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.
18% to 20% loss for some poor dudes, in less than an hour, maybe a few hours. That's gotta hurt, like bad IMO.
Look at the spread now- "tightened" back up to normal range. Tells me, IMO they're done "working" it for today. My opinion- they just unloaded another big position for "someone" (typically means "insiders" and/or someone on the "finance" end IMO). Pure manipulation IMO.
No more complicated than that. This type of behavior seen today, IMO, has very little to do with the avg "retail" buyer/seller- other than the "sucker buyers" they can pull in using the wide-spread and the hype.
"Event" over for today, whatever "they" needed done appears to be over/completed, IMO. Expect more like it IMO, many more.
As stated prior, nothing new here IMO. Same old, same old. Just another day of BHRT and penny-ville in action, IMO.
And here's the dump off. (sorry, not gonna say I told ya so).
It's being "worked"- plain as day, IMO. Look at the spread- it's gone beyond crazy wide-open, IMO. Like they're looking for a buyer to pay a 10% or 15% spread to buy even a $1000 bucks worth? Very manipulated today, IMO. But again, nothing new in the slightest IMO. Same old, same old. Playing it like a Stratovarius.
Watch and learn, IMO. This, as stated previously, IMO- is "highly manipulated".
The tables of "short interest" being posted, just show it all the more IMO. It means the "big boys" are starting to load up their short positions. They'll "ratchet" IMO, short it down, walk it up like this AM, short it down more, wash, rinse, repeat.
It's how an "ASHER" type firm "does what they do" using the convertible, floorless shares they get on the "financing deals".
Again, it's been explained so many times:
Example of how the "death spiral" or "ratchet" is "worked":
http://www.stockpatrol.com/article/key/deathspiral
http://investorshub.advfn.com/~-ASHER-~-25451/
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=68247638
https://www.sec.gov/answers/convertibles.htm
Table of shorting?? And, that's supposed to mean what? WHO did the "shorting"??
All that says, is the OTCBB "network" had "short transactions" take place on it- it doesn't state by who? So what? What's the table supposed to infer? BHRT gets massively shorted- like that's a mystery? ASHER and similar are notorious for shorting companies, in which they hold "floorless" convertible shares- it's how they make more money.
https://www.sec.gov/answers/convertibles.htm
It's called a "ratchet" or death spiral among other names- it's one of the key things that's pushed this to sub 3 penny range, and even a dip to .0063 IMO.
Tell ya what- call up ANY, ANY "retail brokerage" one can name- just pick it: E-trade, Scott, TD, even "big houses" Morgan, Citi, any one you wanna pick.
Call um, and ask for "short inventory" and that you want to "short" a 3 cent stock.
Post back results please. (Hint: there will be laughter on other end of phone).
Penny stocks on the OTCBB or "pinks" don't even have "MM's" (market makers) contrary to the nonsense often stated. There are only "broker/dealers" using computer networks. So, no "house" like an E-trade or similar is holding "inventory" which is what must exist for a "short" to occur for a retail investor- as the "house", the brokerage is "loaning" one the stock.
Again, call any brokerage you want- any one. Guarantee you're not going to find a single one who will allow a short, typically on anything under $5 a share, and if they do, in rare cases on big, mega cap companies that have fallen below $5 (Citi, Nokia, for example) the short "restrictions" are going to be specifically listed and very strict. Anything at $1 or below- forget about it for a retail account, never gonna happen. Again, call anyone you want.
By contrast, just to make an ordinary "retail trade" on an OTCBB- as in just buying or selling, most "retail" houses like TD, or E-trade and similar put up numerous warnings and often restrictions to even buy and sell "penny stocks". Some don't even allow penny buying or selling, they simply don't deal in um at all, period.
Not even close. NO shorting by retail, Joe Schmoe, non "professional" , registered, investment firms with access direct, or in-house to "broker/dealers" on penny stocks. Not a chance.
"shorts in trouble"?? What "shorts"??
There is zero, no, none "retail" shorting of a 3 penny stock, usually not anything under $5 typically can get "short inventory" for a retail trader/investor.
The only people/persons who ever "short" this stock, are the ones who "finance" it, as in ASHER and similar- the very broker/dealers who's symbols often appear on the level II.
They just dumped into the "news" yesterday, that's all. They're simply not done "unloading" a position or are simply "re-pumping" it after a large dumping of a position yesterday. The vol is lower today, the spread is opened way, way up.
I said it before, and IMO, just give it time. Nothing new happening here IMO. It's not even close yet, and hasn't been going on 2 weeks now to re-touching the 50 DMA. They're just "working it" still. There's a lot of warrants that were issued, that at 3 cents, if they can keep it there, could be unloaded "in the money" at almost a 100% gain (I think the strike price was like .016 or something, on over 50 million recent warrants).
This stock is IMO, and has been, for a long, long time- highly "manipulated". My opinion- nothing new is being seen here. Same old, same old the way I see it. Give it time. At some point, a lot of shares need to be sold/unloaded for "financing" and will also, IMO be "converted" by the likes of ASHER and others- and when they hit, the selling will be huge IMO. This pattern has repeated many times on the 2, 2.5 yr and even longer chart.
My 2 cents. Patience, watch and see.
"Is there a rule that states having additional shares.."??
Not a "rule"? Like a "law" or something? No. But it's common sense and well established fact, that unless those shares being issued are "accretive" to a company's earnings per share, or are used for major sales growth for example- as in buying another already profitable or high growth company for example, then they typically harm the common shareholder, that I'm aware of and IMO.
Here is a real, real basic article on "dilution"- it may help.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/11/dangers-of-stock-dilution.asp
This section of the above article, is a good example IMO, of the BHRT situation right now, as I see it, in my opinion:
"Warnings Signs Of Dilution
Because dilution can reduce the value of an individual investment, retail investors should be aware of warnings signs that may precede a potential share dilution. Basically, any emerging capital needs or growth opportunities may precipitate share dilution.
There are many scenarios in which a firm could require an equity capital infusion; funds may simply be needed to cover expenses. In a scenario where a firm does not have the capital to service current liabilities and the firm is hindered from issuing new debt due to covenants of existing debt (read the 10-K section on Northstar and the "restrictive covenants" regarding any new debt- it's all in there. My words, not the article obviously), an equity offering of new shares may be necessary. "
100's of millions of shares on a sub 3 cent stock- not sure of very many, if ever any, historical scenarios where it ends well typically. 2 billion shares on a sub 3 cent stock- not sure of any historical scenarios where that typically, if ever turns out well, especially for the common share holders. Most sub $1 stocks are in deep financial trouble. You get to true "pennies" like say .50 cents, and they're typically in deep, deep financial trouble- nearly insolvent (going concern warnings from auditor's for example) and when you get to true, micro, micro, micro cap "pennies", like in 3 or 4 or 5 or 2 pennies or whatever- and they nearly all, as in probably 90% or more, end in BK, or being shut down, dissolved, common shareholders wiped out, etc, IMO.
That's not my opinions about "penny stocks"- that's just well researched, well established industry norms and market researched facts (academia, govt regulatory tracking agencies (SEC), investment banking firm's research, etc).
https://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/microcapstock.htm
https://www.sec.gov/answers/penny.htm
http://www.nasdaq.com/investing/lowdown-on-penny-stocks.stm
"The second reason that many investors may be attracted to penny stocks is the conception that there is more room for appreciation and more opportunity to own more stock. If a stock is at $0.10 and rises by $0.05, you will have made a 50% return. This together with the with the fact that a $1,000 investment can buy 10,000 shares convinces investors that micro cap stock are a rapid surefire way to increase profits. For some reason, people think of the upside but forget about the downside. A $0.10 stock can just as easily go down $0.05 and lose half its value. Most often, these stocks do not succeed, and there is a high probability that you will lose your entire investment.
"
That's words posted on the NASDAQ official web site- they put um up there and stated them, not me.
Make of it whatever you want. If more shares seems like a "good thing" to a person, then more power to um. Good luck investing and good trading.
"BHRT is prepared to take actions deemed needed to continue operations...."
Well, yeah. If diluting away the common shareholder is not an issue, sure thing. They've been doing it since the IPO date, over 4 yrs now. The share count, around 2010 was 20 million total shares outstanding. End of 2012 it was 190 million or so. (they blew through their allocated charter and approved an increase to about 950 million allocated, almost 1 billion shares)
As of this filing of the most recent 10-K, period ended Dec 31st, 2013, there was already about 420 million shares outstanding.
Now, as of the filing of this latest SEC form 14, only a few months after the 10-K filing, Form 14, the proxy to "allocate" (make available for use) 2 BILLION shares- it's stated there is now about 463 MILLION shares now as having already been issued. Common shares flow out (dilute), essentially non stop- and have been for a long, long time.
So, if pouring common shares out like water constitutes "take actions deemed....", then I'd be in 100% agreement with that statement, IMO.
Very true, IMO. Only problem is, the shares at some point (like sub 3 cents for example) become so more and more and more worthless, that the volume of shares needed to be issued, to even raise a pittance of cash, becomes staggering (kinda like 2 billion shares on a 3 cent stock for example). (and not even taking into account- that those providing "financing" to sub 3 penny, highly diluted, cash poor "companies", demand steep discounts on the shares they get- so they get even more shares for the cash they "finance" and they get um dirt cheap, as in 45% to 50% discount to market for example- read some recent BHRT "ASHER" finance "deals" and look at the discount given on the convertible shares, see 10-K)
What happens probably 95% plus of the time in these situations, based on well written, easily searchable research, SEC warnings, and just historic examples from the "markets", is the common shareholder, for all intents and purposes is essentially "wiped out" IMO, via the historical fact(s) of what happens via massive, common share dilution.
A 3 cent, or sub 3 cent stock/company is hardly in "good financial health", IMO and that of their own 10-K commentary and their own auditor's statements. I've listed names of companies before that typically have 2 billion or so shares outstanding- they're some of the largest, most profitable, highly performing companies in the world. And it often took 30 or 50 or 100 yrs or more of stock splits (because their share price increased so much) or secondary offerings (because their shares were so valuable and they were so profitable - that they issued shares for growth- to buy and acquire other companies that added to their earnings per share)- it often took yrs and yrs to ever reach the multi billion shares outstanding point in their existence.
Not, pouring them out for what, IMO is just "survival", month to month essentially, cash "trickling" in, and also to be used like "cash" to pay all kinds of people and bills and what not. That's not "healthy share" increasing- that's the worst kind of dilution one can experience, IMO and that of many expert commentators and those who research stocks for investment firms, academia, govt. agencies like the SEC and similar.
"We know what it says."? I'd argue one obviously does not "know what it says", based on their commentary.
Further, making a statement such as "BioHeart is in the works of obtaining financing." makes ZERO sense.
Hint: Bioheart is "obtaining financing" on a month to month, or every few months basis, and has been for several yrs now. Else, they'd be BK and lights out a long time ago.
Last yr for instance, they "obtained" enough "financing" to dilute their shares by a factor of 2X, from 190 million outstanding, to now 460 MILLION as of the Form 14 filing. That's known as "financing".
And despite all that "financing"- they ended the yr with $46K cash, total, in the bank- the price of a decent new car now days. Big whoop. And, all their key trials (phase II/III) sat dead in the water as far as anyone can tell, despite all that, highly dilutive "financing".
Maybe one needs to get a basic understanding of what the word/term "financing" means? As BHRT does and is doing "financing" on a continuous basis. When the next 10-Q comes out in a few weeks- it's gonna contain "financing" in it- as the cash balance listed in the prior 10-K, which included dilutive, ASHER "financing" (3 deals to raise a paltry $100K) it included those deals right up through Feb of 2014. That's called "financing"?
Get it? Probably not.
Spread is huge, wide open again- looks like the broker/dealer boys are "trying" to still prop it up, or just make their money on the spread.
"Up" 5% on 144K shares at .0265. That's = to like $3,800 traded. Meaning it could be maybe, qty-3 or 4 $1,000 orders, for someone(s) (a couple of orders) willing to pay the spread.
One decent sell order- say, someone wanting to unload a rather small dollar about like $10K or $20K worth, let alone say $40K or something- is what will tank it 20% in a blink like yesterday, IMO.
The thinner the vol gets, the wider the spread gets- the more it can/will trade down in rapid moves, IMO. Seen it over and over and over with this one.
It's well under the 50 DMA now, a full down trend. It's making lower highs and lower (much lower) like yesterday- when it touched .022, just a tad over the 200 DMA of .019.
I think it's headed for at least that 2 cent area, the 200 DMA, the 2 yr or so "base" range that it has gravitated toward for over 2 yrs now (despite all the "news" and "PR" and "deals" and "talks" and "summits" and "presentations" and what not).
The "big presentation" of the long awaited, highly touted, "6 month ANGEL data" did nothing for it yesterday. My speculation- they've been propping it up, someone's been unloading into that strength leading up to the "presentation" , and yesterday the real selling began to finish the "unload" of whatever position they need to get rid of. That's just speculating, but it's real coincidental IMO, the timing of when this thing unloads, versus PR and other events. It's getting in the price range now- where most of the warrants and instant-vest options and a lot of the other shares mentioned, last 10-K, would start to be "out of the money".
But of course, that leaves the "ASHER" and boys type firms and the floorless convertible shares- and they never go "out of the money". In fact, they get more valuable, and get issued more shares, the lower they can get the price to go.
But, volume is getting lighter and lighter it appears, spreads seem to be getting opened up major wide, and IMO, from watching it in the past, in down trends, that usually equals more big down days to come, big ones like yesterday- where "PR" didn't help, where they couldn't even "paint it up" with a few buys into the close.
Next up is the 10-Q. That's the "big one" IMO. More important to me than that "presentation of data" yesterday or whenever it was, whatever yesterday's big, long touted "PR news" release was about.
My 2 cents.
"I have a very good feeling about this!"?? Why?
What was cut n pasted- just sorta, kinda, left out a bit of info. A real important part of info from PAGE 51, FORM DEF 14C.
Kinda important to cut n paste the entire paragraph above a closing statement that says, "Apart from the above, there are currently no plans, arrangements, commitments or understandings for the issuance of the additional shares of Common Stock which are proposed to be authorized."
Half the page above that statement was not cut n pasted. Here is the entire page- meaning, what that closing, last line is referring to:
"INCREASE AUTHORIZED COMMON SHARES
Material Terms, Potential Risks and Principal Effects Of The Increase of Authorized Common Share
Our Board of Directors and the consenting majority stockholders have adopted and approved resolutions and an amendment to the Articles of Incorporation to effect an increase of the number of common shares of the Company that the Company may issue from nine hundred and fifty million (950,000,000) shares of common stock and twenty million (20,000,000) shares of preferred stock, both $.001 par value respectively, to two billion (2,000,000,000) shares of shares of common stock and twenty million (20,000,000) shares of preferred stock, both $.001 par value respectively. The Board of Directors and the consenting majority stockholder believes that the Increase in Authorized common shares is in the best interest of the Company and its stockholders because the increase in the number of authorized but unissued shares of Common Stock would enable the Company, without further stockholder approval, to issue shares from time to time as may be required for proper business purposes, such as providing for reserves that are often required when and if necessary to raise additional capital for ongoing operations, business and asset acquisitions, present and future employee benefit programs and other corporate purposes as we make every effort to become cash flow positive.
The increase in the authorized number of shares of Common Stock could have a number of effects on the Company's stockholders depending upon the exact nature and circumstances of any actual issuances of authorized but unissued shares. The increase could have an anti-takeover effect, in that additional shares could be issued (within the limits imposed by applicable law) in one or more transactions that could make a change in control or takeover of the Company more difficult. For example, additional shares could be issued by the Company so as to dilute the stock ownership or voting rights of persons seeking to obtain control of the Company, even if the persons seeking to obtain control of the Company offer an above-market premium that is favored by a majority of the independent shareholders. Similarly, the issuance of additional shares to certain persons allied with the Company's management could have the effect of making it more difficult to remove the Company's current management by diluting the stock ownership or voting rights of persons seeking to cause such removal. The Board is not aware of any attempt, or contemplated attempt, to acquire control of the Company, and this action is not being presented with the intent that it be utilized as a type of anti-takeover device.
Stockholders should recognize that, as a result of this proposal, they will own a fewer percentage of shares with respect to the total authorized shares of the Company, than they presently own, and will be diluted as a result of any issuances contemplated and potentially executed by the Company in the future.
Plans, arrangements, commitments or understandings for the issuance of the additional shares of Common Stock.
On November 20, 2013, we entered into an Investment Banking Agreement with Cassel Salpeter & Co. (“CSC”), who will act as exclusive third party financial advisor in connection with investment banking matters. The term of the Investment Banking Agreement shall be for a period of twenty four months unless terminated or extended in accordance with its terms. Part of these services may involve the closing of a Mezzanine Financing consisting of non-convertible subordinated debt and/or sale of equity securities. In the event a Mezzanine Financing is closed, additional securities may be issued. There are no definitive agreements at present for a Mezzanine Financing.
Apart from the above, there are currently no plans, arrangements, commitments or understandings for the issuance of the additional shares of Common Stock which are proposed to be authorized.
51"
End quotes, end of all of PAGE 51.
Thus, the last line means- that apart from the "above", that entire body of written text - the approved increase by the BOD to 2 BILLION shares, there are "currently" no plans to add anymore.
Kinda important IMO, not to use "selective" cut n pasting.
The share issue is a done deal. All that last statement says, it that no more "plans" to issue/authorize more than the 2 BILLION are "presently" planned.
When something says, "apart from above" and is the last line on a page, with a bold header titled, "INCREASE AUTHORIZED COMMON SHARES", one needs to read and cite the entire page "above", not just the selective part that "sounds good", or whatever, IMO.
All that page means and says IMO, using basis English comprehension, is that 2 BILLION shares are now authorized/approved and "at present" (date of that document) there are currently no more plans to "authorize" anymore. Of course shares are being "issued" on a near daily basis with this company- it went from 420 million as of the 10-K filing, to already 463 million as of the date of the FORM 14. By this next 10-Q, my guess is it will even be much greater than that.
" You are correct there was mortality in the study, but causality was not shown do to MyoCell. "?? Really- that was proven beyond doubt? Where has that ever been stated in any company documents?
And "All-in-all, safety was not a concern"?? Again, really? That's not what the 10-K says?
From the COMPANY'S OWN WORDS, in their legally filed, most recent SEC document the 10-K, Dec 31st, 2013, PAGE: 31
"Our product candidates may never be commercialized due to unacceptable side effects and increased mortality that may be associated with such product candidates.
Possible side effects of our product candidates may be serious and life-threatening. A number of participants in our clinical trials of MyoCell have experienced serious adverse events potentially attributable to MyoCell, including six patient deaths and 18 patients experiencing irregular heartbeats. A serious adverse event is generally an event that results in significant medical consequences, such as hospitalization, disability or death, and must be reported to the FDA. The occurrence of any unacceptable serious adverse events during or after preclinical and clinical testing of our product candidates could temporarily delay or negate the possibility of regulatory approval of our product candidates and adversely affect our business. Both our trials and independent trials have reported the occurrence of irregular heartbeats in treated patients, a significant risk to patient safety. We and our competitors have also, at times, suspended trials studying the effects of myoblasts, at least temporarily, to assess the risk of irregular heartbeats, and it has been reported that one of our competitors studying the effect of myoblast implantation prematurely discontinued a study because of the high incidence of irregular heartbeats. While we believe irregular heartbeats may be manageable with the use of certain prophylactic measures including an ICD, and antiarrhythmic drug therapy, these risk management techniques may not prove to sufficiently reduce the risk of unacceptable side effects.
Although our early results suggest that patients treated with MyoCell do not face materially different health risks than heart failure patients with similar levels of damage to the heart who have not been treated with MyoCell, we are still in the process of seeking to demonstrate that our product candidates do not pose unacceptable health risks. We have not yet treated a sufficient number of patients to allow us to make a determination that serious unintended consequences will not occur."
That's the company's own words, in their SEC doc. It is not in agreement with the "claims" made in prior statement, IMO. Not even close, IMO. I know what I believe and trust. The company didn't put that verbiage in there because they wanted to, it looks bad, IMO. If they'd "proven" any of it, as not true or relevant or a strong risk- they'd remove it the sooner the better, IMO. They put it in there IMO, because they have to, under full disclosure laws, or the down-stream consequences could be very serious, and they know it, IMO.
"The Transparency of BHRT in SEC Filings shows...? WHAT? Huh?
Transparency, i.e truth in SEC filings = "integrity of the leadership"?
Since when? As far as I know, being "transparent" on govt. regulated, legally binding, fiduciary bound documents- is called being "normal" and in compliance with "law" and anything less than that, would typically be called being "in violation of the law", IMO.
It's simply being "legal" and "in compliance" with what is expected of "leadership" and does not indicate or display any special attributes or "integrity" above and beyond what is "generally accepted" business practices, IMO. Further, a fiduciary bound and legally licensed audit firm, also puts their name and reputation on those SEC filed documents- and could put themselves, their firm, their licences, etc in jeopardy if anything less than "integrity" and "transparency" was used in preparation of any SEC filed documents, IMO.
Being anything other than 100% "transparent", truthful, full disclosure, whatever term one wants to use- can land whoever signs off on those documents (and their audit firm), in trouble with Federal law, as in SEC law. Which can include anything from fines, up to, and including prison time. So, not sure how being truthful or "transparent" on a SEC filing is anything but what is "normal" and expected of the management of any public traded company? Anything less and it's considered potentially criminal, typically, IMO.
"it appears that the Marvel Trials where suspended because of the feasibility (not feasability) of the usefulness of the therapy on the patients"?? Huh? What? Huh again?
Most recent 10-K, PAGE 2:
"We are seeking to secure sufficient funds to reinitiate enrollment in the MARVEL and REGEN trials. If we successfully secure such funds, we intend to re-engage a contract research organization, or CRO, investigators and certain suppliers to advance such trials."
Thus, according to the company's own words, in their own, most recent filed 10-K: the Marvel "trial" singular (not "trials") is suspended for lack of funding and if funded, per that statement above, would begin to "reinitiate" (which means to re-start something, that's been stopped previously)
I don't find any company statement indicating that, "Marvel Trials where suspended because of the feasability of the usefulness of the therapy on the patients that where facing the worst outcome from Severe Heart Degeneration."??
If that wording, or anything similar to it, is in the 10-K, or any BHRT SEC filed document, a document name and page number reference, or cut n paste of exact wording would be much appreciated.
"(Pending Litigation)? Dade County? Outside the IP agreements? "?? Have no idea what that sentence means, or is supposed to mean or imply or what? Anybody having an idea- would appreciate some input on it. Thanks in advance.
"A Safety Study would be productive in advancing treatment for patients outside the control groups of the Marvel Trial. Without the safety Assessment it would be like throwing money away as Marvel was already in front of the FDA. "??
Again, have zero clue what that statement is supposed to mean, or even says? Any help, further input, clarification would be much appreciated? Marvel was already "in front of the FDA"? What does that mean? "studies outside of control groups"? What does that mean?
Any help- much appreciated. Thanks again.
Wow!! .022 is day's low so far today. (not gonna say I told you so, but well....)
That is major tankage IMO. It's heading for the 200 DMA IMO, at .019 or so. The ole 2 cent, historical "base".
Market cap right now is back around a paltry $10.5 million, even less on that .022 dip- it's not even worth their current debt and/or cash deficits.
2 billion shares gonna be available real soon, can't be good, IMO. Really wanna see the outstanding share count when this 10-Q is out in a few weeks. That form 14 proxy said 463 million shares or something already- wonder if it goes way up, even more by the 10-Q filing? Gonna be interesting to say the least.
The big "trial" news today- obviously didn't hack it though- that much is clear IMO. Almost, IMO like someone's been unloading in the weeks leading up to it, like they knew. They've held it flat and slightly up for weeks now, then the PR hit, the big "presentation" and it tanks hard? Kinda makes one wonder IMO. Were they unloading a big position for someone, before letting it tank now? Or is it the "finance" people, now unloading and/or going short now that the big "PR" event is over? Hard to say- but not looking good here. No support under it at all- it's in free fall IMO.
Spread back to GRAND CANYON wide now- the sure sign the broker/dealers have it in the solid down trend, and selling pressure is high IMO. They're trying to "pump" it back a bit IMO, but looks like no one's willing to pay the "wide" spread right now, for the most part- "maybe" some $500 or $1000 "nibble" buys to "paint it".
It's in a solid down trend and people are pulling the ejection handle, probably giving up on the pump price of the past 4 weeks or so- and just gonna take the loss.
That's what I'm seeing in my opinion. When it goes down big (13% in a blink) on decent volume, and the spread opens up like now, and it's "flat lining"- look at chart (40 minutes or so, not a single trade) it's just sitting there now, then it's ripe for big drops IMO. Seen it over and over and over again with this one.
And that's despite the "big" PR day- the long awaited, highly touted, big "news" that's been mentioned probably no less than 200 times in the past month. The long awaited Angel, 5 person, Mexico, "trial", 6 months "results" at a "big presentation" and all. Well, down 13% on decent volume. Market is speaking IMO.
The ole "presentation"- like a lead balloon, eh?
Well, that appears to have gone off real good? Only down 13% on my screen- and it's on higher vol than the "closed flat" days of recent.
Guess that big, phase I ANGEL, done in Mexico, 5 "patients" total, 6 month ole "data" just didn't cut it, maybe? The market is "speaking" IMO, and it's not making much of a "hit" that I can see?
Perhaps, IMHO, it just sounds/sounded like so many other "PRs' and "results" already given, how many times now, over how many years?
Maybe, what the market was/is looking for- is why the big, ole phase II/III trial(s) (as in plural- more than one, and originally U.S. based) are never heard about again and have never gone anywhere or amounted to anything? Or the big one, the "financing" word- that just never seems to materialize?
That's my, lousy, 2 cent opinion and nothing more. "Bud" and all the rest can love it, be incredibly impressed, "it's going to the moon", gonna be at .50 cents shortly, and all the rest.
Good luck to all and happy trading of course.
"reverse stock split coming....soon?"
Who the heck knows IMHO at this point? The increase to 2 billion outstanding shares- sure came out of left field IMO. I thought the 950 million number, only increased about a yr ago was mind blowing for a then, 2 cent or so stock. 2 billion shares on a sub 3 penny- it can't mean anything good IMO.
Don't have a clue what they're doing, or where they're going IMO. It's BioHEART, and it seems now, one hears less and less about the "heart" part- and now everything else under the kitchen sink from ED (erectile dysfunction) to "orthopedic" to "eye" stuff to "animals" to "medical tourism" all over who knows where in the 2nd/3rd world, to I haven't got a clue anymore? I can't even keep track anymore of all the "stuff" they claim to be involved with using "stem cells" and all the "deals" and what not- all with 3, total employees left according to their own, recent 10-K? Makes zero sense to me anymore?
Seems that the key "heart" trials are like not even the big "focus" anymore IMO. This next 10-Q, which should be out in a few weeks, this one IMO, is thee big one. If there's not some key update info and other key info in it, then IMO, this "thing" has gone rudder-less and is just drifting, tossing anything at the wall to see if it will stick, etc.
That's my 2 cent opinion only, just mine and nothing but an opinion. Anyone else (ole bud) can love it, think it's about to explode upward, gonna trade at .50 cents "soon" or "go to the moon" (heard that one a few times recently), has "imminent BIG financing" that's supposedly "about to happen" (the ole "bridge loan, or "mezzanine" finance of recent lore), one can buy, sell, hold, trade- whatever they want - certainly don't listen to me to make decisions.
My opinion, mine only- the 10-Q is the next big, critical piece of info.
Notice- the ole "PR MACHINE" release today about the "big talk at the aging blah, blah" -whatever it said (I personally don't even need to read it, IMO), notice how much it's "helped" the share price and market reaction today? For a 3 "employee", micro, micro, micro cap company, I'd swear, IMO, they put out more "PR" on average than freaking Apple or Facebook or Microsoft for example. I'd have to count um on an average month say, but they sure put out a lot of "PR" IMO, and put out a "PR" about "something" (anything) on a schedule you can practically set your watch to, IMO.
And I think one can reach the point of "PR saturation"- it just doesn't "do it" for many anymore IMO, cause they read the same old PR "stuff" over and over and over again- then watch their shares sit at 3 cents, or now at sub 3 cents, while waiting on the "real news" like a phase III trial, that just never seems to come. That again is my opinion and mine only.
"IPO during the financial meltdown of 2008 "- the ole myth, IMO, that it was the "financial meltdown" as to why BHRT had one of the worst IPO's in modern market history. (and traded straight down essentially, from day one after the IPO, being delisted almost exactly one yr later)
"well led" companies (the "professor's" term), do what's called "pull the IPO" IMO, if the timing is not right, or the underwriting is not good. BHRT chose, their own choice to move ahead and do the IPO. It was a total bust. The company originally stated is would raise approx. between $45 and $70 million in their IPO. From a web article:
"On Feb. 19, 2008, Bioheart finally made it across the goal line in what is arguably one of the worst IPOs ever — it netted the company only $1.5 million, of which $600,000 came directly from Bioheart founder Henry Leonhardt."
http://venturebeat.com/2007/10/12/i-told-you-so-eat-your-bioheart-out/
http://venturebeat.com/2008/02/19/three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust-bioheart-makes-it-across-the-ipo-goal-line-but-with-little-to-show-for-its-struggles/
By contrast, for yr 2008 there were 43 U.S. IPOs which raised at least $50 million.
Total U.S. IPO proceeds were $28 billion, in 2008.
" 87 U.S. companies filed for IPOs (2008) but then withdrew this year" (that's typical for well-led companies IMO, they pull the IPO if the timing is not right and wait, you read of it happening all the time, even in recent yrs)
List of the majority of U.S. exchange 2008 yr IPO's and amount raised in $millions of dollars: note, it's the dollars raised listed, not the share price. As in Visa raised $17,864 million or $1.7 BILLION dollars. Cardionet, a medical company- raised $81 million (note, two raised over $1 billion) (bottom of list BHRT)
Visa $17,864
American Water Works $1,247
Intrepid Potash $960
GT Solar International $499
Colfax Corp $337
Williams Pipeline Partners $325
Western Gas Partners $309
RiskMetrics Group $245
Hatteras Financial $240
Navios Maritime Acq Corp $220
Whiting USA Trust I $217
American Capital Agency $200
Safe Bulkers $190
RHI Entertainment $189
Rackspace Hosting $187
Verso Paper $168
Pioneer Southwest Energy $156
Cascal B.V. $144
Grand Canyon Education $126
Britania Bulk Holdings $124
Energy Recovery $119
IPC The Hospitalist Company $83
CardioNet $81
ArcSight $61
China Distance Education $61
Chardan 2008 China Acq Corp $55
Real Goods Solar $55
MAKO Surgical $51
North Asia Investment Corp $50
China Mass Media Corp $48
ATA Inc $46
Heritage-Crystal Clean $21
BioHeart $5.78 (we'll add the decimal since it's so low)
Note, the majority, if not all the "successful" IPO's had what would be called "major" underwriters- the "big hitters" ,the "who's who" of Wall St firms to take a company "public"- as in Goldman, Citi, UBS, Lehman, etc. BHRT had some small time, sorta no-name IMO, underwriter named "Dawson James Securities, Inc. ", and I believe BHRT even fired/changed their "small time" underwriters several times- before limping across the IPO finish line; if you read the early PR about the "IPO", the names of the underwriters changes/changed several times.
http://www.pehub.com/2008/02/bioheart-barely-beating/
And how did it "perform" post IPO, only months later, as of Jan 2009? Well, it came in as the "anchor man", bottom of the list of worst performing, post IPOs yr 2008, and was already down 85% from the offering price, initial share sales. It's been a bust since IPO day one IMO, and all the data on research sites, IMO, says the same. Many would argue, they never should have gone public in the first place, at least not when they did- that's my opinion, and that expressed by many other writers/web sites/financial sites I have read or researched.
"How Some 2008 IPO's Fared
Friday, January 23, 2009
Courtesy of CNN Money, here's a quick list of some IPO's and how they have fared thus far. LOPE and V are the standouts, while HOO and BHRT are really struggling. V, also, has a large hedge fund presence by prominent funds, as we've noted in our hedge fund tracking series."
(list shows what price was on IPO day, then what it was on Jan 23,2009. Percentage positive as in Grand Canyon Education 57%, means it was trading UP 57% from its offering price. BHRT -85%, means it was down already 85% from the IPO price of $5.25 and was then at .79 cents)
Grand Canyon Education LOPE 57% $18.81 $12.00 20-Nov
Visa Inc. V 27% $55.73 $44.00 19-Mar
Hatteras Financial Corp HTS 7% $26.56 $24.00 25-Apr
Heritage-Crystal Clean HCCI 4% $12.01 $11.50 12-Mar
American Water Works AWK -4% $20.72 $21.50 22-Apr
IPC The Hospitalist Co. IPCM -5% $15.15 $16.00 24-Jan
Energy Recovery ERII -14% $7.34 $8.50 2-Jul
Western Gas Partners WES -15% $14.02 $16.50 8-May
RiskMetrics Group RMG -18% $14.38 $17.50 24-Jan
Pioneer Southwest Energy PSE -27% $13.90 $19.00 30-Apr
Intrepid Potash IPI -33% $21.38 $32.00 21-Apr
Fifth Street Finance FSC -48% $7.30 $14.12 11-Jun
RHI Entertainment RHIE -51% $6.87 $14.00 17-Jun
ATA Inc. ATAI -52% $4.60 $9.50 28-Jan
Safe Bunkers Inc. SB -53% $8.95 $19.00 28-May
RackSpace Hosting Inc. RAX -54% $5.81 $12.50 7-Aug
Navios Maritime Acquisition NM -60% $4.01 $10.00 25-Jun
Real Goods Solar RSOL -62% $3.77 $10.00 8-May
Pansoft Company PSOF -65% $2.45 $7.00 9-Sep
Cascal NV HOO -67% $3.93 $12.00 28-Jan
Bioheart Inc. BHRT -85% $0.79 $5.25 19-Feb
By Jan 2009, they were at .79 cents, down from the $5.25 IPO price. Pretty amazing. Remember, they were delisted from NASDAQ, about only one year after going public- another pretty amazing "accomplishment" IMO.
http://globenewswire.com/news-release/2009/02/26/393349/160467/en/Bioheart-Inc-Receives-Notice-of-Delisting-From-The-NASDAQ-Capital-Market.html
IMO, this company has had major financial problems going way, way, way back- across multiple CEO's and multiple BOD members/departures. It's nothing "new" IMHO. The data supports that opinion, I believe, going back many years, at least 5 yr if not more perhaps.
"This is critical... "- is they're nearly out of cash at any given moment, have huge debt payments to make and have a sub 3 cent stock, now down 10% on the day. Oh, and the big "trials" appear to be going nowhere essentially, but the "tweets" are really "hot" according to many. Wow.
Yeah- that's "critical" in my book and opinion. Right on.
Down 10%, and there she goes. The "break" to the big down is starting IMO. It may not stay down today- who knows. But once you start to see these large down-side breaks, when vol has been getting light, IMO it's in the solid downtrend, every time in the past.
I stated previously- when you see the vol start to really thin out, and when you see days where it "flat lines" (doesn't have a single trade for an hour or more)- my opinion, get ready.
One sell order of any, decent size, and it will break down big, if the historical norm proves out. It's thinly traded dollar wise per day, and the broker/dealers open the spread. "Grand Canyon" wide IMO, when they need to fill to the downside.
And that's not even considering if someone like an "ASHER" turns and starts to go short- which they most certainly will at some point, IMHO. It's in a full down trend now. Never once re-touched the 50 DMA in over 10 trading days now, and now is breaking down big to the low side.
Despite all the "PR" and "tweets" and "talks" and "seminars" and blah, blah, blah.
"well-led "?? I'd love to see the ole professor elucidate the definition of BHRT being "well-led" by using any, any standard, generally accepted business metrics used across all industries, business segments, from start ups, to mature companies (how many years has BHRT been around ??), and especially among public traded companies with common shareholders- even citing one, one "metric" where BHRT is/would be deemed to be "well led"??
ROI (return on investment)?
Cash on hand? ($46K close of last 10-K, added some via toxic financing, bringing total to about $211K, not even price of a small condo, in a bad neighborhood in my area)
Operating cash flow?
Profit/loss?
Approval or bringing to market a key, new product and generating rapid sales growth, leading to high bottom line profit?
Return on capital?
Book value? Book value per share?
Price to book?
Operating margin? (-2,947.13%)
Return on assets? (-1,424.72%)
Stock price appreciation?
Growth of any kind?
Return on shareholder equity, especially to common shareholders? (early investors got creamed too, as far as I’m aware also)
Bottom or top line growth?
Product innovation- they didn't even "invent" as far as I know, they "licensed" the original tech, and most of the patents/and or licenses are now expired or lapsed as far as I know (can cite 10-K pages if needed)
Expansion- as in providing employment? Have laid and/or fired off nearly entire staff of company, now 3 "employees" remaining?
Cash flow from operations? Or even cash use mgt?
Inventory turns- they have no sales essentially, scratch that one?
Productivity or return per employee?
Employee RETENTION- well, that one pretty much says a lot IMO. How bout CEO turnover, or BOD turnover-departures?
How bout Sr. Mgt turn over and/or departures, same for Sr staff such as engineers/tech people ?
Backlog, as in sustainability- well, does not apply again?
Debt and ability to pay it and cover interest? Especially as not having debt go into default? Other than massive dilution- well, we know where BHRT is on that one. One key loan already went default, Northstar was the result?
Gross margins- well N/A again for the most part?
Compliance- they got delisted from a major exchange, only about one yr after IPO, they have no FDA approved products to date?
Execution of stated businesses plan(s)- short and long term? Want the list of all past "Pr's" and claims made therein of what the "grand plan" was, and what's "come true" so far to date? It's not that hard to do using that amazing tool called Google. Can read every PR, across multiple CEO's of how FDA approval "was/is close" and "imminent financing" and "will lead to big sales" , etc going back 4 plus yrs. Not hard to do?
Execution of key business plan items ever brought to success- one phase III trial ever completed, one key, major selling product ever FDA approved, resulting in sales, growth and profits for example?
Would love to see the ole "professor" do the detailed break-down, using any "generally accepted" performance metrics and tell why, "BHRT is well led"? That, IMO would be fascinating to say the least. Of course, that'll never be printed IMHO. Just easier to toss out the name of the company and say it's "well led" w/o a single point, single sentence or paragraph, etc to "enlighten" all as to why the "theory" of being "well led" is substantiated by any actual, tangible, measurable evidence. Everyone's entitled to an "opinion"- and the way that "article" is written, it's nothing more than a pure "opinion" piece, IMO. It lays out no data, verbal written claims, written explanation, etc to back up the "claim" being posited? Thus, it's just a "statement" - and not researched, or backed by data in any way, shape or form apparently that I can see, IMO.
What's really funny IMO, is the "professor" open's his "article" with the following statement:
"I’ve seen it time and time again. A startup or early stage company with a truly innovative technology or service and ample funding begins to take off (well, BHRT never "took off", my words), ascends rapidly (BHRT never ascended rapidly IMO, my words again), then levels off (it never "leveled off" -it's traded straight down since IPO day for the most part, my words again), declines and crashes."
$5 a share or so, to sub THREE PENNIES, IMO generally meets the term/definition of "and crashes" as applied to a public traded stock and what has happened to the original investors in this company and especially any common shareholders (especially when massive dilution of shares is added in) IMO. The opening statement defines BHRT IMO, yet later it's kinda slipped in, in a one liner as being "well led" with no supporting data, not a single statement to define/back up the "claim" as to why it's supposedly "well led" etc.
The "professor" also makes the following statement - which again, is kinda funny to me- "and the founder/leader given the boot."
Um, last time I checked, I think the "founder" of BHRT was given the "boot" as CEO, and/or Chairman also, and has left the company, if I'm not mistaken?
The "professor" also mentions a start-up firm "being bought out" as if it's almost a bad thing? At least that's my read in the way he states it? Which is odd IMO, as there is an entire "start-up" model, industry, incubator concept used in Silicon Valley- who's entire purpose is to generate repeat start ups, build them rapidly to critical mass- and their sole and only goal, is to be quickly "bought out". There are some enormously successful people, enormously wealthy now also, who have done this repeat times. It's an entire, very common business "model" now- build it, to have it acquired or rapidly bought out- usually in 2 to 5 yrs max. Usually, the sooner the better. Just look at some of the names "bought out" recently- Instagram, Facebook and Google- can't even keep track of how many companies each has bought recently, I know Google alone has bought-out over 100 companies, I read averaging one a week or so since about 2010(often young start ups), Skype, Nest bought by Google, Youtube bought by Google, Tumblr bought by Yahoo, snapchat is being chased right now w/ offers- and on and on and on, and those are the big name ones, Yahoo, Google and similar- buyout a lot of sub $50 million dollar deals all the time- just "check book, petty cash" money deals. I recently read of Yahoo buying some teenager's (literally a teen) his company for like $12 million or something- noise level money to them, but he's well off now, and will "do it again" if possible.
The entire little "article" makes zero sense to me, IMO. If one makes a "claim" something is "well led",then essay writing 101 per generally accepted college/university standards, let alone making such a claim in front of say a biz leadership or finance or similar "team" of experts, says the sentences/paragraph following “the claim”, better specifically be the statements to back up the "claim"- it's essay 101, basics. If I made that "claim" in a college level course/essay- the prof. would rip it to shreds IMO, with the simple statement, "Where is your back-up statements to support your position that those companies named are "well led" and contrasted with 2 or 3 examples of why companies X, Y and Z are not "well led"? It's writing 101. Basic as it gets IMO. If I was a potential investor sitting in a room- and someone said, "Company XYZ" is "well led", therefore you should put money into it. My first question would be, "Give me specific, very specific and measurable examples of why you're making the "claim" this company is "well led"". If they can't instantly answer that, I'd be heading for the door.
It's seen on nearly every episode off Shark Tank. The company owner (the one asking for investment money) says, "We're the best, I know how to run this business, we have a great idea, this is a winner !!" And the first question back, from the self-made, centi-millionaire or billionaire investors, is always, " Oh really, give me 5 examples, quick, very specific examples/details, measurable metrics, to back up why you just made that claim that your company and you are so great ?" Many of the people (start up company owners) stumble, bumble and can't answer quickly, coherently, and concisely using well laid out facts- and it gets an instant "I'm OUT" from the investors. Every single time.
The "professor" is connected to "Florida International University" (stated at bottom of article). Someone else comes to my mind with connections to, "Florida International University"? I know who comes to mind for me- but that's just my opinion, and mine only of course. You can love the "article" if you like. It's a free country. Enjoy.
P.S. First comment at bottom of article in "comments" section:
"bio heart has been around to long too be in this story and has been a terrible investment !!!!" (guess that guy wasn't mincing any words, eh?)
Just an FYI on Youtube videos getting pulled down- it happens 1000's if not, 10,000's of times a day. Youtube has "review" staff working "flagged" videos, 24/7, 365. A simple google search will reveal 100's, 1000's of articles and videos on "how to not get your video removed" or "how come my video got removed" and all variations thereof.
It doesn't take a law firm or litigation to get a Youtube video pulled down for a violation of Google/Youtube TOS.
I watch all kinds of videos- rock and other types of bands, movies, aviation, comedy, just about anything. And videos I had "liked" or whatever, get yanked down all the time, and for all various reasons. It's common knowledge to anyone even remotely familiar with being a Youtube user on a regular basis. It's one of the biggest complaints- is that videos you "liked" or want to re-watch or whatever, just "vanish" and get yanked constantly.
Most of the time, someone just shoves um right back up again- happens 1000's of times a day. There was a great recording of Tom Cruise doing his famous (deemed bizarre and funny by most) "scientology interview" - it went massively viral. Then, the late night comedian, Craig Furgeson did his own spoof of the interview- funny as all get out and it went even more massively viral. Of course Tommy Cruise and crew step in and start getting um yanked down. As fast as one would come down, another dude would just repost it. Went on for months. Happens ALL THE TIME.
It's not a big "legal case", involving or needing a law firm of all things, to "pull" or "get a video pulled" on Youtube as you're "trying" to infer IMO. It's a simple deal to "flag" a Youtube video- and watch it vanish. Just Youtube SOP, typical, another day as usual, no big deal IMO. Doesn't take some law firm, and the board "internet lawyers" tossing out the ole "libel" and "slander" talk as usual. Same old, same old nonsense talk as always, IMO.
"On 3/9/2014 BHRT was above .06". Um, yeah, for TWO DAYS (the 8th and 9th), the following day, the 10th it was collapsing (the dump IMO) and it was as low as .03 with a high of .045. All, "supposedly" because of "one commenter"?? Wow, what a fantasy imagination, IMO. That's too funny.
AND from Sept 2013 to Feb 2014, it was at one cent. Yep, one penny. In late 2013 it actually dipped as low as 6/10th of one cent, .0063. Then from about Feb to March 3, 2014 it was 2 pennies.
It has spent a whole lot more time, at, or below 3 cents, even at 2 cents or below, than it's ever spent above it; for at least the past 2 yrs. Pull up a 2 or 3 yr chart. On a 2 yr chart, it's been on avg about 2 cents, maybe 3 as a high, and a substantial number of periods at one cent.
.35 to .40??? Any clue when the last time it was, that it saw that price? And it's more diluted by a massive amount now, and in worse financial shape now IMO- and it's "supposedly" was "going to" .35 or .40 "no hesitation"?? Based on what fantasy? Try 2011, last time it remotely saw those prices, and it didn't last very long, before resuming the long, sure, downtrend it's been in ever since.
"was clearly on its way up"? It wasn't "clearly" anything, IMO. It crashed from .08 to .03 in less than 2 trading days. That's known as a pump n dump, IMO, and most penny-ville circles, and generally accepted sources, including the SEC's own warning site on penny stock behavior(s). Not a "clearly" anything, IMO.
"momentum"? Huh? It spent a few days pumped up, then rapidly crashed, just as fast as it went up. Pull up a chart from March 3rd 2014, to today. Classic, IMO.
"The momentum was broken by ONE COMMENTER. "?? Now that is laughable, really funny stuff IMHO. And I mean laughable. Comedy laughable. It was "up" on zero news, zero material events IMO, zero anything. AND, it just "happened" that several stock chat boards and "twitter" and "facebook" and all the rest just "happen" to light up like a freaking Christmas tree- all these different boards and media/communication outlets, exactly at the same moment when it got pumped up on no material event? Yeah, just a "coincidence", right? Just like the 100 plus commenters a day now on here, since the big pump happened? Sure thing. Right. The endless nonsense noise and chatter- the "promotion campaign" now blasting this board 100 plus empty, nonsensical, vapid comments a day now, that's all a "coincidence" too, I suppose IMO? And, they start like a clock, 10 minutes before market open, and like a light switch, shut off exactly each day, exactly at market close- not to be heard from until the next trading day? Ole budfox from the movie "wall street"- him and a half dozen or more like him, never seen here prior, just appear out of the woodwork when the pump occurred and are now "working" this board, every trading day, for over 2 weeks now, after the pump collapse? Yeah, all "chance", right? Posting verbatim repeat posts, cut n pastes, day after day after day for several weeks now? "one commenter"? Really? And then, it crashed as fast as it went up on the pump, IMO. And that crash was due to a "commenter"?? Really? What an amazing "hypothesis" - if it can even be called that? Wow?
It's gonna see 2 cents or below, long before it ever sees .35 or .40 IMO. It's in a down trend now and volume is drying up big time. Despite all the hype on here, "the promotion campaign", all the "PR" and the rest of it- the volume is drying up and it's making lower highs now and lower lows. It's also flat lining a lot of days now- periods where it essentially sits, no trading for an hour or more. One major sell order from someone needing to unload, or an ASHER type going short or whatever, and it's gonna drop like a rock IMO, and I believe the historical chart will show that to be the "norm".
Also, further massive dilution isn't gonna help anything, that's for sure IMO. Only gonna get worse, the more the shares are dumped out on the market. Passing 460 million now, from the recent SEC form 14, wait till 10-Q day, and lets see what the share count is then. Is the massive dilution due to "one commenter"? Too funny, IMO.
Who is this supposed, "mystery" um "commenter" who has the power to "break the momentum" of the magic 3 penny pump um up, that was supposedly soaring to .35 or .40, all except for this "one commenter"? Wow, amazing powers this "one commenter" must have. Who?
Of course, nothing to do with the 100 other, nonsense pump and hype posts a day- nope, it's all off-set via that pesky "momentum ender" from that "one commenter". Not the 200 million shares of dilution in a yr, nope, that "one commenter" did it all. Not the NO FUNDING for trials that are not advancing, nope, it's that "one commenter". Wow, IMO. Just amazing the insight. The shear depth. Stunning. "One commenter"- not the management, not the ASHER firms and the millions, probably 10's of millions of steeply discounted shares in floorless, toxic convertible "financing" deals, or the 50 million "in the money" warrants, or the instantly-vest piles of recent options- nope, it's that ole "one commenter" who drives it all, controls it all, has the total power.
These are truly stunning revelations IMHO. Amazing beyond even what a late night, midnight to 4 AM talk show might cover. Real Area-51 kinda stuff. "one commenter". Amazing. Thanks, really. I'd have never known about the "one commenter" if not for this tremendous insight just revealed. I probably won't even waste time reading that ole 10-Q when it gets released soon- I mean, what's the point? "one commenter" is all that matters anyways, IMO, right? I mean who cares what those pesky ole SEC docs and actual reality says, right? IMO, now that the "one commenter" truth has been revealed, I just don't see any point. Wow again, IMO. Thanks, really.
"matters of libel and slander against the company. "?? What "libel and slander" against the company? Where? When? Give examples please?
You kinda left out the other parts of what they do- as in "intellectual property" and "privacy" - and look at the date of that "PR" announcing them as a "service provider" and then look on the Broward county court site, for the filing date of the suit naming Comella as a defendant. Just saying, they're pretty darn close together IMHO. Only an opinion- but the dates sure line up awfully close IMO. (PR Sept. 30, 2013) (Broward county site, filed suit, Oct 28th, 2013)
The latest 10-K just got released, they always contain a section(s) regarding disclosure of any "litigation" matters, and it says they're involved in none. So what "libel and slander" litigation and legal actions are being taken? Got any proof?
In that most recent 10-K, the name of that firm you cite- it appears nowhere in the 10-K that I can find? Not one name in that firm, not the firm- no reference to them is made in the 10-K?
Most recent 10-K, PAGE 17:
"We are not currently a party to any litigation or other adverse proceeding related to our patents, patent licenses or intellectual property rights"
Most recent 10-K, PAGE 48:
"Legal Proceedings
We are not presently engaged in any material litigation and are unaware of any threatened material litigation."
Most recent 10-K, PAGE 80:
"At present, there is no pending litigation or proceeding involving any of our directors or executive officers as to which indemnification is required or permitted and we are not aware of any threatened litigation or proceeding that may result in a claim for indemnification."
So, if this firm, " Mitrani, Rynor, Adamsky, & Toland " appear nowhere in the most recently released 10-K, and, every instance of the word search "litigation" says they are involved in "none"- then what makes this "claim" being stated as valid, IMO?
Does one ever check the legal, SEC filed documents? Or is it always just conjecture and hyperbole and made up opinions, IMHO?
"the lawsuit"- still shows "pending" though on the Broward County clerk of the court website.
https://www.clerk-17th-flcourts.org/Clerkwebsite/BCCOC2/OdysseyPA/CaseSummary.aspx?CaseID=7155410&hidSearchType=party_case&DisplayCitation=no&CaseNumber=CACE13024037&SearchType=
Seems the clerk of the court would keep that site "current" IMO, as in it lists a specific, assigned case number, a judge by name, badge ID, etc. So, if the case was still not "pending" in their system, I'd think it would have been removed, IMO.
"form DEF 14c"- it's not new. It's just the finalized version of the "pre" form, of the same filing that was posted on 4/17.
It just means they met the mailing/announcement requirement. They've set it up so insiders (Northstar, etc) control everything anyway, so it clearly states they needed, nor wanted no returned "vote" from common shareholders, regarding the proxy filing.
It was a done deal, from the day they first posted it on the 17th, IMO. Just more massive dilution to come, IMO. They must be burning through shares even faster than anticipated when they had to revise the corporate documents end of 2012, to up it from 190 million shares total allocated (they were already blowing through that number, passing 200 million shares then from dilutive financing), to then upping the allocated/available to about 950 million.
It's staggering, IMO, to think that since end of 2012, they went from 190 million authorized and used common shares, to then 950 authorized (of which they've now used already over 460 million as stated in that form 14) and that's still not enough on a sub, 3 cent stock, so they're now going for 2 billion shares? Amazing IMO. And, going back to only around 2010, they had a grand total of something like 20 million total shares outstanding. Talk about diluting away the common shareholder? And one wants to know, IMO, why it's at 3 cents or below, even going as low as .0063 (yes, 6/10ths of a penny) just a few months back?
Can't be good for the common holders IMO, gonna dilute down even farther than they already are- if that's even possible. Not much room left between 3 cents and zero.
"still be around with no income over a decade"? Well, "no income" is correct, technically.
But sorta left out the part about burning through over $118 million of OPM, "Other People's Money". So, it's not like there hasn't been a lot of coin sunk down the sub-3 cent drain IMHO. $118 million gone, is nothing to sneeze at IMO (and there's still debt and a big cash deficit too boot; see latest 10-K).
Meanwhile, despite the $118 million being sunk, the common shareholders have been diluted out to near nothing IMO, and, the insiders have set-up the vote, so the common holders have no say anyway (see latest form 14 proxy as example)- "we're sending it to you, but your vote or input is not needed, nor wanted, it's a done deal, and has already been decided" (paraphrasing) regarding the massive increase to 2 billion shares available.
"hopefully before then we have info on some financing for phase 3 though"??
"financing" for phase III has not materialized in over 4 yrs now, so why now? What would make it "imminent" now- they're down to 3 total employees reported in 10-K, and in worse financial condition than 4 yrs ago IMO, so why would "financing" for the phase III suddenly materialize now, of all times? Not seeing it, IMO?
Down 99.39% on the 5 yr chart. That's pretty impressive IMO.
That's about 7/10ths of 1% away from zero.
Yet, it's "claimed", many times over, by many commentators, on a daily basis, to be a "strong company" and "looking good", oh, and a "professor" even said recently it's "well led" and all the rest of the "stuff" I read on a daily basis? Pretty amazing- common stock being down 99% plus for the common shareholders is deemed, I guess, an overwhelming "success" of some sort? That's new to me, but what the heck do I know IMO, right?
Man, I sure wouldn't want to see a company "in trouble" and what it looks like, IMO? Wow.
Got awfully quiet? Early lunch today on the E. Coast? Campaign budget been spent or running out or something?
What happened?
Volume drying up big time IMO. It's "flat lining" now like the old days. 120K shares at one hour into the trading day.
But it hasn't traded a share essentially past the first 15 minutes or so- it's just sitting there for almost an hour now. That's the "old" pattern, when the hype has dried out, gotten old- and then it will dump hard to the down side at the first, decent sell order IMO. When it goes "flat line" like this- it's usually going down soon from past patterns, IMO.
"everything is moving forward!"??
What exactly is "moving forward"?? They started "trials"- but have some as old as 4 yrs or more, that have not "moved forward", not one iota that I'm aware of?
What exactly is "moving forward" as far as key, advanced stage, clinical trials? Details would be appreciated (from 10-K, 10-Q or similar). What's paying for these trials "moving forward", since the last 10-K, just recently released, said the "key trials" (later stage phase II/III) are essentially "stalled out" for "lack of funding"? Can give 10-K page number, exact quote if needed.
"Finalization of Angel phase 1, partnership or update on Mirror coming soon, "?
Based on what information or facts?
1) Angel phase I. 5 people in Mexico, essentially back to square one in a phase I, while phase II/III trials have never advanced? So what's that supposed to do? It'd be about 7 yrs more minimum IMO, if they started a phase II and actually completed it, then managed to start a phase III and actually complete it (they haven't progressed on the phase III's they have now, one as old as 4 yrs or more?), then found out the results were good enough, that the product/process even works and then "try" for an FDA submission, let alone approval? Meanwhile, how would they pay for all that IMO? How many billions of shares would it cost IMO?
2) "Partnership"? With who and why? Who wants to "partner", IMO, with a 3 "employee", cash poor, debt laden, highly diluted, essentially all key patents have run out or will run out very soon- "company" who can't even advance their "flagship" product in FDA type trials inside the U.S., let alone outside the U.S.? Why? What would this "partner" want from this 3 person company- what would they be getting? Northstar essentially owns/controls everything they have right now anyway ("the lien", read the 10-K). What "partner" wants that IMO and for what and why?
3) MIRROR "update"- it's been claimed to be "imminent" for some time, including "claims" stated in multiple places that the blog or email said it was imminent (some claimed to have received that info), that it would be "made known" around the time of the previous 10-K. That came and went over 4 months ago and not a word? What info is their now that says their is an "update soon" to quote the claim being made?
Dog, pull up a "max" chart- from IPO day, it's essentially been straight down, from over several dollars a share, as in ski slope down. A "few" bumps along the way, but essentially straight down, including under the tenure of the current CEO (I believe it was well above 50 cents when he took the helm, maybe as high as 60 or 70 cents, now it sub 3 cents with a low of .0063 a few months back, no that's not an extra zero after the decimal point, it went sub one cent).
Shares outstanding in 2010 (go back and pull up the 10-K for that years), off the top of my head they were about 20 million shares outstanding, I believe, close enough. As of that form 14 "proxy" they just filed, they're gonna up the available shares to a staggering 2 billion shares, on a sub 3 cent stock. And in that document they said the share count is now about 460 million. It was 420 million as of the filing of the last 10-K, ended Dec. 31, 2013. So, they've added another 40 million or more dilution in just that time.
First number I'll read on this coming Q-1, 10-Q release is the outstanding share count- it's page one, bottom of the page usually.
Last yr alone, they pretty much doubled the shares- from about 190 million end of 2012 (when they blew through their allotted charter, and had to amend the corporate documents- and bumped it to about 950 million available), to then over 400 million by end of 2013- a doubling of shares in a one yr period; massive dilution, and what is there to show for it? I mean, what really IMO? Anything really? They got some nice pay increases for the 2 "key" employees, of the grand total of "3" employees apparently left. Wow, IMO. The interest of the common shareholders sure doesn't seem to be high on their priority list IMHO. That's for sure IMO given all that's happening/happened.
Well dog, it's now been 10 trading days I count on my chart, since it broke the 50 DMA (.036). And the down days have been on higher vol than the "up" days since then (the days where the broker/dealer IMO closes it "flat" at end of day on a lousy $500 order for instance- after it's traded down the entire day). It hasn't made even a break to the 50 DMA avg since, in those 10 days now. That's a down trend and weakness in my book. It's making what I call lower highs and lower lows now- a down trend and weakness IMO. Also, volume on several days is getting much, much lighter- it's drying up IMO. Which on this thin a traded stock- usually means a big down day can come in a blink, if the past is any indicator.
Next stop would be the 200 DMA at about 2 cents or just under that. Barring any pump or similar, I'd venture that's where it's heading IMO, based on a 2 yr, 2.5 yr chart of these similar, past, shall we say "events".
As to trials progressing or similar- I can only say, and always only go by what's in, or what's not in the SEC filed 10-K or 10-Q only. That's why I noted that the Q1, 10-Q is due out here pretty soon - say approx. two weeks. My opinion, if the "big" MIRROR trial gets another "barely mention" as it did in the big, touted, "here will be the big news", end of yr 10-K (or as many "claimed" in the ole "blog", which didn't happen), then I'd say big trouble is a brewing, as in it's not progressing or moving forward at all, IMO (as in no funding and/or other "problems"). It will be one of the first things I look for in that 10-Q. I've always said; PR, "blogs", "tweets" whatever, don't count for much in my book and in my opinion- the document that "binds um" legally- is that SEC filing. If it ain't in there, or if it is in there, good or bad, that's the words/wording that matter IMO. It's all that really counts in the end IMO.
My opinion- is most on here, and elsewhere, never even really read the 10-K or 10-Q or similar SEC filings, cover to cover, let alone really know what most of it says or means (and I'm not claiming to be an expert, or forensic accountant or anything by a long shot- but I can take a pretty good crack at, at least trying to decipher pretty well what it says and means, and read every line, cover to cover, IMO). It's not exactly light reading, and if one has no financial or decent biz background- they can't follow a lot of what it's really saying IMO. They read the Yahoo or similar "summary version" (like a Reader's Digest condensed highlight release) one or two paragraph version- and then "think" they just read, what in reality is a 40 to 50 or more page, pretty complex document.
So, next up is the 10-Q release on the calendar for me. Share count (dilution), cash on hand- probably their most critical number IMO, MIRROR going anywhere or not, "financing" and at what terms- as in, are there more floorless convertible deals like ASHER being used to keep cash essentially "trickling" in, and past "PR" such as middle east "deal" or similar- do they get mentioned in 10-Q, and what have they or are they amounting to- as in sales, revenue, progress, etc.
Many, as I've said before (Pr's and "deals", etc, IMO)- I've looked for many times, and never seem to find um again when it comes to SEC document time (and I'm talking about stuff going back years, across multiple CEO's- about "big" stuff gonna supposedly or "potentially" happen- then just lost when the 10-K's or 10-Q are read later, say 6 months or a yr later, just never heard about again, IMO). They just sort of "vanish" and aren't heard about again IMO. Of course, that's why you always put that ole SEC disclosure language, legal-eze at the end of every PR when speaking of these "deals" and so forth- you know.
I've mentioned the "middle east" one, as in my opinion, it's a perfect one to look for in future 10-K's and 10-Q's to see what it "amounts too", if it ever amounts to anything. Here is the link- see how it sounds "big" and wow, and it must be going to bring in something "big" and all, that's my read IMO. What I found interesting, was I found one way back (a PR), under a previous CEO, about something very similar- a "deal" in middle east countries, but was it ever heard about again?
Here's the one I'm talking about now:
http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/bioheart-announces-agreement-with-anosis-to-distribute-products-in-the-middle-east-otcqb-bhrt-1844922.htm
I want to see what this "deal" has become- is it mentioned in the SEC filings, are revenues coming from it, is it turning into "big" things- cause the "PR" sounds great, right? That's my opinion. But what is it/will it really become? Don't know? And of course the end of the "PR" always has the ole "disclosure" - so if it never amounts to anything and doesn't go anywhere, well, then they're all "covered" via disclosure. Here's what it always says at the end of these "PR" announcements:
"Forward-Looking Statements: Except for historical matters contained herein, statements made in this press release are forward-looking statements. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, words such as "may," "will," "to," "plan," "expect," "believe," "anticipate," "intend," "could," "would," "estimate," or "continue" or the negative other variations thereof or comparable terminology are intended to identify forward-looking statements.
Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Also, forward-looking statements represent our management's beliefs and assumptions only as of the date hereof. Except as required by law, we assume no obligation to update these forward-looking statements publicly, or to update the reasons actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements, even if new information becomes available in the future.
The Company is subject to the risks and uncertainties described in its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the section entitled "Risk Factors" in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, and its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 31, 2013. "
There's the ole legal-eze. Thus, if that great sounding "PR" never goes anywhere, never amounts to anything, it's all been "covered" in the, "we told you the risks" statement, IMO. But that's one example- I'll be looking for it in the SEC doc. What has become of this "deal"? Revenue? Sales? Expansion? Anything? See? The "PR" sounds "big"- but is it amounting to anything? Who knows IMO?
10-Q, next "big" event IMO. We'll see I guess.
10-Q, for first qtr 2014, should be out around 5/10/14 or there abouts, based on prior 10-Q releases.
First numbers I'll be looking for are cash on hand (balance sheet cash line entry), and new, total outstanding share count (dilution), usually on page 1, bottom of page. Should be able to determine then how many shares have been diluted/added since Dec. 31, 2013 10-K date.
Will then use search feature for name "ASHER" and look at any "financing" deals done since 10-K (will look for any names besides ASHER too; will just be looking for floorless, dilutive "financing")- to see what the terms were, for how much cash brought in, how steep a discount on shares, dilutive, if floorless convertible or not, etc
Will look for anymore "in the money" warrants potentially being issued and also if more "vesting ASAP" options have been granted- stuff like that.
Will then use search feature to look at "trials" and see if any update is given on MIRROR, or any other phase II/III trials for that matter.
Will also look for all past "deals" and "partnerships" or similar terms used in approx. 1 yr of past "PR" (middle east "deal" for example) and similar from the "PR's" to see if they are a) Are they even mentioned and b) What have they amounted to- any revenue from them, etc.
Then just read cover to cover to see if anything "new" pops out.
That's what I'll be looking for. Looking forward to it. Should be a good read IMO.
Does the company or "whoever" is running this "promotion" - do they really think it adds "credibility" to the business and add even a micro iota of legitimacy to them?
I mean really? It's laughable IMO. Is this what that company they hired in one of the PR's - is this what they do? The big "promotion" company they put some PR out about a while back? Is this them? And does "tweeting" and "facebook" add any cash, to the cash poor balance sheet? Really?
Again, this is like a bad joke IMO. The common shareholders should be embarrassed IMHO. "bud fox" (a character from the fiction movie Wall Street and a bunch of other dudes with penny site promotion links built right in, repeating verbatim, the same nonsense for over a week now, same statements just cut n pasted over and over?). After about 47 times, I think everyone has seen the "cut n paste" nonsense off the company web site, they know what Myocell is "supposed" to do (no patent by the way), they've seen all the old news "PR's" repeated ad-nauseum, the "it's power hour" and "it should break out big anytime now", and the "chart looks great" (it's horrible in reality IMO) and blah, blah, blah.
Really, this is what "builds a business" or adds cash to your cash-poor balance sheet, or would attract legit, large "investors"? If I saw this penny-ville "stuff", I'd be running for the exists. The credibility is at an all time low in my opinion. This "promotion" being a sign of desperation IMO.
Funny, IMO how one just "finds" these "articles" instantly- in some obscure, local paper? Did BHRT email it to one?
Just curious how this "works"?
Who would just "happen" find that article, the instant it's published, unless someone "alerted" them IMO?
" BioHeart is a well-led company"??? Huh? It's a sub 3 cent stock, debt laden, 3 employee's left, not a single "success" in it's history, horrible IPO, multiple CEO changes, BOD nearly all departed since IPO, nearly cash broke, no sales, no $118 million down the drain, stock price a straight down slope from day one, already financially in trouble at time of one of the worst IPO's in market history, going concern in 10-K from own auditors, defaulted on a key BofA loan nearly sending um to BK, highly diluted stock as in doubled the outstanding shares in less than 1 yr from 190 million to now 460 million and just increased allocated to 2 billion on a 3 penny "company.....??
Man, if that's "success" and "well led"- I'd sure like to see a "failure" or a "poorly led" company?
It's laughable. Guess who has "ties" to ole U. of Florida where the "professor" is from? Yeah?
If BHRT is "well led", I guess the entire public markets and every major pharma and every major "investor" and any buy-out firm, etc all must have missed it- cause as of today it's at sub 3 pennies and has a market cap not even enough to cover it's debt and cash deficit.
Laughable IMO. 3 penny, 3 employee companies who are nearly broke are not "well led" IMHO. Not even close. They just keep piling it on- the ole "PR" machine.
"I have seen lots of negative PR on this company on this board and others "?? Huh? Where? When?
Please cite specific examples of "negative PR", especially "on this board" (which would mean I-HUB)?
Or, do you mean, another vast "conspiracy theory" wherein, any opinion, any statement of fact, any viewpoint different from your own, any citing of the management's own words from a 10-K or similar SEC filed document = a supposed "negative PR" and is part of this imagined "vast conspiracy" against a 3 cent stock, that got to 3 cents, via 100% of it's management's own doing, decisions and own actions, IMO?
What/who has been "trying to harm this company's reputation" in this vast conspiracy, IMO, 100% imagined vast fantasy? Again, where, when, specific examples please?
It's on the OTCBB, has 3 employees left, is loaded with debt, has no products or sales essentially, has nearly no cash on any given month per their own 10-K, has lost about 99% of its value since its horrible IPO, was delisted from a major exchange only about 1 yr after the IPO and going public, has no patent on its "flagship" product, has trials that stalled out and gone nowhere since 2009/2010, and on and on and on? What help is needed to add to their "reputation" IMO? Their own 10-K's and similar filed documents, pretty much "tell the story" that anyone would want to know IMO (no sugar coating needed). Or, perhaps, is it the near endless string of "PR's" going back 4 or more years, most of which never somehow appear to come true, or never come true, or never appear to be heard about again in a later 10-K or similar, or ever amount to their vast claims being made in them. Is that the fault of a person who links to them and points something like that out?
Kinda like that?
Or, just pure conspiracy theory nonsense being conjectured here, IMO. They are where they are today IMO, 100% via their own doing. No one has needed to "help" them along to being a cash poor, debt loaded, 3 cent stock IMO. Management/the insiders run the show, and have all along since day 1. At least 3 CEO's in about 5 yrs, mass departures from the BOD, nearly every employee they ever had was laid off or fired or let go, Northstar is of their own creating/making, every "finance" deal they ever entered into, they did on their own and signed on the dotted line, etc. Management- they drive the ship, they make the decisions, they've gotten it to where it's at today. No one else to blame or implicate and no vast conspiracy theories needed in my opinion. No more complicated than that, as I see it.
Gs, anything is possible. When I state they "willingly did it" - I'm not saying they did it cause they liked it. They had to go to those "lenders of last resort" to hang on.
And as you state, the unfortunate side of that is, a) Dilution typically, lots of it and b) Getting your stock/company now wrapped around the axle of some of the most brutal dudes and finance houses on the street. I don't need to post it again- you've seen that I-hub page someone put together on ASHER and the history/demise of how many companies who got involved with them. And also, the article I sited previously where they show, step by step, how these ASHER type folks do what's called the "ratchet" short, stepping it down, cover, stepping it down, cover, all the way to the bottom, and because of the "floorless convertible" shares and the steep discount they get- the lower they can make it go, the more shares they get, then more money they make.
I stated before, these aren't dudes looking to get a CD rate of return or even Venture money rate of return on their coin(say 25% return on their money) - these guys can make 200% or more on these deals- and turn their money over as fast, and as many times as they possibly can.
And yes, I believe they either a) Often have a "broker/dealer" wing/division that sits right under their own roof with high speed trading desks going right onto the "networks" or b) have close relationships with several "trading/order routing firms" - to whom they then get "commission" type relationships going for routing/sending their order flow to them; the I scratch your back, you scratch mine type deals.
So, the entire thing = collusion type deals where they can yank a stock, especially a penny, where the daily dollar volumes are low (think BHRT, even at 1 million shares a day, at 3 cents is only like $30K traded, like qty-15, $2000 trades in an entire day)- so think of the power these guys can have. They can toss up, as you stated, "orders" onto the network- say "flash" a buy or sell of $2K and swing the stock the way they want it to go- and they open up the spread, either up or down IMO, depending on what they're trying to do. They have a lot of money at their disposal- so lets say they want to move a thinly traded stock, what would it take? Maybe they start tossing up a few $1K or $2K orders to sell, their own, here and their, using their own money- incite a little selling panic, and next thing you know it just tanked 18% in a blink like we've seen, they cover perhaps a short, and just went to the bank.
It's been discussed in many books, there's Youtube videos, 60 minutes about 2 weeks back had a guy talking about electronic networks and how it's all 100% "rigged" now, in his words. Who the heck knows exactly how they "do what they do"- but I don't think for an instance this thing went from about 2 cents, dipped to .0063 or whatever, then not far from that, shoots to .08, then crashed the next 2 days to as low as .025 or something, then back to .06, then now back below .03 and so on- no way IMO this is all "chance" and just "normal" retail folks buying and selling as actual "investors". Let alone look at this recent- you know, "stuff" being plastered "commentary" everywhere, you know, the "wall street movie" dude appearing out of nowhere- and stating all this stuff copied off the BHRT web site, like 8 times in 3 days? What the heck has happened/caused all that? The word used is "promotion"- but for what purpose and why and by who? It sure doesn't add credibility and stability to things IMHO.
And the worst of the worst of course- is if/when they decide to turn and go short. It's only professional level houses that can short a 3 penny stock. And an ASHER is motivated to go short- again, because on "floorless" convertibles, the lower they can get the price to go, the more shares they get when they convert (see the 10-K for the conversion formula- it'll say something like, "based on the avg of the lowest 3 days prices, in the prior 10 day trading period, blah, blah, blah) -anytime you see that, it's a "floorless" or "toxic" convertible, because the lower the price goes, the ASHER type dude actually gets more shares when they convert. It's like being "The House" in Vegas. They've rigged the game so they can't lose. Other than the firm going BK, the ASHERS of this world always make out- cause if the price goes up they make money- and if it goes down, like way down and they're short, they can make even more boat loads of money.
It's a bad deal. There has been talk for a long time of the SEC trying to reign in this particular type of practices- but my personal 2 cents on the SEC, is good freaking luck, I think they're in on all this "stuff" as much as anyone. Like politicians- you pay the right guys a "fee" or "campaign donation" or whatever, and everyone turns a blind eye.
Once on the OTCBB- it's tough sledding, no doubt. Why someone hasn't stepped up to finance um? Don't know? I started reading 10-K's and stuff clear back to the IPO period, and IMO and what I found, they were really already having some pretty bad financial problems clear back then- going on 5 yrs now. They had millions at one point- but were already showing all the signs that bad things were coming- loans, loans with problems, insiders starting to need to chip in to "cover" shortcomings, etc. So, it's a technology maybe just not ready for prime time yet- many would probably argue they never should have gone public at this point. Maybe should have stayed at a laboratory/research level longer? Don't know. I guess they wanted to go right to "trials" and we all know, "trials" means you need some pretty big coin.
As low as the market cap has gotten on several occassions (even now it's a paltry $12 million or something)- someone could have stepped up and bought the entire thing out for a a song IMO. But no one has- don't know why. I mean, lets say it was even like a $25 million offer or something- in the world of public markets and finance, that's noise level money really. Shoot, Yahoo or Google and folks like that- they buy companies from "teen kids" all the time for money like that. Some freaking software gizmo app- that some kid cooked up, and you can read where Yahoo, or Google or Facebook or something bought it for like $20 million, like it was a petty cash drawer level deal.
So, don't know? Your speculations are as good as any. Don't know if investors think it's too early on the technology, or don't like/believe the tech is going to pan out, or at least not for years, or if they're afraid of the "patent" stuff, that some 10,000 Lb gorilla like a Baxter will just come in and stomp um out? Many possible theories- don't really know?
Manipulation via people who BHRT mgt willingly did deals/financing with.
That's the part that one can't leave out. It's of their own doing. They inked the floorless convertible share deals with the "ASHERS" of this world, they, mgt issues the boat loads of "in the money" warrants, they dilute the shares- it's all under their command.
If the company wasn't essentially broke, and broke for a long time now- they wouldn't be in this predicament IMO.
But the underlying basis of "how did it get here" and "why is it a 3 cent massively diluted stock" is 100% management's doing- no one else.
They just filed to up the outstanding shares to 2 billion- so they're "doubling down" to use the ole Vega term. It'll only get worse IMO.
a) BHRT didn't close "higher" - it closed perfectly "flat" and has for 3 trading sessions in a row, all after trading down all day, then a micro trade ($500 say) at the end to "walk it up" to close even.
b) The DOW was down big today, S&P down almost 1% and the NASDAQ got hammered. So, don't know about the supposed "mid-cap and large cap" all "closing higher" in the minutes (not even sure what in the minutes means?)?
Pennies and micro-micro caps are often, more than not, heavily manipulated- it's no mystery or secret. Several on here even use the term "MM" (market maker) when referring to penny stocks. There's no such thing. There are broker/dealers who can route order flow, try and match order flow, onto several electronic networks that allow trading in pennies. Often, the same one who is "financing" a penny like BHRT (ASHER for example) also has in-house, or at least a close relationship with a penny broker/dealer who will handle their order flow for them. That is how the OTCBB and pinks "work" and there is zero comparison or relationship to anything listed on a major exchange and especially a mid or large cap stock. Might as well be on two different planets.