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.
"Obviously"!
Are you serious?
He said he was going on vacation and to the meeting on June 19th.
The meeting was on the 23rd?
He posted on this board for a month after that. No reports!
No point. Just looking for an excuse to try out that Jimmy Buffet signature.
Whad'ya think?
apropos?
Looks like a good marketing move.
...and I am pleased to hear so many on IHUB are satisfied with the new site.
It has evidently scored well with the intended market.
-----
As a dreamer of dreams, and a travelin' man
I have chalked up many a mile.
Read dozens of books about heroes and crooks,
And I learned much from both of their styles...
Jimmy Buffet
-----
Glenda, For the second time...Are you serious?
If they have confirmed the hair is her's, they probably already know her eye color and her ancestry (they could ask her mother and look at the published photos), so such analysis would be of questionable value...don't you think?
If they have confirmed the hair is NOT her's, then what possible value could be derived from determining such things as eye color and ancestry?
If they have not yet done either, then why would they bother with anything else until such a test has been performed?
Pleas respond, as I would love to get some insight into your reasoning.
regards,
frog
I say months....
Dnaowner, I might suggest that the key to the 'short term' is the exact one to one relationship that has developed between the post split pps and the post split share issue. So far about 28% each.
The immediate question, therefore, is; How many shares are yet to be distributed in the 'short term'?
regards,
frog
Dnaowner, Thanks for the clarification. It is appreciated.
Blue, It is assumed, I hope, that the machine is being used for research work as well as the occasional revenue bearing job. I am not sure that one should assume that the machine being overworked necessarily translates into increased revenue.
One hopes that the research that will potentially enable more sustainable revenues, takes precedence over the meager revenues available with today's products, when it comes to access to the machine.
regards,
frog
I figured as much...
Geob, Good Luck with that!
It is a standard tactic (straight from the manual) to find some small and mostly irrelevant point and focus your attack on that point. The idea is to divert attention from the unassailable arguments made in the post.
Tell you what, I will make the case that the Trace scientists are NOT independent voices, regardless of the state of their companies survival. (I will do so without backing down from my claim that they were saved from oblivion by the buyout). I will proceed with this case as soon as you provide a point by point rebuttal to the post that contains the offending phrasing.
I challenge you to respond to the salient points of the post and not resort to the simplistic and unethical strategy of picking and choosing minor issues in order to divert attention from the strength of the arguments.
I believe that I can say with some confidence that there are a number of posters on this forum that would enjoy your participation in such a debate.
Please respond as soon as possible.
We are all waiting.
regards,
frog
Pattrn,
Good response. However I think you are not necessarily being honest with yourself and need to look at the situation a little more dispassionately.
To start with, neither Shriver (who works for DNAG) nor Trace (who was saved from going under by the buyout) count as independent voices.
Independent voices are those who have no stake in the future of the company but are capable of making informed judgements on the science. All facets of all technologies have such voices, but they are silent here.
Your assumptions regarding the behavior of Big Pharma are just that, assumptions. Believe it or not, many of the people that work in the industry are NOT self serving, tunnel visioned idiots. Believe it or not, the concepts of genetic analysis to ascertain drug/disease response have been around for decades. They were just waiting for the tools (Genome map and SNP analysis machines) to make them viable. Believe it or not, Tony Frudakis did not invent those concepts. You may have heard them for the first time from him, but that is a function of your level of understanding, not theirs.
The main reason that Frudakis has had no luck with pharma, IF he ever spoke to them, is that he NEEDS their data in order to get anywhere with his promises. Unfortunately for him, they know what their data is worth and they are not going to give him access to it without a significant return for them. (It would be like you taking your car with a flat tire to the dealer and having him tell you to give him the car, he'll fix it and then sell you back the car at full price. Would you do that?) Additionally they already know how to do the analysis themselves, any second year college student knows how to do it. IF you gave yourself an hour to think about it, you'd know how to do it. Before you go off, claiming that if they know how to do it, why aren't they? Believe me, they are.
As to it being a new approach that will carve out market share, you are trapping your imagination into a single point in time and not considering the changing world that we live in. The technology that can sort out those who can benefit from a certain drug from those that can't, is EXACTLY THE SAME technology that can sort out the new drugs that will have NO side effects from those that do. Which side of the coin do you think big pharma is betting on, and where do you think they are putting their efforts?
DNAG technology has a limited shelf life. It is only viable as a band-aid to enhance existing 'one size fits all' drug technologies. As new drugs come out with their side effects controlled and/or eliminated, DNAG will not provide any benefit.
If they could have gotten off the dime five years ago as a service provider, they might have made it. Unfortunately Tony's ego got in the way and he priced himself out of the market. Instead of retuning his approach to something more viable, he decided that investor's money spent just as well as pharma's and was easier to acquire. The rest is history.
regards,
frog
LOL Blue,
You are turning into the Steven King of the board... quantity and quality.
Don't forget...fantasy and horror!
OT: bigdrive, I used to participate in gimmick rallys on Saturday nights in Castro Valley in the early 70's. LOL
I lived in Fremont at the time.
frog
Well Pattrn, you're starting to get it.
Tremendous amounts of money are at play here and they would just as soon leave us as odd man out till they can develope their own approach to the problem.
The analogy of choosing up sides in a very expensive/lucrative competition is apt, however it breaks down in one respect.
Players are not chosen to play in this game at random from the public, they must meet certain criteria of competence and viability in order to even be eligible to play.
It is only your assumption (and those of your compatriots) that DNAG is even 'in the running'.
Realize that the only people extolling the scientific prowess of this company are the investors (based on the self promoting broadcast of the company itself). There are no independent (knowledgable) voices speaking in support. There are no confirmations from the scientific infrastructure (patent office). ONLY the company claims they are viable, and ONLY the investors agree with them.
Realize also, that under the current revenue flow model, it is ONLY the investors that NEED to be convinced. Whether Merck 'buys in' or not is inconsequential to the current revenue flow.
regards,
frog
Are you serious?
With apologies to S Foster.
Camptown Races S. Foster
De camptown ladies sing dis song doodah, doodah
De camptown racetrack five miles long
Oh, doodah day!
I come down dah wid my hat caved in
Doodah, doodah!
I go back home wid a pocket full of tin
Oh doodah day!
Gwine to run all night!
Gwine to run all day!
I'll bet my money on de bobtailed nag
Somebody bet on de bay.
Thanks Blue, That makes so much more sense.
I could not get past a 'maximum' share price in a registration filing. It seemed nonsensical.
I am glad that it was just my misunderstanding.
frog
money4nothin, While that looks like a new patent application, it is actually the refiling of a patent from some years ago, that recently received a final rejection from the patent office.
It has been resubmitted in an attempt to appeal the rejection.
regards,
frog
Question.
Why does the filing list a maximum price for the share registration?
The price is set at .17 cents. Does that mean that DNAG expects the pps to remain below that value for the duration of the registration period?
If the pps goes higher than that, will the shares still be transacted at a maximum price of .17 cents or will there need to be a new filing to accomodate a higher price? One would hope that if the pps exceeded that value, then Dutchess would have to buy the shares at a discount to market price and not the fixed price from the filing.
Obviously if the pps is expected to stay below .17 cents for the duration of the filing period, then the upper limit value is irrelevant and can be ignored. The filing already allows for many more shares to be transacted than would be required for such a value, and so a lower trending share price has already been factored into the process by management. However, if there was any expectation of a higher pps, why wouldn't there be some mechanism for taking advantage of it? Perhaps a shorter term filing or a series of filings for much smaller amounts.
Just curious.
frog
Dr Frudaky, I think you are being overly pessimistic. It is only a factor of 8 if ALL of the registered shares are consumed.
If the maximum shares price for the registration can be maintained (17 cents) they will only need to consume 200 Million shares and a dilutive factor of less than 4, to obtain the funding ($35 Million)
Doubtless there are 'tools in the belt' to keep the price up at that level throughout the transaction, regardless of the dilutive effect of so many shares.
Why even now the price is up to.................never mind!
regards,
frog
Wow! Over 500 Million shares.
Now we know why they chose to do an R/S instead of just increasing the Authorized Share count.
To obtain an equivalent number of pre-R/S shares they would require an Authorized Share count of 10 Billion shares.
The shareholders might have balked at that. What do you think?
Don't be so harsh....News is out!
You want a novel prophylactic migraine treatment?
The next time you get a migraine, stretch a condom over your entire head. Once you get it completely on, the headache will be gone in less than five minutes. Guaranteed.
Straw
The two PRs relate to different events.
The latest PR from DNAG is about a 18% acquisition of Biofrontera for 1.5 Million Euros.
The Biofrontera PR is related to the 'original' acquisition of 51% of Biofrontera for 20 million Euros. The deal that eventually evaporated.
frog
You're welcome!
It's hard to understand how 49% of Biofrontera could be worth 1.6 Million Euros, when DNAG just paid 1.5 million for just 18%.
Who's doing the math?
Given the dollar values, this is a much better deal.
Last time we were getting 51% for 20 million Euros. (Back then it was touted as a $50 million dollar company)
Now we get 18% for only 1.5 million. (Corresponds to a 8.3 million Euro company)
Now either Biofrontera lost value significantly in the last few months or the previous value was hype.
What do you think?
Remember thet the deal was presented as a cover for the $35 Million dollar Dutchess deal, which remained after the Biofrontra deal evaporated. It might have been hard to suggest the need for a $35 Million dollar credit line in order to obtain 51% of an 8 million Euro company.
regards,
frog
Forget it!
That sleaze has been spamming these boards with irrelevant nonsense for years.
This gambit of his is more of an amused prank than a serious complaint. He has been derided for doing just exactly what he accuses you of, for ever, and under numerous aliases.
I am no great admirer of your stuff, but you have every right to post it here and ignore any input from that nitwit.
regards,
frog
For anyone interested.
The RB board is now here.
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=DNAG
regards,
frog
Oh well! Another of the myths tettering perilously close to the limits of credibility.
Which way will it fall? .........stay tuned!
Oh bag8ger, You are quite a character aren't you?
Even though you promised the board you would not respond anymore to such posts, you cannot restrain yourself. (hint; pretending to be talking to someone else, still counts as a response, especially when it is a 'reply' to the post in question. lol)
I wonder why, you are comfortable in 'responding' to that particular post with a personal and vitriolic blast, but are not the least bit inclined to offer any refutation of the details of the post?
And bag8ger, regardless of your paranoid fantasies, I don't hate anyone, particularly the good Doctor. I have never even met the man. Hatred is an incredibly strong emotion, and I have not yet found a single application for it. (Although you apparently have. lol)
regards,
frog
p.s. Forgive me Miss Scarlet, for intruding on what might be considered your personal correspondence, but I think you will agree with the reasoning offered above.
Good news...so far!
Miss Scarlet, I hope you are safe at the moment. They are predicting tornadoes in your part of the world.
Let us know as soon as you are clear of danger, we will be concerned until we hear that you are safe.
Take great care.
Best regards,
frog
Sorry Miss Scarlet,
I thought that the message was self evident.
The science of DNAP is at best plausible. It is fairly obvious, in no way profound, and nowhere near cutting edge.
It is standard application of SNP machine technology that has been the rage since the Genome project. It uses mass produced sensor plate arrays that are employed by just about everyone with a SNP machine. (That's how they work. That means that none of the snp's are unique and none are exclusive to DNAP.)
They originally hung their hat on their analysis algorithms but those are neither profound or unique. As any second year cryptography student can tell you, while the three billion bases in the genome is a fairly large number, it does not even approach the limits of simple cryptoanalysis limits.
As an example the security system on your browser is currently set somewhere in the neighborhood of 128 bits or higher. 32 bits for comparison, corresponds to an addressable base of 4 Billion bytes.
Any such student could write you an analysis program for such a database.
At the birth of the technology, about five years ago there was a situation where anyone with the hardware could have cast a hook in the water and pulled out a whopper. Unfortunately DNAP has stagnated and seemingly abandoned it's work in that area. They now seem content to make promises and 'start' projects that leverage other peoples work. Very little seems to remain of the initial work, and that was the 'core competency' of the company. Since Gabriel arrived in concert with the huge share authorization, the original scientific staff has been released and the focus has moved away from the core.
Hope this helps.
regards,
frog
Miss Scarlet, As usual nothing gets past you.
I thought it was a very appropriate (and humerous) comparison. Especially considering the source. lol
"Tony Frudakis is to science what Thomas Jefferson was to electricity."
Tell the truth, you've noticed much more than 'one thing' about me. lol
best regards,
frog
illwill, Absolutely!
I couldn't have said it better myself. (Although I have often tried. lol)
Dr.Tony is so far advanced .......
....A leader in todays science like Thoms Jefferson with
electricity??
You nailed it pal.
regards,
frog
Blue, Have it your way, that's fine.
You ask why the particular split took place, because it 'doesn't make sense' to you. However, your possible reasons for a split are limited to graduation to a major exchange. Given that single possibility, you are right, it doesn't make sense.
However, there are other reasons, and DNAP has been quite clear about one of them. They need more shares in order to continue operations via dilution.
Any split ratio above 3 or 4 to 1 would give them sufficient shares to continue operations. Since they are excluded from the major exchanges for many other criteria than stock price, there is no need for a huge ratio.
If 10 to 20 gets them in a range for maximum 'efficiency', it seems like a viable choice. The difference to the shareholders is negligible no matter what the split ratio, as long as the entire AS is not eventually consumed. IF it is, it won't matter anyway, as the current shareholders equity will have been virtually diluted away.
regards,
frog
Blue, The stock price is the key. It is the specific variable that drives the split ratio.
As you correctly point out, any stock price can be attained. It just requires controlling the split ratio.
Given the initial range of from 10 or 20 to 1, we can see what their intended range was from the start.
One might argue that the difference between a 10 to 1 split and a 20 to 1 split allowed for more shares to be available for dilution, but that is not really viable. The difference in shares would amount to about 60 million shares. Compared to the over 1.3 Billion shares available after the split, that number is trivial. Furthermore if those shares ever come into play it will mean that the entire AS will have been exhausted. A much more sinister prospect.
No, the split ratio has been determined specifically to obtain the desired share price.
Instead of trying to determine why they didn't shoot for something else, perhaps it would be more effective to try to determine why they shot for what they did.
regards,
frog
Blue, I have a theory (but your not going to like it.)
The MO of this company has not changed much throughout it's existence. It obtains it's money via the sale of shares, to a fairly uninformed but optimistic customer base who are specifically exploring 'penny-land' for a pot of gold.
They are attracted by the low entry price and the possibilities of 'obscene profits'. They enjoy the concept of owning tens of thousands of shares, because it is easy for them to see huge profits by realizing only modest stock prices multiplied by their enormous share count.
Such investors shy away from higher priced stocks, as they can only afford a few hundred at a time. They see that a low priced share that increases in value by a few pennies can multiply their investment radically, but a $7.50 share that gains a few cents is not much of a thrill.
In order to position themselves to such a customer base, DNAP needs to be careful in how they manage their stock price. Too low and with a huge float and they look too much like a penny-land scam. Too high a stock price and they drive off their core customer base. So far they are doing well. As the disillusioned fall of the bandwagon, there always seem to be new faces to replace them.
regards,
frog