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.
Or, one could just pull up a two, 2.5 yr chart and see how many times the exact same thing (spike/plunge/rise/slow return to 2 cent range) has happened, multiple times?
Maybe that would be worth a look? This is nothing "new" IMO or the indicator of the "verge of something big"? They just did qty-3 Asher convertible share deals as recent as Feb. 2014, for a grand total of $100K cash because it's "about to go big"? At their burn rate- the cash listed in that 10-K is almost gone in a few more weeks - unless there is already more shares being sold or some other form of "financing" already producing more cash?
Or, one can just read the 10-K statement- you know, that "boiler plate" ole "stuff" they just toss in for no reason I guess:
10-K, PAGE 25:
Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Financing
We will need to secure additional financing in 2014 in order to continue to finance our operations. If we are unable to secure additional financing on acceptable terms, or at all, we may be forced to curtail or cease our operations.
As of March 24, 2014, we had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $211,632.80 and a working capital deficit of approximately $13.4 million. As such, our existing cash resources are insufficient to finance even our IMMEDIATE operations. Accordingly, we will need to secure additional sources of capital to develop our business and product candidates as planned. We are seeking substantial additional financing through public and/or private financing, which may include equity and/or debt financings, research grants and through other arrangements, including collaborative arrangements. As part of such efforts, we may seek loans from certain of our executive officers, directors and/or current shareholders. We may also seek to satisfy some of our obligations to the guarantors of our loan with Seaside National Bank & Trust, or the Guarantors, through the issuance of various forms of securities or debt on negotiated terms. However, financing and/or alternative arrangements with the Guarantors may not be available when we need it, or may not be available on acceptable terms.
If we are unable to secure additional financing in the near term, we may be forced to:
· curtail or abandon our existing business plan;
· reduce our headcount;
· default on our debt obligations;
· file for bankruptcy;
· seek to sell some or all of our assets; and/or
· cease our operations.
If we are forced to take any of these steps, any investment in our common stock may be worthless."
$211K cash is about one month's worth of survival from their cash use spending/expense pages of same 10-K: so from March 14th, to today- it says that cash money ($200K or so) is about gone IMO, unless more has "materialized" as in more share sale deals or some other means- maybe warrants being exercised? Who knows? Doesn't seem like a statement you put in your SEC doc when you're "flush" or about to "go big", not IMHO? But, who knows, eh?
"420m o/s and float has churned nicely. " Huh? When? Where? It traded 1.5 million shares today and maybe 3-4 million a day max, for the past 20 or so of trading days. The peak of the bubble day, the 6th, at .08 was what, 11 million shares traded I think? It then tanked to as low as .035 the next day I believe.
The float and o/s shares being "churned" or "turned over" hasn't even come close- not by a mile. Maybe 100 million shares "turned or churned" over 25 days or so since bubble day. The float of 350 million shares hasn't even come close to being turned even one time. It's now trading off .0486/.08 = .60 = 100-60 = 40% down from peak bubble day. Off 40% of the high for bag holders from pump peak day.
Further, the spread is opened Grand Canyon wide for days IMO- which says the actual demand is to the low side, and it's more broker/dealer manipulation causing the 10%-12% "up" illusion spikes like today- and why it closes flat when they are done at end of day IMO.
Simpleton math versus hype statements. No more complicated than that IMO.
Previous PR said Angel patients were treated/injected with "Lipicell". Read it right in the text of this PR:
http://stemcellceo.com/wp/bioheart/404/
" Most recently we concluded enrollment and treatment of the patients in the Phase I Angel trial for LipiCell™. Patients with chronic heart ischemia received transplantation of LipiCell™ through endocardia implantations with an injection catheter." (CEO speaking)
So it is said they were treated with a product specifically named "Lipicell".
Now you read this SEC document: 10-Q, PAGE 29, Sept 30, 2013 and it seems confusing, as it indicated that "Adipocell" is a "different" product "licensed" from a different source?
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1388319/000114544313002166/d30730.htm
PAGE 29:
"AdipoCell
Bioheart has successfully completed various trials using adipose stem cells. In August 2013, the Company canceled its license agreement with the Ageless Regenerative Institute for adipose derived stem cells called LipiCell. Bioheart has entered into a term sheet agreement with Invitrx to License their adipose derived stem cell products. Bioheart has changed its adipose derived stem cell product name to AdipoCell. "
Just confusing IMHO? If you treated people with a product from Ageless, as in a very specific product/process called "Lipocell" and then you "licensed" something apparently "different" from Invitrix and named it "Adipocell"- then how did the people treated with Lipocell per the CEO PR above, now get labeled as having received "Adipocell"- something "licensed" from a different source?
Unless the two products/processes are IDENTICAL to the tee- I don't see how you can interchange them freely in PR, having said the group originally received "Lipicell" (that's what CEO says above), but now the PR says they received something called "Adipocell"?
Again, just very confusing to me IMO only. That's just me. It seems like two different products- since it involves licensing from "Invitrex"- so I don't know how "on the fly" you can just change a name- but say the "treatment" they received was now for "Adipocell" - when it's clear in former communications, that it's stated with 100% clarity IMHO, that they were actually injected with "Lipicell"? Oh well, maybe I'm not smart enough to follow it- or understand all the changes and changes to PR as they go along? Who knows?
Uh, but if Ageless "owns" the underlying tech and intellectual rights (as in being asserted somewhere in Broward county) - then an ole name change/trademark does not suddenly just "make it yours" I would think, IMHO? I think it goes way deeper than a "trademark"- it's a process and a specific technique/trade secret process from some things I have read about Ageless- but could be totally wrong? Just my 2 cents. Who knows?
But again, that's just me and my opinion. Seems some just easily "explain away" every change, every PR that was later "altered", etc. No problem IMO.
Again, no biggy. Just me reading what was put out as original PR in a lot of places/outlets and I'm not aware of any "updates" - but I could have missed them easily I guess. Oh well. When it says U. Miami and "experts" and all, and that PR is on dozens of sites in a simple google search- just seems, well, "odd" to me when it ends up in Mexico later, with no real "updates" that I saw. But I could have missed them, as stated. No big deal IMO. It is what it is I guess. Mexico it is, and Adipocell it is- just "toss" those original ole PR's I guess. Not a big deal.
"Adipocell"? Oh right, that's "Lipicell" that was "suddenly" renamed after the initial PR releases about the trial? Got it- remember now.
Oh, and it was going to be at the University of Miami, forgot about that too. Just remembering old news, that's all. Probably doesn't mean anything, IMO of course.
Wonder why that was "re-named" though from Libicell? What else has been mentioned that might involve this technology/process and intellectual property rights, around that time? Oh well, just remembering some things, that's all. Probably means nothing, IMO.
http://globenewswire.com/news-release/2012/02/28/469246/247371/en/Bioheart-Announces-University-of-Miami-as-Clinical-Site-for-ANGEL-Trial-of-LipiCell-TM.html?print=1
""Dr. Joshua Hare and the University of Miami are world leaders in the field of stem cell research," said Mike Tomas, President and CEO of Bioheart. "We look forward to working with these acclaimed experts and bringing the LipiCell™ technology to patients in the U.S."
"Joshua Hare, MD, Director of the Interdisciplinary Stem Cell Institute at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine is the principle investigator of the clinical program. "
Guess those "acclaimed experts" just didn't work out- don't think we ever heard about that again, or got a "PR" or 10-Q or other "updates", did we? Clinicaltrials.gov is good at updating- but I guess they don't need to be on there and all? Oh well? Who knows, IMO?
Seems pretty clear there, it was U. Of Miami, and not Mexico? Oh well, guess they just change things as they go along? Not a big deal of course, IMO. They call it Lipocell there, too? Oh well? Who knows, eh?
http://globenewswire.com/news-release/2011/12/06/462783/239653/en/Bioheart-Files-With-the-FDA-to-Begin-the-ANGEL-Trial.html
See in that PR- it's "Lipicell" too? Oh well, "stuff" changes I'm sure, no biggy IMO. Maybe I'm just confusing all these "PR'S" that said the trial "Angel" was using "Lipicell" and was going to use "experts" at the University of Miami and all? Oh well, that's just me- maybe I just get confused easily from all these different PR's and then not hearing "updates" - maybe I missed um all, who knows?
Dated 3/4/14? "Breaking news"? It's April 4th tomorrow. Any updates on MIRROR, rather than the 5 person, phase I, Mexico "Angel" trial?
Why start over, waste money/resources of which you have very little (5 employees, maybe a a few $hundred thous cash at any given time, total R&D last yr of about $600K which is what, about $50K a month per last 10-K) on going back to phase I, when you have a phase III called Mirror and a phase II/III called Marvel, Marvel now being about 4 plus yrs old and gone nowhere? All for essentially the same product line, key product? Doesn't make sense IMO?
It's a long, long ways from a phase I, to get to a phase III and beyond. Baxter is doing a phase III, stem-cell-heart related trial right now, listed on clinicaltrials.gov, and it began in 2012 and shows an "expected" end date, just for final data of 2016. That's 4 yrs in my book. That's just the phase III portion. There was probably 1 to 2 yrs more for the initial phase I ,then phase II to get to that phase III. So that's about 6 or 7 yrs total.
Why post old news about Angel? It's been posted many times before already? Curious/interesting IMO?
That's as solid a theory, and based on good under-pinning facts/reality that I've heard so far.
Good analysis. And yes, I too, would be/am weary when "they" the Asher's of this world- will turn and go the other direction via the convertible shares.
Remember- the pros, especially the "Ashers" of this world, they make money going both directions. They don't care if it's going up or going down (truth IMO, they don't even care what/who the company makes, does, whatever- to them it's just numbers in a spreadsheet,a highly complex computer algorithm to determine a max return for a certain amount of cash money loaned and they are big on "time value" and "total return"- as in big returns, and turn-over their cash as fast and as many times as possible - to free it up and re-lend it ASAP, wash, rinse, repeat) they have the capital and the "tool-box" and, in this case the convertible shares and/or warrants to benefit going either direction, and benefit big-time.
I think the "warrant theory" is a solid one. And then, my opinion, they turn and go short at some point- whenever they deem to be "the right time" to manage their play for max profits. They're brutal (the Asher type folks), that much is well known, well established IMO as pretty much "industry Gospel".
Partnership from Angel?? Why? Where? What proof?
Why would Angel, a 5 person, phase I generate a "partner", when BHRT has a phase III called "MIRROR" sitting out there (as well as Marvel - for what, 4 plus yrs now) that has generated no "partner" to date? Why?
Details of why a 5 person, phase I generates a "partner" when phase II/III's do not would be fascinating IMHO? Really love to hear how that works?
Getting from a phase I, such as Angel, means typically about another 3 to 5 yrs and about $10's of millions, to perhaps as much as $100 million or more, from even being close to having a chance to submit to the FDA for approval IMHO? Those are typical industry numbers I believe- can cite references, typical cases if needed.
For example- Baxter, who has literally $100 of millions, if not a $Billion or more in cash at their disposal, has a phase III "stem cell" and "heart" related trial, registered and in progress right now, on clinicaltrials.gov.
They are in phase III, 41 U.S. based "sites" (hit tab on .gov web site and you can see location of all 41 study/trial sites) and yet they list on the .gov site they don't even expect "results", let alone an actual "submission", until 2016- two more yrs away. So, what is a 5 person trial from Mexico supposed to do, and when and how? Why does someone want to "partner" based on that? Why? Just interesting to me, IMO?
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01508910?term=baxter+stem&rank=9
Enrollment: 291
Study Start Date: April 2012
Estimated Study Completion Date: June 2016
Estimated Primary Completion Date: June 2016 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
That's BAXTER w/ 60,000 or so employees- see the dates. 2012 to 2016, 4 years they are expecting for their Phase III, to even get "final data", let alone does it even work, turn out good, get submitted to the FDA, let alone does the FDA ever even approve it. That is reality-ville of FDA trials IMO. As reality as it gets IMO. Those are "typical" industry numbers from what I have seen and read.
They have the spread opened up HUGE on this- the broker/dealers are still milking it. Your just seeing the spread huge- even above the bid if they can get it to fill, what are pretty small orders or chunks of order IMO.
It looks to be minimum 7 or 8%, to as high as 12% spread to buy say, $500 to say $1000 puny bucks worth of stock. That's highway robbery in my opinion. Cause if you were to turn around and try and put that same $1000 of stock you just bought 30 minutes ago up for sale, you'd be at a 10% or so loss, minimum looking at the spread. That's penny-ville IMO. Listed stocks trade, typically with a spread of a fraction of a penny, which is a fraction of a percent typically. You'd typically pay a 1/16 or 1/8 cent max spread on say a $50 dollar stock on NYSE or NASDAQ. Example, Apple is over $500 a share right now. The bid is $539.89 and the ask is 540.00. $539.89/540 = .99979. Not even, barely a fraction of a percent spread.
Freddie Mac, ONLY one of the largest lenders on planet earth- a "quasi-govt" private/public hybrid with essentially an unlimited supply of money/cash/bail-outs behind it.
Yeah, great analogy to BHRT being a 5 cent stock. Sure. Who cares what Freddie Mac trades at. What is IBM trading at? What is Baxter trading at? What is Walmart trading at? Who cares?
BHRT is nearly out of cash and trades at about 5 cents as of today. That's just a fact IMO. What anything else has to do with that, who knows?
Why did BHRT do qty-3 share-sale/dump deals by Feb 19th with Asher in 2014 already for a grand total of $100K dollars (10-K, page F-41) and how does that relate to the price of Freddie Mac?
Here we go LOL. I knew that was coming LOL.
Oh, lets see: Monster Bev Corp had oh, a measly $2.25 BILLION in sales generating net income of over $300 MILLION. They have operating cash flow of $300 million plus. Oh, and cold, hard cash of over $600 MILLION dollars and ZERO debt and they employ over 1000 people. They trade at about $70 bucks a share, as opposed to say 1 to 6 pennies a share. Yeah, "funny"?
Monster is a cash printing machine. They generate more cash in one week, than BHRT had raised in the entire past yr, via selling over 100 million shares of dilutive stock. That's what's "funny", IMO. Real "funny".
"imagine a product"- yep, that's all it is, "imagining" IMO. As of right now, there is no "product", very little to no sales, and very little cash on any given day of the week against a lot of debt, and 4 or 5 employees and no real assets, that's reality IMHO.
What percent out of the universe of 1000's of penny stocks? I'd estimate it can easily be proven that less than 1 or 2 percent, certainly less than 5 or 10% at most, ever go from pennies to a $1 or more a share.
By contrast, I believe there is a lot of industry/SEC, stock research firms and similar data that would say the bankruptcy rate for any stock under $1 is very high, under .50 cents is extremely high and at true "pennies" as in 1 to 5 pennies say, is astronomically high- as in 90% or better probably, IMO.
Nine out of how many? At one time, there was probably more than 5000 over the counter OTCBB and "pink" sheet "over the counter traded" companies. Most ending up there because of being on the verge of bankruptcy, out of cash, no assets, unable to meet the minimum status to remain "listed" as set forth by either major exchange, many just empty shell companies with no business at all, etc.
So, to site 9 companies- what does that really mean? Lets be generous and say that the total OTCBB has declined (tighter regs, crack downs on old ways, IPO/public company decline in general) and lets say there was/is about 2000 companies at the time of the 9 cited.
That would mean that those 9 represent about 9/2000 = .0045 or about 4/10th's of one percent of the "penny world" of penny stocks. Hardly a significant data point IMO.
Further, I believe if you read that- all but one of those 9 were major players at one point who then fell on hard times- usually due to bad mgt, major poor biz decisions, etc. In other words- most, if not all of those 9 has sales well in the $100's of millions if not more at one point, were highly profitable, had significant assets like plant, property, inventory, equipment, etc.
None (perhaps one cited) came from little or no cash, and essentially no assets and a price of pennies and then became large. It was the opposite. They were large, had a lot of sales, were once profitable, had a lot of infrastructure, filed for BK or closely approached BK, then re-emerged, rebuilt their businesses and then re-emerged successful once again. 4/10ths of one percent of the "poo" of penny companies.
Statistically, just well documented by the SEC and many others- any stock that gets to true "pennies", as in 50 cents or under say, or lower- is highly likely to end in BK or total dissolving of the business. Just reality and well studied/documented. Companies end up "un-listed" and on the OTCBB or pinks for a reason. And it's not cause things are going well or that they are financially healthy. Just the reality of it.
So, not sure what the relevance of citing 9 "unusual", what most would be considered extreme "outlier" data-points, or examples is, IMHO? Don't see any connection to BHRT's situation whatsoever IMO? None.
For example- kinda left out 4.3: (further, these sections being cited, are "recommendations" and are "non-binding") they're part of a much, much bigger set of rules/regulations the FDA relies on, IMO and as far as I'm aware of. 3.1, 4.3, etc are just one, of many "recommendation" of process/procedure.
Also, If I'm not mistaken, it's the "CFR" (Code of Federal Regulations) sections that are the actual "law" as codified, passed by congress, etc. The area you cited is equivalent to FDA internal "guidelines" as far as I am aware and reference back to the relevant "CFR" actual law/regulations which are book-thick as far as I am aware. My opinion. Example:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm?FR=860.7
That's the actual "law" portion- and it's long, complicated and goes into sub, sub, sub categories, etc
4.3 Additional Factors in the Assessment of the Probable Benefits and
Risks of Devices
Uncertainty – there is never 100% certainty when determining reasonable assurance of
safety and effectiveness of a device. However, the degree of certainty of the benefits and
risks of a device is a factor we consider when making benefit-risk determinations.
Factors such as poor design or poor conduct of clinical trials, or inadequate analysis of
data, can render the outcomes of the study unreliable. Additionally, for certain device
types, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between a real effect and a placebo effect in
the absence of a trial design that is capable of blinding investigators and subjects.
Furthermore, the repeatability of the study results, the validation of the analytical
approach, and the results of other similar studies and whether the study is the first of its
kind or a standalone investigation can all influence the level of certainty. In addition, the
generalizability of the trial results to the intended treatment and user population is
important. For example, if the device requires in-depth user training or specialization, the
results of the clinical study may not be generalizable to a wider physician population.
Likewise, if the device is intended to diagnose a disease in a subpopulation, it may not be
useful in the general population. In general, it is important to consider the degree to
which a clinical trial population is representative of the intended marketing or target
population.
Characterization of the disease – the treated or diagnosed condition, its clinical
manifestation, how it affects the patients who have it, how and whether a diagnosed
condition is treated, and the condition’s natural history and progression (i.e., does it get
progressively better or worse for the patient and at what expected rate) are all important
factors that FDA considers when characterizing disease and determining benefits and
risks.
Patient tolerance for risk and perspective on benefit – if the risks are identifiable and
definable, risk tolerance will vary among patients, and this will affect individual patient
decisions as to whether the risks are acceptable15
in exchange for a probable benefit.
When making a benefit-risk determination at the time of approval or de novo
classification, FDA recognizes that patient tolerance for risk and a patient-centric
assessment of risk may reveal reasonable patients who are willing to tolerate a very high
level of risk to achieve a probable benefit, especially if that benefit results in an
improvement in quality of life. How data concerning patient risk tolerance and other
patient-centered metrics are developed will vary depending on a number of factors,
including the nature of the disease or condition and the availability of existing treatments,
as well as the risks and benefits they present. FDA encourages any sponsor that is
15
21 CFR 860.7(d)(1) states that “The valid scientific evidence used to determine the safety of a device
shall adequately demonstrate the absence of unreasonable risk of illness or injury associated with the use of
the device for its intended uses and conditions of use.”
"AMONG OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS" - sorta missed that little ole "tid bit" of KEY language? Sorta. Further, that is a citation of ONLY 3.1. There's about another 500 pages of "review process/standards" missing there?
For example- something as simple as "the magnitude of the so called "benefit" is a determining criteria. In other words, a "small" benefit may be deemed not worth it by FDA: FDA-
"The magnitude of the benefit(s) – we often assess benefit along a scale or according to specific endpoints or criteria (types of benefits), or by evaluating whether a pre-identified health threshold was achieved. The change in subjects’ condition or clinical management as measured on that scale, or as determined by
an improvement or worsening of the endpoint, is what allows us to determine the magnitude of the benefit in subjects. Variation in the magnitude of the benefit across a population may also be considered. "
A "refection" can come down to something as simple as the FDA saying, "the benefit is small to almost nothing at all, therefor there is no purpose to approve this "new" drug/procedure/device"- seen it happen many, many times.
Other examples:
:In addition to section 513(a), the criteria for establishing safety and effectiveness of a device are set forth
in 21 CFR 860.7. Subsection (b)(1) notes, “In determining the safety and effectiveness of a device … the
Commissioner and the classification panels will consider the following, among other relevant factors …The
probable benefit to health from the use of the device weighed against any probable injury or illness from
such use.” (21 CFR 860.7(b)).
To make this determination, “the agency relies upon only valid scientific evidence.” (21 CFR 860.7(c)(1)).
Valid scientific evidence is defined as “evidence from well-controlled investigations, partially controlled
studies, studies and objective trials without matched controls, well-documented case histories conducted by
qualified experts, and reports of significant human experience with a marketed device, from which it can
fairly and responsibly be concluded by qualified experts that there is reasonable assurance of the safety and
effectiveness of a device under its conditions of use.” (21 CFR 860.7(c)(2)).
A reasonable assurance of safety occurs when “it can be determined, based upon valid scientific evidence,
that the probable benefits … outweigh any probable risks,” and can be demonstrated by establishing “the
absence of unreasonable risk of illness or injury associated with the use of the device for its intended uses
and conditions of use.” (21 CFR 860.7(d)(1)).
Similarly, a reasonable assurance of effectiveness occurs when “it can be determined, based upon valid
scientific evidence … the use of the device for its intended uses … will provide clinically significant
results.” (21 CFR 860.7(e)(1)). The evidence of which is demonstrated principally through “well-controlled
investigations” (see 21 CFR 860.7(e)(2)), as defined in 21 CFR 860.7(f).
2
Section 513(a)(3)(A) of the FD&C Act."
And that's just a small, smattering of how complex that section is and how many pages and sub-references and other "statutes" and other areas of FDA regulation are involved.
"Silicon Valley is overcrowded. Venture capitalists are looking outside of the comfort zone"???
Sources, links, articles by industry people, venture capital firms- all appreciated. Again, thanks in advance. Was not aware of this "fact" and find it fascinating IMO? Interesting that nearly ever major VC firm, the who's who list of venture capital keeps an office, their main office in Silicon Valley - despite this "overcrowding"? Also, fascinating that every multy billion company of the past 10 yrs that I am aware of on a major U.S. exchange- still had major ties in one way or another to major players in "The valley" - Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram- go back a bit further and it's youtube, skype (who became a VC who's owner is now a VC investor in several more huge successes), paypal, etc
Guess they never got the memo about that "overcrowding" problem that's apparently going on?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2013/05/08/the-top-ten-in-venture-capital-today-midas/
Really never knew these amazing "facts"? Again, would love to read lots of articles, industry insider news via published writers, actual venture capitalists making these comments regarding it being "overcrowded" - would love to read all of them, if they exist of course?
"That's the determining factor. "??
Would like to see a citation/quote from an FDA or other Euro regulatory handbook, operations manual or similar that emphatically, and clearly states that the main/primary criteria and only criteria for reviewing and then approving a new drug, med device or similar is, "Do the benefits out way the risks, PERIOD".
Didn't know that's why they take minimum 6 months, to often several yrs to approve a new drug/med device cause all they are looking for, searching for is "Do the benefits out way the risk, PERIOD"? (it's outweigh by the "way"). But never knew that? That's fascinating new info IMHO. Is this a new, published policy of the FDA or similar?
Links, copies of handbook, public statements by govt. bodies as to this clear and specific policy, etc all appreciated. Thanks in advance.
I'm assuming you don't know any of the implications of that, EITHER. (EXACT wording of original post regarding "assuming")
According to the FDA and the Hippocratic Oath among other sources, I don't believe DEATH of the patient or serious complications worse than the state of the patient prior to being given "said treatment" is considered "treating" anything, IMHO. Further, there is only "research" going on, in this field as of this date, I am not aware of any approved "treatments" in existence? A "treatment" is generally an FDA or similar regulatory body, peer reviewed and widely accepted method/drug/device within the medical community. I don't know of anything in "cardiac stem cells" that meets that criteria yet?
According to the U.S. FDA, there is only one, FDA "stem cell" approved "anything" in existence to date. In fact, the FDA made a point to create a "warning" to this effect for consumers:
http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm286155.htm
"FDA has approved only one stem cell product, Hemacord, a cord blood-derived product manufactured by the New York Blood Center and used for specified indications in patients with disorders affecting the body’s blood-forming system."
"To draw celebrities ranging from Pitbull to Howard Stern, this event will be a lot bigger than typical showcase type events. "??
Huh? PROOF? Facts? Data? A "rapper" is hardly the pinnacle of a "tech investment" um "event" IMO? I don't think there's ever been a credible Silicon Valley, MAJOR venture capital "event" where anyone cared if a "rapper" was in attendance or not?
Further, all the headline says is Stern was/is "invited" - not that he's attending or not and it says he's there "to party" with said rapper. Talk about grasping at meaningless straws, IMO. What does Stern have to do with anything in high technology?
Claim it will be "a LOT bigger than typical showcase events" -as opposed to say something put on by a credible firm like UBS, Cowen, Morgan Stanley or JP or Citi or various tech/VC incubators out of silicon valley- where most, serious tech "investment" money comes from- not some place in Florida, of all states?
Thee "big" one, JP Morgan Healthcare Conference. This convention is held in San Francisco’s Union Square every January. This is the granddaddy of all biotech industry conferences, having been around for more than 30 years. All the top executives in biotech and Big Pharma are there, along with the major venture capitalists, fund managers, Wall Street analysts, and media.
"Bio" in San Diego (which has a huge, bio-tech incubator campus) is also one of the top- for example, Sir Richard Branson, a billionaire who loves investing in tech, will be there this yr, not some "rapper"
http://convention.bio.org/?gclid=CPTDx678wb0CFVKIfgodhW8AgA
Biopharm America, Boston is another biggie- every major player is there typically. Boston of course, for anyone in the know, is also a huge tech corridor area. Again, don't think they put "rappers" on their billing ever or care if Howard Stern is mentioned?
http://www.ebdgroup.com/bpa/index.php
Top names in Silicon Valley- as in the who's who of venture money would be names like Kleiner Perkins Caulfied & Byers, Sand Hill Ventures (entire books written about the fame of "Sand Hill Rd" and the companies launched from that area) and the following- perhaps the most famous names in all of VC money investing and no, not familiar with any "rappers" ever associating with them:
Accel Partners - Investors in Real Networks, UUNet, Foundry, and WalMart.com.
Andreessen Horowitz - Investors in Airbnb, Instagram and Twitter.
Benchmark Capital - Investors in eBay, AOL, Pointcast, Geoworks.
Bessemer Venture Partners - Investors in EToys, Verisign, Verio, PSINet, Flycast.
DAG Ventures - Investors in BitTorrent, Chegg, Funny or Die
Draper Fisher Jurvetson - Investors in Hotmail, I-Cube and Upside.
Canaan Partners - Investors in DoubleClick, Computron, EStamp.
CMEA Ventures - Specializes in high-technology and life sciences.
Foundation Capital -- Investors in Netflix, SimplyHired, Atheros Communications.
Greylock Partners -- Investors in Facebook, LinkedIn, Oodle and Claria.
Khosla Ventures - Led by Vinod Khosla, Sun Microsystems co-founder
Hummer Winblad - Investors in BizTravel.com, TheKnot, NetGravity.
(Vinod is a LEGEND in Venture Capitol - appears in Forbes regularly for example)
Institutional Venture Partners - Investors in Excite, Seagate, Cirrus Logic.
Interwest Partners - Investors in Cyrix, Silicon Graphics, Stratacom.
Khosla Ventures - Founded by well-known investor Vinod Khosla.
(Again, Vinod is LEGEND for his stream of VC successes)
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers - Investors in Google, Sun, Intuit and AOL. (Kleiner alread mentioned above- LEGEND IN VC WORLD)
LightSpeed Ventures - Formerly Weiss, Peck and Greer Venture Partners. Investors in Brocade Communications, Blue Nile, Adaptec, Doublelick.
Mayfield Fund - Investors in Amgen, LSI Logic, Broadvision and Silicon Graphics.
Meritech Capital Partners - Late-stage Venture Capital.
Mobius Venture Capital - Formerly known as Softbank Venture Capital.
Mohr, Davidow Ventures - Investors in Critical Path, Rambus, Brocade and Viant.
New Enterprise Associates - Investors in Macromedia, The Learning Company, Silicon Graphics.
Norwest Venture Partners
Onset Ventures
Palo Alto Venture Partners - Investors in AdForce, AvantGo, Career Builder and Esurance.
Redpoint Ventures - New firm from partners of IVP and Brentwood.
Sand Hill Capital - Offers bridge loans to high-tech firms.
Sequoia Capital - Investors in Electronic Arts, Yahoo, Cisco Systems (LEGENDS OF FAME IN VC WORLD)
Silicom Ventures - Group of angel investors
Sutter Hill Ventures
Technology Crossover Ventures
US Venture Partners
Versant Ventures - Investors in biotech and medical devices.
ANY of those are names that serious players try/need to get in front of to typically "go big" IMHO. It's the "rolodex" of not only the money world, but the "connections" world- where members for board seats come from, and CEO's are eventually found for rapidly growing firms, where top mgt skills for rapidly emerging firms is located via key "connections", etc. I don't think Howard Stern is known for any of that, but that's just my opinion. "rappers" - same.
It's the FDA, the SEC and numerous "other" regulatory bodies that "require BHRT to list those risks" and "material FACTS" (it's not imaginary or made-up "risks"), else, serious consequences can ensue.
That's my opinion. I don't believe "Dr Seuss" or "wordolgy" has anything to do with it.
" stating someone is correct just because they are a "leading expert" or have a phd,md,pe etc. "
as in, of course, being weighed against, oh, say, um, like, opinion of anonymous info on stock chat boards? Yeah, I can see that?
"I took an undergrad class". I took lots too, and many way beyond that, don't need to "google" a thing. That M.D., commenting on effects of heart scar tissue, also took a lot of "undergrad classes" and then about another 12 yrs of schooling/residency and then more specialty training to reach the title "Cardiologist" and is also the spokesperson for a major, publishing/published, peer reviewed, highly credible cardiology association. Again, I know where I'd put my chips and what info I'd rate in the "more credible" category of medical information.
But hey, that's just me and my opinions only of course. If stock boards are one's source of "medical information", and issues regarding "cardiology/heart research" it's a free country. Good luck.
Oh, found her resume/curriculum vitae too: She's ONLY published over FIVE HUNDRED times. Has been in practice as a cardiologist it appears for about 24 yrs now. Done numerous clinical and research studies, etc. Seems pretty flush to me, as opposed, to say, an M.S. in a field of chemical engineering and has never practiced medicine or obtained a board cert as a licensed Cardiologist, kinda like something like that many boast about endlessly?
Cindy L. Grines, MD, FACC, FSCAI
http://www.dmccvi.org/grines
Just happens to be, "Editor-in-chief of the Journal of Interventional Cardiology"
(must of took a few undergrad classes to get that position?)
"After completing her medical training at Ohio State University, and a cardiology fellowship at the University of Michigan, Dr. Grines spent three years as an assistant professor of medicine and director of interventional cardiology at the University of Kentucky at Lexington. She has practiced in Michigan since 1990.
Dr. Grines is widely acclaimed for her research in acute myocardial infarction and has initiated and designed the PAMI studies, which have brought primary angioplasty to the forefront as a leading reperfusion strategy revolutionizing the management of heart attack patients. Listed in the “Best Doctors in America,” Dr. Grines has earned worldwide recognition and respect as a leading interventional cardiologist and researcher, participating in numerous clinical research trials, with over 500 publications, numerous book chapters and hundreds of medical journal articles regarding cardiac catheterization, angioplasty, acute myocardial infarction, chemical intervention to break down arterial blockage, and gene therapy.
She is also editor-in-chief of the Journal of Interventional Cardiology, serves on the editorial boards of many leading national and international medical journals, and has co-edited several medical handbooks.
Dr. Grines is a member of the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and is an active participant in their scientific programs and committees.
In the medical community, she is well-known for her expertise in the fields of acute myocardial infarction, coronary reperfusion and percutaneous revascularization procedures and lectures extensively throughout the United States and abroad."
An expert in " acute myocardial infarction"- know who's "opinion" or input I'd follow. Yep. But that's just me and my opinion.
So again, they just toss all that wording/language and warnings in the 10-Q/10-K's for NO reason other than to, apparently, "fill empty space" - cause a stock chat board has debunked it all as "meaning nothing"?
Cool. Great. Makes sense IMO? Understand. Must need to just make those ole 10-K's and similar longer reads- so they just casually "toss" in a lot of this "stuff" and then make sure to report it/repeat it in every SEC 10-Q/10-K since, right up until the most recent one?
Ok, it's all clearer now IMO? Sure. Got it.
"Wait a minute. That doesn't make sense. "??
So, clinical level, M.D. and Ph.D. level researchers in Europe, and conducting industry/University level research and publishing their findings and commenting on them, and U.S. based CARDIOLOGISTS reading the data and/or commenting on these types of procedures "Don't make sense" cause someone on a stock board says/thinks so?
Wow, that's amazing. I'll send an email over to um right away and tell um they all don't know what they're doing or saying, cause it's all been invalidated via a stock board, chat discussion.
Great. That should change everything? Amazing how M.D. and Ph.D. level researchers just get it wrong so often, and all it takes is a chat board post to correct all their mistakes. Amazing IMHO.
That statement about the needle causing "scar tissue" and in effect causing potential damage/rhythm problems was made by a DOCTOR as in " Dr. Cindy Grines, a cardiologist with the Detroit Medical Center and a spokeswoman for the American College of Cardiology."
My opinion- SHE is qualified to make any statement she wants and, to have it questioned as "not making sense", on a stock chat board, is well, take it for whatever you want.
"Grines said she (a CARDIOLOGIST, M.D.) looks forward to reviewing safety data from the new trial and future trials, since needle injections can cause an increased incidence of irregular heart rhythm. The tiny scars left by the needle can divert the electrical signals of the heart."
http://www.drugs.com/news/stem-cells-may-rejuvenate-failing-hearts-study-suggests-50994.html?utm_keyword=ZootRock
"I recall reading in the published Marvel results that patients in the placebo group experienced arrhythmia as well."? Huh?
So, AGAIN, BHRT just put that pesky ole "boiler plate" (I suppose, it's what many "claim" it to be supposedly) ole "so called" language in their own SEC filed, and Sr Mgt signed documents, and used "little" words like "Our product candidates may NEVER BE COMMERCIALIZED BECAUSE" and "INCREASED MORTALITY" and "SERIOUS ADVERSE EVENT(s)" and "SIX PATIENT DEATH" and "COMPETITOR CANCELLED TRIAL IN PROGRESS for SAME REASON", blah, blah, blah. (10-K, PAGE 31)
Sure. Yep. Makes sense IMHO. Yeah. Companies always like to put wording in their 10-Q/10-K when, when you know, it's just not really needed and doesn't mean a thing. Sure? Makes perfect sense IMO? Right on? Just toss some extra words in to what, make the 10-K read a little longer, more interesting? And leave it in every 10-Q and 10-K since, since you know, according to some, it never really means anything or serves no purpose anyway? Sure. Right on.
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."
Very important key words from linked page, "May" and "Study suggests" and :
"Grines said she looks forward to reviewing safety data from the new trial and future trials, since needle injections can cause an increased incidence of irregular heart rhythm. The tiny scars left by the needle can divert the electrical signals of the heart."
That's a BIG ONE IMHO- messing with heart rhythm, up to and including, potential death of the patient cited in several studies/reports. Where has that been heard before? This is far from being settled science or even close to slam-dunk technology IMO from all the various sources/reports. Seems it's years, many years out from any FDA or Euro type approval IMO.
BHRT, latest 10-K, PAGE 31:
"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."
Seems like a common, potential problem IMO, maybe a big one? A competitor, it says, prematurely discontinued a study they felt the issue serious enough. Interesting to say the least.
Baxter, one of the MEGA med device/pharma products companies on this planet w/ a $39 BILLION market cap, over $15 BILLION a yr in sales, is over 80 yrs old as a company, is also a major player in this space. They have about 60 THOUSAND employees and $2 BILLION in "net" earnings and several hundred million in free cash flow.
http://www.baxter.com/press_room/press_releases/2012/02_28_12_stem_cell_cmi.html
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01508910?term=baxter+renew&rank=1
BAXTER PHASE III, STEM CELL HEART TRIAL - and YES, would assume it's "funded" and YES, it's registered on clinicaltrials.gov site for all to see.
BHRT has what again, 4 or 5 employees and a few hundred thousand in cash left as of the 10-K?
Kinda puts things in perspective IMHO.
Apple was PROFITABLE from DAY ONE. And then, MASSIVELY profitable after that- a cash generating machine with a hockey-stick sales chart. Further, you had Job's and Woz- two individuals that probably come along once every 100 yrs or so in any given field. Bonafide and certified geniuses- no one I know would even try to debate that as a fact.
You laugh at a guy who can and does write checks that can buy-out BHRT 20 times over on any given day? No clue who/what Silicon Valley Bank is or does? SVB Financial is the holding company for the bank - see their name by the videos? They've funded over 30,000 start-ups, some of the most successful ever created.
Too bad BHRT can't get a seat at the table with um, eh? Too bad IMHO as they "finance" bio-tech companies among other ventures. Mocking a guy in that video who sits down with, dines with, conferences with, can call on a whim and get the phone picked up and rubs elbows with the "who's who" of the most successful, largest and most profitable companies ever created and their CEO's and BOD's and other key people and advisers, while in love with a 4.5 cent penny stock? Wow? What can be said except wow IMO?
Pier 1 did not start as a "penny stock" - it was a highly successful,initially highly profitable business, already strongly established business that went to the brink of BK for various reasons of mis-mgt and bad econ times per its biz model. Those are the few exceptions of companies that ever reached "penny status" and emerged to regain their once prominence. Never the reverse that I am aware of. Not what the original statement posited. Find a company that grew from a penny stock level, then gained initial sales, then became a billion or even several hundred $million in sales.
"esteemed"?? It's at 4.5 PENNIES?? It's on the pink/OTC boards. It's at the bottom, sub 2% of all public traded companies according to "Mr Market". It's a nano-market cap and is NOT an "early stage" start-up or whatever. It's a once listed stock, NOW DE-LISTED and for many, many reasons. It RECENTLY has traded for a penny to under ONE PENNY- something most people won't even bend down to pick up off the street. "strong supportive bidding" based on FACTS? The stock is DOWN about 98% or MORE from it's IPO- a ski slope straight down essentially? What "facts" support "strong supportive" anything?
Financial REALITIES from the company's own 10-K and similar do not = "scare tactics ". The "going concern" and numerous other warnings are THEIR, BHRT's words, not any outside parties?
It's own financials and OWN 10-K DIRE WARNINGS and desperation cash raising (toxic convertibles is not conjecture- it's a WELL recognized industry standard terminology and used on the SEC's own site):
https://www.sec.gov/answers/convertibles.htm
NOTICE- the UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION uses the terms, "colloquially been called "floorless", "toxic," "death spiral," and "ratchet" convertibles." These are NOT "invented" terms?
Reality versus pumped hype IMO. Simple as that.
What's it take/like to reach even $50 MILLION in sales, let alone, ever reach the incredible stratosphere of a company with $1 BILLION in sales?
$5 to $10 a share? That would be an increase of about 110 times to 220 times in price/market cap from today? For a company that just did qty-3 (in 2014), life-line "financing" deals of $32.5K + $32.5K + $35K = $100K dollars to hopefully pay their next month or so of immediate bills?
At $5 to $10 a share, the market cap would be in the range of 420 million shares X $5 or $10 = a range of $2.1 BILLION to $4.2 BILLION dollars. Wow, and that number would be based on what?
Lets put it in a little perspective. Of over 11,000 IPOs in the last 30 years, only 440 companies have reached $1B/yr. in revenue. That's 440/11,000= .04 X 100 = 4%. Yep, 4% of ALL IPOS. The largest source of billion dollar revenue companies in the US has been specialty retail.
And I don't believe ANY of those 440 companies, that ever reached the magic $1 BILLION in revenue (to put them in the billion plus market-cap club, stratosphere of all businesses ever started or created- many in business for 100 yrs or more before reaching $1 billion in sales) was ever a penny-stock. If it can be proven different, would love to see even a single case presented. Nearly all those companies, if not all, went public at $20 or $40 or more a share, were often profitable from day one, and never traded much below their initial IPO price and were certainly never a penny stock.
A common misconception in the market is that MSFT or Walmart or Cisco or whoever was once a penny stock when people pull up their long term charts. 100% incorrect: their charts only go back so low in price, as they've had so many stock splits as their share prices continually appreciated and never down-trended or ever looked back.
Worried? BHRT is most worried about how to pay just their immediate bills and debt obligations, let alone ever making any real sales, IMHO and via what's stated in their own most recent SEC filings. Latest 10-K, PAGE 25:
"Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Financing
We will need to secure additional financing in 2014 in order to continue to finance our operations. If we are unable to secure additional financing on acceptable terms, or at all, we may be forced to curtail or cease our operations.
As of March 24, 2014, we had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $211,632.80 and a working capital deficit of approximately $13.4 million. As such, our existing cash resources are insufficient to finance even our IMMEDIATE operations. Accordingly, we will need to secure additional sources of capital to develop our business and product candidates as planned. We are seeking substantial additional financing through public and/or private financing, which may include equity and/or debt financings, research grants and through other arrangements, including collaborative arrangements. As part of such efforts, we may seek loans from certain of our executive officers, directors and/or current shareholders. We may also seek to satisfy some of our obligations to the guarantors of our loan with Seaside National Bank & Trust, or the Guarantors, through the issuance of various forms of securities or debt on negotiated terms. However, financing and/or alternative arrangements with the Guarantors may not be available when we need it, or may not be available on acceptable terms.
If we are unable to secure additional financing in the near term, we may be forced to:
· curtail or abandon our existing business plan;
· reduce our headcount;
· default on our debt obligations;
· file for bankruptcy;
· seek to sell some or all of our assets; and/or
· cease our operations.
If we are forced to take any of these steps, any investment in our common stock may be worthless."
And NO, that is not so called, typical "boiler plate" language found in every company's 10-Q or 10-K, another fallacy. How do most penny-stocks end up? Well, statistically, BK or failure is the norm for the vast majority. A penny stock is considered anything often below $5 (SEC definition) a share and certainly under $1 a share. A market cap under $50 million isn't even considered a micro-cap, it's a nano-cap. When you get truly down into "pennies" as in 4 or 5 pennies or whatever, I'd guess (can find the research data if needed) that more than 95% end in BK and total failure. Those are just the simple facts and reality of a long history of markets and public companies IMO and based on easily found, credible research.
That's a question for buyers at .06 to .08 IMHO? Based on volume during that period, there's a whole new, BIG chunk of bag-holders here, IMO.
As stated, just give it a little time. 2 yrs chart- tells all. This is not new at all, again IMO. Pattern, same.
Is volume not tapering off sharply from .06 to .08 peak, am I wrong?
.08 to .035 then back to about .04 or so, all in about 5 trading days or less, maybe 10 days tops- is generally, probably, safely considered a form or variation of "crashing" by all standard definitions IMHO.
Pull up a two yr chart- you gotta just wait a bit longer, that's all, IMO. This is not the first time by a long shot.
Someone being underwater now close to 50% from .08, in under a few weeks or less is no joke. Lots and lots more down at least 30% or so in under a few week from the plus .06 range- hardly a solid "investment" and "looking strong" IMO? Losing 30% in a few weeks or less? That's a "good" thing? Really?
Also, don't know of a single statement made where "hoping" for one or two penny or whatever was mentioned? Reality versus hype, that's all.
Lots of pumping statements though, versus "hoping" for a penny or whatever, those statements are found by the 100's, IMHO. Easy to find.
Volume appears to be slowly, but surely drying out now, and with it, the spread is being opened up, GRAND CANYON wide by these brutal penny broker/dealers IMO.
2.5 hours into the trading day and what, about 350K shares traded? That's about 350K X .042 (say average this AM) = about $15K total dollars traded.
So assume maybe $10K of that is buying, then someone or a few people just had to pay a "up",plus 15% spread to fill maybe qty-5, $2000 dollar orders? Wow. Hardly "up" 15% when all you had traded was a grand total of $15K dollars?
Just penny-ville IMO. The broker/dealer still wants this "up" for whatever reason(s) on any buy orders, so that's what it will take to buy yourself a couple of grand worth of shares. On a listed stock- the trades are in fractions of a penny and fractions of a percent. Paying a 10% or more spread to get a fill on a few thousand bucks worth of stock- not me, no way. That's highway robbery IMHO.
Similarly- I'd put bank on it, that if you wanted to unload $10K worth right now, they'd take it down 10% or more in the other direction for your order to "fill". These broker/dealers are brutal on this one IMO.
See, they just took it down about 1.5% to fill 500 shares or so, lets say a 1000 shares to be generous. That's 1000 X .045 = $45 bucks worth, and it took a 1.5% spread to fill that $45 bucks. Wow-o-wow-o. Oh well, to each his own. Good luck trading.
All good points. I'll play devil's advocate on a key point though. By the way, agree after doing own analysis, that these warrants being "in the money" was a bit interesting- as there are like 100 million warrants out, in that warrant summary table: problem in the past is nearly all were way out of the money and I think 20 million or so already expired worthless- would have to look at table again. So it appears sort of a "new thing" this go around, that a big block of warrants was issued at such a low strike price (avg being .016 and "cash" for shares- a part I missed in my first post, when first looking at the "bridge loan" theory). So, having a pile out there this time at a pretty low strike is, agreed, perhaps a new twist. Interesting and what it means/could mean and why they gave um out at such a low strike and to who? That's the big question(s) for sure IMO.
But again, let me play the devil advocate position on statement, "My guess is that whoever holds these warrants, if exercised, would certainly work to keep the price up":
In that warrant summary table going back quite a ways, no one, none appear to have been exercised in recent, past several yrs. Meaning no one, it appears wanted to barf up cash and buy more BHRT shares. Now that could be cause their warrants never got "in the money" or "enough in the money"? But, a theory, IMO, if it's say an Asher type firm- they don't want to pay cash for shares on options, as they are already getting their shares on the "convertible" at a steep discount and usually, at some point using them to "go short" in the ole "death spiral" plays anyway.
Part 2 of "devil's advocate" would be, say they are mostly to Asher and similar- they could use those low price warrants to obtain even more shares at low cost- and then also use them in their "Short play". Since they'd be getting the shares cheap (.016 avg from table), say they exercise um and use um to buy chunks of stock here and there that they then sell ASAP, stock drops more from selling pressure, they use their convertibles getting even more shares, wash, rinse, repeat- the ole death spiral play. The warrants at such a low strike may have been demanded as the "sweetener" by the likes of an Asher- so they could use them, right along with the convertibles - use um for "quick flips" when price is high/up as stated in post, but also- theoretically use them also to the downside if/when they go on the short play. Just a theory- inkling IMO.
Who knows for sure though- as it's not even clear who's holding the bulk of them- the warrant stuff is complicated as they appear to have been handed out all over the place- to Cassel for instance getting 5 million or whatever, I think Northstar may have got some, maybe even other insiders got some- it's really hard to decipher in my opinion- I used browser search for word "warrant" and tried to read every line/word where they appeared- and was still left clueless as to "who got um and who got how many"?
Yes, if they were sold, they'd bring in "some" money to BHRT, but as you state, at the present "burn rate" it's only a few months, maybe, a quarters worth perhaps of survival level cash, again.
Don't know- it's all speculation at this point IMO. I still don't see ANY connection whatsoever to a "bridge loan" though. A bridge LOAN, key word LOAN, is just that, A DEBT LOAN. Meaning, ALWAYS done with hard collateral - typically real estate or plant and equipment, etc and a high interest rate, relatively short term to boot. Thus the term "bridge" as in a temporary fill while waiting on other things to pan out. BHRT IMO has no chance of a "loan" now as they are riddled with debt already that they're barely servicing and have no real "hard" assets with which to offer as security on a loan/debt instrument.
My 2 cent opinions.
" why Bioheart hasn't received significant funding for their trials?"
Well, one would assume that would mean "recent" trial(s): as in the past they have received substantial amounts of money- the total paid in capital since inception I believe now exceeds $100 million (would have to check 10-K, so don't take that as hard fact- but it's a lot of money, no matter what the exact number is).
Why "recently" are they struggling with "financing" and raising money? Don't really know- but one could speculate on many things? Part of the story is in their own documents, I believe, IMO. Read the section about the formation and existence of "Northstar"- it's a complex deal IMO. It was formed when a key loan (think it was the B of A loan went into default- that was as close to BK as you get, IMO).
So they create this sort of "shell" company within a public traded company who then "assumed" the loan that was in default, I assume via putting up personal collateral/guarantees (probably homes, businesses, cash, whatever- banks want hard collateral, tangible assets). For instance- read this statement from the last 10-Q:
"Our ability to obtain additional debt financing and/or alternative arrangements, with the Guarantors or otherwise, may be limited by the amount of, terms and restrictions of our then current debt. For instance, we do not anticipate repaying our Northstar loan (described below) until its scheduled maturity. Accordingly, until such time, we will generally be restricted from, among other things, incurring additional indebtedness or liens, with limited exceptions. See “We have a substantial amount of debt...” Additional debt financing, if available, may involve restrictive covenants that limit or further limit our operating and financial flexibility and prohibit us from making distributions to shareholders."
Notice- it points out that Northstar is sort of in "first position" as to who gets paid, and thus "we will generally be restricted from, among other things, incurring additional indebtedness or liens, with limited exceptions"- that IMO is a way of saying it will potentially make "getting financing" with "others" perhaps more difficult, maybe a lot more difficult?
Same 10-Q PAGE 27- again look at the wording:
"These provisions could have important consequences for us, including (i) making it more difficult for us to obtain additional debt financing from another lender, or obtain new debt financing on terms favorable to us, because such new lender will have to be willing to be subordinate to Northstar, "
Notice- "others" need to be "willing" to "be SUBORDINATE" to Northstar- THAT IMO , is a BIG ONE to a lot of "finance" people. Think of a 1st or 2nd mortgage on a house- many lenders are very specific about the need to be in "1st position" as they want to be sure to get PAID BACK FIRST if one or both loans goes into default or anything goes wrong.
Other reasons speculating: They have a lot of debt that someone getting into bed with them would have to clean up probably. Also, they have numerous, numerous "loans" and "finance deals" that go on for pages- again, very complicated and would probably need "clean up" by the standards of certain types who want to lend or "finance" people via equity stakes. Just an opinion- but finance people don't like past "messy situations" and old, long trails of "loans" and "warrants" and "convertible" shares and "whatever" they have to "inherit" or live with if they get on board as the "new guy". Know what I mean?
I'll give a simple example- the TV show Shark Tank. The people on there are the real deal, self made centi-millionaire to billionaire "investors" who essentially are doing what BHRT wants- they are putting up "private equity" to "finance" a new or start up or growing business. Not totally analogous, as BHRT is already public traded, been around a while- but from a "financing" point of view- to me very similar concepts IMO.
You watch Shark Tank- several of the episodes had some people asking for some pretty big money- say $500K to as much as $1 MILLION- a pretty good chunk of change for a venture person to put into a relatively small time operation. These businesses had to have pretty good sales (several million dollars a yr + patents and more) to be asking for that kind of money. Many of the "Sharks" were intrigued by how that person got the business that big already. Question ALWAYS comes up: 1) Do YOU the biz owner have your own money in it? 2) Do you already have "investors" and DING DING DING- when the person said "yes". Sharks immediately wanted to know- how much "equity" does the other "investor(s)" already have or debt or whatever. It was a deal killer in nearly every instance. The Shark didn't want to get mired into working with a trail of others who already had ownership rights in the biz, and especially other loans that had to be paid taking cash flow out of the future growth, etc. They just saw it as all too "messy" and said pass. That's just an example.
My opinion- you read the BHRT 10-Q or 10-K and they are "complicated" to say the least IMO. I mean- pages of old deals, loans, and financing- pages and pages. It's hard to even decipher who is still owed what and what it takes to "service" the old loan(s) and in what "position" it is to other loans, loans have been "split"- I saw a page describing a bunch of those- which I don't even know what that means. You got insiders owed money, private people appear to be owed money and then these major bank deals from days gone by owed money and then "Northstar" right there too.
Also, look at the part where they granted Northstar a "lien" on pretty darn near, as I can tell, everything BHRT owns, might own, all intellectual property, future rights, etc. THAT ONE has, IMHO, got to be a mega biggie for some "new" person to step in "behind" or else have to "buy out" or "clean up" or whatever you want to call it. Here is the wording, last 10-Q PAGE 28:
". In addition, the Company executed a security agreement granting Northstar a lien on ALL patents, patent applications, trademarks, service marks, copyrights and intellectual property rights of any nature, as well as the results of ALL clinical trials, know-how for preparing Myblasts, old and new clinical data, existing approved trials, all right and title to Myoblasts, clinical trial protocols and other property rights. In addition, the Company granted Northstar a PERPETUAL (as in FOREVER) license on products as described for resale, relicensing and commercialization outside the United States. In connection with the granted license, Northstar shall pay the Company a royalty of up to 8% on revenues generated.
In addition to the limitations imposed on our operational flexibility by the Northstar loan as described above, the Northstar loan, the Seaside National Bank loan, our obligations to the Guarantors, and any other indebtedness incurred by us could have significant additional negative consequences, including, without limitation:
•
requiring the dedication of a portion of our available cash to service our indebtedness, thereby reducing the amount of our cash available for other purposes, including funding our research and development programs and other capital expenditures;
•
increasing our vulnerability to general adverse economic and industry conditions;
•
LIMITING our ability to obtain additional financing;
•
limiting our ability to react to changes in technology or our business; and
•
placing us at a possible competitive disadvantage to less leveraged competitors."
See that "LIEN" wording- that is BIG IMO as stated. They, Northstar, appear to pretty much OWN IT ALL- "trial" results, IP property- the whole ball of wax. Meaning, IMO if BHRT went belly up tomorrow, Northstar walks away owning rights to all "trials" to all intellectual property and methods, everything in that list above.
I think IMO that is a major impediment to a "typical" finance person wanting to "step in" on a deal- a huge potential issue IMO.
That's my 2 cents as to some possible reasons. Pure speculation and only my opinions. Just some possibilities from reading the documents. Don't know for sure- only way to know would be, to be a "fly on the wall" and listen to some pro-level "financier" person reply after going of the BHRT books and records. That's the final answer- no one has said "yes" to this point recently, so there must be reasons why? Not sure.
"So BHRT paid all their expenses and still had money left over?"? What indication is there of that?
According to the 10-K they sold shares/dumped shares to the likes of Asher right up until Jan 14, Feb 10 and Feb 19 of this yr, 2014 ($32.5K +$32.5K + $35K = $100K cash via convertible (toxic) share sales). 10-K, page F-41, last page.
Cash left on the balance sheet dated 12/31/2013 was $46,227.00. ($46K) (10-K, page F-3), (the entire purpose of the "balance sheet" is to show the balance of assets versus liabilities and cash on hand, etc in a "snap shot" of that moment- there is no "hidden" sources of cash stashed away somewhere). So, if that is to be considered "money left over" so be it- $46K wouldn't even last part of a month at their spending rate. Thus, they raised cash on Jan 14 as indicated above, or would have been insolvent according to the document- IMO.
BHRT appears from several past 10-Q's and this 10-K to survive, limp along with a few months cash at any given time and needs to sell shares/do "financing" deals every month or two to keep enough survival cash coming in- or they'd be out of cash by all indicators of the balance sheet, cash position and "financing" activities shown in each 10-Q and now this 10-K, IMO. Thus their warning statement such as this 10-K, PAGE 25:
"Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Financing
We will need to secure additional financing in 2014 in order to continue to finance our operations. If we are unable to secure additional financing on acceptable terms, or at all, we may be forced to curtail or cease our operations.
As of March 24, 2014, we had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $211,632.80 and a working capital deficit of approximately $13.4 million. As such, our existing cash resources are INSUFFICIENT to FINANCE EVEN OUR IMMEDIATE operations. Accordingly, we will need to secure additional sources of capital to develop our business and product candidates as planned. We are seeking SUBSTANTIAL additional financing through public and/or private financing, which may include equity and/or debt financings, research grants and through other arrangements, including collaborative arrangements. As part of such efforts, we may seek loans from certain of our executive officers, directors and/or current shareholders. We may also seek to satisfy some of our obligations to the guarantors of our loan with Seaside National Bank & Trust, or the Guarantors, through the issuance of various forms of securities or debt on negotiated terms. However, financing and/or alternative arrangements with the Guarantors may not be available when we need it, or may not be available on acceptable terms.
If we are unable to secure additional financing in the near term, we may be forced to:
· curtail or abandon our existing business plan;
· reduce our headcount;
· default on our debt obligations;
· file for bankruptcy;
· seek to sell some or all of our assets; and/or
· cease our operations.
If we are forced to take any of these steps, any investment in our common stock may be worthless."
It's all right there in black n white- the numbers appear pretty clear IMO. Not sure what there is not to see or understand?