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.
SEC Policy Causes Relentless Shorting on OTC?
In the interest of protecting investors against fraud, the SEC may have inadvertently creating a short feeding frenzy in the OTC. Any stock that is suspect to any one of a number of leaders of stock chat sites, social media, or discussion bulletin boards is now the target of "shorting in anticipation of" the SEC suspending trading. The inordinate amount of companies that have been suspended recently for suspected fraud related to COVID-19 is ample evidence. It would be quite easy to create a negative smear campaign with just enough evidence to look credible, and with backing from the SEC, appear to be doing the world a favor by weeding out fraudulent companies in this time of international crisis. Sympathy would abound.
It would be interesting for the SEC to investigate large short trades associated with all of the suspended companies to see if there is a pattern or a certain trader or group of traders shows up consistently. social media posts, especially "That One Guy" who keeps "calling" the suspensions. The results may be very enlightening.
Sage4 - the problem with the SEC regulators, in their own words is "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is"
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/15/835319145/top-wall-street-regulators-warn-against-coronavirus-investment-scams
- you simply cannot possibly surprise industry people with a novel invention if it is going to cost someone their gold. Look at the constant short attack on Tesla.
As Pat Huddleston said in The Vigilant Investor: "The old axiom 'if it sounds to good to be true, it probably is' is dangerous." Why? It causes investors to focus on outlandish returns as the only mark of a "too good to be true" scheme, and misses those who intentional are low-key about their scam.
I'm with you - I think some things are too good to be true . . . until they aren't!
That right there is funny, I don't care who you are!
By "FDA Approval" I mean EUA. EUA is NOT normal FDA approval. Once the emergency is over, all products authorized under the EUA (and not officially approved via NDA or similar) must no longer be sold.
I like how you think.
I've posted some of the same points recently.
Now, we wait . . .
Grey Markets After FDA Approval
Imagine this scenario:
DECN gets FDA approval for COVID-19 test
DECN goes to grey markets
Thousands of traders are calling their brokers constantly seeking trade info.
Brokers pressure MMs to file Form 211 so they can get off the phone and get the trades posted electronically again.
*The aforementioned scenario is not intended as investment advice - it is purely hypothetical for the purpose of illustration.
The USA lab testing will give us the true answer
livefree_ordie:
You should look at:
https://patents.justia.com/inventor/matthew-k-musho
livefree_ordie - Annual Report "Supplemental", p. 16 - may help?
They list "The Bio Co., LTD" in Daegu, South Korea at their contract manufacturing partner, and I believe also R&D facility.
The specifications guidelines set down by Mr. Berman, for creating this Covid-19 testing device and its important chemistry, were that the test must be measured on the company’s existing Precise or Avantage glucometers, because they were completed products, having been tested to great length, and now to be adapted for detection of Covid-19 instead of whole blood glucose. In addition, the resulting chemistry would necessarily run using a patients (small sample of) whole blood taken from a finger prick, and later defined as 1-2 microliters (a small drop on a finger tip), and perform the test and provide a result in one minute or less (later redefined as 15 seconds or less), with at least a 95% accuracy. Mr. Berman believed this device was capable of 97-98% accuracy. Three alternative designs were provided and given to the company on March 2. Two of the designs were diagrammed by Mathew Musho, PhD, the third design by a chemist and engineer from The Bio in Korea. The chosen of the three alternative product designs would bear the trade name GenViro! Swift.
The company then set to work, along with Matthew Musho, PhD (“Musho”), to evaluate the designs, keeping in mind the desired specifications of the DECN CEO and product Program Director, which included availability of components without wait time, time to market (assuming FDA EUA), whether the chosen method was applicable to use in point of care and at-home environments, time of assay from commencement of test and until result, size of the blood sample, and finally cost to produce. Given the company’s experience in working with biosensors and with electrode technology, the design review process took less time than originally expected. The entire process took 13 days. The last of these days used to determine which of the two Musho specifications was to be chosen. The design provided by The Bio was discarded because it could not be read on the existing company meter technology, and therefore would require additional development. At the end of this process, the company chose to produce the product shown in the illustrations, the second of the two Musho alternative versions, but shortly thereafter to begin work on the other Musho specification, to be used as a confirmation tool.
Product Design 1 (chosen)
The design above is in many regards similar to the direct antibody antigen approaches favored by some of the competitive companies in the Covid-19 testing field. But the major difference (magic) is that the approach used by the company in its GenViro! product allows for swift (15 seconds or less) results using a minimum of blood from a finger prick. As of this writing, work has commenced on the product specification above with components such as the platinum electrodes, platinum carbon paste, industrial films (several types) to make the biosensor, and perhaps a new impedance chip for the meter. The company is operating on an 8-week development schedule and is some 10 days into this schedule. The current development cycle is considered advanced development. For FDA EUA filing and the granting of a Pre-EUA by the FDA, the company is preparing its final working concept filing, to be completed within days of this writing.
Refer to the conversation the person had with Berman
Normally, before an action like this is taken the SEC
Despite the warning from the SEC
Oooo, Renee, this is not an accusation, right?
You're just suggesting it is plausible, right?
The day before the SEC suspended DECN the trading volume was over 113 million shares, the highest volume day in the past months. Thus, it is plausible the company principals knew, or suspected the SEC would suspend DECN stock and it is also plausible those company principals sold as much of their own stock as they could.
Just thinking about all those poor idiots who responded to that tweet as if it were from PTS . . .
FDA on At Home Tests:
As noted in the guidance, the policies outlined in the Policy for Diagnostic Tests for Coronavirus Disease-2019 do not apply to at-home testing, including self-collection of a specimen at home. Any COVID-19 test for at-home testing, including self-collection of a specimen at home, with or without the use of telemedicine, requires an authorized EUA.
The FDA is supportive of at-home testing for COVID-19, provided there is data and science to support consumer safety and test accuracy. This includes demonstrating the ability of a lay user to collect their specimen, run the test, and interpret their results accurately. We also consider the safety of the consumer, including safety from any exposure to toxic chemicals that may be used in the reaction. FDA encourages developers to discuss their validation of home use tests with us early in their development process.
COVID-19 tests for home use (including home collection of a specimen) are not eligible to be added to the umbrella EUA for laboratory developed tests (LDTs). Instead, FDA would authorize individual EUAs for such tests when the criteria for authorization are met and would include any necessary conditions of authorization to address different risks presented by specimen collection at home versus collection in a health care setting, as well as testing and interpreting results by a lay consumer rather than a professional.
FDA encourages developers to discuss their validation of tests intended for at-home testing, including use and/or self-collection of a specimen at home, with us early in their development process.
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/emergency-situations-medical-devices/faqs-diagnostic-testing-sars-cov-2
PharmaTech Solutions on Twitter:
PharmaTech Solutions
@PharmaTechSol
·
21h
The company is aware of the recent unexpected actions taken by the SEC and a formal statement is forthcoming.
https://twitter.com/PharmaTechSol
Woke up the Twitter account! lol
It can. No doubt, just need some facts verified.
I posted that as a question to Lucky.
You know for a fact that Berman gambled and lost?
The enforcers are deeply educated:
"The old adage remains as true today as it ever has been," says Avakian, "if it seems too good to be true, it probably is."
These should have all been suspended by the SEC . . . LOL - what a scam!
"We can make electric cars"
"We can make a device that allows you to talk to someone far away"
"We can take a picture of your insides"
"We can send text through electric wires"
"We can see constellations in far galaxies"
"We can genetically-engineer your banana to contain a vaccine"
"We can build a bionic appendage"
Yessir, too good to be true ... until it is.
Do the company and investors know the probable cause? I sure don't. And the "questions" are not arrest evidence. WHAT DID THEY FIND? They ain't sayin' - talked to them today. And the investigation is STILL ongoing, per SEC today. So, they have taken action based on . . . WHAT?
Certainly something to consider. I have read much of what has been published recently by the company and the two unanswered questions raised by the SEC are: 1) is there really a test, and 2)do/did they have access to production to match the numbers they projected early in the process? I believe the company will clarify via a PR and then the SEC can go back to whatever it does when no-one really cares. Then all the wrangling over what to do.
Someone referenced the "accuracy statement" by Berman:
Accuracy Language
"The specifications guidelines set down by Mr. Berman, for creating this Covid-19 testing device and its important chemistry, were that the test must be measured on the company’s existing Precise or Avantage glucometers, because they were completed products, having been tested to great length, and now to be adapted for detection of Covid-19 instead of whole blood glucose. In addition, the resulting chemistry would necessarily run using a patients (small sample of) whole blood taken from a finger prick, and later defined as 1-2 microliters (a small drop on a finger tip), and perform the test and provide a result in one minute or less (later redefined as 15 seconds or less), with at least a 95% accuracy. Mr. Berman believed this device was capable of 97-98% accuracy. Three alternative designs were provided and given to the company on March 2. Two of the designs were diagrammed by Mathew Musho, PhD, the third design by a chemist and engineer from The Bio in Korea. The chosen of the three alternative product designs would bear the trade name GenViro! Swift."
Annual Report, p.16
Well said, and true.
You make my point. Thanks.
For the record. Thanks!
The suspension will end on May 7 (no possible way it ends earlier) and then the stock will forever trade "greyly"- not a chance in hell that it won't - no matter how many FDA approvals or billions of dollars in sales they generate (hypothetically)?
lucky,mydog: An SEC suspension is equivalent to arresting a person with no revealed probable cause, jailing them for ten days, and then releasing them with Reformation School (greys) as their only recourse (at least that is the only way you've ever seen it done)?
"Should" not be a problem clearing this . . .
But, some bigger player may want the gold . . .
The "perfected" language in context:
The language the SEC accused them of: “DECN’s statements claiming to have “technology perfected” to allow it to manufacture and sell a COVID-19 test kit that would provide results “in 15 seconds, based on a small finger prick blood sample,”
3/3
“Keith Berman, CEO of DECN commented, "We have the technology perfected which will take months off of the development schedule.”
Added bonus: “Later product entries will be test methods for Polio, Ebola (Marburg), Bird Flu, and SARS.” Literally adaptable to just about any type of virus – IF this works, it is a game-changer for the entire testing industry.
3/4
“What makes the testing for the Coronavirus possible, and the GenUltimate TBG special, is the company's Impedance measurement technology.”
3/11
“Keith Berman, CEO of DECN commented, "Because we perfected the Impedance technology in 2019 for our GenUltimate TBG glucose test strip and meter, we have shaved months off of the development time for the GenViro! device.”
You judge the meaning. Perfected IN 2019!
Good point. Now lets watch the comeback.
I agree.
Only two questions for DECN:
1) Did you have manufacturing capability or access to or the anticipation of access to produce the kinds of numbers you posited in your initial forecasts?
2. Is there a valid, scientifically-proven test kit that is being submitted to the FDA for approval?
All else is fluff.
llcoolm11 - I agree.
no_ur_stox Nowhere did DECN say they WOULD sell X number of kits.
From PRs:
3/11 “We anticipate the sale of 420,000,000 kits in the first full year of commercial sale.”
3/16 – “We expect the vast majority of the 420 million test kits we plan to manufacture in the first year of production will be sold to individuals for self-testing."
3/17 “We are happy to inform all interested parties that we have raised our 12-month forecast to 525 million kits.”
Notice "anticipate" "expect" "plan" "forecast"
The ONLY question is: did they have or would they have manufacturing capability/access to back up those numbers?
Here's a bit of interesting information:
"If a broker-dealer does not have confidence that a company's financial statements are reasonably current and accurate in all material respects, especially in light of the questions that may have been raised by the SEC suspension action, then a broker-dealer may not publish a quote for the company's stock."
This assumes that either a) the MM would have access the full evidence packet (which other investors do NOT have) OR b) the ONLY questions of concern are the two listed in the action released this morning. One (the scientific viability of the test) is easily overcome. The second (posting of anticipated sales) is a bit trickier, but the "up to" language should help with this, as should the recent public reduction to 1M/month.
I think it is nearly impossible that MMs will not fall over themselves to file the 211 IF there is a legit test kit that is approved on a high trading volume stock. All else will be so much noise.
Suspension is NOT enforcement action.
"The SEC will not comment publicly on the status of a company when the ten-day suspension period ends because the company may still have serious legal problems. For instance, the SEC may continue to investigate a company to determine whether it has defrauded investors. The public would not know if the SEC is continuing its investigation unless the SEC publicly announces an enforcement action against the company."
insert-text-here
Pastry - how many shares you got? I may take them all for .02 - check with your broker . . .
RE: Ignoring warnings. If you took action on every stock trade bb that had a person who had "very good reasons" for everyone to immediately sell all stock ... very little trading would happen - or rather, much shorting would happen.
Of course it is . . . and it will be until it is resolved, which can be at any time now that it is open . . . any time up to 5 years, which mean additional information can be sought from any party at any time.