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.
Yeah, I should've been more clear on that. My frustration isn't with the blogger, it's with the company. If you remember, there was an article by I believe Newsweek recently that focused largely on the ethical dilemma of the use of embryonic stem cells and featured ACTC's upcoming trials but NOWHERE during the interviews with Lanza did he ever even mention the single-blastomere technology. Management definitely doesn't do a good job getting the complete story about the company out there. They've had some great opportunities and have repeatedly failed in this regard.
My point is that the COMPANY needs to do a better job publicizing the single-blastomere technology. Believe me, I'm not the only shareholder who thinks this...
Farview, other than the fact that he said the guy from UCLA said the first injections would be within the next few months, what else did you take issue with from that blog entry? I agree you're going to see manipulation and another attempted shakeout of weak hands before the preliminary results are released, and I really think we saw them try it today but buyers stepped up to stop the decline. Anyone who has been following ACTC for any length of time would be nuts to fall for this and get suckered into selling their shares, we're right at the point we've been waiting for where the rubber is finally going to meet the road.
One positive about being an OTC stock as we go through the clinical trial/FDA approval process: there are no stops to be taken out to further snowball a decline since stops can't be used on an OTC stock. If they were to be able to somehow take the stock back to the .13-.14 range again on no negative news, I'd be adding 50% to my current position, but wouldn't add any higher than .14. It looked like they wanted to try to take it down hard today but buyers stepped up. That's the nice thing about being able to see the bid/ask sizes on OTC stocks now without having level 2, as people can see when someone is throwing good sized bids up there as the price declines and I believe that psychologically it makes it easier for not to sell their shares because they can actually see the buyers stepping up and it provides some reassurance, whereas thr last time they took it down people couldn't see the actual number of shares on the bid/ask unless they had level 2.
Hi Rocky. If they're going to bring up the ethical dilemma of embryonic stem cells due to the embryo being destroyed in the article, I would like them to also say that though not being used for the Dry AMD and Stargardt's clinical trials, ACTC has developed a patented technology to extract the stem cells from the embryo without destroying it, so the ethical debate should largely be a non-factor in the future. The ethical debate is brought up in almost every article, but the single-blastomere technology is almost never mentioned and it bothers me.
As an investor, I believe the single-blastomere technology licensing opportunities are going to be potentially huge and may end up being a major revenue driver for ACTC in the future assuming embryonic stem cells prove to hold as much promise and we believe they do.
I think the blog entry was pretty fair and balanced, but again failed to mention the single-blastomere technology (even though it's not being used for this trial). In regard to when the first patients will be treated, I'll go by the date Rabin has repeated over and over: the end of June. I believe someone from UCLA told someone else here late-June, early July. Either way, I believe we're only a few weeks away. The author of the blog could've simply accidentally misquoted the guy, meant to say weeks and typed months instead etc.
He mentioned what we were talking about here the other day: the study is primarily to prove safety but researchers will also be looking for vision improvement, and I believe Rabin stated in the past that if there was vision improvement they would release that information publicly asap after the determination that there was ision improvement was made.
Hey workinman. My understanding is that the intended purpose of the phase I/II trial is to prove safety, but I also believe that management stated that they will report any positive side effects of the if/when they occur. They're able to do this as there's no control group receiving placebo in the trial, all of the applicant's will be receiving stem cell injections. So, basically if there's confirmed measurable vision improvement after the patients are injected during this phase I/II trial, the company will report it even though proving that there is vision improvement isn't the actual intended purpose of the trial. Rocky could probably verify this, but I'm quite certain I'm correct in what I'm stating.
Management has already alluded very strongly that if there is vision improvement in humans as there was with lab rats and mice (which based on the trials with lab rats in mice there was vision improvement in 100% of the animals receiving injections and the improvement was apparent about 6 weeks after the treatment) that they WILL announce that as soon as the vision improvement becomes apparent. They also alluded very strongly to the fact that they believe the time after injection for noticeable vision improvement in humans may be very similar to the time after injections for noticeable vision improvement in lab rats and mice. October is about 12 weeks after the first injections will take place. That's plenty of time for noticeable vision improvement to occur. If/when the news of noticeable vision improvement is announced, ACTC becomes the company with the technology that can cure blindness. My guess is that the price per share will be substantially higher than .25 on that news.
Stem cells are currently being used in China to help restore eyesight, and this has been going on for a few years. I posted a couple of links previously to the news stories about it in one of my past posts. Stem cells have been proven to work in human eyes in the past, so I don't see a reason that they wouldn't work now.
For someone who's long this stock you never seem to have anything positive to say here. You just basically made four negative posts up one right after another, and then posted a link to another one of your negative posts in one of them. This coming one day after a nice gain on decent volume.
That being said, I also wonder why Rabin is selling shares and why he's not filing on time. I could've attributed the sale March as a sale for tax purposes, but the sale in May and why (again) it wasn't reported until now is a little more puzzling 9and somewhat troubling) to me. Maybe IR can give us an explanation as to why his insider sales are taking so long to be filed.
I would also be interested to know what information you based your "crooked management" comment on. Do you know of or have past experience with any of these guys?
Best of luck farview to a quick and expedient recovery. I hope stem cell technology, be it ACTC's or another company's can assist you tremendously in your day to day life in the near future!!!
Thank you very much for the reply, much appreciated. I'm getting some subtle signs of some bashing starting up here. In my experience, this usually signals that positive events are on the horizon...
"UCLA also gave me roughly the same time frame."
What timeframe did UCLA give you? Later than date ACTC gave you? I know the trials will be starting soon enough, just trying to figure out if there's likely to be a delay so I know what to expect and can time my investment decisions accordingly. I've been assuming the trials will start by of June all along. Thanks!
I hope that during "bear raids" like the one we saw back in early March, the company will continue to release PR's to combat them if there is truly no material event behind the sell-off. While I applaud them for doing it in March, they also kind of set a precedent for themselves, and by that I mean if/when there's another "bear raid" (which there surely will be at some point) if they DON'T come out and say nothing's wrong, the fear and speculation that something went wrong with one of the trials is going to be that much worse, and their silence could accelerate the snowball as people start to think "well they said nothing was wrong LAST time, but they didn't say nothing was wrong THIS time, so something must be wrong"...
I would again point to companies such as HGSI and EXEL, VRTX etc. HGSI is still in phase III trials I believe and have no approved drugs, yet the price went from .70 to over $35/share (current market cap of $5.31 billion) VRTX drug was just approved and they traded at over $40/share and also had a market cap well over $5 billion well prior to final FDA approval. EXEL also is also in late-stage clinical trials on a couple fo drugs, but they have no FDA-approved drugs either and their current market cap is currently $1.5 billion. Using a market cap perspective as a baseline, I believe if there is strong evidence (as there was in 100% of lab rates and mice) that embryonic stem cells can not only slow the progression of Dry AMD but also reverse vision loss, ACTC could see a market cap in the $3-4 billion range very quickly. That would value the shares at about $2/each assuming 1.5-2 billion shares outstanding. My intent is not to pump here, but we're talking about the first indication in a US clinical setting that stem cells can potentially cure blindness. We already know that umbilical stem cells are being used effectively in improving vision in blind patients in China (links below). To me, the potential of what we're looking at here is huge, and I don't believe it will take the market long to realize it if/when the words "we observed strong evidence that that embryonic stem cells can potentially reverse vision loss" are uttered. I believe we would be rewarded with a minimum $1 billion market cap within days if that announcement were to occur. I've told everyone I've talked to about ACTC that while there are always huge risks associated with investing in biotech stocks, to me, all indications point to the fact that this could be a 10 bagger within 12 months.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/12/15/girl-of-four-can-see-for-the-first-time-thanks-to-stem-cell-treatment-115875-22784425/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1159209/Blind-girl-thanks-pioneering-stem-cell-treatment.html
Rocky, would you be willing to e-mail Rabin and ask him to contact this journalist to request she put out a revised article at least mentioning their single blastomere technology? I would do it myself but I don't have Rabin's e-mail address, but based on your past communications with him, you obviously do. While it's nice to get the publicity, the whole context of this article was about the moral and ethical debate regarding the destruction of embryos in order to treat life-threatening and debilitating diseases, but NOWHERE does the author mention ACTC's single blastomere technology and state that due to this technology, it's no longer necessary to destroy the embryo to harvest embryonic stem cells. In fact, this article implies quite the opposite. Newsweek is a big outfit and this was a great opportunity to get their story out there on a national level and differentiate themselves from other embryonic stem cell companies, but IMO Lanza/Rabin either did a terrible job getting the benefits of the single blastomere technology into this journalist's hands OR she did a terrible job by not including it. Either way, I think this should be corrected via a revision to the original article. To everyone who reads this article, instead of being portrayed as pioneers of a technology that provides all of the benefits that embryonic stem cells without the destruction of the embryo, they appear to be simply another embryonic stem cell company that destroys the embryo. Very disappointing. Anyway, let me know. If you don't want to do it, I'd be willing to e-mail him myself if you want to private message me his e-mail address but I feel very strongly that someone should. Thanks!
ACTC's market cap is about half that of GERN's, it has basically no institutional ownership as compared to GERN's 30% institutional ownership and ACTC has little to no analyst coverage. In the medical field ACTC may not be under the radar but from a broader stock market perspective I believe it is very much under the radar, which is fine with me because it's allowed me to buy shares at what I believe will ultimately prove to be a very reasonable price. and I still have a few more shares to buy so it works for me.
Because unlike GERN it's still under the radar which has allowed me to accumulate shares much more cheaply than I would've been able to have were the company well-known with institutional support. I think the time will come when it would be beneficial for them to be listed on a major exchange, I just don't think now is the time for them to worry about it.
I plan on attending the SHM. I live in Carlsbad, CA which is about 2.5 hours away, so I'm happy that it's within driving distance. I'd be interested to know who else from this board is going to attend so maybe we can meet up for a cocktail, and would also like to get a list of questions people here would like answered. I'll do the best I can to get as many of them answered as possible.
So I suppose that's why no institutions own GERN, the "other" embryonic stem cell company, right? A quick perusal of Yahoo! Finance shows that institutions own 30% of GERN stock, and not only do they face the same issues, they don't own the technology to harvest the cells without destroying the embryo thereby removing the abortion debate from the picture. I love the fact that actc is still traded on the otc markets. at some point, assuming good preliminary phase I/II results and barring a buyout or huge partnership/licensing agreement, ACTC will need to go back to the capital markets at some point to secure additional funding to continue on with their clinical trials. That's the time for them to consider a reverse split and uplisting. Until then, their sole focus should be on completing the trials. If and when the time comes, I agree with the poster who said that their reverse split would be different than most that we're used to because they'll be doing it from a position of strength, not because they're scratching and clawing to survive or stay listed. I believe that the outcome of a reverse split for actc under the right set of circumstances would be very different than the type of reverse split (and negative stigma surrounding them) that most here are used to, and IF something like that were to be announced in the future and the stock sold off, I would definitely use it as a buying opportunity because I think it's a given that at least 25-30% of the post-split shares would be snatched up by institutions almost instantly. I believe that would drive the price instantly higher. But let's not put the cart before the horse. Get this round of clinical trials done (hopefully with good results), manage the existing cash wisely and worry about a r/s if/when they need to tap the capital markets again.
Farviewhill, see SIRI stock price action over the course of the past couple of years to see how this one could move assuming no reverse split. SIRI actually has almost 4 billion shares shares outstanding but has managed to move from a low of .05 to today's current price of around $2.20, so it is possible, given the right set of positive circumstances. Were ACTC to have the results I expect (an indication that the progession of dry AMD can not only be slowed, but also reversed along with vision improvement as has been seen in 100% of lab rats and mice tested) that ACTC's share price could easily jump to the $2-3 range in short order (giving them a market cap of $4-6 billion, assuming 2 billion shares outstanding), which would put it's market cap in line with other biotech companies who had positive early clinical results like HGSI (Human Genome Sciences). This type of performance certainly ins't guaranteed but a stock like SIRI shows that exponential moves higher are possible despite a high share count given the right set of circumstances.
Ok, so let's say that there are 200 individual shareholders that hold shares in Scottrade online brokerage accounts. Scottrade will be reported as the shareholder of record for ALL them. Same if there are 250 individual shareholders that trade who hold shares in an Ameritrade accounts. Now you actually have 450 individual shareholders, but only 2 shareholders of record are reported....I hope this helps to clarify...
In for 25k shares at .031 today. No-brainer at these levels. I don't care how much they end up having to dilute to get URG 101 to market, this will be an absolute minimum of a 10-bagger from this level and likely much, much more.
There is no CEO, no management, no office, no land, no gold etc. Just a couple of iHub scammers who should've been smart enough not to change the name and phone #'s of the geologist on the fraudulent 8k filing. They would've eventually gotten busted anyway, but they could've kept the scam going a little longer because if the information had actually matched, no one likely would've pursued it further, but when it was discovered the info DIDN'T match, that's what raised the first red flag and got the ball rolling. It never ceases to amaze me how all the evidence can be right there in front of people's faces, and some otherwise seemingly-intelligent people can be so brainwashed that they refuse to acknowledge the simple truth that THIS COMPANY IS A SCAM. Especially those who have been through this sort of thing before.
I think I figured it out: it was probably Gergey Drin and Harry Gage (founders of Moogle) behind all of this because THEY want to drive the price down so Moogle can buy SAEI cheaper. I can hardly wait to see the PR tomorrow. Moogle offers $6.75/share for SAEI.
If the e-mail was auto forwarded to his gmail account and he replies from his gmail account it most certainly does. How many e-mail servers do you think Google has in Indonesia?
It was "somewhere around an airforce base", which just so happens to be the same city that Google's headquarters and servers are located. Let me guess, the bashers set up their own servers right near google's to make it look like they came from google's servers' right?
The company also changed one of the digits in the phone and fax #'s (presumably so it wouldn't be easy for someone to track down the person who supposedly actually prepared the report). Misspellings are one thing and they happen, but misspellings combined with phone and fax #'s being very similar but off by a number and the address of the company being the same as the one that Greg works but the name of the company being slightly different all add up to intentional misrepresentation to avoid the report being outed as a fake.
I don't think he cares, my gut tells me he's one of them that's going down for the count.
Probably because most people work during the day, and Friday night was the first time when most people didn't have to work the next day and had time to dig in and start doing their DD. I mean, for investors to uncover something like that less than 48 hours after it was released doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
Based on what I've read, it was uncovered Friday night, which to me isn't surprising because it was released and filed with the SEC Thursday.
I'll take your word for it.
Complicit :)
Funny you should say that as that's exactly what I did Friday (and it was even $500) based on the NI report at .324 like 5 minutes before the "buyout offer" PR came out. When it went to .93 and pulled back instead of heading straight toward $1.75, I knew right away something was amiss and sold at .72 for a 100% gain in about an hour. After reading this board over the weekend, there's no way in hell I'd put .10 in it. It is clearly a scam. IMO, the "bagholder longs" here are talking their book hoping that they can dump their shares on an unsuspecting group of new bagholders tomorrow morning. No one (and I mean no one) in their right mind could've read the board this weekend and NOT come to the conclusion that this is a total scam. You can tell who the current bagholders are now, they're the ones totally ignoring all of the facts and saying that this is going to $2, $4, $10. The update to the geologist website was the nail in the coffin, IMO. I know, I know, the site was hacked, blah blah blah. The "company" may as well come out and deny everything now because the people responsible for running this scare in WAYYY to deep at this point, and are going to need to sell every share they can for as much as they can to scrape together every penny they can for their new life outside the U.S., because getting out of the U.S. is surely the only way they're not going to prison for a long, long time.
Maybe because in the slim chance that he even exists, he's going to jail. Hard to make money for your shareholders when you're bunking w/ Bubba.
Just speculation on my part, but maybe he said he was going to call the Canadian authorities because the form they filed with the SEC is a Canadian form.