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.
Another good article- appears well researched, and in a very respected "journalistic" publication known for "doing their homework" and knowing what they're talking about when it comes to "industry" of all types:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/04/24/how-the-fda-stifles-new-cures-part-i-the-rising-cost-of-clinical-trials/
The article is critical of how the "FDA STIFLES" drug/approval processes by shear complexity and costs, and notice, the ole "Phase III" is discusses as the most difficult, long and complex part of the entire "nut" to crack and pass.
"In this paper, we look at four particular areas of public health concern: obesity; diabetes; stroke and heart ailments; and “orphan diseases” (ailments that afflict very small populations and hence lack the normal market incentives to develop treatments). We analyzed the progress of 12 major new pharmaceuticals developed across these four categories and found that in nearly every case, Phase III trials represented AT LEAST 90 percent of the ENTIRE COST of a drug’s development."
And they stated:
"After all, only one in 12 drugs that enter human clinical trials end up gaining approval from the FDA. This risk profile has led smaller companies to go bankrupt when they have faced setbacks in clinical studies. "
ONE out of 12 is what their numbers showed- making it across the "FDA finish line".
Again, site other references would be great. Especially in the $10 million range to "complete a phase III", would really be fascinated and interested in reading IMO.
The costs of a "DRUG PHASE III" are the same IMO- as stem cells have been ruled and upheld by U.S. courts and FDA to be "drugs"- so here are several sources regarding the staggering, "typical" costs of bringing a "new drug" through the "gauntlet" to FDA approval:
http://www.nature.com/news/fda-s-claims-over-stem-cells-upheld-1.11082
" The case hinged on whether the court agreed with the FDA that such STEM CELLS ARE DRUGS.
The judge concurred, upholding an injunction brought by the FDA against Regenerative Sciences, based in Broomfield, Colorado. "
http://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/transparency/basics/ucm194655.htm
ADULT STEM CELLS names specifically - "At this time, there are no licensed stem cell treatments."
Cost of DRUG approval via FDA "typical costs"- to complete a phase I all the way to phase III approval:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2013/08/11/how-the-staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs-is-shaping-the-future-of-medicine/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/02/10/the-truly-staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs/
"A single clinical trial can cost $100 million at the high end, and the combined cost of manufacturing and clinical testing for some drugs has added up to $1 billion. But the main expense is failure. " ("failure", meaning of course, the well established FACT, that most drugs ever entering a "pipeline" never even make it to FDA approval- the percentage is very, very low. Just cause a "trial(s)" take place, it's no where near a "slam dunk", as is so often implied or directly stated here that "FDA APPROVAL" is just a "few steps", some "simple filing" away, and only a "few months" away- that is a total fallacy IMO, and data bears that out)
http://www.genengnews.com/insight-and-intelligence/what-is-the-real-drug-development-cost-for-very-small-biotech-companies/77900012/
They put the "low end" it looks like at $250 MILLION, but industry majors had it at $800 million in the 1990's and now over a $billion per drug. Same article:
"A 2013 study by EvaluatePharma found that that Phase III clinical trial costs were $85 million for orphan drugs vs. $186 million for a nonorphan drugs." (so that's about the lowest figure cited I've seen- and that's $85 million for a "bare bones", single drug company set-up only to attempt one drug through the "trial process", and they list $85 million for just the phase III portion. (matches, is in-line with other numbers cited)
Another source with a "low end" estimate of ONLY $350 million or so:
http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post--how-much-does-it-cost-to-develop-a-new-drug?ref=bfv
"On the other end, a company that develops one drug only spent an average of $351 million."
Very good article from the " Knoepfler Lab Blog at UC Davis School of Medicine". This is a major "stem cell research" facility associated with a highly credible, top rated University in CA - this info is describing current state of "stem cell" FDA approval and claims of "treatments" using "stem cells", etc
http://www.ipscell.com/patients-guide-to-stem-cell-treatments/
How serious is the FDA taking "stem cells" and "treatments"- read this one.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-03/stem-cell-showdown-celltex-vs-dot-the-fda
So, make of it what you will. The rulings via courts as of today IMO, on U.S. soil, by all reading/research I can locate is that stem cells are going to be regulated as "drugs" and thus they will need same/similar trials, and those trails by all historic/industry norms from experts, found in 100's of articles from university's like "Tufts" to the pharma industry itself, to reputable, well know business "journalistic" firms like Forbes or MS Money or Bloomberg, etc all, seem to agree that the costs are in the $100's (as in multi $100's of millions lowest end) to often much more than that IMO, and all seem to agree that the number of drugs that begin as a "compound" or a "prospective drug" etc, the number that ever make it out the other end to final "FDA APPROVAL" is low, compared to all "candidates" that enter the phase I or even "clinical first stage" as a "suspected candidate".
Here is a Forbes article discussing how "hard/tough" it is to make it from discovery or "clinical" all the way to FDA approval, how low the success rates are, how high the costs are and ideas on ways to improve that staggeringly difficult process (numbers given are 1 of 10 ever make it out the FDA end to "approval":
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2014/02/07/a-way-to-increase-drug-rd-success-rates/
If there is other research info to prove otherwise- post away. Would love to read it please. Links to only credible source only please- universities, industry pubs, journals, major "new" sources of the financial industry, etc. Please no "self made" blogs or videos or whatever- don't think they really count IMO as "sources".
Here's a last one- and this guy is a "skeptic" that big pharma has "over inflated" the cost to get a "New drug to FDA approval", yet he still agrees the costs are "staggering", the number of approvals is "low" and still puts a "low estimate" to quote:
"The most recent estimates suggest that mean costs now likely exceed $200 million for all three phases, and these costs have been increasing over time, up 600% since the 1970's."
So, nowhere, ever that I am aware of - have I personally ever seen a research or industry or similar article/paper/journal that sites a phase III as being even remotely in the range of "$10 million" to get "completed". Never have seen it- and that's looking pretty hard with a modern tool like google search- which doesn't "miss" much in this world- if it was ever published.
If anyone can find a "$10 million" or similar number, especially a recent case of a "new drug" approved by the FDA and done for a phase III cost of $10 or so million, please post it. Would love to read it.
Remember too, from BHRT's own 10-K, they don't even hold patent to "Myocell" anymore it appears from their own SEC documents, which makes the risk/investment return even greater IMO. 10-K, dated 3/29/13, PAGE 16:
"Our MyoCell product candidate is no longer protected by patents, which means that competitors will be free to sell products that incorporate the same or similar technologies that are used in MyoCell without infringing our patent rights. As a result, MyoCell, if approved for use, may be vulnerable to competition in the form of products that use the same or similar technologies. We have previously licenses certain patents and patent applications relating to our MyoCell product candidate. These licenses have all lapsed as of the date of this report, although we have had discussions with the relevant licensor regarding a potential reinstatement of our rights in such licenses."
Again, if there is even a single reference to a phase III, in the $10 million range, it would be very interesting to read about IMO.
Perhaps that's just a lot of pure speculation, and just opinions, IMHO. Doesn't really make much sense to me IMO?
Also, "videos" like that in the link, "American Investor" are IMO, the equivalent of penny promotion "newsletters" and similar. Just try and find out who the "American Investor" is? They're not some legit "news" or "journalistic" outlet like a CNBC or "Bloomberg" or something IMO. They're typically paid "PR" set ups or similar. Google "American Investor Kimberly Cole" and the ONLY returns you get is that BHRT "video" and BHRT "PR" - that's it. It's a promotion video- as in a penny stock letter type setup, again IMO. They're made to look like some actual "news" interview or something- but they're just paid ads, promotional video made by "whoever" and then some graphics of a name "American Investor" or whatever are slapped on um, IMO. Typical penny stock "stuff" IMO.
Also, to say it would only be $10 million to finish a phase II/III, I just don't find in line with well documented industry numbers, IMO. $10 million sounds way low, from many published, industry articles I have read- can site links easily.
Further, if $10 million was what it would take, and that was 2011, they have actually spent $10 million or more since then, if you look at the yearly losses in the 10-K's since 2011. So, that amount was spent, and those key trial(s) (Marvel) went nowhere. Never budged that I can see?
From most recent 10-K, PAGE 26:
" Since inception, we have generated substantial net losses, including net losses of approximately $3.1 million, $4.0 million, $4.7 million, $5.2 million, and $4.4 million in 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively and substantial negative cash flows from operations. We anticipate that we will continue to incur significant and increasing net losses and negative cash flows from operations for the foreseeable future as we:"
So, they incurred losses (spent) $3.1 mil 2013, $4 mil 2012, $4.7 mil 2011 and $5.2 mil 2010 and that trial didn't move forward a smidge that I can tell?
So, if $10 mil was all it needed- it seems to me they have spent that much since that statement was made, and none of it could have gone to even begin to advance that key trial forward again? None? 3.1 + 4 + 4.7 = $11.8 million. So it's not like they haven't been spending, burning through cash- and they only have like 4 or 5 full time people per their 10-K employee count, and their annual rent is only like $60K or something (see 10-K) and so forth.
So, IMO they burn up a lot of cash on salaries and overhead and "stuff" and not much goes to trials or R&D IMO, if you look at the 10-K's. The SG&A spending to R&D is like more than 3 times or something. Kinda outta wack, just my opinion. Most recent 10-K, PAGE F-4: Total R&D spent in 2013 was $626,983 and total Marketing, General and Administrative (commonly known as SG&A) was $2,267,831. That's 2,267,831/626,983 = 3.6 times as much spent on salaries and overhead and "stuff" to that spent on R&D for a company of about 5 people? Again, very "odd" IMO? Way out of balance to many other company's expense ratios IMO. (for example: Microsoft and Google's SG&A to R&D ratios are about 1.96 and 1.40 respectively- and they obviously have huge marketing expenses and advertising and all, as they have huge sales numbers; Pfizer was about 2 to 1 SG&A to R&D recently, and again, they'd have enormous marketing/sales costs as they have huge drug sales forces, etc) BHRT doesn't have much "marketing" costs as they don't sell much of anything. Administrative- for 5 people? The rest is "general" I guess- which is a "catch all" for who knows what?
And, when they are cash strapped, as in really cash strapped IMO, and these trials haven't advanced, they just gave substantial raises to two people- the CEO and CSO, substantial as a percentage yr over yr "base" and bonuses too boot. Doesn't make a lot of sense IMO?
Latest 10-K, PAGE 71
Mike Tomas:
2012 base salary $247K, total 2012 compensation $347K
2013 base salary $391K, total 2013 compensation $936K
(now, almost a MILLION annual compensation- and the big phase II/III trial(s) are "parked" waiting on $10 mil?)
Kristin Comella:
2012 base salary $105K, total 2012 compensation $105K
2013 base salary $159K, total 2013 compensation $366K
(a "triple" in total compensation in a yr, not a bad gig IMO)
Those are enormous yr over yr percentage increases IMO (CEO base increased by 391-247= $144K/247K= 58% increase in one yr, while the company is struggling? CSO base salary increase $159K-105K= $54K/105K = 51% increase. Don't know too many people getting 50% base salary increases in this economic environment, especially when their companies have "going concern" warnings and all, IMO? And that's not even adding in the "bonuses" and "other" compensation?
Especially for a company that has approx. $211K total cash left on the books in that same 10-K report, after just doing qty-3, "Asher" type deals to raise $100K of that (last page, recent 10-K)? Seems odd to me, but that's just me.
The base salaries, for just those TWO people are running $391K + $159K = $550K/12 = $45K a month. R&D total spending for 2013 was $627K/12 = $52K a month (recent 10-K, PAGE F-4). So the entire annual R&D budget is about the same as the annual salaries for TWO people, of a company of about 5 people total? Odd, IMO? And, giving out big raises and "bonuses" when you're in a cash strapped position and your major trial(s) aren't going forward cause in your own 10-K, own words, you state "funding" as the primary reason?
Oh well?
Posted end of last trading week that move toward 50 DMA looks possible, maybe likely IMO.
50 DMA sits at .034 according to my large chart. (March 26/27, it already touched .035 again, 2nd and 3rd time since March 10th when it went all the way and touched .03, following the collapse days 2 and 3 days after the big .08 day)
Need to see if it goes there and bounces IMO. Touch 50 DMA a few times w/ a bounce probably = good thing/support and maybe entry point.
Move to 50 DMA and it breaks it a few times in a row, probably = full down trend IMO and 200 DMA is at .019 which would be free fall territory IMO, as not a lot of support looks to be in between.
Of course, watch volume too, either upside or a break to downside. Volume has been pretty steadily lightening/drying up since March 6th peak day at .08 and near 20 million shares. Back to several, sub 1 million share days now, a few only around 600K now already.
Just a month and a half, to less than 3 months ago- it'd have days doing only 200K, 300K shares at .015 to .02 which is like $3K to $6K dollar volume traded in an entire day, near totally ill-liquid. One medium/big sell order on days like that, and you had the .063 day mid Dec, 2013. So, when volume really thins out, it's time to be careful IMO.
50 DMA is certainly next spot to watch in coming week(s) IMO
"Clinical Trial Marvel "- yes, that's all great info. But, and this is the big "but" that matters IMO- is "Marvel" has been essentially "dead in the water" for what, about 4, almost 5 yrs now? And there in lies the crux of the problem? Why? Why? Why, "if" it's the "cat's meow" has it been "on the shelf" and going nowhere for so long? It's puzzling to say the least IMO?
From latest 10-K, PAGE 2:
"We completed the MyoCell implantation procedure on the first patient in the MARVEL Trial on October 24, 2007. Thus far, 20 patients, including 6 control patients, have been treated. Initial results for the 20 patients were released at the Heart Failure Society of American meeting in September, 2009"
Notice, Sept. 2009 is last date mentioned.
A few lines down- it then states (same 10-K page)
"We are seeking to secure sufficient funds to reinitiate enrollment in the MARVEL and REGEN trials."
Again, there in lies the puzzle IMO. By Sept. this yr then - it will be FIVE YEARS for "Marvel" and "REGEN" essentially being "parked" in a holding pattern? Why is that? Why hasn't someone "bit" and moved on it? What's the missing piece or problem? "Marvel" would have been the "it" the "big it" for the "flagship" Myocell, the road to the holy grail of FDA approval, correct? Instead, now it's "Mirror" (also appears to be going nowhere, or snail pace slow IMO) and then now essentially "starting over" on Angel, a 5 person, phase I in Mexico, NOT University of Miami as originally stated in numerous PR (yes it's a different product, but when your phase II/III has not advanced, why siphon off precious, little resources to move back to phase I starting gate?)
Those are the $billion dollar questions IMO?
"Heart failure occurs after a heart attack ". Actually, "heart failure" occurs in many, many different situations and for many, many different reasons- and the majority have nothing to do with a "heart attack".
Most is cause by age, genetics, diet, lack of exercise, lifestyle (stress for example) and smoking a huge factor, etc. Heart attack is low on the list of causes of "heart failure".
Here, read it from the American Heart Association- I think they know what they're talking about:
"The term "heart failure" makes it sound like the heart is no longer working at all and there's nothing that can be done. Actually, heart failure means that the heart isn't pumping as well as it should be."
"What is heart failure?
Heart failure is a chronic, progressive condition in which the heart muscle is unable to pump enough blood through to meet the body's needs for blood and oxygen. Basically, the heart can't keep up with its workload.
At first the heart tries to make up for this by:
Enlarging. When the heart chamber enlarges, it stretches more and can contract more strongly, so it pumps more blood.
Developing more muscle mass. The increase in muscle mass occurs because the contracting cells of the heart get bigger. This lets the heart pump more strongly, at least initially.
Pumping faster. This helps to increase the heart's output.
The body also tries to compensate in other ways:
The blood vessels narrow to keep blood pressure up, trying to make up for the heart's loss of power.
The body diverts blood away from less important tissues and organs to maintain flow to the most vital organs, the heart and brain.
These temporary measures mask the problem of heart failure, but they don't solve it. Heart failure continues and worsens until these substitute processes no longer work.
Eventually the heart and body just can't keep up, and the person experiences the fatigue, breathing problems or other symptoms that usually prompt a trip to the doctor.
The body's compensation mechanisms help explain why some people may not become aware of their condition until years after their heart begins its decline. (It's also a good reason to have a regular checkup with your doctor.)
Heart failure can involve the heart's left side, right side or both sides. However, it usually affects the left side first.
Type of hear failure:
Left-sided heart failure
The heart's pumping action moves oxygen-rich blood as it travels from the lungs to the left atrium, then on to the left ventricle, which pumps it to the rest of the body. The left ventricle supplies most of the heart's pumping power, so it's larger than the other chambers and essential for normal function. In left-sided or left ventricular (LV) heart failure, the left side of the heart must work harder to pump the same amount of blood.
There are two types of left-sided heart failure. Drug treatments are different for the two types.
Systolic failure: The left ventricle loses its ability to contract normally. The heart can't pump with enough force to push enough blood into circulation.
Diastolic failure (also called diastolic dysfunction): The left ventricle loses its ability to relax normally (because the muscle has become stiff). The heart can't properly fill with blood during the resting period between each beat.
Right-sided heart failure
The heart's pumping action moves "used" blood that returns to the heart through the veins through the right atrium into the right ventricle. The right ventricle then pumps the blood back out of the heart into the lungs to be replenished with oxygen.
Right-sided or right ventricular (RV) heart failure usually occurs as a result of left-sided failure. When the left ventricle fails, increased fluid pressure is, in effect, transferred back through the lungs, ultimately damaging the heart's right side. When the right side loses pumping power, blood backs up in the body's veins. This usually causes swelling in the legs and ankles.
Congestive heart failure
Congestive heart failure is a type of heart failure which requires seeking timely medical attention, although sometimes the two terms are used interchangeably.
As blood flow out of the heart slows, blood returning to the heart through the veins backs up, causing congestion in the body's tissues. Often swelling (edema) results. Most often there's swelling in the legs and ankles, but it can happen in other parts of the body, too.
Sometimes fluid collects in the lungs and interferes with breathing, causing shortness of breath, especially when a person is lying down. This is called pulmonary edema and if left untreated can cause respiratory distress.
Heart failure also affects the kidneys' ability to dispose of sodium and water. This retained water also increases swelling in the body's tissues (edema)."
Notice, "HEART ATTACK" is not even mentioned.
"why some think this is a bad thing the company is trying to pursue?"??
Site one instance of that statement ever being made? Or is it better to just invent, create conjecture, make it up, whatever, to "try" and create innuendo for whatever the real motive is?
Further, at what age is "heart disease" the so called "leading cause"? Stats mean lots of things- it's a simpleton statement to make a blanket statement IMO. EVERYONE will "die" of something, at some point.
Cancer deaths are almost identical to "heart disease" deaths- and take far, far, far more young people's lives, including children, than so called "heart disease" ever will.
We lose 40,000 or so people to automobile "accidents" every yr, and have done so since stats began being tracked. More U.S. young people lost in auto accidents since the auto was invented, than in all wars combined since WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf I, and Afghanistan combined. Does that "bother" you?
You aren't going to prevent death in this world, especially death of "old age", of which "heart disease" is the leading category. People don't die from "dementia" for example, they die from "cardiac arrest" or "heart failure" or some other cause on the death cert. As there is no such cause of death as "dementia" - only the body shutting down as the brain fails, then eventually some key organ must fail/quit for death to ensue. Just had a good friend die, he had early, as in very early onset, very unique type of alz/dementia. But he didn't "die" from that- he died from wasting away and his organs shutting down and then listed as "cardiac arrest" on the death cert. My own father had cancer, the cause of death on the death cert was "cardiac arrest" as there is no such thing as "dying from cancer"- you die because you don't breath anymore, or the heart stops beating, etc. ALL those go in the "heart failure" stat category.
So, stats can mean a lot of things. Not many young or even middle age people dying from "heart disease".
From a major medical journal-, "Coronary heart disease remains a leading cause of mortality in the United States, with 84 percent of persons 65 years or older dying from this disease. "
From another major medical journal, "Age. Older age is a risk factor for heart disease. In fact, about 4 of every 5 deaths due to heart disease occur in people older than 65.
And forget about even taking into account smoking, alcohol abuse, lack of exercise, obesity, genetics, etc- ALL major contributors to the so called "heart disease" so called "death stats" category.
So those numbers/stats you site are twisted at best and easily misconstrued as to what they really mean, or reflect on the true, leading health issues IMO. "Heart disease" is largely the disease of "old age" and/or bad behaviors- and you're never gonna do much about that.
And it goes on to point out the obvious in the same journal article- a great deal of those deaths can be prevented/prolonged for years via SIMPLE lifestyle and diet changes. I.E. losing a few lbs and something as simple as walking 15 to 30 minutes a day or swimming or doing light exercise. Quitting smoking being the single greatest factor an individual can control/change.
Stats- make of um what you want. Can twist um so easily. I can do it a 1000 different ways- I'm expert in probability and statistics, can make um say or read whatever you want the outcome to be or "imply", or cause "warning" or whatever outcome you'd like it to be, and they will appear 100% legit, be very hard to prove otherwise, and will be based on what appears to be "real" data.
Most important though- is the simple making of statements that were never said, never posted and "claiming" they were- that flushes the entire rest of the credibility right there IMO. No more complicated than that. Wanna "try" and pump the share price and deny the dire financial realities of the company's condition per their own 10-K and similar, despite the supposed multi $BILLION dollar market and all- just come out and say so. Don't hide behind fake statements or whatever.
AND, is the words, "NOT ON THE CUTTING EDGE" ANYWHERE in there ? ANYWHERE? One more time, ANYWHERE? Wanna check again- ANYWHERE? One more- last try ,ANYWHERE?
Yeah, thought so. Nice try.
1) I'm not your "friend" - I don't even know you.
2) HE made the initial personal attack via the statement, singling me OUT, and asking, "DID I EVEN READ IT". THAT is a personal attack whoever you are.
Keep your thoughts on the TOS to yourself please.
"Bioheart is leading the private sector in cardiovascular stem cell regeneration."? WOW?
4 cents a share and $211K total cash left on their books as of the most recent 10-K, about 5 total employees reported and they're "leading" the "private sector"? Fascinating IMO?
That sector must be real, real, real small then, IMHO? Funny, Baxter is in a phase III, "in the private sector", in essentially the same/similar field of research as BHRT and has about 60K employees and a $billion or more in cash at their disposal- but I guess they aren't "leading" at anything? Wow. Amazing IMO.
U.S. govt shuts down NIH stem cell program, center for "regenerative" medicine . Interesting?
http://www.nature.com/news/nih-stem-cell-programme-closes-1.15004
http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/nihresearch/scunit/
(indeed looks like their web site is a dead link now)
Wonder what that's all about? Can't be a good sign IMO, for being on the "cutting edge" and all, can it?
"They are probably trying to fight this negative campaign against her and the company."??
What is "this", so called "negative campaign" against her and the company? Where? When?
https://www.clerk-17th-flcourts.org/Clerkwebsite/BCCOC2/OdysseyPA/CaseSummary.aspx?CaseID=7155410&hidSearchType=party_case&DisplayCitation=no&CaseNumber=CACE13024037&SearchType=
The factual lawsuit on the Broward County clerk of the court site- is that "this" so called "negative campaign"? Does the govt. court site know, or are they aware they are "running a campaign" of some sort? Does listing a suit, naming a judge, assigning a case number- does that mean the legal, clerk of the court for that U.S. county is "conducting a campaign" and a "negative" one at that? Should he be notified?
Very interesting IMO. How does one know all this supposed information about "campaigns being conducted" and such? Is it listed somewhere that can be read about to back up the "speculation" and "hyperbole" and "conjecture" and all? Links would be great if available IMO. Always better to get more "facts" on these vast "conspiracy" (theories IMO) such as "campaigns" being conducted and all. Is there a "campaign headquarters" one can call or contact? A leader of this "group" running the "campaign" and all?
Find this extremely fascinating IMO.
3rd day breaking under the ole .04 mark. The 50 DMA is at about .034. It hit .038 so far today it looks like. Not far from touching that 50 DMA.
If it breaches that 50 day, maybe 2 or 3 times in a row, it's probably in a confirmed down trend IMO, and don't see much support anywhere in site. The 200 DMA would be the total "free fall" point at about .019.
As of today, it's now down past 50% off the .08 high of March 6th (hit .08 on something like 20 million share vol that day). It went rapidly to .035 (actually touched .03 on a big chart) within 2 trading days after that, I believe, but stayed well above the 50 DMA at that point. Now, it appears in the slow drift toward the 50 DMA now, IMO.
So heading to the 50 DMA here .034, is not far fetched IMO. Have to see what the volume does here I guess. Vol from March 6th, look at a "big chart" has been dropping off steadily, and sharply since that March 6th peak day.
That's for the technical/chart trader, chart watching types. 50 DMA at .034 seems to be the next key level to watch for here IMO.
And it's now $2 Million that some future, potential creditor and/or investor will now see never got repaid to another creditor/contract agreement IMO. They must have owed it, as they stated so in their own documents in multiple places and "carried" it on the books, and showed it increasing/accumulating for years.
Would I like to give more money to someone I know doesn't like to pay other people back per the terms of an original contract/agreement? Say I had a house for rent, and the potential renter made partial, or no payments, or sporadic payments on the last 2 places they just rented and I found out? (just happened to a neighbor of mine: took months, lawyers, sheriff, etc to finally get the tenant out- was a nightmare and he lost a bunch of money. He's gonna be 100X more cautious in his review, credit/background check of any next potential tenant- he's told me that over and over again. Admits he was naive and learned a huge life lesson. He "trusted" the person and their paperwork with very little solid background checking)
Read it how ever one chooses. It's not necessarily a rose colored world out there IMO.
"In my eyes their hard work paid it off"? THEIR hard work paid it off?
They never made a single payment against it, since after day one of payments/interest began to accumulate, per their own 8-K filing?
What "work"? It was more than likely negotiated away by either Beaumont's lawyers/financial people who simply gave up and wanted the bad debt off their books, or Cassel, who is being paid a pretty "handsome" set of fees/stock. etc did the negotiating perhaps IMO?
If debts say, owed on a home and credit cards are discharged in BK court or via a BK lawyer or debt negotiation firm and then approved by a judge, is it generally considered "hard work" on the part of the debtor that the debt "went away" or was "erased off some other creditor's books?
Interesting way of viewing life IMHO?
"significant increase in net profits"?? Huh?
BHRT has NEVER been "profitable" as is apparently being claimed?
Latest 10-K, PAGE 26: Verbatim quote-
"We are a development stage life sciences company with a limited operating history and a HISTORY OF NET LOSSES and NEGATIVE CASH FLOWS from operations. WE MAY NEVER BE PROFITABLE, and if we incur operating losses and generate negative cash flows from operations for longer than expected, WE MAY BE UNABLE TO CONTINUE OPERATIONS.
We are a development stage life sciences company and have a limited operating history, limited capital, limited sources of revenue and have incurred losses since inception. Our operations to date have been limited to organizing our company, developing and engaging in clinical trials of our MyoCell product candidate, expanding our pipeline of complementary product candidates through internal development and third party licenses, expanding and strengthening our intellectual property position through internal programs and third party licenses and recruiting management, research and clinical personnel. Consequently, it may be difficult to predict our future success or viability due to our lack of operating history. As of December 31, 2013, we have accumulated a DEFICIT during our development stage of approximately $118.2 MILLION. Our MyoCell product candidate has not received regulatory approval or generated any material revenues and is not expected to generate any material revenues until commercialization of MyoCell, if ever. Since inception, we have generated SUBSTANTIAL NET LOSSES, including net losses of approximately $3.1 million, $4.0 million, $4.7 million, $5.2 million, and $4.4 million in 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively and substantial negative cash flows from operations. We anticipate that WE WILL CONTINUE to incur SIGNIFICANT and INCREASING NET LOSSES and negative cash flows from operations for the foreseeable future as we:...."
Profit? Increasing sales? Becoming "self sufficient"? See the LOSS numbers for 2013, 2012, 2011?? Where? When? Where are the pages, facts, statement to back up any of these "claims" and "speculative statements" of "significant increases in profits"? How can profits "increase" when there has never been a "profit" to begin with yet? Increase from zero? Where? See the statement SUBSTANTIAL NEGATIVE CASH FLOWS? There's been no revenue to even come close to stemming those negative cash flows, and nowhere in that 10-K, that I can find do they even "hint" that they are close to reaching that point- they warn the exact opposite, to expect continued, substantial negative cash flows for the foreseeable future.
"Would like to know where that 2M came from in order to pay off that debt, in my opinion."
They didn't PAY OFF ANYTHING. It was a negotiated settlement. They did not "come up with 2M" as is "trying" to be claimed or implied.
The other party forgave the debt and wrote it off. BHRT states that clearly in the SEC 8-K they filed. BHRT had to enter a "gain" on their side, as it moves from an "expense" to a net gain on the balance sheet. They didn't use any cash to pay it off, it CLEARLY states they never even made a single payment, installment that was owed on it. They made the initial license fee payment and that is all.
Read the 8-K and not "tweets" or whatever. Or, are some purposely just trying to mislead people? There was no $2M paid, that is just plain false. Prove it otherwise please.
"If revenue continues to increase"? But revenues for the most part have not "increased"? Where? When? They've never had sales even remotely close to making a "dent" in their monthly/annual "burn rate" or cash use needs, not even close IMO.
From each 10-K balance sheet entry for the revenue entry:
They sold a bit more catheters in 2013, than 2012, but the cost of sales went up, so the gross for 2012, versus 2013 was almost identical. There was no "increase" per say?
Sales 2013: 96K gross - $30K cost of sales = $66K gross
Sales 2012: $61K gross - $1K cost of sales = $60K gross
Sales 2011 gross = about $17K
Sales 2010 gross = about $26K
Sales 2009 gross = about $154K, FAR MORE THAN THESE PAST 2 yrs
The difference these past 2 yrs in "sales" revenues is trivial IMO?
How is a total of $60K for a yr going to make a dent in a cash use of several $million per yr? Not seeing it?
"Actually was able to turn around a nice size profit. "?
Not sure what that refers to? BHRT has never, since their inception, that I'm aware of, ever showed or racked up or "turned around" a "profit" on anything? Give 10-K page listing a profit? When did BHRT ever show a profit? They barely have any sales, and certainly never even remotely close to enough cash/income from sales to even remotely cover their operating costs and expenses to ever result in a bottom line "profit" of any kind that I'm aware of?
Is that referring to Asher making a profit or BHRT? BHRT is a continual string of losses and cash burn- simple as that?
To say BHRT is still in business and the "lights are on" is a pretty limited statement. When you're hanging by a thread of cash, from month to month to month - often, probably barely servicing your debt, taking continual loans and/or IOU's from insiders (the last 10-K indicates they may be foregoing salaries at times for lack of cash), are borrowing from one hand to "cover" the other, shuffling the cards in the deck, etc- it's hardly a formula for success IMO? It's called "hanging on" at best in my book?
Also, remember- they can only dump those shares to the 1 billion mark or whatever, as long as someone is willing to buy um/take um off their hands. If it's the Ashers of the world- the share price can go so low, it'll be hard to find IMO. Also, dilution, and massive dilution does not come w/o consequences- it's not a "freebie" or anything. The more they dilute, the more shares outstanding, typically the lower the share price will go and the less likely for anyone else to want to be an investor in them or a buy-out or similar to occur typically.
I don't see any connection to Angel trial, a 5 person trial "bringing in" anyone, when they already had a phase II/III that stalled out and is now been sitting for 4 or so yrs and now Mirror, a phase III appears stalled out too. Why is a 5 person, "starting all over", back to step-1, trial in Mexico going to get someone on board, when a phase II/III like the Marvel or whatever never managed to do it for several yrs now? Don't get that concept at all IMO? Why? What would motivate an "investor" now on a 5 person, outside the U.S. trial- when the ones you had, way ahead of that level, didn't pull in the same investor(s)? Not seeing it?
The statement, "if they indeed need the money" in regards to the billion shares over 2 yrs or whatever. It's not an "if" IMO, they need the money and they've said so, multiple times in no uncertain terms. Read the 10-K. $211K left as of that filing. Grasp how much cash they use/need each month. That money is/would be gone by about today. So more money MUST come in from somewhere or it's lights out IMO. It's not an "if", it's a must. Their cash situation is dire, and their warnings are saying so- they don't put that verbiage in that 10-K lightly and willingly sign off on it. They have to put it in there and they mean what they say and the balance sheet says what it says. There is NO "secret" source or stash of cash or money someplace. That's not how it works. That 10-K is their straight up opinion and all balances as of that moment in time- thee most recent moments and the auditors also sign off on it. Not sure why that's not crystal clear?
Yes, I believe you are correct IMO. That is the industry wide, pretty well known and published reputation of Asher- even to the point that many people are "trying" to get legislation passed to prevent those very scenarios from being able to happen. But apparently, at least as of today, what the guy/firm does is apparently "just inside" the letter of the law so far, and he's a free and VERY wealthy dude apparently because of what he/the firm ASHER does.
I pointed out before, I-HUB has an entire "ASHER" page/thread someone built and tracks companies, their demise often who have gotten into "convertible share" deals with Asher and their ilk (they're not the only company doing these kinds of deals- just one of the better known ones)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=68247638
http://investorshub.advfn.com/~-ASHER-~-25451/
What many people, most- just can't seem to understand apparently, is the mechanics/mechanism of what the "floorless" convertible share, steeply discounted share deals mean and do and how they motivate Asher to eventually want to crush the share price as low as possible. The lower the share price goes, the more shares they get to "convert", the more they can short, the more they get again, essentially until zero. In other words- ASHER can't lose on the deal. They are like the "house" in Vegas on these deals and have it rigged, so no matter what happens, they win in the end.
I'll post another link again that "tries" to explain the "floorless" or "death spiral" or "toxic" - whatever term you want to use, convertible share type deal- and why they work the way they do.
http://www.stockpatrol.com/article/key/deathspiral
That's about as good an explanation as I've seen- as it gives an actual scenario with actual numbers - to show how much FREAKING PROFIT someone like Asher can make on their money. It also starts by showing the difference of the more "standard" deal where the "conversion rate" would be fixed or at least limited- and not "floating" or "floorless" - as in all the BHRT deals, where it's a formula based on the 3 days lowest price of the prior 10 days trading, blah, blah, blah- something to that effect. That is the "floorless" conversion part. Further, you'll see that on top of all that- Asher or whoever is getting the shares at like a 45% or more discount to market. It's the financing of last resort- the terms are scorched earth brutal IMO. Brutal- and that is who/what Asher their ilk is known for. They don't want to make 10% or even 25% return on their money- these dudes make like a 100% or 200% probably on each deal they do, and they again, rig it so they essentially can't lose, whether the stock goes up, or if it goes down- and they make more if it goes down.
And all this, is not even getting into discussing the potential implications now of all these warrants floating around out there, in particular, the recent ones granted "in the money" essentially- as in real low strike prices on them. I'm not smart enough to figure out how those play into it all- but they have to have some major influence, as they put a boat load of um out there, and they are at a price that has them "in the money" still, as of today (like 1.6 to 3 cents I think was their strike if I remember).
So, it's interesting times at ole BHRT to say the least. IMO, cash is what's it's all about at this point. Cash to operate, cash to open the doors and pay the day to day bills, and most important cash to pay the most immediate and critical of the debt- the debt that if defaulted - can shut the entire show down IMO. Cash is where they are at- they need cash, and they need it every day/week/month and they, in their own 10-K warning indicated they need a "lot" of it, and need it sooner than later.
That's my 2 cents, and agree on your "take" on Asher and what they will be motivated to do to the shares.
How many times is "bridge loan" going to be repeated when there is ZERO evidence that BHRT has ever gotten or will get a "bridge loan" IMO?
A "bridge loan" is just that, a LOAN and usually involves a bank. Asher is NOT a "bank". A bridge loan needs collateral- typically real estate, machinery, receivables, or other very tangible, specific assets in which to "secure/guarantee" it. BHRT essentially has no "hard" assets to speak of, per their own 10-K and similar. So how would they get a "bridge loan" and from who? ASHER does not, and is not known for doing "bridge loans" typically. They do "convertible share" for cash deals.
Just continually tossing out a term, and using it incorrectly or in a way that has no bearing to its meaning- doesn't help it "come true" in the slightest.
Definition of a "bridge loan": This is about as good an explanation as any. KEY- SECURITY for it. As in ASSETS.
http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-10-17/how-bridge-loans-workbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice
"Security. You may have to pledge some or all of the company's assets for the loan. The assets can include receivables, fixed assets, and intellectual property. The founders may even have to pledge their personal assets, such as real estate. In other words, if a company cannot pay back the loan, the founders may lose their business and personal assets."
Technically- ASHER is a "private placement" as they are "institutional" investors who meet the certain criteria, for share offers that aren't "typical" public offerings and similar.
All the "financing" for the past few yrs, that's has kept BHRT limping along with close to zero cash left at the closing period of each 10-Q or 10-K, I believe IMO, according to standard definitions would meet the definition/criteria as being "private placements" as they weren't shares offered in a typical "secondary" offering to the public and "on the market" or similar.
So what is this "private placement" being referred to? What would it look like or be supposedly? Curious?
Here from latest 10-K, BHRT even refers to recent "financing" type deals as "private placements"- (2012, 2013 for example)
warrants issued in connection with our private placements in 2012 to purchase an aggregate of 22,396,432 shares of our common stock at prices from $0.02 to $0.04 per share expiring three years from the date of issuance.
warrants issued in connection with forbearance agreement relating to our debt obligations in 2012 to purchase an aggregate of 20,000,000 shares of our common stock at prices from $0.014 to $0.02 per share expiring ten years from the date of issuance.
warrants issued in connection with our private placements in 2013 to purchase an aggregate of 50,350,536 shares of our common stock at prices from $0.011 to $0.0299 per share expiring ten years from the date of issuance.
Financing Activities
Net cash provided by financing activities was $1,968,978 in 2013 as compared to $1,059,381 in 2012. In 2013 ,we sold, in a private placement and put agreements, shares of common stock and warrants for aggregate net cash proceeds of approximately $1,426,914. In addition, we received an aggregate of $215,500 related party loans and advances and $415,500 from issuance of notes payable, net of repayments of $88,847. (PAGE 62)
And so on.
Lots of "announcements" and ole "PR" - anything about cash, cash flow, financing, Mirror, etc? You know, the kinda "important" stuff IMO? Anything?
Kinda, important- as in you can announce "stuff" and go to "conferences" till the cows come home IMO, but if/when you run out of money- does it really matter? Mirror? Kinda the big phase III that at one time was the big daddy, grand plan, gonna make it a big FDA approved company and all? Any word, anywhere in all these "PR" blasts that some love to link to, so often? Any word on where the next few months of cash is coming from to support and fund all these vast, grand undertakings, let alone an actual phase III trial like Mirror?
Just curious, thanks.
"potential indications" and using the VERY specific wording of "treat" or "treatments" IMHO is two very, very different worlds. Like 1000 miles apart IMO.
But hey, that's my opinion. "treat" IMO, should be used with up most care and restraint IMO. If it's not 100% proven, if it's not typically approved by someone like the FDA and vastly peer reviewed, etc- then it's not a "treatment" as far as my opinion.
I don't like words like "treat" or "treatment" being casually tossed around or tossed out- that's my 2 cent opinion.
Orthopedic and spine and "sports" medicine now too? "Kristin Comella, Bioheart's Chief Scientific Officer, will present a summary of data on the use of stem cells TO TREAT a variety of indications."?
Of course, it's well known as far as I am aware, I'm sure, that as of today, there is ONE, exactly ONE FDA APPROVED use of stem cells to "treat" anything, correct? So, wonder where these "treat a variety of indications" for "orthopedic/spine/sports" is/are supposed to be taking place and how? Just curious IMO?
I guess unless it's "off-shore" in only certain countries, or under an approved FDA "study" or "approved trial", etc- I don't get it, as to where these "treatments" are taking place and how exactly? Curious to know more?
I thought Bio-HEART's phase II/III advanced studies were all "heart" related- so where did all their knowledge base in "orthopedic" I guess "treatments" and expertise come from now? Very curios IMO? How many yrs of trials, studies, research does BHRT and/or Comella have in "orthopedic" applications of stem cell "treatments"? Curious- does anyone have any background data on that? Detailed info? Would like to read more?
http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm286155.htm
"FDA has approved only one stem cell product, Hemacord, a cord blood-derived product manufactured by the New York Blood Center and used for specified indications in patients with disorders affecting the body’s blood-forming system."
They were using Asher as late as Feb 10th, 2014 (2 months ago- and Asher would obviously, IMO still be holding a "note" and "convertible" shares from that deal as of today). And
BHRT had about $211K left as of that 10-K filing. So they would/will need cash from somewhere- as that $211K is about one month, 1.5 months cash use according to the 10-K cash use rate.
Latest 10-K, PAGE F-41:
"Subsequent financing
On January 14, 2014, the Company entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement with ASHER Enterprises, Inc. (“Asher”), for the sale of an 8% convertible note in the principal amount of $32,500 (the “Note”).
The Note bears interest at the rate of 8% per annum. All interest and principal must be repaid on October 16, 2014. 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. In the event the Company prepays the Note in full, the Company is required to pay off all principal, interest and any other amounts owing multiplied by (i) 140% if prepaid during the period commencing on the closing date through 179 days thereafter. After the expiration of 180 days following the date of the Note, the Company has no right of prepayment.
On February 10, 2014, the Company entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement with ASHER Enterprises, Inc. (“Asher”), for the sale of an 8% convertible note in the principal amount of $32,500 (the “Note”).
The Note bears interest at the rate of 8% per annum. All interest and principal must be repaid on November 12, 2014. 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. In the event the Company prepays the Note in full, the Company is required to pay off all principal, interest and any other amounts owing multiplied by (i) 140% if prepaid during the period commencing on the closing date through 179 days thereafter. After the expiration of 180 days following the date of the Note, the Company has no right of prepayment.
On February 19, 2014, the Company entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement with Daniel James Management, Inc., for the sale of an 8% convertible note in the principal amount of $35,000 (the “Note”).
The Note bears interest at the rate of 8% per annum. All interest and principal must be repaid on February 18, 2015. The Note is convertible into common stock, at Asher’s option, at a 47% discount to the lowest daily closing bid price of the common stock during the 10 trading day period prior to conversion. In the event the Company prepays the Note in full, the Company is required to pay off all principal at 150%, interest and any other amounts."
They've used "AHSER" and others who are essentially in the same biz/type of financing in every 10-Q and 10-K going back at least 1.5 yrs that I've read, I believe- so I don't see why they would not still be using them as of today? So, already in early 2014, they used "ASHER" type deals just to scrape together $100K total of cash.
10-Q prior on 8/14/2013:
"Asher Notes (During this year)
During the six months ended June 30, 2013, the Company entered into a Securities Purchase Agreements with Asher Enterprises, Inc. (“Asher”), for the sale of 8% convertible notes in aggregate principal amount of $112,500 (the “Asher Notes”).
14
BIOHEART, INC.
(a development stage company)
NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
JUNE 30, 2013
The Notes bear interest at the rate of 8% per annum. All interest and principal must be repaid between September 11, 2013 and February 20, 2014. The Notes are convertible into common stock, at Asher’s option, at a 42% to 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. The Company has identified the embedded derivatives related to the Asher Notes. These embedded derivatives included certain conversion features and reset provision. The accounting treatment of derivative financial instruments requires that the Company record fair value of the derivatives as of the inception date of Asher Note and to fair value as of each subsequent reporting date which at June 30, 2013 was $100,594. At the inception of the Asher Notes, the Company determined the aggregate fair value of $137,409 of the embedded derivatives.
The fair value of the embedded derivatives was determined using the Binomial Option Pricing Model based on the following assumptions: (1) dividend yield of 0%; (2) expected volatility of 154.80% to 163.73%, (3) weighted average risk-free interest rate of 0.09% to 0.17%, (4) expected lives of 0.67 to .77 years, and (5) estimated fair value of the Company’s common stock from $0.0151 to $0.0373 per share. The initial fair value of the embedded debt derivative of $137,409 was allocated as a debt discount up to the proceeds of the note ($112,500) with the remainder ($24,909) charged to current period operations as interest expense. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2013 , the Company amortized $32,954 and $52,323 of debt discount to current period operations as interest expense, respectively."
They also had the "standby equity line agreement" with Greystone they'd been tapping regularly, which bears a similar type "Asher" style arrangement as far as I can tell- in that it's "convertibles" or steeply discounted "shares-for-cash" type of a deal.
Latest 10-K, PAGE 63:
"On November 2, 2011, we entered into a Standby Equity Distribution Agreement, or the SEDA, with Greystone Capital Partners, or GCP. Pursuant to the SEDA’s terms, we may, at our sole discretion and upon giving written notice to GCP, each an “Advance Notice”, periodically sell shares of our common stock to GCP. For each share of Common Stock purchased under the SEDA, GCP will pay us an amount, referred to as the “Purchase Price”, that is eighty percent (80%) of the lowest daily volume weighted average price of the Common Stock as quoted by Bloomberg, LP, during the five (5) consecutive Trading Days (as such term is defined in the SEDA) immediately subsequent to the date of the relevant Advance Notice. We are not obligated to sell any shares of common stock to GCP but may, over the term of the SEDA and in our sole discretion, sell to GCP that number of shares of common stock valued at the Purchase Price from time to time in effect that equals up to one million dollars ($1,000,000) in the aggregate. GCP's obligation to purchase shares of Common Stock under the SEDA is subject to certain conditions, including (i) periodic sales of shares of our common stock to GCP must be separated by a time period equal to five Trading Days, and (ii) the amount of any individual periodic sale designated by us in any Advance Notice shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the average weekly volume of shares of our common stock traded during the two (2) week period immediately prior to an Advance Notice, where a “week” is five (5) consecutive Trading Days. GCP’s obligations under the SEDA are not transferable.
During the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company issued an aggregate of 31,052,141 shares of its common stock in exchange for $346,914 draw down on the equity line."
So, for $346K in cash in 2013, they issued 31 MILLION dilution shares to those Greystone guys.
So, IMO w/o Asher and that Greystone line- they'd of been out of cash many times over, in the past yr, unless someone else stepped in and "financed" um to keep um going. Remember, they diluted the shares in 2013 alone from 190 MILLION (10-K prior) to now 420 MILLION outstanding as of this most recent 10-K. They more than DOUBLED the outstanding shares (massive dilution) in one yr's time.
That's what's been "funding" them essentially- it's month to month, or every few months typically of "survival" cash coming in, in chunks at a time IMO, according to the documents.
What would be different as of today? There's no "news" or other announcement I am aware of to indicate anything has changed at this point? SO would they be going to ASHER again? I can't say fr certain, but I'd guess "probably" if the past, and recent past, as in a few months ago is any indicator? Also, the Seaside Bank Loan is apparently up, or needing to be "renewed" also- according to the most recent 10-K.
It's also broken .04 twice now, yesterday and today. That's a pretty key level IMO.
And it's not just me saying it. I can site another, well known stem trading discussion site. Here is their quotes exactly- tell me, we're all "libelous" I guess? Quote from three other stock followers/comments, totally different stem site:
1) "Havent been under .04 for some weeks. Debating whether to dip back in here...thoughts anyone?"
2) Next answer to above, "I believe without any substantial news it will go below 0.04 easily."
3) Next answer from today to both posts above, "i think the same, unfortunately yes. .018 - .025$ is the next Floor "
So, I guess they're all in on some "grand conspiracy" too- when they see the same thing in the volume, chart patterns, past trading patterns that I "think" and "speculate" I'm now seeing? All "libelous" too I guess?
Also, is it not a FACT- that for about 2 plus hours this AM, it "flat-lined" w/o a single trade for several hours? That is historically what it's done/does when vol starts to dry up and then the price drifts lower and can take rapid down turns if a sell of any "size" comes in, as there is no one on the buy side IMO. The daily chart, hourly chart starts to look like "odd" square wave or triangle wave patterns- with flat line time gaps, then a single or a few trades up or down on a wide spread, then it sits again, sometimes an hour or more, then another single trade or two spiking it up or down on a wide spread- often as much as 10% or even more. Seen it a lot in the past on this one. When you start to see those 1 hour plus time gaps- where it just sits, no trades, that to me is usually a sign it can go lower, much faster IMO from watching it trade for a long time. That's just knowing how to watch a tape, chart and trading patterns.
But the local internet "lawyer" says it's "libel" somehow to discuss and/or speculate on these trading patterns and observations? Nonsense IMO. It is what it is- the trading, the vol, the past patterns, are facts and observations and nothing more.
You're confused- you mean PUMP N DUMPS, such as one or two cents to .08 in a matter of days, then back to .035 in 2 days and now back to about 50% of .08? Correct?
Chat and stock boards and newsletters and "forums" and "tweets" are the hallmarks of all pump n dumps. Look at how the chat boards, multiple and the "tweets" lit up like a Christmas tree the day or two leading up to the pump to .08. Posts went from a few a day as is the case the past few days, to averaging 50 or more a day- as I was keeping count and it's all "on the record".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_dump
Notice key words: penny stocks, over the counter, thinly traded, chat and msg boards, hype about future huge sales or market caps, "imminent" supposed "deals" about to "happen soon", big "investors" about to come "soon, etc
Point out ONE WORD that is " libelous" in your vapid, empty THREAT? ONE. ONE WORD.
Want the company's OWN WORDS OF WARNING AGAIN- from THEIR 10-K. HERE THEY ARE:
Latest 10-K, PAGE 25, VERBATIM:
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.
THEIR WORDS, direct from THEIR 10-K. Challenge it with FACTS. Not innuendo, not some nonsense term "bashers" from some no-nothing web site, not hype about what "might" be coming or "might" be happening one day supposedly "soon", etc. The trading patterns on this stock for 2 plus yrs are WELL ESTABLISHED FACTS. A historical chart PROVES THE CYCLES of rapid rise in price, followed by RAPID DECLINE IN PRICE have been repeated many, many times. Prove it otherwise. It's also thinly traded today- as in, it sat for hours w/o a single trade. PROVE IT OTHERWISE. Provide one salient fact about your typical threat post(s). PROVE IT.
Down 7% to 5% on higher vol AM open, now broker/dealer "spikes" it plus 7% or so on a "nothing" (maybe a $500 to $1000 worth) buy order IMO. The spread is wide open. Same old, same old. They're still trying to prop it up it looks like.
Nothing new here IMO. Seen this pattern on this one, sooo many times. The down days are on higher vol (like yesterday) and then these "up" moves to push it back- are on micro buys IMO. All until they decide to reverse it, then the down side moves will be huge as seen in the past IMO. It does't take much selling at all on this one, once it goes to the pattern like today- where it's literally sitting for an hour, sometimes 2 or more w/o a single trade crossing the tape. Just flat lines and sits idle for long periods. The chart is like some odd, square or triangle wave or something- with big gaps of time where nothing happened at all.
We'll see I guess.
Volume drying up- back to the old pattern IMO. It sat for over an hour, actually almost 2 hours so far this AM already- where there wasn't a single trade, just flatlined.
That's the past pattern when vol/hype dries up IMO. A single, larger sell order can then take the price down sharply IMO. Liquidity is drying up.
Given the typical "schedule" (just look at dates between all prior releases), I'd expect a PR about something, any day here. Will it effect price now that it's "cooling down"? We'll have to see I guess.
Not meant to discourage or encourage anyone either way. Just pointing out the harsh, fact based realities of how this world, biz world works by all historic norms.
Business, any business is already a tough go to be successful, but being a true "disrupter", especially the "higher" more "disruptive" the technology, the more complex the technology gets- is the toughest, longest, of the long shots. Many go for, and chase the "crown", pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, and a lot, as in lots of money is typically thrown after whatever endeavor it is, but few emerge out the other end as the winners.
Just a reality of this world, and especially technology/innovation. Just cause someone has a great idea or a better mouse trap- doesn't mean it will be turned into a successful business, not by a long shot. The story of "better mouse traps" that never made it (at least not via their original inventor or "in their time"), is encyclopedia thick.
Re: "Disruptive Technologies": I have a rule/guideline too; I recognize the historical facts that for every company that enters a new field of "disruptive technology" - the historic "norm" is only about 1 or 2 of every 50 to 100 who give it a "try" will ever make it long term in that new field and become large, highly profitable, hugely successful companies and/or last very long (as in $billion valuation or sales).
Some famously classic examples/areas of endeavor, just "off the top" of memory:
Printing press makers
Textile, fabric makers
Gold mining
Railroads
Steel mills
Oil and gas drilling equipment or major oil companies
Automobile makers (the list of defunct brands, lines, makers is legendary)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defunct_automobile_manufacturers_of_the_United_States
Bicycle makers
Tape recorder/player makers (voice)
Telephone makers
"Telephone", tel-com carriers (especially long distance)
TV, Television set makers (100's at one time, now count um on one hand)
Home "stereo" or "Hi-fi" equipment makers, a legend of once famous companies from tube tech to then transistors, nearly all gone as of today, "speaker" systems for hi-fi, same
Aircraft makers, especially military and commercial airline (can count the major players on one hand now)
Ship builders, starting w/ steamships
Banks/investment houses (1000's defunct)
Airlines
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defunct_airlines_of_the_United_States
(To this day, there is essentially no airline that ever operates at a long term, consistent profit)
Nuclear power and/or nuke weapons component makers
Camera(s) and/or photo-film material itself makers
Film/movie studios
Major drug manufacturers (i.e. known as "big" Pharma)
Missile and space equipment makers (I lived in an area where factories and engineering divisions existed that covered literally, miles, city blocks the buildings were so big- and none exist there today)
Heavy equipment/construction/farming equipment makers (now down to a few key major players in general, CAT, CASE, John Deere, etc)
Personal calculator makers
Integrated circuit makers (the silicon valley list of defunct firms is as thick as a book, Intel and maybe 15 others now own/dominate the entire space)
Radio makers, as in "pocket" and "transistor" radios- one every major electronics maker in the country probably had a radio "brand", AM, then FM
Mainframe, mini-computer makers
Personal computer manufacturers and/or software companies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_computer_system_manufacturers#Defunct
Nearly every company that once had a "technology" division was a "computer maker" at one point or another, literally (aerospace, aircraft, chip maker, all of um made a "go" at the golden purse of being the "big" computer box/PC seller).
Computer printer makers (dot matrix, then, ink, then laser, etc)
Record/music biz companies
Major home appliance makers (down to a hand full of brands/makers today)
Music equipment makers - especially "electronic" as in synthesizers
Sound recording studios- a "home" studio with a Mac, some edit software, and maybe $5K tops in good equipment (mic's, "outboard" gear) can produce a recording of quality to rival any "record" album ever made in the past, in recording studios that cost $500K or more to build and then $100's to a $1000 an hour to "rent" time in
VCR player/recorders and then eventually DVD player makers (now cheap commodity boxes, every major electronics maker at one time probably had a brand/unit on the market)
Disc drive/hard disc storage makers (3 or so major players left in the world out of 25 or more at one time)
Fiber optic components makers
Cell phone makers
Video game companies, especially "console" makers (pinball machine makers too)
Digital streaming companies
Internet portal/search engines (Google owns nearly all now- 100's entered the field, $billions in venture capital invested only about 15 yrs ago)
On-line retailing ($billions sunk in venture capital, Amazon and 1 or 2 other now own the space, out of probably 1000 or more start-ups, Amazon only started in 1994)
Social media (the wasteland of VC money- Facebook and Twitter and one or two others now own the space. $Billions invested)
Major retail store chains in, or already BK, some 100 yrs or more old
And of course- perhaps one of the biggest lists/losses in total dollars is ole "Biotech"- more defunct start-ups litter the field than perhaps only 2nd place to "internet" related businesses.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/23696-the-biotech-industry-30-years-of-failure-starting-with-genentech
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/fundamental-analysis/11/primer-on-biotech-sector.asp
"Biotechnology is also characterized by long development lead times; it can take as much as a decade to get a new drug from test tube to pharmacy shelf. What's more, there is an overwhelming likelihood of failure, as 85-95% of all prospective new drugs fail to reach approval."
And the list goes on and on and on and on. It's not as "easy" as some may make it out to be, to "win" in a "disruptive technology".
"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.