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.
Ann,
FYI, I found a link where the article can be accessed, without a subscription or membership:
Personalized Medicine Policy Advocates Have High Hopes for New President
[November 7, 2008]
By Matt Jones
a GenomeWeb staff reporter
http://www.genomeweb.com/issues/news/150574-1.html
I hope you're having a nice weekend!
Thanks again,
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
Thank you, Ann, for posting this!
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
Sam,
Thanks for the link! That's a terrific article, which I think is very positive for DNAG. I'm sharing the article with some others, along with this comment, which I wrote:
--
Article about genetic ancestry testing, by DNAPrint Genomics, in these changing times.
The old taboo against acknowledging mixed ancestry appears to be disappearing, with more people now eager to learn about, and celebrate, their complex and often-mysterious heritage. This is a very positive development, both scientifically and socially, in my opinion. Increased knowledge and awareness, and more mature, tolerant attitudes, are very welcome changes, in my book.
Some truths are not merely "out there," but literally inside each of us. Let truth emerge.
--
I may not agree with Obama on every political point, (I lean more toward Classical Liberalism, or "Conservatism" in a secular sense,) but breaking this old taboo is a very positive development, that we can all celebrate.
Thanks again,
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
Hi jipper,
No, I'm not the one who won the lottery. It was another person with a similar name, living in a different town.
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon
"frogdreaming,"
Nice straw man argument. I didn't say I was buying shares directly from DNAPrint Genomics. I am not ignornant of how Market Makers work.
DNAPrint Genomics can sell shares. Of course, there is a Market Maker involved. That is no surprise. When I buy shares, and they turn out to be the same shares that DNAPrint Genomics just sold, it is reasonable to say that I bought shares from DNAPrint Genomics. Computerized networks and software (including Market Makers) are present, making the transaction not "direct" in a strict sense, but the transaction does, nonetheless, occur. Also note, the Market Maker often (but not always) matches buy and sell orders at the same price... someone sells at .0004, I get shares at .0004. Not always, but often. I've bought many millions of shares, in this way.
You still have not substantiated anything in that message, that I challenged you to substantiate. I made no indication that it was a "joke," contrary to your previous insinuation. It is not a joke. You make a claim, you provide evidence to back that claim. And may I suggest, you do some research on how Market Makers actually function.
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
Thanks, Ann! Sure, I'm definitely interested in that article!
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
Fellow DNAG investors,
I hope you all have a great weekend. Good luck to all of us, in all of our investments, next week!
Sincerely,
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
"uccaducca,"
I'm investing in DNAPrint Genomics, for very good reasons, which have been covered here, at length. Is throwing money into the river your idea of investing? I think not; I think that's merely an attempt to ridicule and demoralize DNAG investors. Sorry, that won't work with me. My convictions regarding DNAPrint Genomics are strong. You won't get my shares cheaply, nor will you get me to abandon my DNAG purchasing.
If you're shorting this stock, I suggest you move on to some other stock. And before someone claims this stock has never been shorted, we have seen how often DNAG has been on the Naked Short (Regulation SHO) list, which indicates just how excessive the naked shorting has been. And the manipulation (direct price manipulation, including banging the close, typically with very tiny sells, combined with nonstop negative propaganda,) has been very, very blatant, as well. What are your feelings about all this blatant manipulation, "uccaducca"? (And "frogdreaming," et al?) Do you support or condemn the manipulation?
Luckily, the SEC says it is finally enforcing the decades-old ban on naked shorting for more than 3 days. Finally! They've got a lot more reform to do, too, such as re-instating that essential protection, the Uptick Rule for short selling, and cracking down on the short sellers with their industrial scale illegal propaganda, as well. (There's more, but that's a start, for the SEC!)
I remain very bullish on DNAG. "He who laughs last, laughs best."
Sincerely,
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
I think it had more to do with my purchases of large numbers of shares, which hopefully provided them with some much-needed funding to work with, than with my email.
They may have thought shareholders had abandoned them altogether. I've made it clear that I still believe in them. So they can be confident that they have at least one serious buyer, of their stock. After all the downward manipulation this stock has suffered from, in the past, they may have been afraid to try to raise needed capital by selling shares! What a shame. I'm more than happy to help them out.
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
Oh, come on... If some people are (or someone is) selling a little at .0004, why aren't I getting any at that price? Who's getting those? The Market Maker? Other people who put in limit orders, after I did? Sure, it's low volume, but still... someone is getting them.
P.S., I filed another Form 4 today.
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
Here are two news links, regarding the credit markets that are beginning to thaw (good news for DNAG,) and individual value investors, cleverly taking advantage of rare opportunities (also very relevant here) :
Zero Rate World May Lie Ahead as King, Trichet Cut (Update1)
By Simon Kennedy and Craig Torres
Nov. 7 (Bloomberg)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=aNNq6sl4d9Pw&refer=home
Japan's `Clever' Individuals Ride Rally as Funds Sell (Update1)
By Patrick Rial and Toshiro Hasegawa
Nov. 7 (Bloomberg)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=a_04BKURia2c&refer=japan
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
Why put "good news" in quotation marks, as if it's not good news? Of course it is good news.
As an aside, I'm also impressed by the speed with which DNAPrint Genomics got the Utah registration issue resolved; it was resolved within a matter of days, after I emailed Louise about it. I'm looking forward to further steps in the right direction. As I've said, this company has earned my trust and admiration, and I'd like to see it attain the success they deserve, and grow into their full potential.
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
One might expect that particular remedy to take a little longer, as it involves the preparation and filing of the annual report, and the filing (and approval) of the administrative dissolution(s,) in Florida. Fairly straightforward, but I expect it to take more time, than did the remedy in Utah. A modicum of patience seems appropriate. I do expect it's being taken care of.
Title XXXVI BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS
Chapter 607 CORPORATIONS
607.1421 Procedure for and effect of administrative dissolution.
http://law.onecle.com/florida/business-organizations/607.1421.html
Title XXXVI BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS
Chapter 607 CORPORATIONS
607.1422 Reinstatement following administrative dissolution.
http://law.onecle.com/florida/business-organizations/607.1422.html
[Excerpt from the latter] :
--
(1) A corporation administratively dissolved under s. 607.1421 may apply to the Department of State for reinstatement at any time after the effective date of dissolution. The corporation must submit a reinstatement form prescribed and furnished by the Department of State or a current uniform business report signed by the registered agent and an officer or director and all fees then owed by the corporation, computed at the rate provided by law at the time the corporation applies for reinstatement.
(2) If the Department of State determines that the application contains the information required by subsection (1) and that the information is correct, it shall reinstate the corporation.
(3) When the reinstatement is effective, it relates back to and takes effect as of the effective date of the administrative dissolution and the corporation resumes carrying on its business as if the administrative dissolution had never occurred.
(4) The name of the dissolved corporation shall not be available for assumption or use by another corporation until 1 year after the effective date of dissolution unless the dissolved corporation provides the Department of State with an affidavit executed as required by s. 607.0120 permitting the immediate assumption or use of the name by another corporation.
(5) If the name of the dissolved corporation has been lawfully assumed in this state by another corporation, the Department of State shall require the dissolved corporation to amend its articles of incorporation to change its name before accepting its application for reinstatement.
--
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
Good news: DNAPrint Genomics, Inc. has regained Active status in Utah. They are no longer listed as "Delinquent / Failure to File Renewal" -- that issue has been resolved. They are now listed as "Active / Good Standing."
https://secure.utah.gov/bes/action/searchresults
search for DNAPrint
--
Name Type City Status Detail
DNAPRINT GENOMICS, INC. Corporation SARASOTA Active
Total Results: 1
--
Clicking "Detail" brings up more information, including:
Status
Status: Active
Status Description: Good Standing
This Status Date: 10/22/2008
Last Renewed: 10/22/2008
License Type: Corporation - Domestic - Profit
Delinquent Date: 08/11/2009
--
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
(Nature Article)
Human genetics: Individual genomes diversify
Samuel Levy1 & Robert L. Strausberg1
Nature 456, 49-51 (6 November 2008) | doi:10.1038/456049a; Published online 5 November 2008
Link to text version:
http://naturereprints.com/nature/journal/v456/n7218/full/456049a.html
Link to PDF version:
http://naturereprints.com/nature/journal/v456/n7218/pdf/456049a.pdf
The link between a person's genetic ancestry and the traits — including disease risk — that he or she exhibits remains elusive. Routine sequencing of the genomes of an African and an Asian individual offer a step forward.
The rapid progress in genetic screening assays and DNA sequencing techniques promises to increase our understanding of the complex relationship between the human genetic make-up (the genotype) and its associated traits (the phenotype). For example, using the composite human genome sequences1, 2, 3, genome-wide association studies have identified regions that control specific traits through single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) — the most common form of genetic variation. In this issue, Bentley et al.4 (page 53) and Wang et al.5 (page 60) detail the development and application of a high-throughput technology for sequencing DNA to decipher the genomes of two people, one of West African descent and the other of Han Chinese descent. This advance provides a technology that might eventually relate specific sequences and regions of DNA directly to human phenotypes.
Although genome-wide association studies can establish a link between a genetic locus marked by adjacent SNPs and its associated phenotype, they do not automatically identify the implicated nucleotide's position, as they use only a fraction of human SNPs. Genome-wide association studies were used because of their relatively low cost compared with the technological challenge and high cost of sequencing genomes in large human populations. Sequencing the genomes of many individuals would overcome the problem of identifying which nucleotide(s) are implicated in a phenotype, as long as the procedure could be performed accurately and completely. From such data sets, DNA variants can be identified, and the frequency with which they occur in humans who carry a particular trait — such as a disease — can then be compared with their frequency in people who lack that trait. Thus, all genetic variants contributing to the trait can be identified, giving a more complete picture of the biology involved.
The genomes of the anonymous African and Asian individuals supplement the existing sequenced genomes of two people of European origin, Craig Venter6 and James Watson7. Both teams involved in the latest work4, 5 used the Illumina GA sequencing instrument, in which sequencing is performed by synthesizing fluorescently detectable DNA molecules, using the DNA from the genome being sequenced as a template. In a single cycle, this platform can produce more than 40 million discrete 'reads' of 35 nucleotides from either end of a 200- or a 2,000-nucleotide DNA fragment. Compared with the instruments used to complete the initial human genome sequence1, 2, 3, the Illumina GA generates three to four orders of magnitude more sequence per operation cycle. This instrument therefore joins the 454 Life Sciences sequencer7 as yet another 'next generation' technology for sequencing individual human genomes.
How do the two new genome sequences allow a better understanding of human genetics? Both studies4, 5 confirm that it is possible to routinely sequence the genome of an individual to discover the wide spectrum of DNA variations that it harbours. Of course, this process is greatly facilitated by having a reference human genome against which to compare sequence data from the two individuals. This allows the identification of SNPs, as well as insertion/deletion polymorphisms and structural variations (Fig. 1, overleaf). Extensive validation of the SNPs detected shows that sequencing accuracy is high. A strength of this latest approach is the extent of deep sequencing achieved, which aids SNP identification.
Figure 1: Genomic variations.
The latest whole-genome sequences of two humans confirm4, 5 that individual genomes vary in several respects. The types of variability in inheritance include: variations in single nucleotides (SNPs); insertion or deletion of several nucleotides; insertion or deletion of thousands of nucleotides (structural variation); and duplication or multiplication of DNA segments more than 1,000 nucleotides long (copy-number variation).
High resolution image and legend (71K) :
http://naturereprints.com/nature/journal/v456/n7218/fig_tab/456049a_F1.html
The advantages of obtaining these two genomes, such as the identification of DNA variations, indicate that their usefulness will ultimately be much broader than simply demonstrating the technological milestone of relatively low-cost sequencing. But some goals remain. As the genomes were reconstituted on the basis of alignments with existing reference genomes, the set of non-SNP variants that are absent in the reference genome will be incomplete. For example, in these studies, the detection of structural variants — insertions or deletions of thousands of nucleotides at any one position on a chromosome — is preferential for deletions. This is because such insertions come from sequenced reads that will not overlap with the existing reference genome. There are two possible solutions to this detection bias. One would be to sequence larger DNA fragments whose ends overlap with sequences on the reference genome8. Alternatively, all sequenced reads could be assembled independently, before mapping them to a reference human genome6.
Another deficiency of the four genomes4, 5, 6, 7 is that they do not accurately define copy-number variants at the nucleotide level. These forms of genetic variation arise from the insertion of multiple copies of DNA segments that may include whole genes and that have been increasingly implicated in, among other disease phenotypes, neurological disorders9, 10.
Our genomes are not just collections of DNA variation: parental inheritance also dictates specific associations between neighbouring variations. Knowledge of these associations will ultimately help us discover whether and how much of an aberrant protein is produced by each of our cells and how these events contribute to observed phenotypes. The association between neighbouring variations across all 23 pairs of human chromosomes is referred to as haplotype assembly, and has not yet been completely achieved in any of the individual genomes sequenced.
These limitations notwithstanding, the approach of Bentley4, Wang5 and their colleagues represents a substantial advance in the sequencing of individual human genomes. Together with the other two genomes sequenced6, 7, they reinforce the catalogue of variants that exist in human genomes — SNPs in the millions, insertion/deletion polymorphisms in the hundreds of thousands and structural variants in the thousands. The numbers of these variants do not directly tell us how such polymorphisms contribute to the wide spectrum of human traits. But they do provide a necessary step towards accurately defining genomic loci that are likely to be implicated in those traits.
With such rapid advances in next-generation technologies, and with 'third generation' technologies emerging, this is just the beginning of the era of the individual genome. Soon, association studies using complete individual genomes will become the approach of choice for understanding the complexity of human biology and disease. The latest advances have broad implications for expediting that goal.
See Editorial, page 1.
References
Lander, E. S. et al. Nature 409, 860–921 (2001).
Venter, J. C. et al. Science 291, 1304–1351 (2001).
International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium Nature 431, 931–945 (2004).
Bentley, D. R. et al. Nature 456, 53–59 (2008).
Wang, J. et al. Nature 456, 60–65 (2008).
Levy, S. et al. PLoS Biol. 5, e254 (2007).
Wheeler, D. A. et al. Nature 452, 872–876 (2008).
Kidd, J. M. et al. Nature 453, 56–64 (2008).
Marshall, C. R. et al. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 82, 477–488 (2008).
Walsh, T. et al. Science 320, 539–543 (2008).
My risks are mine to take. I've been making money by being long on stocks during this economic downturn (the only thing I shorted was oil, by buying DTO - double short crude - at its bottom,) buying and selling at the right times, with the eye toward holding stocks long-term for tax advantage, whenever possible. DNAG is my favorite, the one with the most potential, in my opinion. I don't need anyone's sympathy or patronizing, I'm making good money, thank you very much. I understand that not everyone has been so fortunate, but what do you expect me to do about it? I plan to keep making money.
Even if all my investment in DNAG were to turn to zero (which I do not expect it will,) I would still be ahead. Sure, it would cut into my profits, but the risk is well worth it, in my opinion... because if DNAG takes off, look out... It's got the most potential for (and likelihood of) astronomical gains, of any stock I've owned, in my opinion.
Good luck to all,
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
Correction: I meant "share price / market cap," not "share cap / market price."
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
"frogdreaming,"
I never saw that letter on their website, but I've seen you post it before, and my assessment is the same now, as it was then. Assuming for a moment that it really was on their website, I do not see any "promises" or "lies." I see intent, and intent does not always go as one plans. No question about it, some things have not gone as planned for the company, but that does not mean conspiracy or malice was behind it. Regardless of how you spin it, I see no evidence of that.
It's important to note, there are many positives about the company, as well, and the share cap / market price are extremely low, right now (great buying opportunity, which is why I'm buying.) Let's just say, it's not over until it's over, though I've seen you claim it's over, for a long time, now. I don't believe you, "frogdreaming." DNAPrint Genomics has a lot going for it. Extreme negativity is not helpful, in forming an accurate picture of where the company is at. It's as if someone were constantly pointing out that a champion boxer, once had a fight that didn't go so well, and claiming (loudly and frequently) that boxer was "worthless," "finished," and a "fraud." That kind of heckling has nothing to do with rational investing.
P.S., I also don't believe that you have any patents. You can fluff yourself however you want, but in the absence of evidence, I do not believe your claims. Also, as you well know, the free account I'm using, here, does not give me access to search functions. If you have an historical message to point out, then please do post a link to it.
DNAPrint Genomics has a track record of recognized and impressive achievement. That the stock price hasn't fared so well, in the past, does not preclude the possibility (or likelihood) that it will fare very well in the future. Also, as I've pointed out, deliberate manipulation of the stock price, including tiny sells that walk the price down, including banging the close, including massive illegal naked short selling (the reason DNAG has been on the Naked Short / Regulation SHO list multiple times,) combined with industrial-scale negative propaganda, has had a major causative role in this stock's past performance.
Sentiment: Extremely strong buy.
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
"frogdreaming,"
Hogwash.
You say, "What you are NOT permitted to do (unchallenged) is to try to influence innocent investors with unsupported fantasies and a complete lack of knowledge regarding the history and milestones of the company." I have not done that. You aren't any more "permitted" than I am, to make up B.S. and try to pass it off as fact. Which is why we keep challenging you, and disproving your claims. You have yet to retract even a single one of the since-disproven claims you have made. That doesn't inspire one's confidence in your writings.
Inventing things, and putting your own extreme "spin" on other things, does not constitute honest portrayal of anything, or "proof" of anything.
You make a claim, you prove it. Enough dancing around and trying to appeal to your own supposed authority. It isn't cutting it. Your "authority" is not worth anything. Substantiate something that you claim, and then you may be taken seriously, on that specific claim. You do not, at any point, become the unchallenged spewer of arbitrary "truths."
Retract your lies, already. Need I rub your nose in them once more, to remind you of them? Are you hoping that we'll forget about them?
Enough with the unfounded personal attacks and conspiracy theories, already.
Proud to be a DNAG shareholder,
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
PL1,
That is an interesting article, thanks for sharing it. Here are some thoughts I have, about it:
Combining that with CNV, and that most (up to 94%) of human genes are said to be able to produce multiple products (to say nothing of SNPs,) it appears that humans may be much more variable, in a functional genomic sense, than was previously supposed. This may mean that genetic screening for medical purposes may be even more important, than what we are already surmising. That would be good for DNAPrint Genomics, in my opinion -- a bigger field brings bigger opportunity. Innovators like DNAPrint are often the companies that take best advantage of a rapidly changing/growing field, leaving the less nimble far behind. "Cutting edge" is a widely repeated accolade that DNAPrint has earned, for its technology, and I expect that will be maintained (earned again and again) in the future.
Thanks,
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
"frogdreaming,"
I don't see any evidence to support your claims, I only see still _more_ unsubstantiated claims from you, and an unfounded personal attack, as well. Notably, I also see no retractions from you, or even an attempt to address that issue.
Dr. Frudakis is not "a liar and a cheat," and you have provided no evidence whatsoever, to substantiate this dastardly personal attack against him.
People who understand the patent application process know that DNAPrint Genomics' patent applications have been proceeding normally. Several of them have already been granted. Patents, and patent applications, are good things. The applications are often not approved as-is, the first time around. Modifications are common.
You are also totally ignoring the recent quotes, from this year, coming from companies/agencies that are working with DNAPrint Genomics. All of those comments have been positive; I have yet to see anything negative. Also, if it's all a "scam" and nothing is being done, how is it possible that all of these collaborations exist, and we're seeing only positive news and comments come out of those? (See the links that Sam1933 posted.)
DNAPrint Genomics has my trust and admiration. They've earned it. I won't let anyone con me into thinking otherwise.
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
"frogdreaming,"
Where's your evidence? Do you think DoggieDNAPrint just dropped on them from the sky, last year? Do you think Dr. Frudakis is working on nothing at all? (And you claimed that the company dismissed all of its research scientists... Dr. Frudakis is certainly still there, as has already been pointed out to you!) He has filed patent applications this year, etc. Once again, I must ask that you provide evidence for your claims. While you're at it, RETRACT all of the false statements you have made against DNAG. (We have proven multiple statements of yours to be false, yet you have still retracted nothing. Why is that?)
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
Nature's Way,
Agreed.
By the way, a new interested investor, posting on Yahoo Finance, has forwarded the response he received from Investor Relations (Louise.) Not really anything new, but it's encouraging, nonetheless:
--
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_D/threadview?m=tm&bn=79611&tid=480&mid=486&tof=1&frt=2
Re: When this stock come to market?
Posted by: zobayur
10 minutes ago
Daniel,
Thank you again.
I wanted to know a bit more about this.
Please find the e-mail below
Hello Zobayur, there is not much I can tell you at this point other than we continue to work towards a financing and as soon as we can share anything, we will put out a press release.
thank you,
Louise
Investor Relations
DNAPrint genomics, Inc.
V 941-366-3400
dnap@dnaprint.com
--
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
Nature's Way,
Hahaha... It wasn't me. I didn't get any additional shares yet, this week. (I'm buying with my limit orders.)
From where I'm standing, I think we've been seeing increased buying pressure that's been going on for weeks, if not months. It's just that tiny manipulative sells (100 shares, 150 shares, etc.,) were keeping the share price down, even in the face of massive buying at the ask price, as we've seen. (And I reported those manipulative trades to the SEC, multiple times, and encouraged others to do the same. We should always report criminal manipulation of securities, when we see it. Or it just continues and grows.)
It's nice to see a gain. Stocks that have more buying pressure than selling pressure are _supposed_ to see gains.
By the way, this isn't a "flipper" stock for me, I'm not planning to sell any at anywhere near these low levels. Maybe I'd sell some when we're around 1 cent, but $1 is more like it. And I would never sell as the abusive (short)sellers do, deliberately crushing rallies (in the absence of an Uptick Rule for short selling,) as we've seen time and again; I sell using limit orders, the same way that I buy. (I still have never sold a single DNAG share, even when I saw rallies that could have brought me a tidy profit. I'm in DNAG for the long haul.) I want to see DNAPrint Genomics and DNAG shareholders prosper.
Good luck to all of us!
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
We're at .0006 now.
bag8ger,
Your point about Dr. Frudakis is very true. I would add, he's a very effective research scientist. His work is widely acknowledged and called what it is, cutting-edge. He's been producing a lot, working with very little funding, for some time now. Running on fumes, as someone remarked to me, recently. That's the mark of a very dedicated and brilliant scientist, who knows how to make every penny count.
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
Sam,
Agreed. I'd also guess they're taking care of the corporate requirements... annual report so they can file, etc. Perhaps they will also use some funds to help secure new funding. Just guessing, of course. I trust they are doing whatever is most effective and urgent, with available funds, at this time.
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
"frogdreaming,"
I most vehemently disagree.
If what you claim is true, then what do they have 32 distributors of? The company most certainly still has AncestryByDNA (and DoggieDNAPrint, and the forensics products, and their genetic screening pipeline...) And why are various companies/agencies still talking in a positive way about (in 2008 -- see the links that Sam has posted) their collaborations with DNAPrint Genomics, if nothing has been going on for "years"?
They appear to have an expanding theranostics/genetic screening pipeline, much of which appears to have to do with cancer (screening for cancer-relevant genes.) Just because they aren't posting frequent updates, doesn't mean you get to just make things up. We have information of various forms, coming from parties they are dealing with -- Sam has posted many links in this regard -- so we all know the extremely bleak picture you're painting, simply isn't accurate.
Selling shares isn't their only way to raise funds. For instance, as you know, they already had existing income streams, and with 32 distributors of AncestryByDNA alone, now, I would think it's safe to say those sales have not fallen off a cliff and gone to zero, merely because of what you may say.
Patents that Dr. Frudakis has applied for (some already granted, and some drafted this year) :
Approximately 125 results found in the Worldwide database for: frudakis tony as the applicant or inventor
http://v3.espacenet.com/results?sf=q&DB=EPODOC&IA=frudakis+tony&PGS=10&CY=ep&LG=en&ST=quick
Looking pretty lively, to me.
Also, DoggieDNAPrint was introduced last year... no progress for years? I don't believe it for one second.
P.S., You said you'd like to see me own all of the DNAG shares. I've got almost 200 million, now.
Putting my money where my mouth is,
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
People are asking me why I am so bullish on DNAG. I'm attempting to answer them, in a reasonably succinct fashion. I thought I'd share the exchanges here, especially for the benefit of newcomers, people who'd like to learn more about DNAG. Links below:
Google Finance:
Asenski posted an apprehensive-sounding message on Google Finance (he apparently bought some DNAG without doing his own research, and is unsure about his investment) :
http://finance.google.com/group/google.finance.717321/msg/fbf1fb463849d26e
My reply to Asenski:
http://finance.google.com/group/google.finance.717321/msg/de42e78e6fa86c15
These posts seen in thread view (in context) :
http://finance.google.com/group/google.finance.717321/browse_thread/thread/3284df0dce113739/fbf1fb463849d26e
Yahoo Finance:
BigJohnMarus asks me why I'm so bullish on DNAG:
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_D/threadview?m=tm&bn=79611&tid=429&mid=476&tof=2&rt=2&frt=2&off=1
My reply to BigJohnMarus:
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_D/threadview?m=tm&bn=79611&tid=429&mid=477&tof=2&rt=2&frt=2&off=1
Increased interest and awareness in DNAG, appears to be emerging.
Good luck to all DNAG shareholders, and everyone who's behind DNAPrint Genomics!
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
Thanks for the links, Sam1933! That's encouraging (the site visitors stats, and the demographic stats, as well.)
Have a great one,
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
"uccaducca,"
That's fine. I take my chances, and I've been doing well at it. Sure, sometimes some of my investments are underwater (I was underwater for months with Sirtris, before eventually more than doubling my investment through shares and call options, when GlaxoSmithKline bought them, for example,) but I know how to play it, and I'm winning. I don't sell low and buy high, I do the opposite. It's a very rewarding strategy. The way I see it: Fear is for people who don't want to make money. Panic is for people who like to lose money. Neither describes me. I know my own strategy.
I'm not afraid of averaging down, with stocks that I believe are undervalued. DNAPrint Genomics is a company that has earned my admiration, and I put my money where my mouth is. If everyone were afraid to average down or buy a risky R&D stock, of course the share prices would plummet... (and publicly traded R&D stocks would fade out of existence,) but everyone isn't afraid. I'm not. DNAG is extremely undervalued. Feel free to average down, or not, as you prefer. I'm averaging down in a big way, and I'm quite confident that the risk:reward profile of my investment is a very good one. I understand the risks involved, thank you very much. The sky is not falling.
"Buy when the blood is running in the streets, even if it is your own." (Nathan Rothschild)
Good luck,
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
"uccaducca,"
You insinuate that all investors would simply drop the stock like a rock, as if it were utterly valueless (which it most emphatically isn't,) and the authorized share limit reached again, in no time at all, and that the company is just sitting on its collective thumbs, with no chance of turning a profit, ever. I don't subscribe to that assessment.
As I said, I would be a buyer. I'm not the only buyer, either. All those transactions today at .0005, those were other buyers. I didn't buy any shares today. We saw respectable volume at .0005. We're well off the bottom of .0002.
There is no rational reason for your extremely pessimistic scenario to play out. It's pure fantasy.
You aren't going to be able to dissuade me from continuing to buy DNAG stock.
Why is it, I wonder, that several of the home runs I've hit this year (stocks I bought that I made dramatic gains with,) were constantly smothered by "the sky is falling!" propaganda? I've learned how much such talk is worth... considerably less than nothing. In fact, I view is as a valuable contrary indicator. The more loudly people say the sky is falling, the less I believe them.
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
I would still own the same portion of the company, even if they did a million to 1 reverse split. And I'd still be a buyer, all else remaining the same. How can so many investors in small R&D companies be so ignorant of the need to raise capital, and the prudence of being prepared to average down?
The way this stock has been treated is a shame, and has been laced with illegal manipulative behavior (downward manipulation) for years. People who don't know what they're doing, should stay well away from small R&D companies' stocks. People who manipulate stocks, should be behind bars.
I'm following Buffett's strategy. The more people are wrong about a stock, the more opportunity there is, with that stock. DNAPrint Genomics is an exceptional company.
My share count is approaching the big 200M mark! As of market close last Friday, I have purchased: 198,299,787 shares of DNAG. (My limit orders haven't gotten me any additional shares, so far, today.)
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
Update: I currently own 195,204,787 shares of DNAG -- 15.76% of the outstanding share count (which is 1,238,790,465 as of this morning, when I called the registrar to check.)
Good luck to all DNAG shareholders, and to DNAPrint Genomics, and everyone who is involved with the company!
Daniel Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
P.S., yes, those 25,000 FNM shares I sold yesterday, to buy more DNAG with, were sold for a profit. My average FNM price per share is 55 cents.
Personal use? Substantiate that.
Here's something, that may help convey the substance of my bullish sentiment, with DNAG:
As of yesterday morning, I owned 304,700 shares of FNM (Fannie Mae.) I've been holding onto that amount for over a month, and the intent is to hold most of it, long term. I expect to see huge gains in FNM, in the coming months/years.
However, I sold 25,000 of my FNM shares yesterday, at 97 cents each (highly undervalued,) to raise cash for buying more DNAG shares. I'm prepared to go further, to accumulate more DNAG and in support of the company during these difficult times, but I think FNM will be at a higher price in the relatively near future, so I don't want to sell too many at current prices.
Too many Wallstreeters avoid the most highly undervalued stocks. I think they're a cowardly bunch, in general. As I said before, I subscribe to the Buffett philosophy of investment, which is buying value, but I'm not afraid of going for the extreme value stocks, companies that apparently scare most Wallstreeters away, but are, in many cases, crucial to the growth and advancement of our science, medicine, economy, etc. Too many small, but extremely promising and valuable, companies, have been shorted down into the mud and left for dead, by these people.
DNAG is the world's most undervalued stock, in my book. (I'm all ears, if anyone has another candidate, for "world's most undervalued stock"!) I'd be a fool to avoid buying the world's most undervalued stocks, but I'm smart enough to formulate a viable strategy -- such stocks can't be safely bought without a viable strategy. (Diversification and balancing, etc.)
PL1,
Thank you. An eloquent post, that I totally agree with.
Clarification: We're still at the same outstanding share count we were 10 days ago (10/21/2008.) The share count did increase by 25 million between 10/8 and 10/21, but hasn't increased between 10/21 and today. As I understand it, there can be some delay, between the issuance of new shares, and their transfer or sale on the open market.