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.
Hey Phantom, don't know if you read post # 33970 but if there is ever a next time opportunity, please have a brick ready.
Benzinga also had a report on MRKR on 7-11.
"What's Going On With Marker Therapeutics (MRKR) Stock"
"Marker Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: MRKR) shares are trading higher by 3.0% to $5.50 Tuesday morning. The stock is rising on continued momentum after the company on Monday announced the European Medicines Agency granted MT-401 an Orphan Drug Designation.
The drug is for the treatment of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Per Marker, AML is a life-threatening disease with high relapse rates and poor outcomes after hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT).
MT-401 is designed to target multiple tumor-associated antigens and is currently being evaluated in a Phase 2 clinical trial for relapsed AML post-HSCT. Orphan Drug Designation provides regulatory support, including market exclusivity, reduced fees and scientific advice from the EMA."
I think the "available for trade" float shares are getting smaller every week. As of 3-31 we had about 4 1/2 million shares out of the 8.8 million total held by insiders and institutions ( so not really "available"). As more and more retail buy to hold that just decreases the "available" amount and we will find out about August 15th how many more shares where snapped up by institutions and thus made not "available" for trading, (I hope 1 or 2 million more of them).
If we have an actual available float of 2 1/2 or 3 millions shares, then on any good news, this should skyrocket.
We are also getting close to the date given by Juan Vera for his "strategic review" which was late July / early August.
And we STILL had 325,000 shares shorted that can only be bought to cover at a BIG loss because the Highest price they could have been shorted at was the 6-12 high of $3.10 and most below $2.50
I said it a few times before and I'll say it again.
I THINK I WAS AN IDIOT FOR NOT BUYING MUCH MORE THE LAST TIME I BOUGHT ON 3-23 WHEN IT WAS $1.11 A SHARE.
And what did Phantom say months later on 6-3, "it's a buy anywhere under that $2.30 cash number."
I wish he threw a brick at my head and convinced me to buy more.
Everytime it goes up a bit in price, some people seem to always do a bit of profit taking. I have always done something similar in the past with most other stocks ie: when I had a More Than a double profit, I would sell half to get my original investment back (and cover capital gains tax) and in effect keep the other half of the shares for free.
In this case of MRKR, I think, or at least I hope, that in the longer run, those who sold for a small profit will be sorry that they sold too soon.
oops, new quarterly institutional holders report for quarter ending 6-30 due out about 8-15, not 7-15.
I still need it to about quadruple just to get back to even. Sad.
We should be getting the new quarterly institutional holders report for quarter ending 6-30 in a couple of days. We will see then if any institutions added large to their position or if any new player/players came in large. I'm guessing the answer may be yes. Will report when I see it.
Follow up: I believe it was Juno that had patients die using CAR-T.
Also CAR-T deaths from Kite, Tmunity and 2seventy (maybe others).
And I believe it was Editas that had a CRISPR death early on (maybe others).
Thanks. Positives: Low cost vs CAR-T. Quick manufacturing vs CAR-T. Not a single case of cytokine release syndrome vs CAR-T whereas CAR-T has killed patient. NOT genetically engineered like CAR-T and (RNAI, MRNA, CRISPR). Free beneficial epitope spreading. Peter Hoang is GONE.
Crazy low market cap when other tiny bio's as I mentioned have MUCH larger market caps with less, which to me just means a lot more upside potential.
NK. I have followed NK cell bio's for many years now. AFMD, FATE, NKTX, LPTX, etc.
It seems the main problem with NK cells versus T cells is longevity, or the lack of it.
NK cells live a few days to a couple of weeks. B cells for several weeks. T cells for many months or longer.
Or at least that is my general understanding of immune cells.
I was really hoping that there was 1 million+ shares shorted on 6-30 just to make it worse on themselves.
It's about time they share in, along with all of us, on the losing money side of the equation.
Thanks
Short report as of 6-30. Shorts at 325,000 , down from 456,000+ , so 131,000+ shares were bought to cover, and could ONLY have been covered at a LOSS because the Highest price that the 456,000 could have been shorted at was the 6-12 high of $3.10 and MOST were shorted at $2.50 and below.
So as of 6-30, there were still 325,000 shares shorted which AGAIN could only have been shorted at the 6-12 high of $3.10 and most below $2.50, PLUS they have been paying and will CONTINUE to pay a 40%+ APR interest rate on all those shorted shares.
As long as MRKR stays above the $2.50 price where most of the outstanding shares were shorted at, they can only cover at a big LOSS.
Excuse my language, but, SCREW THEM, I am LAUGHING and I hope they learned their lesson.
I am glad to hear you say that you are 50/50 on MRKR. I have said many times that I would like to see a "partner" or "partners" to jump in with MRKR, but I don't think that is a possibility until they present actual very positive trial data so I don't believe that will be anytime soon. I also would not prefer to see a buyout unless the number is in the double digit Billions, which again won't happen until they present actual very positive trial data.
I will give you that "nothing much to go on" is a matter of perspective. They have much more than many other tiny bio's that have much larger market caps. They currently have what they have and are at where they are at.
Believe me, at my age, I wish I could turn back the clock of time, but just as I can't do that, neither can MRKR and run robust trials yesterday. Again, in reality, it is what is it.
If you don't mind, I would like to ask you a favor and I would like to give a bit of an explanation.
First, the explanation. You are 50/50 on MRKR with I believe from my readings with no or little investment in it. Well many other posters are not in that position. Many posters have 50k, 100K, 150K, and more invested in MRKR and have been putting in money for many years.
YES I KNOW, that is OUR fault and OUR fault alone. I get it. But the point I am trying to make to you, and I can't speak for anybody else except myself, but with so much money invested, it is very tiresome to read the CONSTANT NEGATIVES which seem to be never ending, which brings me to my favor of you.
If, as you say, you are 50/50, which in my head means 50% negative and 50% positive, can you consider your answer for a while first before you respond, and then please respond by telling me everything that you believe is a Positive for MRKR.
Seriously, with a 50/50 split, and I KNOW you have a lot on the 50% negative side ... so there must be Also quite a bit on the 50% Positive side.
I don't know if your positives will be the same as mine or the same as others, but I think it will be enlightening to hear the "positives" from the negative side, if you get what I mean.
So PLEASE, without being confrontational, tell me what all of your MRKR positives are.
THANK YOU
P.S. When the new report comes out at 4PM this afternoon, I will post the new share short data as of 6-30.
Examination and breakdown of what was actually said:
On 7-11 you said: "Of course you left out where I said with just eight million shares outstanding the stock will run wild up and down, and that if it's at all legitimate the market cap quickly needs to get to $100mn for a cash raise."
Yes, I left out the first part "with just eight million shares outstanding the stock will run wild up and down" as that is basic common sense understood by everybody which is why about a year ago I explained that the reverse split "in itself" does not lose investors any money as you will own 1/10th the shares but they will be worth 10 times as much so moneywise it is a wash.
I ALSO pointed out that an added benefit to only having 8 million shares outstanding instead of 80 million will be a good thing if in the future we get good news because the having 10 times less shares means those less amount of shares will move up Much More Quicker on any good news because of the 10 times lower float.
NOW, to the second part of your 7-11 post: "if it's at all legitimate the market cap quickly needs to get to $100mn for a cash raise."
That is NOT necessarily true as we know they now have enough cash to last until the end of 2025 and also have agreements and access to more cash if they need it.
NOW, if the share price goes to, let's say $20 and they decide to raise cash at a $16 valuation because they think they can put that cash to good use, ie: additional trials or R+D or whatever, then so be it, LET THEM. A decrease to $16 from $20 is still much better than the below $1 we were at very recently.
NEXT, your post that you referenced was from 6-23 where you said "there's just 8mn shares outstanding so the share price will run wild. Have to wonder why they'd leave themselves with such a low number of outstanding with no immediate large cash raise to up the count?? Hmm. It's a retail day traders stock now. Let's hope the "Review" (already late) doesn't include a move to the OTC."
Part 2 of your 6-23 post: "Have to wonder why they'd leave themselves with such a low number of outstanding with no immediate large cash raise to up the count?? Hmm."
You may have to wonder that but to everyone else it is obvious. They were left with a low number of shares because they DID A REVERSE SPLIT. You see, that's what happens with a RS, you LOWER your number of shares. DUH!
Part 3 of your 6-23 post: " It's a retail day traders stock now." FALSE. Day traders by definition are very short term traders, hence the word DAY. The retail or institutional buyers who have brought the price from below $1 to above $5 seem be to longer term holders, not day traders.
Part 4 of your 6-23 post: "Let's hope the "Review" (already late) doesn't include a move to the OTC."
Already assessed as an totally assinine statement.
Just over a month ago: Not only was Totally Correct, but seems to be a bit of an understatement now looking at current stock price.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172059985 ...
Last time I added to my holdings was back in March at $1.11, wish I bought much more than I did.
Are we "headed to the OTC" yet?? EYE ROLL #1.
Is MRKR going to announce that they are "building a new manufacturing facility" soon?? EYE ROLL #2.
Was "Still the same people with no new faces" factual and didn't help raise the stock price!! EYE ROLL #3.
Was "I'm (LC) the only one here calling it right and consistently pointing out what should be obvious" factual or a complete self delusion?? EYE ROLL #4
Just to stay ahead of the "curve" on the forthcoming nonsense gibberish proclamations!! EYE ROLLS #5, 6, 7 and 8.
Sorry, I did not realize that you were being sarcastic, I thought you were serious about his research.
It's good I was able to get the facts out there for everybody to see in any case.
I did not want to respond to the original poster as I try to avoid that as it just leads nowhere and just encourages more gibberish.
Sorry Again.
Sorry but NO, that was not great in depth research (twice complimented), as it is Incomplete, 100% Incorrect, and 100% does NOT apply to Marker.
And his comment "Smelling that OTC move" added a lot to the conversation.
If one wants to be simple, all they have to do is a Google search on "does nasdaq require a public company to have a full time CFO" and right at the top of the page click on the first article and they can copy and paste: "SEC rules and the sarbanes-oxley act section 404(b) impose heightened obligation on the CFO of a public company, including the requirement to certify the company's periodic financial statements. Given the importance of this role and the complexities of the accounting rules and
practices related to ongoing businesses operations, Nasdaq expects listed operating companies to employ a full-time CFO."
But if one really want to do research, Read the Sarbanes-Oxley act section 404 2009 SEC review.
https://www.sec.gov/news/studies/2009/sox-404_study.pdf
Section 404(a) of the Act requires management to assess and report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting (“ICFR”). (management, not specifically a CFO).
Section 404(b) requires that an independent auditor attest to management’s
assessment of the effectiveness of those internal controls.
But NONE of that applies to MARKER.
A simple copy and paste from 2009 is meaningless unless it STILL applies, which it does NOT.
Dodd Frank was passed in 2010.
In 2010 the SEC amended Sarbanes-Oxley act section 404 and made a carve out for companies like Marker.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION: ACTION: Final rule:
SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is adopting amendments to
its rules and forms to conform them to Section 404(c) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the
“Sarbanes-Oxley Act”), as added by Section 989G of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”). Section 404(c) provides that Section 404(b) of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act shall not apply with respect to any audit report prepared for an issuer that is
neither an accelerated filer nor a large accelerated filer as defined in Rule 12b-2 under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).
THEN on June 28, 2018, the SEC adopted amendments to the definition of “smaller reporting company” that were effective on September 10, 2018. Under the new definition, generally, a company qualifies as a “smaller reporting company” if:
it has public float of less than $250 million OR
it has less than $100 million in annual revenues and no public float OR public float of less than $700 million.
https://www.sec.gov/education/smallbusiness/goingpublic/SRC?auHash=EgbHNB-hBkK_PuxhVPqD43OmQjjmU3hlKsREq5t5-Rw
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-17/chapter-II/part-229/subpart-229.1/section-229.10
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-17/chapter-II/part-210/subject-group-ECFR9da2cb911847a61
So, the great research postulated does NOT apply at all to MARKER.
A chimp can learn to copy and paste, but a chimp can't take the time involved to do actual research.
So again, as Shakespeare said "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
Thank You very much, as always, actual rational info and answers.
Some different info that is interesting. On June 15th share price was $2.50 and has stayed ABOVE that price since then till now. ALSO on June 15th shorts were 456,000 shares UP FROM 79,000 on 5-31. OK follow along. 3 days previous to 6-15, on 6-12 was the ONLY previous high of $3.10 and previous to that price was BELOW $2.50 going back to 6-1 at $1.60 and previous to that it was even LOWER to below $1. SO WHAT ALL THAT MEANS IS THIS. On 6-15 with 456,000 shares shorted, when did they get to cover for a profit? NEVER because it NEVER went below $2.50 since then (and the HIGHEST price they could have shorted at was the 6-12 price of $3.10). SO, they either covered at a LOSS, or most of those short shares are STILL short. Since 6-15 it went up to $4.50 (which could have been some shorts covering at a LOSS which they generally do not do), then down to just below $3 (last week) and now at $3.60. If most of those shorts are still short, that would be great. We will find out the 6-30 short report on the 7-12 dissemination date. I would love to see about 1 million shares shorted at the 7-12 report date. With a float of only about 4.5 million any good news, ie: Juan Veras strategic review or AML data or other like finding out a current or new institution loaded up (making the float even LOWER), share price could potentially triple between retail buying, day traders jumping in, and shorts scrambling to cover at a BIG LOSS. Would LOVE to see it and will be laughing my A$$ off at the knucklehead shorters. OPINIONS anyone?
I looked through Press Releases at Marker website, I looked at SEC filings, I Googled combinations of "Marker Therapeutics Danforth" and found NOTHING. Does anybody remember if they ever read anything concerning the Danforth Consulting Agreement?
I would like to believe that the Danforth Consulting Agreement will save us money in both the short term and long term. ??
I have a few of questions for Phantom or anybody else. #1 Being that we just had a company vote on 6-6-23, and as I suspect that something did NOT just come up out of the blue that caused this CAO replacement, why not just do this before the 6-6 vote and avoid the "Annual Performance Bonus" as it would not have applied being it would have been less than 6 months of calendar year service?
#2 The new Interim CAO Eliot M. Lurier "receives no compensation directly from the Company" so he gets paid through the "Danforth Consulting Agreement". I am trying to figure out IF and how much money this will save us, if any. So, does anybody know the yearly cost of the "Danforth Consulting Agreement" versus the yearly cost of salary and compensations for the departing CAO? Also, is the "Danforth Consulting Agreement" also taking over the duties of the departed CFO Anthony Kim? And if so, the question would be the yearly cost of the "Danforth Consulting Agreement" versus the yearly costs of salaries and compensations for BOTH the departing CAO and CFO.
#3 Can anybody direct me as to where I can read the "Danforth Consulting Agreement" to see the costs, entailed responsibilities and obligations?
#4 I would like to believe that this CAO replacement will be addressed by Juan Vera as part of his upcoming Strategic Review. Is that a fair assumption or too much to ask?
Thank You
OK, From what I gather from the separate Employment Agreement Here: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1094038/000114420418062867/tv508378_ex10-2.htm,
Under "SEVERANCE PAY" it's not going to be a million dollar + pay off (I hope).
He gets COBRA for 12 months: "the Company shall pay the cost for Executive to continue his health insurance benefits under COBRA for a period of twelve (12) months after termination of employment"
He gets an Annual Performance Bonus (how much $$$ ???): "Executive shall receive an Annual Performance Bonus payable at the highest performance amount for the pro rata portion of the calendar year Executive served the Company, provided that, the Executive has served a minimum of six months during the calendar year of any termination under this subsection"
So WHY didn't they do this in May and AVOID the "Annual Performance Bonus" as that would have been LESS THAN 6 months ????
What other "rights and vested benefits (if any) provided under employee benefit plans and programs of the Company" does he have or is he entiltled to ???
The SHAKEUP CONTINUES, hope it all works out for the best.
I would like to hear Juan Vera address this in his upcoming "Stategic Review" and explain what cost saving, if any there will be short and long term and if so, how much $'s.
Somewhat of a good sign. Whenever there is price weakness recently, some buying/accumulation happens, not giant volume, but it's better than nothing.
MRKR Multi-TAA is not a remedy for lost fingers, so everybody have a safe and happy 4th of July. Let's try to focus on what makes this Country of ours great in our unity and not the minor differences or differences of opinions that seem to get blown way out of proportion nowadays. GO MRKR.
Total Asset = 29 Million. Total Liabilities = < 3 Million. 29 minus <3 = > 26 Million. Market Cap 27 Million.
Maybe if the latest press releases were written in crayon he would be better able to understand them.
But somehow I doubt it.
It's like me saying: I wonder why Marker doesn't sue the Mattel toy company for patent infringement?
Why would I even speculate that when there is no basis in reality for that no matter how far you try to stretch your "supposed" reasoning.
But therein lies the problem. A complete lack of reasoning at all.
Abraham Lincoln quote: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
So my obvious question would be: with all the money we paid in salaries for Many Years, who did nobody think of this sooner?
We get in new faces and we get improved results. Kind of wish that they replaced Peter Hoang a lot quicker than they did.
non-clinical data on its lead multi-tumor-associated antigen (multiTAA)-specific T cell product candidate, MT-401, which showed increased anti-tumor activity against an acute myeloid leukemia (AML) cell line after treatment with hypomethylating agents (HMA).
THP-1 cell growth, however, was significantly decreased when MT-401 was added after exposure to 5’-Azacytidine compared to MT-401 or 5’-Azacytidine administration alone, suggesting a synergistic effect between the two agents.
These benefits could therefore significantly enhance the potential clinical outcome of our multiTAA-specific T cell product,” said Juan F. Vera, M.D., President and Chief Executive Officer of Marker Therapeutics. “In light of these encouraging results we are planning to incorporate these findings into our current AML clinical study to improve and empower our multiTAA-specific T cell outcomes.
Based on this non-clinical data, Marker received a $2 million grant from the NIH. The awarded SBIR grant will support a nationwide multi-center Phase 2b clinical trial in AML patients following HSCT to evaluate the effect of MT-401 administered after pre-treatment with HMAs.
Once Again, As Always, THANK YOU
Phanton, any opinions on my previous post # 33888? It is still current info? Is my last paragraph "So from what I gather" accurate?
Anything else you would like to add or elaborate on? Thank You
Short selling and Naked short selling info. Thank You for the info. I 100% agree with "actually helps the stock price since the shorting just adds fuel to the fire for eventual covering". That's why I said, "I will still reserve most $'s until I see the 8-15 institutional holdings reports and the latest short data then available (the more shares shorted the better I will like it)." When Juan Vera gives us his stategic review, if I think it is positive and decide to buy more, I hope there are 1 million shares shorted because I know at some point they will have to buy to cover and drive the share price up even higher.
I guess I falsely believed that brokerage firms, hedge funds and market makers could somehow naked short sell stocks (an idea I always hated) and do it ALL THE TIME.
I found all of the following info on Investopedia.
The Uptick Rule:
"The original rule was introduced by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as Rule 10a-1 and implemented in 1938. The SEC eliminated the original rule in 2007, but approved an alternative rule in 2010. The rule requires trading centers to establish and ENFORCE procedures that PREVENT the execution or display of a prohibited short sale."
The Alternative Uptick Rule:
"The 2010 alternative uptick rule (Rule 201) allows investors to exit long positions before short selling occurs. The rule is triggered when a stock price falls at least 10% in one day. At that point, short selling is permitted if the price is above the current best bid.
This aims to preserve investor confidence and promote market stability during periods of stress and volatility."
Naked Short Selling:
"Naked shorting is the ILLEGAL practice of short-selling shares that have not been affirmatively determined to exist. Ordinarily, traders must borrow a stock, or determine that it can be borrowed before they sell it short. Due to various loopholes in the rules, and discrepancies between paper and electronic trading systems, naked shorting continues to happen.
These short sales are almost always done only by options market makers because they allegedly need to do so in order to maintain liquidity in the options markets; however, these options market makers are often brokers or large hedge funds who abuse the options market maker exemption."
From what I just read at SEC site, "In a "naked" short sale, the seller does not borrow or arrange to borrow the securities in time to make delivery to the buyer within the standard two-day settlement period. As a result, the seller fails to deliver securities to the buyer when delivery is due; this is known as a "failure to deliver" or "fail.""
Also, Securities Exchange Act of 1934:
"The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 stipulates a settlement period up to two business days before a stock needs to be delivered, generally referred to as "T+2 delivery".
Regulation SHO:
The SEC enacted Regulation SHO in January 2005 to target abusive naked short selling by reducing failure to deliver securities, and by limiting the time in which a broker can permit failures to deliver.
In addressing the first, it stated that a broker or dealer may not accept a short sale order without having first borrowed or identified the stock being sold. The rule had the following exemptions:
#1, Broker or dealer accepting a short sale order from another registered broker or dealer
#2, Bona fide market making
#3, Broker-dealer effecting a sale on behalf of a customer that is deemed to own the security pursuant to Rule 200 through no fault of the customer or the broker-dealer.
To reduce the duration for which fails to deliver are permitted to sit open, the regulation requires broker-dealers to close out open fail-to-deliver positions in threshold securities that have persisted for 13 consecutive settlement days.
I also read (which I do not understand) that sometimes the DTCC, Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (which I never heard of) will sometimes provide the shares to cover the fail-to-deliver positions (which I also do not understand and don't know how or why they would do that).
So from what I gather, naked short sales are Illegal (except for the 3 above exemptions), do NOT happen often (except for the 3 above exemptions), generally happens with the options market (which I think still effects the stock price), and can only stay as an open position for 13 consecutive settlement days (unless bailed out by the DTCC).
I do know this, all of this is making my head hurt.
Thank You again
I believe, but am not positive that at one time in the past, this was illegal. I know we used to have the uptick rule where you can only short a stock on an uptick (the stock price has to have ticked up before you can short it), but the SEC got rid of that in 2007. Why I do not know as it would help protect investors from manipulation. I have ALWAYS not liked short selling, but I do understand the purpose of it and to be fair to both the people who believe a stock price will go up and also to those who believe a stock price will go down, it should be allowed (with the uptick rule). But I also think that "naked' short selling should NOT be allowed. If your broker does not have it for you to short, you should not be allowed to short out of thin air. It is OBVIOUSLY not fair to the company or the long holders so I fail to see why the SEC can not realize that.
It seems as simple as buying and selling. You can't buy a share unless some one sells it, you can't sell a share unless some one buys it, so you should not be allowed to short a share unless some one has a share to borrow.
trying to point out the obvious or use reason and logic, reminds me of a line from an old Lou Reed song:
it's as useless as "Sanskrit read to a pony".
Always liked that line. The pony is totally unable to understand if you read to him in English, let alone reading to him in Sanskrit.
Time to go back to just ignoring the pony.
The difference is that I only dream for real when I am sleeping. You seem to live in a dreamworld.
There is not a 1 in 1 million chance that they will move to the OCT by the end of July/early August.
The good news is that we won't have to wait that long to find out who postulates foolish statements.
As Shakespheare said ... a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
100% agree. if it stays above 3.50 I will just hold. If it goes much below $3.50 (on no news) before Juan's strategic review, I will buy some more, but I will still reserve most $'s until I see the 8-15 institutional holdings reports and the latest short data then available (the more shares shorted the better I will like it).
BINGO $4.25
I have given him the opportunity to explain why heading to the OTC would be a reasonable assumption
with the following:
"Without going into rambling nonsense, just address and answer my question AND ONLY MY QUESTION.
Can you please elaborate, WHY you would think that a move to the OTC is even a possibility by the end of July/early August ?"
Trying hard to stay above $4 to close the week. Does it say anything that after a 400% increase in price over the last few months (Below $1 to now) that #1 doesn't seem to be a lot of shorts going on (or the price would be tanking down, not a little down or staying even), #2 it seems like holders are holding and not profit taking. #3, price fought back up from a 15% down earlier today with more buying pressure to climb back above $4.
In reality, there's only about 4.5 million shared out there to trade in the market. Insiders own about 25% of the 8.8 and (as of) 3-31 institutions owned over 2 million, so as you said it doesn't take much pressure either way to move it. I'm just glad that recently, the pressure has been upward. I want to see when it is reported on 8-15 if any institutions added big to their holding or if another big player jumped in.
Again, just to point out 2 seeming obvious points. #1, The 8.8 was a result of the RS, don't think there was any planned conspiracy to it or that is was somehow a mistake of management part. If ALL other things were still EQUAL, I fail to see what good or help it would do if they had 8.8 billions shares. As I pointed out right after the RS, one GOOD ASPECT of it WAS the very LOW 8.8 because it WOULD tend to move the price up quicker on any good news.
#2, "Let's hope the "Review" (already late) doesn't include a move to the OTC." OH YES, like anybody with a functioning brain that isn't trying to be intentionally antagonistic would even speculate that.
Can you please elaborate, WHY you would think that that is even a possibility by the end of July/early August ?
You CLAIM you add Value to this board, OK PROVE IT NOW.
Without going into rambling nonsense, just address and answer my question AND ONLY MY QUESTION.
Can you please elaborate, WHY you would think that a move to the OTC is even a possibility by the end of July/early August?
Here is my first hint to help you out........... If they didn't care if they went to the OTC or not, then logically they would NOT have done the RS.
SO again, Without going into rambling nonsense, just address and answer my question AND ONLY MY QUESTION.
Can you please elaborate, WHY you would think that a move to the OTC is even a possibility by the end of July/early August ?
I will be looking for the Value to us all in your congent and logical answer.
Yep, true, Thanks