institute at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine is the principle investigator of the clinical program. "
Guess those "acclaimed experts" just didn't work out- don't think we ever heard about that again, or got a "PR" or 10-Q or other "updates", did we? Clinicaltrials.gov is good at updating- but I guess they don't need to be on there and all? Oh well? Who knows, IMO?
Seems pretty clear there, it was U. Of Miami, and not Mexico? Oh well, guess they just change things as they go along? Not a big deal of course, IMO. They call it Lipocell there, too? Oh well? Who knows, eh?
http://globenewswire.com/news-release/2011/12/06/462783/239653/en/Bioheart-Files-With-the-FDA-to-Begin-the-ANGEL-Trial.html
See in that PR- it's "Lipicell" too? Oh well, "stuff" changes I'm sure, no biggy IMO. Maybe I'm just confusing all these "PR'S" that said the trial "Angel" was using "Lipicell" and was going to use "experts" at the University of Miami and all? Oh well, that's just me- maybe I just get confused easily from all these different PR's and then not hearing "updates" - maybe I missed um all, who knows?
Dated 3/4/14? "Breaking news"? It's April 4th tomorrow. Any updates on MIRROR, rather than the 5 person, phase I, Mexico "Angel" trial?
Why start over, waste money/resources of which you have very little (5 employees, maybe a a few $hundred thous cash at any given time, total R&D last yr of about $600K which is what, about $50K a month per last 10-K) on going back to phase I, when you have a phase III called Mirror and a phase II/III called Marvel, Marvel now being about 4 plus yrs old and gone nowhere? All for essentially the same product line, key product? Doesn't make sense IMO?
It's a long, long ways from a phase I, to get to a phase III and beyond. Baxter is doing a phase III, stem-cell-heart related trial right now, listed on clinicaltrials.gov, and it began in 2012 and shows an "expected" end date, just for final data of 2016. That's 4 yrs in my book. That's just the phase III portion. There was probably 1 to 2 yrs more for the initial phase I ,then phase II to get to that phase III. So that's about 6 or 7 yrs total.
Why post old news about Angel? It's been posted many times before already? Curious/interesting IMO?