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.
Sorry gunnabe, That's not going to fly.
lol and just kidding. but you did kinda flop on me.
I have not yet expressed a position in the discussion, I am still trying to understand yours. You appear to be saying that there is an infinite amount of money available to the company via the sale of shares. The pps will hold up indefinitely, based on the most recent weeks of data, but in spite of the significant losses to the cap value over the last few years. Is that right?
If so, then the current method of the company to obtain funds look like a long term winner and there is certainly no apparent need to upset the status quo in the near future.
If not, then perhaps you will elaborate.
FYI, I don't hold with the market based cap value either, but I assumed your 'math' was based on something. I think that your perception of the behavior of the stock price over the last few months is extremely significant, although not for the reasons you suggest.
regards,
frog
Sorry bendriver,
I'm not getting your point. Can you please clarify?
gunnabe, What an interesting theory.
personally i've never bought into that static market cap theory [that you obviously subscribe to] one iota! for if that was true, there would not be any reason, for anybody, to invest into any equity! as all equities would already be priced in perfect equilibrium with the market cap gods....and no gain could be envisioned in such investment by potential investors.
Do I understand you to be saying that the market cap of a company has no relationship to the value of that company? Is it only an arbitrary value derived by multiplying the number of shares by the share price? Does it not change due to the success or failure of the company? If the company succeeds, doesn't the share price increase and by definition the market cap increase? Are you saying that is not a reflection of value?
I only ask these questions to try to understand your position. It would seem to me that if your assumptions were true, there would be no such thing as dilution. Dilution is the reduction in price of a share, due to it's fractional decrease in ownership of the overall company that is reflected by the market cap. I would suggest that according to your understanding of the last 5 months performance, since the pps has not decreased even in the face of 400% more shares, there has apparently been no dilution.
Is that a fair assessment of your position?
regards,
frog
gunnabe, Really?
but, with an a/s of 1.5 bill, if 30 mill shares were issued per month, there's enough shares to last roughly another 41 months (almost 3-1/2 years which is summer 2009).
If 30 million shares per month extracts $600K from the capitalized value of the company, how many months will the $5 million of current capitalized value last?
Before you argue that the money can be extracted without affecting the capitalized value of the company, please review the effect of the last six months dilution on that value.
In July when the R/S was completed there were 62 million shares and the pps was what? 17 cents, Giving a market cap instantaneous peak value of about $10 Million. We have apparently extracted about $600K per month for the last seven months (July thru January) for a total reduction of $4.2 Million. That compares fairly favorably with the current market cap of $5.14 Million (257 Million shares x .02 pps).
Doesn't look like a further 41 months at $600K or $24.6 Million is in the cards, does it?
that's what the math says.
regards,
frog
pattrn, That's a fairly weak premise to build a case on, if you ask me.
..why would such notable insitutions like Harvard & Moffitt be instruments of credidation to the bogus.
The only tangible connection between these institutions and ours is that money has changed hands (in only one direction) Esentially a sale has been made, with DNAG being the customer.
If credibility could be established simply by buying something from a creditable supplier, then no one would have creditibility issues.
It's not as if DNAG's money isn't any good. Harvard had something for sale....DNAG bought it. Did you think Harvard would refuse legal tender?
As far as they are concerned, if DNAG doesn't complete the terms of the agreement, they get to sell it again. How are they at risk?
In fact, according to the background regarding this item, DNAG is not the first buyer. Already at least one potential customer has failed to complete the deal. Were they reputable?
If you buy a computer from IBM to manage the books for an illegal drug cartel, does the transaction with IBM give you credibility? Does it reflect poorly on IBM?
regards,
frog
thehope, Which endless thread is that?
Me responding to a question, or you whining about my response?
OTOH, is there a game today?
Pattrn, It is an old story repeated several times.
At the completion of the Genome project, it was obvious to anyone who was paying attention, that a new field had opened up. Much like the goldrush, everyone was buying a 'goldpan' (snp machine) and working their way through the public domain snps looking for some nuggets. DNAP was no exception.
At the beginning of the rush, everyone was starting from the same point and had a fairly even chance of finding something. A penny stock that could be obtained for a nickel a share was a reasonable gamble. Someone was going to hit the motherlode, and everyone had an equal chance.
As a new and expanding technology that temporarily overlapped the internet bubble, it had a chance to be quite successful. All the company had to do was apply themselves to the science, there were nuggets laying on the ground ready to be picked up.
Unfortunately, it soon became clear that instead of exploiting the science in a straightforward way and actually spending time looking for gold nuggets in the field, the company was exploiting the science as a plausible front for a completely different method of obtaining gold.
It is now half a decade later, the ground has been churned up and those that legitimately pursued the science have done well and are well on their way to riches. DNAG on the other hand, has been quite successful in their approach to 'mining' gold from their chosen 'market', but they have advanced the science not one whit.
As to redeemable qualities 'left in the cupboard', the company is no longer touting it's genomic expertise as the root of the future, they have hitched their evolving cart to the star of a new drug pipeline. Whatever profitable possibilities lie in the future, as either tangible products or plausible cover, it would appear that the original cupboards are bare.
regards,
frog
OK, OK, No need to get upset. I'll stop provoking you. My bad.
thetide, Take that chip off your shoulder friend, it must be growing into a terrible burden.
For what it's worth, I didn't mean that you didn't want to hear from me specifically. I read your "thought ...not a question.." opening as an indication that you weren't looking for an answer.
However your 'thorn in the side' diatribe certainly indicates that you have some strong feeling on the matter on a personal level. LOL
Didn't mean to set you off. Sorry about that.
regards,
frog
thetide,
While it is doubtful that you would welcome a response to your 'unquestionable' thought, I have an observation of my own that seems to connect. Ignore it or digest it as you wish.
..there seems, with regards to DNAPrint genomics, to be a different kind of animal progressing before our conflicted eyes.
"Different kind of animal" is a thought provoking phrase, given it's connection to the field of genetics. It puts one in mind of evolutionary processes, mutations, natural selection, evolving lifeforms and environmental niches. (It does me, anyway.lol)
My observation of this company over the last half a decade suggests that the company has evolved dramatically from it's initial environmental niche. It has gradually over time changed it's purpose. It has modified it's nutrition source(s), it has explored several configurations, taken up some and abandoned others. It is most definitely not the same animal that many of us were initially attracted to those many years ago. It is a different kind of animal.
It's ability to extract sustenance from it's environment has increased dramatically, whether the current revenue stream can be maintained is a major question. How it interacts with it's prey has changed over time as it has learned from it's mistakes.
It's environment has changed as well, from the internet bubble economy that spawned it to todays toxic financed jungle, it has had to adapt along the way to the changing circumstances.
Unfortunately for us, the current prey, we cannot determine from our own vantage point whether the method by which we provide the sustenance is more representative of a symbiotic relationship or a parasitic one. All we know is that we are losing blood.
In summary, the animal has changed. Whether it has stuck to it's original path (noble cause or scam) or has evolved a new direction (again noble cause or scam) is not yet completely apparent. Unfortunately, the only ones that could tell us, won't speak to us. (Perhaps that is telling enough.)
regards,
frog
bag, To begin with, I couldn't possibly be on the "short end of an argument" since according to you, we are not arguing. LOL
Additionally, I would suggest that it is you who is playing games.
Now I don't know how you can possibly extract yourself from this dilemma without lowering yourself into an argument, but the fact remains that you have misquoted me after dedicating every one of your last six responses to the post that I made yesterday (that you evidently misunderstood).
Perhaps running away is the wise choice.
regards,
frog
bag, In the spirit of 'not arguing', I must protest that I never said that. LOL
One lie, always a liar, indeed!
I said it only takes one lie to make a liar. I said nothing about 'always'. I did say that a lie cannot be unsaid, but that doesn't equate to your interpretation either.
So apparently it is not me that you are "not arguing" with, you are "not arguing" with yourself. LOL
How's that working for you?
regards,
frog
bag8ger, Is this your latest strategy? LOL
According to my review, in the process of "not arguing" you have dedicated 100% of your posts since yesterday afternoon to "responding" to the post, and have reproduced the specific passage that you are "not arguing" with, twice. LOL
Hang in there bag, this board would not be the same without you.
regards,
frog
dnaowner, Like I asked bendriver, what's your point?
I don't have any issues with the dilution one way or another. There is no way for the company to obtain the income they enjoy without it.
For as long as they entertain this business model, dilution is the key.
dnaowner, Like I pointed out in my earlier post, it's not me that you need to make it easy for.
If you need to use such complicated terms as "BAD" naked short selling and "HARMLESS" naked short selling, to explain the difference between illegal and legal naked short selling, that's fine, but I'm not the one you need to convince.
Ebo is the one who doesn't seem to understand the distinction. LOL
bendriver, try to hold still for a minute would you?
You started this argument by denying that dilution had occured.
Now you are not only admitting it's existence but enthusiastically defending it, what gives?
I never made any issue of the pro's or con's of dilution, for a company who derives their income from investors and seems to have come up with a very lucrative business plan to dominate that market, it seems to be quite efficient to me.
All I was saying is that the dilution exists. You apparently took issue with that claim. If you now agree with me, then the conversation would seem to have reached an end point.
regards,
frog
dnaowner,
Don't tell me, tell ebo.
You were right also Dnaowner: give him more rope to hang himself. How can anyone believe anything his says after seeing him state that "naked shorting is not illegal"???? LOL It has been illegal since 1934. AND THAT'S A FACT. The people on this board did not just fall off the turnip truck.
And tell that turnip truck to stop and pick up whoever just fell off.
regards,
frog
Wrong again ebo,
from;
http://www.dtcc.com/Publications/dtcc/mar05/naked_short_selling.html
"There are literally dozens of reasons for a “fail to deliver,” and most of them are legal. Reg SHO also allows market makers to legally “naked short” shares in the course of their market making responsibilities, and those obviously result in fails. We can’t do anything about them but what we are doing: that is, report all fails of more than 10,000 shares in any issue to the marketplaces and the SEC for their action."
nuff said?
regards,
frog
Not many, what's your point?
Virgil, There is little point in going back over the same ground again and again. It amazes me that you pretend that we have not had these conversations in the past.
At the time of the increase in Authorized shares from 500 Million to 1.5 Billion, DNAP (at the time) published a letter to shareholders promising a warrants plan if the authorization was successful. Frudakis, the author of the paper, also expressed his opinion that few of the shares would need to be released but also promised that the stockholders would be asked to vote before any shares would be sold.
That takes care of the 'Lying' charge.
Any time a promise is offered in exchange for a consideration and then withdrawn after the consideration is given, that is called cheating.
That takes care of the 'cheating' charge.
To create such an incriminating document, publish it, renege on it, and then try to pretend it never happened is not only ineptitude of the highest caliber but it is the essence of mismanagement.
Thus, the 'mismanagement' charge.
Now you are perfectly within your rights to discount the magnitude of such actions, you may even be of a mind to try to weazel-word your way around the harsh realities with such bromides as 'they didn't really mean to lie and cheat', but nevertheless lying, cheating, and mismanagement are documented facts. It only takes one lie to make a liar and it only takes one cheat to make a cheater, such actions can never be undone.
Frudakis is a liar and a cheat. If he was an honorable man who had made an unintentional mistake, he would most assuredly have explained himself by now. Instead he has tried to hide the evidence by removing that document from the web site. Interestingly enough, it is the only newsletter that is not available there.
Is that direct enough?
regards,
frog
Virgil, This has got nothing to do with the Superbowl. LOL
Who documented these facts?
The company did. They are public record.
And where are these documents?
You've seen them, everybody has, they are published documents from the company.
Do you have a signed confession?
Don't need a confession, the evidence has never been disputed and the only attempt that management ever made was to try to cover it up.
This has nothing to do with schedules.
regards,
frog
Sorry, but that wasn't the question.
This was the question;
Has anyone called the transfer agent and asked if the company has issued or sold stock into the market?? If so, what would that agent be able or willing to tell you regarding "dilution"?
Now if you have another question we can address it, but lets make sure we answer this one first.
Are we done with this one?
bendriver, Are you serious?
The latest information from the transfer agent, as reported to this board in the last couple of weeks, indicated an OS of 252 Million shares. Since there were 60 some Million shares in the OS at the time of the RS, it is not hard to do the math. As there are more than four times as many shares in circulation as there were six months ago, dilution is a fact.
dnaowner, I did not include any innuendo in my post. Can you clarify?
If you are characterizing my references to lying, cheating and mismanagement, as innuendo, then you need to look up the definition of that word.
Lying, cheating, and mismanagement are documented facts. No innuendo is required.
regards,
frog
ebo, You're ranting.
No one has ever said that naked shorting does not hurt companies or stockholders. Trying to claim that they have is called a strawman argument.
The discussion du jour relates not to whether naked shorting exists, (it does), not even to whether it is happening to DNAG, (it is) but whether it is sufficient to explain the pathetic condition of the company as it exists today.
Since there are many other factors at work here, dilution, mismanagement, lying, and cheating, for example. How can we suggest a single cause for the state of the company and reject all the others.
If you knew that a person was not eating well and becoming undernourished and then one day found him dead with bruises, stab wounds and bullet holes in him, would you immediately conclude that he had starved to death?
The evidence at hand in the case of DNAG supports many different possible causes for the deplorable state of the company. To pick out one at the expense of all the others is an exercise in wishful thinking and cannot be logically defended.
As our friend cosmic would say, it is an unsupportable assertion.
regards,
frog
ole vern, Are you just trying to be obtuse?
The FDA regulates not just food and drugs but also every medical instrument and device.
I'm sure you are aware that Ovanome is neither a drug nor is it food. You did know that right?
I am involved with a device company that makes instruments that assist in the maintainance of cardiac function.
Unless you think that DNAG has a pacemaker in it's pipeline, I'm afraid that you are going to have to look somewhere else to find evidence to support your theories. lol
regards,
frog
ole vern,
Unfortunately you make way too many assumptions in your question.
The company I work for is not a drug company. The FDA is involved with many other things than drugs.
On another note, reproducibility is not the same thing as reliability. Not even close. A calculator, for instance that provides an answer of 5 every time you punch in 2 plus 2, has a very high reproducibilty but zero reliability.
The FDA is interested in reliability.
regards,
frog
You're welcome.
Nope
dnaowner, You're welcome.
Wouldn't it be nicer though, if people so 'knowledgable and interested' were on your side of the aisle?
regards,
frog
Virgil,
Not the same.
And the press release said the they were at 99+% reproducibility, which I am assuming is the same as reliability.
Reproducibility refers to the SNPstream data. It means that if you try to analyze the DNA of a single individual more than one time with the same machine, the results will be 99% equivalent.
While this is certainly a measure of reliability, the term 'reliability' in this instance refers to FDA requirements which apply to the DNAG test in question. (Ovanome)
Ovanome testing is not done with a SNPstream device it is done as a secondary operation on the data obtained from such a device. While this may seem equivalent, it is not.
The test will have reliability and confidence values associated with it. However those values will have to be included with the reliability of the data itself.
Hope this helps. If not I can elaborate.
It appears as though you know that the FDA wants 99% reliability with 95% confidence. Do you know that because it is a published specification or have you been talking to the FDA?
I deal with FDA requirements all the time as part of my job.
I await your response to this question.
Hope the wait wasn't too long.
regards,
frog
Sorry Virgil, It doesn't work like that.
Statistics is a science and the FDA makes full use of them.
Every result reported to the FDA has to have a 'reliability' value and a 'confidence' value.
Critical requirements have a to meet 99% reliability with a 95% confidence. Otherwise they fail.
There are no fuzzy areas when it comes to FDA Verifcation and Validation requirements.
If you are talking with them, you 'know' what they want. If you only 'believe' you understand their requirements, then you haven't asked them. Simple as that.
regards,
frog
Theo,
Thanks for the clarification. Your interpretation of the paragraph certainly has some merit. On the other hand if they were working with the FDA wouldn't they have said...?
"...providing the kind of validation that we know the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is seeking for its clinical trials data,."
Instead of..
"...providing the kind of validation that we believe the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is seeking for its clinical trials data,."
Theo,
You highlighted the following;
Results from the GenomeLab SNPstream from Beckman Coulter are 99+% reproducible..
Can you be a little more specific as to the significance of this?
Haven't the SNPstream results always had this reproduciblity?
regards,
frog
How about 252 Million today, 60 Million at the R/S in July.
That's 192 Million in six months, or over 30 Million per month.
Sorry but you don't get to pick a short time period and extrapolate the result when there is long term data avaialable.
regards,
frog
D'yah think?................Nah, couldn't be...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/01/27/microsoft.hacker.reut/index.html
ole vern
To post a new message at any time;
Click on the 'DNAprint Genomics (DNAG)' link. (Just above the 'Private Reply'link)
At the top of the message listings on the right side, near the 'Posted By' heading is a link for 'Post New Message'.
Hope this helps.
regards,
frog
excellent advise my friend. I am glad you found one that fit.
OT; jbear,
Very few fools............some liars, some cheats.....mostly unwitting innocents....
....who is being saved?..............hopefully... it is me..
Sorry Bag, I ran out of posts yesterday and was unable to respond to this.
You've gone from stating there is no evidence for, to there are no Personalized Medicine Products.
Even that is a hedge, because we both know Statinome and Ovanome are personalized medicine products about to hit the market.
Bag8ger, the point I was trying to make, was that although there have been rumours, promises, associations and predictions in regards to personalized medicine, there has never been one 'actual' result. Promises and predictions are not evidence, they are vapor. Once a promise or a prediction comes true, THEN you have evidence, until that happens you have nothing.
I can't believe you made the next statement.
...because we both know Statinome and Ovanome are personalized medicine products about to hit the market.
Yes bag, we both know that. In fact we both know that those products have been 'about to hit the market' for five years now. We both know that those products were less than six months away, five years ago. Unfortunately until they actualy 'hit the market' they are just empty promises and not evidence.
So go ahead and 'know' that the promises will be kept.....someday, but don't try to present unfulfilled promises as evidence. It's not.
regards,
frog