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.
Right, they don't have completed mice study results, as that's a material event. But I am sure they are looking at everything that Sunshine is working on, and right now the COVID treatment and adva-27a cancer treatment have the highest value of RoI potential, but I think the cancer generics have potentially the quickest turnaround for the company to put out a product to bring in profit.
I don't remember where, but I believe it said the timetable to get SBFM's COVID pill on the market was a year, if everything pans out. I believe with the generics it's a matter of some distribution fees and then production time, but they could potentially bring in money sooner than the potential COVID pill. Not to mention the generics are proven as viable cancer treatments. If I were a company I would want some reassurance that some money can be made on a $23 million investment, and right now the two potential big money compounds are by no means a sure thing.
It's an investment on potential, they can't have any material knowledge to make investment decisions without bringing major heat down, definitely illegal. It's more likely they are investing in the potential of COVID and cancer treatment of adva-27a.
One thing I do wonder is if Aegis sees enough potential in developing the cancer generics to make enough profit to make it worth their while, and then making a calculated gamble on the covid treatment and adva-27a panning out in some capacity.
I can't remember how much the last annual report said they needed to progress their generics, but I think it was in the range of $2 million, and overall it was somewhere in the range of $20 million to fund all of their business ventures. Aegis is likely banking on that $2 billion (I think, maybe it was $1 billion) valuation from a few years back.
You have a link to where he says that?
It also states that they may never be profitable. Just because it says it doesn't mean it's gospel. It's legal speak that is required for covering their butts. Also, doesn't mean I am saying they will dilute, just that the possibility is there and that they want those extra AS so if they choose, in the future, they can issue more. It says that in there, too.
Just pointing out the facts. Not saying I think they will, hard to say, doesn't mean I agree with msantos, because he or she has little or no substance to any of his or her posts. Just saying they have 3 billion AS that will not be effected by the r/s and they have them there to try and get more funding, potentially. No company wants to dilute, and even if they did. They wouldn't outright say so in an official document. Those 3 billion shares exist and will be there after the r/s and that offers the possibility that they could dilute.
I'm assuming this is the 14c which he is referring to:
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=15234750&guid=aPa9kFk04lZ3x3h
Didn't see anyone else post it here, but I haven't been paying close attention the past couple of days.
Still doesn't say what ratio the r/s will be, but it does mention that it won't effect the 3 billion Authorized Shares, as they want the potential to raise more capital in the future. That is the main danger I see, if they r/s then start diluting by issuing more of from that 3 billion AS to get more capital.
In fact, the PRs that actually did push the share price to .30 was a combo of the licensing of UGA covid compounds and the initiation of mice covid studies. The second bounce to .30 came off the PR about adva-27a being effective against drug resistant cancers that destroyed a marker present in 50% of all cancers. Any time something with official licensing or official data is PR'd it is taken a bit more seriously by investors. Things that are vague, like it 'appears to be effective' is mostly speculative, and while positive it is not a strong declaration and carries less weight for investors. Imo...
Right 20-30 cents... Not dollars. Announcing the results are completed and filed and they are applying for phase 1 human testing would be a PR that could test dollars, not a reiteration of news that we already had - that their compound appears to be effective against covid and VOCs, in pre clinical studies.
Once again it's not bad news or a bad PR, but they aren't PRs with any official documentation, and that's why they aren't pushing the share price to dollars.
What PR are you referring to? The one on 8/12? Because honestly it didn't say anything new from the PR on 12/22/20. It's showing that in preclinical trials their compound seems to be effective at combating covid and variants. That is the main take away from the PR last December and the August 12th PR doesn't say much beyond reiterating that.
The reason it didn't do more for the share price is because we are still waiting on the actual results from the mice trials with covid. That information would constitute a material event, meaning the results for those are not yet officially complete, IMO.
Until we get a real PR with documented preclinical data confirming what they are suspecting what is stated in the other two PRs, this share price isn't going to eclipse the .30 high. That's just the truth of it. The reason the share price didn't jump significantly is because none of it is really new news and none of it is accompanied by official preclinical data.
That is not to say that what they are working on is not panning out, just that hard data is what is needed before the share price will jump to dollars. If they announced the mice results are in and they are applying to and get accepted for phase 1 human testing or they qualify for emergency government anti viral funding then we could see dollars. But until then we shouldn't be over hyping vague, promising PRs.
Don't get me wrong, those were both good PRs, showing a lot of promise, but it's going to be official data that will actually move this to where we all hope it is going.
As someone else pointed out, we probably won't start seeing anything happen until October, for better or worse.
Who is bringing it down? I doubt anyone's comments in here are bringing the price down. Besides, there's been radio silence for over a month from the company and the share price has pretty much just traded sideways in that time. That's what happens when the there isn't any news. The only hiccup was the S-1 filing which caused some weak hands to panic sell and those shares got bought right back up and we corrected back to the .11-.12 range.
Nothing is going to move on this stock until we get some PRs or the offering or R/S becomes official.
Hard to say. I feel like that is a material event, meaning the study isn't done and finalized yet, being that they haven't released any results. I don't see how it could be officially done if they haven't released news. I would definitely think they would release the news on that, though, before the reverse split (if there is one) because I would think they want the share price to go as high as possible to minimize the reverse split ratio. Right now it would have to be around 35:1 to get over the $4 mark and they would like want some breathing room so 40:1 or 50:1 at the current share price would be more likely as the lowest ratio to get well over the $4 threshold and have some breathing room for the price to fluctuate before being officially eligible to uplist.
I would think a 40 or 50:1 r/s is higher than they would want to do. Probably looking for something in the 20:1 ratio at the highest, maybe 10:1 would be closer to what they might want to shoot for. In that case the price pre-split would have to be .50-.60 to get to a dollar amount of $5 or $6 to give it some breathing room.
I believe Rosen tweeting he thought a 12:1 split between .80 and $1 would put them in the $9-12 range post split.
In either scenario we will need some very good news to pop the share price to .50/.60/.80 or higher pre split.
All imo.
He's referring to my post, #99279, that looks at the wording on the S-1 that says common stock shares excluding a $330k note at a conversion rate of 35% or .30 whichever is lower, 9 million shares of common stock issuable from an outstanding principal loan of roughly $3.2 million at a conversion rate of $0.35, and the 1 million series B shares owned by management.
I posited the question as to the nature of this language in the S-1. It's on page 1 of the S-1 under the "The Offering" heading and there is a footnote indicated by (1) next to 'Common Stock Outstanding Before the Offering.'. On page 2 of the S-1 is where the footnote details are mentioning that the common stock excludes the 1 million B series, the 9million convertible notes equal to $3.2 million, and the $330k convertible note at the lesser of $0.30 or 35%.
My question is whether these are excluded from the r/s as it states that it they are excluded from the Common Stock in the S-1. Any thoughts or explanations on what it means?
That's not exactly what I was saying. Just putting the language under a microscope and seeing what others make of that particular section of the S-1. If anyone cares to explain further what that section says in English I am all ears. That's why I posted it to see if anyone could clarify the words used. Not looking for people to jump on and cry doom and gloom, looking for anyone that might be able to clarify.
Well the difference for some is that selling at .13 is will net a nice chunk of profit. If this does reverse split and it the share price plummets like the last time they r/s in 2019 then all the gains for people who got in cheap are wiped out. For those of you in at .10 to .12 it may be worth it to ride or die on this. Other people are up a significant amount and it's a question of pushing the chips all in or reading the players and getting the most out of the investment.
I'm not saying retail investors will be fleeced, I'm asking if anyone else has some insight as to that fine print in the S-1. Like I said I'm no lawyer, but i can read. It sounds a little off and this is the OTC and it was back in February when they started the mice trials and we haven't heard sh*t about them in 8 months. I remember people saying 2 weeks after that we would get results soon.
Right, it doesn't seem legal and I don't know how the math on that would work out for the reverse split. I just remember noticing that when the S-1 first was released and it's kind of stuck in the back of my mind that the wording seems to imply that something like 10 million shares are excluded from the common stock that will be r/s. It's the OTC and even though I find this company very promising I am wary of anything that feels shady. And reverse splits are often a bad sign, I'm cautiously optimistic and right now might caution is kicking in in regards to the wording on this S-1
Page 1 of the S-1: (these are the details of the offering)
"Common stock outstanding before the offering(1) 510,093,265 shares of common stock."
Page two of the S-1: (this is the reference note pertaining to the offering)
"(1) Based on shares of common stock outstanding on September 8, 2021 (unadjusted with respect to our contemplated future reverse split) and excludes:
· shares of common stock issuable upon conversion of a convertible note in the principal amount of $330,000 at a conversion price equal to the lower of $0.30 or a 35% discount to the market price;
· 9,114,049 shares of common stock issuable upon convertible notes in the aggregate outstanding principal amount of $3,204,215, at an average fixed conversion price of $0.35;
· shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of warrants that will be issued to investors in this offering; and
· 1,000,000 outstanding shares of Series B Preferred Stock, which are not convertible into common stock
(2) Based on assumed public offering price of $ per share."
The reverse split states that it excludes the $330k toxic note, 9,114,049 shares on an aggregate of $3,204,215 at fixed conversion price of $0.35 and the 1 million outstanding Series B Preferred Stock shares, which the company management holds.
This sounds a lot to me like the roughly $3.5 million RB capital funded them, plus the management shares of stock being excluded from the split. I'm no lawyer, but it does say these are excluded from the offering, as it says the common stock will be r/s and then it defines the common stock as excluding the aforementioned shares.
I think this is something to investigate further. There is a potential that retail shareholders are getting fleeced in all this.
Can anyone explain this?
I understand the feeling, but when trading stocks you should more look at what percentage of the total shares you own vs. how many individual shares you own. It correlates better when trying to figure the company's valuation and how much your piece of the pie has the potential to be worth.
You have a link to this supposed 68 million shares added to outstanding? I still see it at 510 million
Much appreciated!!!
I've seen the $23 million figure thrown around a lot since the S-1 form filing. I don't recall seeing that figure published in the S-1, but I haven't had time to completely analyze it. Is that where the $23 million funding from Aegis is mentioned? If so does anyone have a rough idea of where in the S-1 it's listed? If not no worries, I can do my own DD, just haven't had time this past week.
Even just knowing that that is where it was mentioned would be helpful. Thanks all, good luck and it would be great if this share price starts pushing past to new highs soon!
That was my thinking, especially given that reverse splits carry a heavy connotation to many investors. Can the price jump where they want it to to get a low split ratio? I suppose it would have to depend on the news that drives it up (most likely will need some kind of news on the mice studies for the price to jump significantly). Regardless of an impending reverse split, I would imagine many investors would have some sell orders in for at least a portion of their shares in the .50-$1 price range.
I know I would at least take my initial investment back if we hit that price range, probably a bit of profit too. It's just good investment strategy, even if one believes it can go much higher. It's a rock and a hard place because we want the price as high as possible before the reverse split (hell, if it goes high enough we don't need the split), but it's very hard as an investor to sit on 400-900% gains (based on current price and the range of .50-$1 Rosen guessed at in his tweet) and not take some profits. We are then fighting the profit taking to push into and past those levels and the knowledge of the reverse split likelihood complicates things.
Like I said, it also depends on the news we get that pushes the price up. We get positive mice results and acceptance for Phase 1 human trials, that could be big enough news to shoot us into multiple dollars. All just my own opinion, and I don't really have an answer to your question, just thinking out loud.
Yes I understand the market cap increase is what increases the value of my position, and yes I switched the 1/100 in my example, but you gotmy intended meaning. The point is announcing the R/S potential is odd given they are sitting on mice trial data they haven't released yet, or completed. Also given the past R/S in 2019 and 2020 and their flubbing of the QB up tier application, this S-1 filing is more confusing than enlightening on what is going on with the company
Yes I understand market cap. That's my whole point. It also depends on the ratio of the RS, which would not be a 1 to 100 to get this share price to $3-5 as the math in your example suggests. It would be closer to 1 to 25 or 1 to 40 for the share price to be at $3-5 after a RS if we take the relative share price of .12, which is somewhere in the middle of the current price fluctuating around .11 today and the share price of .1258 indicated at the time of the S-1 filing on 9/7. So the question is do you understand market cap?
Most ihub people don't have enough to sell off and affect the stock price much. I'm talking about a RS negatively impacting the potential value of stock holders. If this thing goes to $3-5 without a RS I'm a millionaire. If it does it with a RS I have the same value as I don't now, which is roughly $50k. Big difference. Not sure what exactly you are asking as I feel like you know what a RS does to shares...
I'm also not worried about speculating on possibilities that might make some ihub posters sell shares. If it's the real deal then this is moving forward in spite of what anyone on ihub says.
However, for those doubting a RS, Brett Rosen tweeted about it and he didn't discount a reverse split, in fact he said the reverse split wouldn't matter.
I think it’s a good thing for $sbfm and the shareholders! @SunshineBio1 is going to uplist to the Nasdaq is my big takeaway! A reverse split to meet a Nasdaq requirement isn’t going to matter when $sbfm cures #COVID19 and #cancer! @deborahrachelb #RBCapital #inhibitor $pfe $mrna
— Brett Rosen (@BrettRosen325) September 9, 2021
I hope they are. I'm not selling anything at least for a couple weeks since they gave a 45 day timeline per the S-1 form for shares to be bought before the IPO and potential RS. I'm just speculating and analyzing what we do know, and right now RS is heavily mentioned in the S-1 with strong language. It's not something to disregard.
It states twice withing the first couple pages of the S-1 that they will reverse split. That seems like a pretty strong indication. And it's outside of the risk factors section, so it's not something they are saying is a possibility, they are saying they will do it in order to uplist to Nasdaq.
Now I'm sure if they release good news on mice trials or get FDA emergency authorization for covid treatment they will not need to reverse split. But per the S-1 they as of yet have not received FDA approval of any kind. That could change, and I am very hopeful it will, but as things stand as of now and with the history of this stock and reverse splits, this is not news to just be brushed off without some consideration.
Luckily, we have time to see what happens with the share price. The coming weeks will be critical. Hopefully they will release mice trial results and that will push the share price up where it needs to be for Nasdaq. Anyone that believes this company will come through with flying colors should not be concerned about people speculating on ihub.
Well I hope you and he are right. This S-1 filing should give any investor pause to consider all possible outcomes. I would be suspicious of anyone who doesn't.
No, the we will reverse split was mentioned outside of the risk factors. Also someone mentioned Alpp did an S-1 filing and then jumped into dollars, but I read Alpp's S-1 and it never mentioned a RS
I'll believe it when I see the news release, so far all I see are intentions to RS to get the price up for uplist to NASDAQ
No they should believe the pumpers who offer no proof of their claims, while the official SEC document published states their intention to RS with very strong wording.
Oh please, sorry, but I will take official wording from an SEC document that states twice in the first couple pages that they are going to do a reverse split over some ihub board poster throwing out claims that can't be verified, like "I called Camille directly and he said they won't do it if they don't have to"
No where in Alpp's S-1 did they talk about a reverse split, though.
Yeah, you want to direct us to where the company states that? Because they state multiple times they will reverse split in the S-1. Top of page 2, also the 4th paragraph after the Sunshine biopaharma logo states they will reverse split.
Did you read the form S-1? Top of the second page:
"Prior to completion of this offering, we will complete a reverse split of our common stock, in a ratio to be determined by our board of directors. The purpose of the reverse stock split is to meet Nasdaq’s minimum stock price requirement."
Still didn't answer my question, why are you here? On this board?
I agree, and so many have the obligatory comment of "the vaccines are proven effective" tossed in and then urging people to get it. It reminds me of the Milgrim and the Stanford prison guard experiments of how people are influenced by authority and authority figures to do things that they would otherwise consider immoral. Slightly different than the vaccines, but still the underlying conceit of pressuring people into something they would not do otherwise.
Yeah, there are a fair amount of people that have been pressured into it. I don't hold it against anyone who gets it or not, but I am not a fan of people being pressured into something socially in such a way. I guess it depends on the situation, but the current scenario there are too many unknowns and far too much insistence. I have a friend who is being pressured by her landlord to get it, it's really a precarious situation on top of everything going on in the world.
It's also interesting that few articles on the vaccines point out that the percentage of those infected that are vaccinated vs unvaccinated include all the people who were infected before vaccines were even available, skewing the 99.2%, or whatever the official percentage they claim, of people who have gotten covid being unvaccinated. This article is the only one I have seen that has mentioned it:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/08/breakthrough-covid-19-cases-may-be-a-bigger-problem.html
Its a good read on how vaccine efficacy is overstated and how much risk there is of still getting covid if vaccinated, especially with Delta out there.
And since I'm on the subject it's interesting how quickly the media changed its tune to blind promotion of the vaccines from 2020 to 2021 when political parties changed. Here's an article from last December:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html
Today you won't see any articles that place vaccine makers ina any kind of negative light.
I'm not saying I was a fan of the last president, or the current one for that matter. However, there is a clear change in tone as to how the vaccines are viewed since the change in political parties controlling the white house.