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.
bendriver,
I didn't say 'all is lost'. Is English your second language?
I said that the difference between money invested to obtain a position prior to the RS and the amount of money necessary to obtain a similar position today, is lost.
That loss does not in any way preclude profit being made on this stock nor does it preclude further losses. It is just a fact. There is no right or wrong involved nor any such judgement expressed.
regards,
frog
ole vern, Why do you paint thing in such black and white terms?
No one said you were stupid, (unless that is a self assessment.)
Many loyal and well meaning investors held through the RS, they did it with eyes wide open and with the best of expectations, there was no 'stupidity' involved. I have nothing but respect for all of them.
What I object to, is the constant and continuous mantra that suggests that the long term investors who held through that split will somehow be rewarded for it. They won't. That money is long gone, lost, and will never be recovered.
The same presplit positions, held by anyone who endured it, can be obtained today for pennies in the dollar. The monetary difference between that spent to obtain the original position and the money required to obtain a similar position today, is lost money. it's as simple as that, it is money down the drain. Any rationalization that suggests otherwise is a lie.
regards,
frog
bag8ger,
Why do you suppose that you are permitted to make such unfounded and nonsensical claims on this board without any challenge from the faithful, when others are reviled for telling confirmable truths?
Those sophisticated investors you speak about know nothing about the science which DNAG is spearheading.
How can a 'sophisticated' investor NOT know anything about the science in which he is investing?
Harmed by all of this are those potential investors looking for long term security who know nothing about the science nor anything about the manipulation of the pps.
Unsophisticated investors who have been scared off by the truth about the financial state of this company are in MUCH better shape today than those that lost their A$$ by following the rest of the sheep through the RS. Everyone who didn't bail should be apologizing now to those who warned them and reviling those that advised them to hold. Which group would you put yourself in?
Should they be interested enough to commence due diligence and learn about the science,...
Why should they? You never have. Yet you never hesitate to pronounce the science to be revolutionary. You who couldn't explain a fraction of it, nor understand how it fits into the technology as a whole. How dare you call it revolutionary and mislead others when you have no clue as to how it works nor how it is different?
they remain ignorant of tactics which are used by short sellers and short sellers' cohorts or employers to stand silently aside and let the pps spike on rumor or good news, then come back in and bash to protect the short sell they've just executed.
They are less ignorant than those who imagine such strategies and pronounce them as factual, with no supporting information.
Eager with the optimism of having seen that the science they've learned a little bit about is revolutionary, they become disillusioned by the retracement of the pps following every spike.
As well they should. Since it is obvious from the retracement itself that there is no substance to the spike, as it is a result of pps manipulation and never based on either a technology or a business foundation but is instead built on the emotional response of unsophisticated dreamers who no matter how many times they are fleeced continue to line up at the door to the barn.
All their positive flow is quickly detoured by one well placed negative comment by you and yours.
And how many of them would be so much better off, if they had indeed detoured away from the course of throwing money down the drain many months ago, instead of making steady payments to the parasites that take their money under false pretenses.
Hence you ring up success after success to the delight of your peers and comrades.
The only successes being rung up here are those of the share sellers. We are currently over 215 Million shares bag8ger. That is the equivalent of 4.3 Billion shares pre-split. Doesn't that tell you something?
Ask youself what would have been your reaction if instead of a RS six months ago, they had asked to increase the AS from 1.5 Billion to 5 Billion?
What is your reaction to the rapid acceleration of the dilution? It took almost a year to go from 500 million to 1 billion, it has taken six months to go from 1 Billion to 4 Billion.
What is your reaction to the way that these numbers completely invalidate the price targets expressed in the latest pay per analysis report? The report suggests that the OS will not achieve these numbers for years and it based it's price targets on those estimates. Since we are so far past their OS targets the price targets will have to be revised downwards radically and the validity of the analysis will have to be thrown out.
No one has been hurt by those who are telling the truth about the state of the company as it is reflected in the pps. Any one who has refrained from buying based on those factors is ahead today.
Only those who have bought into your version of fantasy have suffered economically. Don't you dare try to pretend that you hold any moral high ground. You have done much more harm to unsophisticated investors than any basher. Sleep well.
regards,
frog
Pattrn,
Feel free to try to turn my participation into something dark and depressing. If it makes you feel better, then it's worth the effort.
Realize that I am not going anywhere, nor do I have any ulterior motives in regard to the company.
You may try to make a case that the advancement of reality is somehow detrimental because it impacts the hopes and dreams of good hearted investors. My response is that until you gain the understanding that lies in support of a positive outlook are much more detrimental than truth on the side of reality, you are going to be unhappy with me.
I do not suggest that you lie. You don't. You do, however, allow your imagination to roam unfettered and then you present the results of such journeys under the guise of possibilities (probabilities).
Additionally, you do not object to those who lie in support of this stock, and you don't attempt to correct them when you know they are wrong.
It is not an ethical highground that is easily defended.
regards,
frog
And you know that the data stored in the database comes from a TEST?
The TEST looks at specific markers and categorizes the result based on the requirements defined by the CODIS protocols.
But you knew that didn't you?
LOL
LOL Doctor, You are getting in deeper and deeper...
Here's a question that might help you determine the value of the two DNA tests.
How many criminals have been convicted based on CODIS testing?
Hundreds?....Thousands?
Now how many have been convicted based on DNAG tests...?
None.
No don't bring up the two or three cases that DNAG was actually involved in. Although DNAG assisted the investigation, if they were convicted on DNA evidence it was CODIS evidence.
I'll leave it up to the intrepid reader to decide for themselves which test is more valuable to the forensic industry.
regards,
frog
Geog, Hilarious. Did you just get so flustered that you confused your persona's?
Try to keep them straight.
When you pretend to be geob, you write in incomplete sentences that trail off without actually saying anything.
You use such phrases as "again sir..." when you are pretending to be Dr Dew. Try to be more consistent, it won't make you look so foolish.
In regards to the subject at hand, the 45 Million shares in question are options.
Options are not actual shares, they are promises.
No one has PAID (PAYED?) for them, not management, not the company. No shares have changed hands.
There is no amount of shares involved in the filing that have any impact on the shares issued lately.
So whichever alias you are....your still lying! lol
regards,
frog
That is an outright lie....and you know it!
Management has bought 45mil shares ......
Management has bought NOTHING!
regards,
frog
Pattrn,
I wish you could see the present as well as you see the past. At least you should filter what you are told through the experience that has brought you to this point.
Take this 'Fortune 50' gambit for example.
How many times have you heard this before?
IBM...Friday night meeting....."only the Orchid option prevents"..."we are currently talking to four major companies regarding the implementation".....etc.
Thought experiment;
If you worked for a fortune 50 company and you became aware of your company's interest in a small biotech company (realize that there would be many people who would be aware) what would you do ?
Would you buy a few thousand shares?
WOuld you pass along a tip to family and friends?
Would they tell anyone?
If you worked in the office of the representative lawyers who are involved in the negotiations, what would you do? Your family? Your friends? Their friends?
There is a VAST spiderweb of connections that link the 'market' together. There are no secrets! Every major change, good or bad, is telegraphed to the market in advance of any announcements.
Know that without a doubt, if a Fortune 50 company was interested, even remotely, in DNAG, the pps would be flying.
Please be very careful in regard to what you accept as fact vs. what you accept with a grain of salt.
regards,
frog
gunnabe, When options are granted they come with a strike price.
An option is 'the right' to buy a share or shares at a specific price for a specific timeframe. When the option is exercised the grantee pays only the strike price REGARDLESS of the current pps.
The .0174 is presumably the strike price.
I assume this is just part of the ongoing attempt to protect management from any financial damage or loss of control due to the dilution.
Remember that a similar event occured soon after the RS although the strike price at that time was considerably higher.
regards,
frog
gunnabe, I don't see that they paid anything.
The notation in column 8 would seem to indicate otherwise.
4. Grant in recognition of service pursuant to Stock Option Plan
Frudakis made it quite clear at the Stockholders meeting (from Glenda's transcripts) that none of the management team would suffer any losses due to the reverse split or the dilution.
Today's action would not seem to be inconsistant with that concept.
regards,
frog
ole vern, That is a somewhat valid post, and after review I might be inclined to accept it. However, if you delve a little deeper into the posting history of stockpimpdaddy and find his first foray into the Kondragunta scandal, you will see that he begins the nickname game in that post.
He refers to himself both as 'Fruda' and 'horse'.
Now you might argue that it was TDiamonds that perverted 'Fruda' into Frudacky' as a derogatory insult and that stockpimpdaddy just went along out of good manners. On the other hand, if TDiamonds was looking for a nickname to pervert in order to degrade Frudakis, don't you think he could have done a lot more with the alternative nickname he was offered?
Addtionally, regardless of the origin of the name, whether it was invented by someone else or not. The use of the name to refer to himself is ample evidence that Frudakis did not consider it an insult. Don't you think?
regards,
frog
Dr Frudaky, I beg to differ.
To suggest that the 'Dr Frudaky' alias is purely fictitious stretches the limits of credibility. The name predates your arrival on these boards and was used previously as a term of endearment for the company's founder.
Either you are incredibly lucky to have arrived at such a coincidental happenstance, or else you were aware of the connection from the beginning.
'Frudaky' was the name that Tony Frudaky used to refer to himself in the third person when he posted on the RB board under his 'stockpimpdaddy' alias.
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=DNAG&read=274308
I am doubtful therefore, that the alias is an accident.
I am also amused by the ironies that have resulted in your use of it and the reactions that have developed as a result.
You, who can best be described as a critical voice in regard to the company and it's founder, have taken on an alias that honors him.
Your detractors, on the other hand, have derided you for your choice of 'nom de plume' assuming incorrectly that because of your critical affiliation, you must be mocking him.
My response to both sides would be; Dr Frudaky, why would you choose an alias that was made up by the man himself as an endearment? Detractors, why would you characterize an alias made up by the man himself as a mockery?
regards,
frog
Geob, Of course you would.
Given the state of reality, how could you not?
Dr Dew, Good luck with that.
Sir, I think you are wrong about that can you please provide a link that proves that info you so kindly have expalined to us?
If you cannot then please keep it to yourself. Because
**without the data! --->it's only an opinion**
If you think it's wrong then present your evidence to refute it. If not keep your opinions to yourself. lol
regards,
frog
Hopeful, Please don't for one minute imagine that I was defending you nor that I in any way endorse your postings or your methods. I do not.
That you have occasionally posted information and drawn the correct conclusions from it, is merely the result of probability theory....it is impossible to be wrong all the time.
My post was specifically a response to gunnabe's question. That question had derived from a discussion that had developed between you and Arch. In my opinion your participation was incidental to the focus of the specific question.
regards,
frog
gunnabe, Allow me.
SO:
will DNAP's classifiers (Ovanome, etc) have to go through clinical trials the same way that new drugs are required to?
simple answer please!
Unfortunately, the answer is not simple, as the question is not worded well.
No the classifier will NOT have to go through the same clinical trials as a drug.
Yes, clinical trials are certainly in order.
There are clinical trials that are NOT the same as drug trials.
What has been claimed here (ad nauseum) is that classifiers are defined as Medical Devices and thus are subject to a different criteria of testing. Medical devices come in various classifications depending upon the criticallity of their application.
Many devices, defibrillators for example, do not always require clinical trials as their therapeutic technology has already been accepted (by previous clinical trials) and they can rely on a 510K submission that bases their acceptance on the previous work. If however the technology is new or significantly different from previous work, then they too will require a new clinical trial.
The argument here is that an unknown and unproven classifier will be regarded as a Medical Device. The guidelines contain the definition of clinical device and a classifier certainly meets those requirements. Since there are no comparable 'devices' to base acceptance on, they will require some level of scrutiny. The exact level of scrutiny will depend upon the classification that this 'device' falls into. The FDA guidelines spell out quite carefully the differences in device level. Anyone who wishes can read those guidelines and argue with the poster, I am not interested in getting into that. However, there are definitely classes of medical device that will require clinical trials.
In summary, no, the classifier will NOT require the same clinical trials of a drug. (It's not a drug.) Yes, as a Medical Device it can easily be argued that it will require the appropriate clinical trials.
In terms of 'misleading' investors the worst offenders are those who try to suggest clinical trials apply only to drugs and that anyone saying otherwise are liars. Such personal and misleading attacks should be ample grounds for the monitors to consider the removal of a poster from the board.
From a previous post by one of the worst offenders;
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=8559444
There are no clinical trials for a test! A test only has to be
verified. You have told this lie all day. I am calling you on it. Prove me wrong.
Monitors if he proves me wrong then throw me off this board
if he does not prove me wrong please throw him off. I am
sick and tired of the lies told with a silver tongue.
Monitors.....your call!
regards,
frog
C'mon Chris....don't cheapen it now. lol
You are breaking out of your shell and actually trying to think. Congratulations, it will seem hard at first but if you persevere it will get easier with time. Just don't give up.
By the way, Grannie is not much of a source. In this instance you might actually want to try the web site that was referenced at the beginning of this thread. (from cloud). You will find all you need there to clarify your position.
regards,
frog
ooooh Chris baby....I love it when you talk like that.
You so seldom participate with anything other than a personal attack or a contentless one liner. To make a structured response with technical details is a significant departure. Thanks for the effort.
That it is all wrong is irrelevant, it's the thought and effort that counts.
regards,
frog
cloud477, If you are suggesting that the same kinds of ancestry results can be obtained without access to the 'patented' algorithms of DNAG, you are going to upset a lot of people here.
It is part of the dogma, that only DNAG can do such work and they only achieve it through the use of their patented algorithms and their exclusive access to ADMIXMAP.
It will be interesting to see how this is explained.
regards,
frog
Virgil Hilts, You misunderstand.
The foundation of your arguement is that the only source at present for the funds needed to develop the products is dilution.
I made no argument, one way or another. I tried to suggest that one should consider not just the positive aspects of the future when formulating the risk/reward scenarios, but also the known obstacles to those scenarios.
Future reverse splits are just one of the possible future occurances that would influence your calculation.
In your latest post you list the potential market for the forensic markets, yet you do not proposes any estimates of market penetration based on the current market share that has developed since the products release. Such an extrapolation, based on known occurances would be most beneficial to the analysis.
You also point to Gabriel's statements regarding potential talks with private investors and VC's as an alternative to dilutive financing. However, you do not mention that private investors and/or VC's will require shares in exchange for their participation, rendering their assistance equally dilutive.
In summary, all I am suggesting is that any analysis that attempts to make even ballpark predictions regarding the future of the stock, include the already known occurences, that are unavoidable in the overall equation.
regards,
frog
Virgil Hilts, It is entirely appropriate to be conducting such speculative analysis to assess the future potential of the stock price. It would be beneficial to all investors if we were to debate these subjects more often.
Even though such estimates of future market share and market size are speculative they can at least provide 'ballpark' estimates and back of the envelope analysis.
Don't forget however, to consider the other side of the balance sheet in your analysis. Your analysis while sound on the surface makes some assumptions that need to be understood. The main assumption is that the present share structure remains intact. While there is ample room in such an analysis for some future dilution, I don't think it will hold up if you consider the possibility of future reverse splits. While additional splits are by no means assured, the potential certainly exists. In light of the needed funds to develop the EPO drugs that form the foundation of your analysis, large amounts of funding will be necessary. At present the only source for such funds is dilution. Barring unknown resources, many multiples of the current OS will be needed to provide that funding.
After the last RS the share fraction of the company owned by investors was reduced by 95%, if it happens again (or three times) the current shareholders will potentially see the same levels of reduction.
None of these factors preclude an eventual share price of $10.00. However after multiple splits, $10.00 might only be a break-even value for the investors that have remained throughout the process. That would make your $500 to $1.00 guess, somewhat problematic.
regards,
frog
bag8ger, All of us stock shorting conspirators are independently wealthy. We have nothing else to do for entertainment than poking sticks through the bars at the inmates of the working world.
You wouldn't be here if you didn't think they'd eventually become a viable company.
It's interesting that you can voice such certainty based on nothing more than your own wishes. Also interesting that you used the same level of certainty when you accused me of completely different motives a few weeks ago. lol
But for you to challenge all logic and expect us to believe your near 18/6 here doesn't tell us you have high hopes for DNAG is preposterous. Unless you've been dispatched by some alien force to save us, of course. Gee, I never thought of that until now.
So I either believe in DNAG or I am sent by aliens, is that it?
Didn't you claim just the other day that I was shorting DNAG into oblivion? How does that square with these latest choices? I can't short them into oblivion and also believe in their viability...can I? Can aliens short stock? Do they qualify as offshore accounts?
I have asked before (to no avail) that you include some reference to your 'accusation du jour' somewhere early in your posts to me, so that everybody can keep up. TIA
bag8ger, You're incredible.
I didn't suggest that DNAG was shopping at yard sales, you did.
I have no illusions about DNAG becoming a real company, you do.
I don't pretend they are anywhere near the cutting edge, you do.
Don't pass your fantasies off on me pal. lol
bag8ger,
Please don't try to tell us that DNAG is assembling an industry leading multinational corporation out of discarded yard sale widgets.
thanks....lol
Excellent quote.
MykelMan17X,
No one is in a better position to assess the value of the company than the person who is selling it. He knows what he has and what it's value is. he knows the market for it's goods and it's value to the industry. He knows how many suitors he has and what they will pay. He will get the best possible price for what he has and having done that he will have established it's specific value. (Not ballpark!)
If you wish to get the exact dollar value, multiply the number of shares transacted, by the share price at the time of the transaction. That will tell you all you need to know. It is called objective analysis.
regards,
frog
bag8ger, Rest assured, when the time comes and you realize your mistake, you won't get to whine unchallenged either. lol
You also need to reread those posts bag, you have drawn the wrong conclusion (as usual.) Many people disagree with me and I still hold them in high regard. (While they may not acknowledge it, there are a number of people on this board that I have healthy and respectful correspondence with.) Those however, who attack me, sometimes get broadsided with an inapropriate comment or two.
I regret the outbursts, but as they are often therapeutic I have not forsaken them altogether.
regards,
frog
thetide,
Seems you are dead set on this mundane course though...
What I am dead set on, is the rejection of BS. No matter what it's source.
In this particular instance I object to the 'woe is me' whining from someone who has reacted (yes reacted) both objectively and personally against those who tried to explain the truth to him.
You have every right to your opinions. You have every right to your reactions. You even have the right (this is America after all) to be nasty about it.
What you don't get to do, in my opinion, is cry about it after the fact. You may have turned your focus toward the real source of your problems in the past few weeks. You may even be coming to some personal understanding of what happened to you. Unfortunately even though you have recognized what caused your own misery, you have clung to your animosity to those who tried to steer you straight.
There are a lot of people on these boards that have every right to complain about what happened to them. They did their DD, they reviewed the alternate opinions expressed on the boards and they chose their course. If they chose wrong, they nevertheless did it with the best of intentions. They have a right to be unhappy and they can complain.
Those that trumpeted their choices and reviled those that advised caution, who personally attacked the messengers but never countered the message, those that created imaginary cabals and underhanded motives to brand their adversaries, do not get the same free ride. You are allowed to be unhappy about the circumstances that have affected ALL of us, but you don't get to whine about it unchallenged. Sorry.
regards,
frog
Don't thank me....I never said it!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
You want some cheese with that?
The long term, long suffering, shareholders certainly have reason to complain about the current circumstances. It is quite clear that they will always take a back seat in any success that the company enjoys from now on.
Even if the company were to launch it's moon shot today, those that bought in recently would benefit to a much greater extent that those who bought in a year ago. That benefit 'gap' can never be bridged. Even if one were to average down prior to such a launch, the financial burden of the pre-owned (expensive shares) would still contribute to that gap.
In retrospect, it would obviously have been a more successful strategy to sell the previously purchased shares, even at a substantial loss, prior to the RS, held the cash and then repurchased shares now with that cash. Most investors can do the math in their heads and determine how many shares they would currently own.
Isn't it unfortunate that the more savvy investors that frequent these boards didn't offer such advise to the rest of us? If only someone had suggested that we liquidate our positions prior to the RS and then buy back in now. Such advice would have been welcomed, and those that provided it would be considered heroes today. Obviously, even those who did not accept the advice at the time would be capable of seeing the wisdom in it now. Even those that might have reviled the advice when it was offered would surely have reconsidered.
It's just a shame that no one said anything.
LOL, Thick as two planks!
bag8ger, Forgive me for my confusion, it was, after all, only a few short weeks ago that you were accusing me of accumulating millions of shares in order to sell into and stop all the runs. To now be accused of shdorting the stock requires a significant readjustment to my worlview. lol
I have never pretended to know what goes on behind closed doors, that is your domain. (The pretending, I mean)
Everyone who has read the patents knows the algorithms bag8ger, don't you? It is the patents that you are betting your investment on, surely you have read them.
I have never commented on 'top secret' decisions. Although if they are 'top secret' it begs the question of how you know that they exist?
Bag8ger, believe me when I tell you that I don't present anything here in the hopes that you will 'value' it. Heaven knows your ability to discern fact from fantasy has never presented itself on this forum, rendering any valuation on your part to be less than meaningful.
As to your assumption that I have any animosity toward the company, I'm afraid you are mistaken in that regard also. I would like nothing better than for all of the investors in this company, especially those who have gone through the long lean years, to get all of their original investment back and more. I have never said otherwise.
That your morality is situational is not a surprise, it obviously mirrors your integrity.
In the future would you be so kind as to include some reference to your delusion du jour, in order to facilitate a more efficient level of communication?
regards,
frog
Bag8ger,
Don't beat around the bush.
smokescreen....floor of operation.....bears out your short bet....
Are you accusing me of something specific?
If so, be honest enough to spell it out, and don't forget to include a little evidence to support your character assasination. lol. After all this is still America isn't it?
You know...innocent until proven guilty...right to face the accuser....all that due process stuff.
Or have you taken a page out of the current book and decided that unsupported suspicion is enough justification to launch your pre-emptive strikes?
You are a disgrace to your own idealism.
regards,
frog
bag8ger, Really?
Just exactly which recent change of fortunes is contributing to that perception of foolishness?
The rapid pps increase?
The industry's reaction to the patent award?
The huge volume increases that don't alter the share price?
All of the above?
Which ones bag?
anotherday, It's just repackaged old news.
This service was offered by DNAP a couple of years ago. Doc T made the announcement and everyone 'knew' that the rocket had launched.
Unfortunately no one was interested. Only one customer kicked the tire but even that deal fell through.
Today they have wrapped the Kenna acquisition around the concept and repackaged it, but changing the color of the lipstick on the pig will have little effect on how pretty it is.
regards,
frog
Snap Hook, That's a viable argument when using 'normal' assumptions. I'm not sure they stand up here.
The cost is put off to a future time and spread out over several/many months.
This is a strategy for managing limited resources. Spreading costs over time, provides numerous advantages with limited funds. In this instance however there are no limits to the available resources especially not temporal ones. The acquisition of the company was not accomplished with cash but was transacted as an exchange for shares. This company obtains all it's assets in exchange for shares. It has a virtually inexhaustable supply of them. Current OS is about 150 million, shares available in the AS number 1.5 Billion.
To pass up the oportunity to gain what they want in exchange for shares does not make sense. To provide salaries in excess of industry norms requires cash. The company obtains cash by selling shares ( but at a discount) so there is no advantage to
your scenario.
regards,
frog
dnaowner, Ok, I guess I am misunderstanding your point.
Are you saying that the employment contract includes some renumeration for the technology?
Meaning that they will receive payments in exchange for their technology over and above the money they get for their performance. Is that what you mean?
Can you explain why anyone would try to disguise payments for technology as employment income? Is there an advantage to such a sleight of hand? How would DNAG benefit from such an arrangement?
Just trying to understand.
frog