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....OK! I'll give it a rest. lol
I've made about 10 posts on both boards today. You've been pumping your heart out all day with over 30. I think you are more in need of a rest than I am. lol
regards,
frog
There is no wizardry.
At present there are about 500 Million shares available for issue. There are about 1 Billion shares in the OS. A total of 1.5 Billion.
After the R/S there will be as few as 50 Million shares in the OS, but every one will be the equivalent of 20 pre R/S shares. Additionally there will now be 0ver 1.4 Billion shares available to issue, since the A/S will remain at 1.5 Billion.
Since each post R/S share is the equivalent of 20 of the previous shares, the 1.4 billion shares equates to 28 Billion of the previous shares.
A couple of posters have suggested that DNAP will not need to use all of them and so there is not much risk. I would call everyones attention to the last authorization vote when the company said they had no need for any of the shares except those needed for the warrants plan, but they would be available if circumstances changed and anyway any use of those shares would be voted on by the shareholders.
Perhaps a more realistic scenario would be to authorize an additional 1.5 Billion shares for a total of 3 Billion, followed immediately by a R/S of 20 to 1 for ALL shares (both OS and AS). The resulting limit of 150 million post R/S shares would ensure that a runaway dilution would be impossible.
regards,
frog
Miss Scarlet, The reverse split, on its own, is not so serious. Although it has a negative perception it is in reality only an accounting exercise.
The disturbing part of the announcement relates to the r/s NOT applying to the Authorized Share count.
The completion of the plan will result in a number of shares in play after the r/s that is equivalent to 28 Billion shares prior to the r/s.
That is a staggering consequence.
regards,
frog
Miss Scarlet, My sincere apologies.
Had I known what it meant to him, I would have delayed my response to a more appropriate post number. lol
Do you think it possible to post a list of the milestone post numbers that convey value to such a collection?
I would be more than willing to steer clear of such a quest.
regards,
frog
lol,
In the interests of fairness why don't you choose one or the other;
...you'll have to interpret it your way, i'll interpret it my way.
or
...you'll have to slant it your way, i'll slant it my way.
otherwise you may be 'slanting' things inadvertently.
regards,
frog
Capital......or income?
retired investor, I think if you will review the post you will see that the shares are accounted for.
regards,
frog
Gunnabe, My crystal ball is no better than yours, although I would suspect that with the continuing necessity for the company to seek it's revenue stream directly from the shareholders, the effect on the share price will be negative in the long run.
regards,
frog
Gunnabe, Absolutely right!
As long as management restricts themselves to issuing only 100 Million shares after the split, and burying the remaining 1.35 Billion shares in the back yard, all things will be equal.
Care to comment on the likelihood of such a scenario?
regards,
frog
retired investor, With all due respect, I think there is a significant factor missing from your analysis.
if i am understanding this properly, we now have 1.5b sh authorized. after the r/s as i read it in the proxy, all current shareholders will have 10 or 20 times fewer sh, but total authorized sh will still be 1.5b. this sounds better to me than having the 1.5b now, and asking us to authorize the issuance of 1.5b more, for a total authorized share amount of 3 billion.
The choice appears to be relatively even, as either way we end up with an extra 1.5 Billion shares for future endeavors. However the difference is in the eventual share fraction that is owned by current investors.
In the scenario with the additional 1.5 Billion shares authorized, current shareholders would see their ownership share diluted by about half if all shares were issued.
In the R/S scenario, shareholders would see a dilutive effect that would be much greater.
For the sake of argument, lets assume that just one shareholder exists and he owns 1 Billion shares. The company still has 500 million shares to issue and they authorize another 1.5 Billion. If all shares are eventually issued, our shareholder still owns one third (33%) of the company (down from two thirds before the authorization).
In the second scenario, our stockholder has his share count reduced by a factor of twenty to 50 Million shares and the company retains the ability to issue a total of 1.5 Billion shares. After they have been issued our shareholder now owns only 3.3 percent of the company (50 million shares of 1.5 Billion).
The difference is dramatic, don't you think?
regards,
frog
This conversation is terminated when I decide not to respond.
DNAP had no part in the determination of the family connection. The family was the center of the investigation due to the stupidity of the Boulder police. Any competent investigation would have moved on from them in days.
Please don't infer that DNAP is marketing it's wares to police forces as a mitigation to their own stupidity.
regards,
frog
Wrong again. I said no such thing. Don't put words in my mouth, that is a very deceitful tactic.
You say the fact the DNA from JonBenet’s panties belongs to a white male who is not a member of JonBenet’s family is not very useful.
I said that knowing that the DNA was from a white male is not very helpful in a community of predominantly white males.
I also said that the exoneration of the family had nothing to do with DNAP, but was a direct result of DNA testing from the very start.
Twisting the two together into the nonsense you have stated is a fairly transparent diversion.
regards,
frog
Blue Moon, It is you who is off base.
You are completely off base here -- it is extremely useful and important to know that the DNA in JonBenet's underwear belonged to a "white male" who is not a member of the Ramsey family.
You are mixing facts together here innapropriately.
They knew the DNA in her underwear was not from a member of the family as soon as they analyzed it. They had all of the families DNA to compare it to from the start.
The analysis might have been delayed due to technical limitations but it was not DNAP technology that exonerated the Ramseys.
regards,
frog
We didn't!
How could we have overlooked that though? This PR is dated back to 2003.
As I recall there was a little spike generated by the news then, and while it was much bigger in actual magnitude it was much smaller in percentage gain.
Michiko, I will try, but realize that simple words are not my style. If I can't use large and complex expressions, where will I hide? lol
It is my suggestion, that while there is huge potential in both money and health benefits in the extraction of information from the DNA data base, DNAP has not made any progress in those directions.
The facilities they have are capable of getting useful information at a fairly rapid rate. Remember that five years ago Tony said that classifiers would be produced at six month intervals. This is easily possible given the capabilities of the SNP machines and the software platform.
Unfortunately, since the authorization of extra shares many months ago, DNAP has limited themselves to a very small array of products. Each one has extracted much more money for the company from the investment community than it ever has extracted from it's intended market. New directions of the company seem to be moving away from the potential of new discoveries and towards more long term projects that continue to extract all of their funds from the investor base instead of the market.
I think this is not only a waste of a good opportunity that is diminishing with time. Remember that there is a market for SNP machines and every one of them is capable of doing the same thing. It is also a violation of trust.
I hope that I have explained things in a way that you can understand. I apologize for lacking the ability to speak with you in your own language, as you have most graciously done in mine.
regards,
frog
Easy, There is no doubt that the company would have failed if the share authorization had not passed.
There is no doubt that things changed drastically at the very instant of the authorization.
There is no doubt that every given scenario has aspects of fault and favor.
Do not make the mistake of condemning me for always pointing out the one side, without condemning those that only point out the other.
regards,
frog
As I just stated I was born in the middle of the last century. I am therefore in my mid fifties.
Interesting characterization.....nevertheless wrong.
I am probably one of the most optimistic people you have ever heard of. I expect that the outcome from the unlocking of the genetic code will be mind boggling and almost immediate.
I fully expect to hear in the next few years that such ailments as cancer, heart disease, diabetes and old age, have been cured and removed from the human condition. I fully expect that barring a run in with a bus (or a disgruntled DNAP investor) that I will welcome in the next century with a healthy and young body, even though I was born half way through the last one.
Optimism is what originally brought me to this stock. Dismay the progress and the unethical application of the technology in order to leverage money from shareholders, is what keeps me here.
regards,
frog
It is a very telling statement when applied in the context of the value of the technology.
While everyone is very excited about the fact that DNAP was probably instrumental in the determination of the appearance of the suspect. We need to remember that the involvement happened many months ago when we were told that DNAP was in touch with the Ramsey case. Unfortunately there has been no advantage gained from the knowledge gained from the test.
In upper middle class Boulder 'white male' refers to the majority of all of the suspects available and does not convey any investigational advantage.
So while it is gratifying to know that the technology was used, it should be a wake-up call to realize that it is not always very useful.
regards,
frog
Miss Scarlet,
Votaire is the gentleman to whom is attributed (perhaps erroneously) the famous line;
I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it.
regards,
frog
Miss Scarlet,
I made my message a response to one of yours because I knew it would receive a civil answer and perhaps spark some discourse on the matter.
I understand the necessity of civility here and I also, as you know, have had to tread a fine line in order to remain.
As you are well aware the deletion of a post is no indication that it is in violation of the TOS and so one cannot assume that civility is the underlying cause.
On the other hand civility is a subjective call that always seems to be pressed into service on a less than level playing field. You are no doubt aware of the lack of civility that has occured here in the past with no action taken, simply because of the leaning of the transgressor.
best regards,
frog
A very good example Arch,
If anyone should be in 'Matt jail' for lack of civility, one wonders how you have escaped for so long.
Since much of the irelevant garbage that finds itself on this board does so via your spam-like distributions, it is also a wonder that you have the chops to speak up.
regards,
frog
I find it regretable that people are seemingly so insecure in their comfort zone regarding this company, that they would censor alternate voices rather than be exposed to information that they are perfectly free to ignore already.
What set of circumstances will turn warm and compassionate people into those that would render a dissenting voice silenced, rather than either discuss the issue or ignore the voice.
Mssr. Voltaire's earthly remains must currently be suffering from a significant rotational torque!
regards,
frog
In regards to the Genographic Project.
This project has two potential outcomes in regard to DNAP.
The first and most optimistic is that DNAP is involved and will soon announce it's involvement. Such a scenario is quite feasible given the apparent connections between DNAP and IBM and the previous work DNAP has done in this area. Such a project would be an excellent forum for DNAP to display it's wares and expertise. Such an involvement would be a fitting explanation for the current rally.
The second and perhaps more uncomfortable outcome is that DNAP is not involved and has been passed over by the oganizers of the effort. However short sighted or unsound a decision it would be particularly problematic for DNAP for two reasons. Obviously the dismissal of their technology would be a blow, but more important would be the final results of the project. Consider that it will be impossible to complete the goals of the project in documenting the genetic journey of humankind from it's origin in Africa to it's complete inhabitation of the planet without duplicating and superceding all of DNAP's accomplishments to date in the forensic realm. The PR states specifically the questions it seeks to answer;
How did we, each of us, end up where we are? Why do we appear in such a wide array of different colors and features?
By the time they have completed their mission and have answered their questions, DNAP will have serious and public competition.
Let's hope for the first option.
regards,
frog
Cosmic,
You are most probably right. The filing that mentions SDE Holdings refers to there being '0' shareholders, and that is impossible for DNAP.
The uncomfortable aspects of the filing are minor but annoying. SDE Holdings was the vehicle that DNAP used to obtain it's OTC listing. It was a clean, wholely owned shell. IF it is abandoned how is DNAP still connected to the OTC? Will there be a new filing?
Secondly, the OTC registered a change in DNAP status today. Whether it is the 'new' direct connection to the OTC or something else, is not clear.
Whatever the final resolution, the market did not like the news. The on-going rally was stopped in it's tracks. Whatever the news, the timing was inopportune.
regards,
frog
bag, My apologies, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
The incredible lack of sensitivity displayed in your missive, led me to infer some emotional underpinnings. If as you say you harbor no such animosity, can we deduce that you are this nasty to everyone?
frog
Miss Scarlet,
I'm just fine. How are you?
best regards,
frog
OT; Bag, You might want to work on that sensitivity.
Mocking a person suffering from a potentially fatal disease, just because you don't like him, seems a little low, don't you think?
But bag8ger, You never answer when I ask 'good' questions!
Wow! You can't even dream up good questions on this one.
Then these ones should be easy to respond to, shouldn't they?
We're waiting.
Tell us how DNAP got to the head of the line to buy a multibillion dollar drug for $2 Million.
Tell us why Harvard et al. was willing to surrender such a prize for such a paltry sum and a 4% royalty. Didn't anyone else bid?
If you had the resources of Harvard and Beth Isreal at your discretion, both intellectual and financial, why wouldn't you finish the thing on your own and keep all the money?
Tell us why the only criteria you entertain to determine the value of a deal is whether or not DNAP made it? lol
regards,
frog
eb0783,
Could you share whatever metrics you used to assess this 'deal'?
I have to say that this is one of the best deals I've ever seen.
What makes it so good?
Some questions that occur to me;
If this drug has the potential that has been reported, why is it on the market for 'only' $2 Million dollars?
Given the money available in the drug acquisition space, (Big Pharma buys up potential drugs by the thousands) why didn't a bidding war ensue that would take it out of DNAP's league in a heartbeat?
Is this drug development a secret?
Does Beth Isreal think that DNAP is the best choice to finish the development and then market their drug?
Wouldn't they have prefered a more substantial player, assuming they had a choice?
Why wasn't there a line at the door waiting to snap up such a potential winner?
In a normal food chain it is usually only the crumbs and the discards that make it down to the little guys, which one is this?
Just curious.
frog
bag, You keep trying to simplify the relationship into flowery terms and throwaway concerns.
That the pps is a reflection of the 'value' of the company CAN be argued, although not with much vigor. You can cling to your assumptions regarding manipulation and the ensueing disconnect between the pps and the company's actual value. That however is not the subject of the discussion.
In this particular company, all revenues that fund operations come directly from the invesment community via the sale of shares. Therefore the company's existence and future depend on that income source remaining viable.
If the pps drops to the point that sufficient income cannot be derived from the sale of shares then the company cannot survive. It is as simple as that.
There is no drug pipeline if the funding cannot be extracted from investors. Investors, with the best of intentions, can only buy the available shares at the current price. If there is not enough shares or the pps is too low to enable sufficient funds to be transfered, then the pipeline stops.
regards,
frog
Bag8ger,
Are you being intentionally obtuse?
I said the future survival of the company is tied directly to the pps;
"The pps MUST respond if the company is to survive."
You counter by suggesting that the connection is barely tangible and then say;
A new discovery, a new alliance, a patent issued, or several patents issued, all or anyone could change the course of this company at any moment.
Just how would such occurances "change the course of the company"?
Wait for it..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.......BY INCREASING THE PPS!
They are not loosely braided shoestrings or ropes..they are 'welded' together and they will survive or perish together.
The pps MUST respond or the company is doomed.
regards,
frog
Irresponsible Nonsense!
The pps says nothing about the company.
The pps IS the company.
You can't possibly pretend that the future, if not the near term survival, of the company is not tied DIRECTLY to the pps.
Whether the future 'du jour' is based on the $25 Million to purchase Biofrontera or the $20 Million needed for a drug trial, that money HAS to be extracted from the investment community via sales of shares.
Forgetting the obvious dilutive effects of printing shares, $20 Million dollars will require 2 Billion shares and a MINIMUM share price of one cent.
Neither value is currently viable. The pps MUST respond if the company is to survive.
They are inextricably connected.
bag,
For clarification;
1. I don't have a bookie. lol (rhetoric)
2. BS. Neither Shriver or Frudakis is writing a textbook on complex mathematical algorithms. Perhaps on Ancestral Genetic Patterns, but not mathematics.
3. Coca Cola may be exceedingly boring but they are moderately successful. (sarcasm)
4. No one said algorithms aren't ever patented. Read it again.
5. The shareholders don't benefit, the company does. The shareholders react to the news to the company's benefit.
6. I don't pick 'em out, you do. I just explain 'em.
7. They seldom lie (directly). Your interpretation assumes more than is said, that's all.
regards,
frog
bag8ger,
Out of the frying pan into the fire, eh?
For one thing 'complex mathematical formula' is a throw away line. My bookie uses complex mathematical formula, so what.
The comparison of large numbers of data files from different individuals to sort out statistical patterns is cut and dried textbook stuff. Go and find a statistician and ask him how hard it is.
For another thing, in order to keep such secrets for internal use solely by our scientists why would anyone write a patent on it? You have to publish a patent, everybody will see it. How could you enforce such a patent (if it were issued)? It would be used in private and there would be no visibility into it's use.
Trade secrets that do not require publication are never patented. Consider the classic example of the formula for Coca Cola. It has been in use for decades. If it were patented, it would have been public for decades and the patent would have expired long ago. However, as it has been kept a 'trade secret' and never divulged, it is still a viable intellectual property.
No, such information as their statistical processes, if innovative and valuable, would be treated as trade secrets. DNAP's patent applications in regards to such 'complex mathematical formula' are solely for the benefit of their investor audience. It has worked pretty well wouldn't you say?
regards,
frog
bag8ger, That might be a good point!
Also, the research I asked you to do, one of the reasons was that I apparently have less time than you do, and you could do easily what I would do laboriously.
On the other hand, most of what I tell you falls on deaf ears and fails to sink in. Perhaps if it wasn't so easy to obtain the information, perhaps if you had to work for it and actually think about it, it would make more of an impression and provide more value.
For that reason I think I'll let you do it yourself. It's for your own good.
regards,
frog
uncxman, That's none of your business! lol
Oooooh Bag, I love it when you talk like that. Cool.
So what paradigmatic change is associated with this patent?
(hint: You'd better read it before you get on this bandwagon. lol)
And what is the difference, (if any) between a question put forth by an examiner for clarification and a rejection (non-final or final)?
And what 'challenge' to the inventor forced an eighteen month delay in the initial completion of the application?
Why did the patent reach a 'request for extention' vs. 'abandonment' decision?
regards,
frog
bag8ger, Why don't you?
And then tell us how the process breaks down.
How many patents are approved with 'no' rejections?
How many are approved after a 'non-final' rejection?
How many after a 'final' rejection?
How many after two 'non-final' and one 'final'?
etc., etc., etc,....
Don't forget to assess how many 'claims' are removed from the application on average for each step.
Then after you have worked out the respective percentages of each, tell us how you derive the 'routine' aspect of your characterization. LOL
regards,
frog
My juvenile sarcasm was entirely appropriate to the situation.
Your characterization of the patent application in question as 'routine' was the absolute embodiment of the junior high 'Know-it-all', when confronted with information contrary to his world view. It was childish, and it was rubbish. (And you know it!) LOL