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.
gunnabe,
You are so distrusting...lol
>>Don't see your angle yet, but I'm trying to consider everything
I don't have an angle. Sorry. I'm just trying to figure out why such a suit is still progressing. [If it is.]
As you have pointed out, it is not for money. What then?
The only other thing would seem to be voting rights, but why would that be an issue?
Daddy F clearly doesn't have enough clout to influence anything on his own, so perhaps there is some subset of the controlling interest group that is struggling with a different subset. Who knows?
Perhaps a few million shares one way or another can tip the balance, who knows?
You are assuming that the share price would reflect the .06 value from back in January. If the court finds for Daddy F, he could award the shares based on today's pps.
Throw the discount into that and add the total to whatever he and his family already control and there may be enough to make a difference in a power struggle.
Don't you find it interesting that the suit was filed in June for a transaction that took place in January?
Do you really expect that he is trying to win an award based on January pricing? As you have clearly pointed out, he could just drop the case and spend the cash on todays shares and be WAY ahead of any scenario that could ensue from an award based on January prices.
There is obviously a benefit to be gained by continuing with the suit, and since it cannot be monetary, it must be something else. Shares only have two attributes one is the monetary value the other is share of control.
frog
bag8ger,
If voting rights is the issue, and the amount of shares in question depends upon the inequitable exchange of private shares for a larger number of company shares, then the larcenous nature of the inequity is still in play.
Gunnabe,
On a purely economic basis, and assuming that we are talking about a discount to the Jan pps and not today's pps, then yes he would be better off with the cash. On the other hand, if the question is not specifically one of money but is in fact part of an internal power struggle, then the shares in question and the subsequent voting rights might be the more germaine factor in the squabble.
As regards to the effect of the lawsuit on the pps, I agree with you, it is inconsequential.
regards,
frog
gunnabe, The issue isn't specifically shares vs. cash.
If it was that simple he could just take the cash and buy shares.
He wants 'discounted shares'.
Both he and his son have been pushing the limits of ethical behaviour for some time in this regard. They sell company shares on the market and loan the money to the company. In return the company pays back the loan plus the interest, but not in cash. They get the equivalent value in 'discounted shares'. So in addition to the interest, they get a further bonus of whatever the discount value is.
The bottom line is that instead of the company selling a fixed number of shares on the market to gain capital. Frudakis. et. al. sells the same number of shares and gets them not only replaced but multiplied significantly.
Gabriel has evidently put a stop to this semi-larcenous behavior, and Frudakis senior is not pleased. The lawsuit is the result.
As you say it is old news.
regards,
frog
worktoplay,
Now it's you who's stretching.
>>Of course, by your logic, we could just get rid of all those VP's, Boards, Presidents and such. They don't run the company anyway...lol
I said that the business plan was written and modified by VP's and Directors. I didn't say it was unimportant, just that it didn't constitute control.
I DID say that the control of the company was centered on the board of directors. The Chairman of the Board being the most significant member of that group. I find it interesting that a company that purchases over 50% of the voting rights to the company is only allowed two members on a six memeber board. Neither of the two positions being the Chairman.
So when you can demonstrate that DNAP has control of the BOD, either through having more than 50% of the membership or in directly electing a new Chairman, then you will have a case that the 51.7% 'equity' share is in fact 'control'. The limited ability to put two members on a six member board does not seem to be commensurate with their purported investment.
On a slightly different tangent, why do you suppose that Biofrontera is being allowed to put a board member on the DNAP board?
What did they do to deserve such a bounty?
There are only three members on the DNAP board now, so an additional member will have significant influence. Fully 25% of the voting power of the board. Since DNAP is only getting 33% of Biofrontera's board in exchange for over 50% of the equity, one wonders about what else is going on?
regards,
frog
bag8ger,
Let's hope something drives the pps soon. It is currently at .013 which is not enough to cover the cost of the first $2.7 million due to Biofrontera in February.
bag, Not just the company. The PP participants know why the conditions have changed, they must have been told that their rights had changed.
Too bad we don't have any of them here to ask.
I'd like to respond to this one as well, as i agree that it is very important.
It suggests that Dutchess is acting as an intermediary between unnamed investors and DNAP. It furthermore allows those investors to buy up to 300,000,000 shares of the company (see the S2) and restricts them from selling them for some time.
Worktoplay then suggests that DNAP use the funds to buy out LaJolla and free of another 424,000,000 shares for Dutchess to purchase.
Now you will all remember that one of the restrictions placed on the LaJolla deal (and the one that drove the pps down) was their limitation to own no more than 4.99% of DNAP stock at any one time. This prevented LaJolla from gaining any voting influence over the company by just buying the shares and keeping them.
Now that restriction has been lifted in the Dutchess agreement. Whoever the investors are, they will gain significant influence. 300 million shares is comparable with the collective ownership of present management. 724 Million (the present 300 Million in the agreement and the 424 million freed up by eliminating LaJolla) would be close to 50% ownership and would allow the 'investors' to exert significant influence.
On a totally different subject. (Or is it?
When the company I worked for was acquired by a larger entity, all the stock options that were in place, even the ones that wouldn't be vested for another five years, became vested immediately that the deal took place. It's in the boilerplate of the laws that regulate options. Now does anyone find it interesting that those who participated in the PP, (you know the ones, those guys listed in the S2 that 'no one' know about)have been allowed to exercise their warrants well ahead of the two year time frame originally called out? What benefit does the company derive from allowing them to bail out early? Are there other factors at work here?
Can anybody tie any of this stuff together, and come up with an explanation?
regards,
frog
worktoplay,
>>Wouldn't you agree that control of the business plan places us in operational control of the company?
Absolutely NOT!
A lot of companies have 'business plans' they all mean different things. Here where I work the business plan has numerous flavors. There is the 'one year plan', the 'five year plan' and the 'ten year plan'. They are constantly being updated and modified as the company progresses. They are the work of a group of middle managers (directors and VP's) that are mostly concerned with the sales and marketing side of the company. They don't run the company.
In most cases the business plan is an estimation of how you intend to progress financially as you grow your business and exploit your given expertise. If you are starting your own small business you create a business plan and take it to the bank who then decides whether to loan you the money to move forward. If you are an established business and you are looking to get a line of credit to assist your cash flow then you get your accountant to write you up a business plan to take to the bank.
Giving your support to management is a very PC thing to do, regardless of your position. To suggest that they have the power to remove them based on such a statement is a stretch. Most of the hiring and firing of upper management is the purview of the board of directors. I can't help but think that any entity that had voting control of a company would have more than two members on a six member board. They would have at least three as well as the chairmanship.
As far as continuing to discuss this thread, I'm sure you will remember your offer to respond to my question as soon as I responded to this one.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=4343833
I look forward to your response.
regards,
frog
worktoplay, fair enough.
I claim that since the 51.7% of the equity consists of 68% of one class of shares, that if the voting rights are different among the classes of shares then the 51.7% may not convey 'control' of the company.
You respond by saying first that all the shares carry the same weight, and then contradict yourself by saying that "ONLY" class B shareholders can vote on the business plan. So what categories can "only" class A shares vote on? common?
So how are the shares equal in their voting power?
bag8ger, It is irrelevant. I offered my personal interpretation of events as a basis for my motivation, not for argument. That you disagree with them is given, since you obviously are not motivated in the same way.
I am not trying to convince anyone that my interpretation is correct. I am merely pointing out the evidence as it stands. You have every right to assume that some complex set of events unfolded behind the scenes in a manner that not only made the warrants untenable but also prevented any explanation from being given. Help yourself.
I chose to interpret the evidence as it appears (Occam's razor, and all that).
I owe you no list of events. One lie is sufficient to qualify as a liar. Although there have been many other questionable interludes. The nefarious 'loan' and it's extraordinary pay back terms, the Tropical Genomics relationship, the performance bonuses, to name just a few. No...don't bother, I know you have 'explanations and hand waving' to cover all of them. It's OK, these are my interpretations, and they are not presented for argument.
My motives are constantly being questioned here, and I am only addressing that topic. I don't ask for agreement, nor do I wish to rehash any of these old topics.
What I would prefer to do is move on to the next topic. So, having said that, do you have an opinion on my question from the first post in this thread about the tenuous nature of the Biofrontera deal as it relates to the present pps?
regards,
frog
bag,
tell us about the warrants plan. only tell it in such a way that it is neither a promise nor a lie. Remember that a promise offered for a consideration and then withdrawn after receiving the consideration is called 'bait and switch'. While it is possible to apologize for such behavior as one does with a small child, by suggesting 'he didn't mean to lie', it is also quite acceptable to consider it disreputable.
Especially when there was no explanation, and especially when the particular newsletter that contained the promise is the only one that is conspicuous by it's absence on the web site.
Disreputable is a fair characterization of such behavior.
bag8ger,
You know full well the lie that started this. It is a very old point of contention and it has been rehashed many times.
You have made your views on the subject known over and over. As have I.
Explicit promises were made and then not kept. No explanation was ever given. That's a lie in my book and since it is my behavior that I am explaining, it is sufficient to that explanation that I think it was dishonorable.
regards,
frog
Ihub forum members.
I have recently raised a number of questions regarding the latest of a long line of 'deals' floated by DNAP management.
As in the past when I questioned any of these schemes I have been attacked and reviled. That's OK, it's seems to be a part of the ongoing ritual.
Some of the long term participant here and on RB may remember the vehemence of the responses to my questioning of the GMED deal all those years ago. I suggested that it was a little incestuous in regards to the major players (tbf etc) I also claimed that GMED had no money so the deal was dead on arrival. I was dismissed and ignored (win put me on ingore for the second time in a week, lol Worktoplay even dragged Craig Hall on to the board to refute my argument.) We all know how that deal turned out.
I understand that any kind of discusion that undermines basic assumptions can generate a certain amount of discomfort among those to whom the assumptions have been afforded the status of 'fact'. I can't help that.
I can, and will, continue to ask those questions. Many of the answers to those questions will turn out to be positive, some will inevitably slant to the negative, but it is only by asking the questions that we have any hope of arriving at the answers. I don't have any regrets for posing questions that turn out to be wrong, any more than I take much satisfaction for being right. I just like to get to the bottom of things. If you don't like it, that's fine, don't read them. I respect your options and I don't mind being ignored.
I have often been questioned about my motives, and while I don't think that motives have any bearing on the truth or untruth of any particular statements, they certainly seem to be relevant to many here. having done a little soul searching I will therefore offer my understanding of my own motives. I don't expect them to be accepted by most, but I will offer them anyway.
I don't like being lied to, I don't like it one bit. I don't like being misled and I don't like being 'nuanced'. I prefer to be dealt with in an open and honest manner. Over time DNAP and Frudakis have shown themselves to be quite willing to bend the truth and misdirect the investors whenever it suited their fancy. the examples are well known to all. I have learned to be very wary whenever a pronouncement is made. There is an old joke about how can you tell when someone [of questionable repute] is lying?. The answer is; Whenever his lips move.
I have gotten to the point that whenever Frudakis'[or any of his proxies] lips move, I listen very carefully.
This ceased to be an issue of 'investment' for me a long time ago. I am here now until the bitter end, in order to see if the reasonably plausible science can drag the company, in spite of it's disrepute, into the light.
With that in mind, here is my latest observation for your consideration.
If the pps falls much lower than it's present price (0.014) then the Biofrontera deal cannot be consumated as written, here's why;
The present capitalization of DNAP based on 750Million shares outstanding and a pps of 0.014 is exactly $10.5 Million.
If the entire 300 Million shares referenced in the S2 for Dutchess are released the shares outstanding will be 1.05 Billion, and the pps will drop to 0.01 per share. ($10.5 Million divided by 1.05 Billion shares)
The 300 Million shares listed in the S2 for Biofrontera will be worth $3 Million, but Dutchess only pays 96% of the list price, so the revenue produced from such a transaction is $2.8 Million.
$2.7 Million is the amount that must be provided to Biofrontera by the first part of February or the deal is off.
Keep in mind that this $2.7 Million is only a small fraction of the $35 Million mentioned, yet it has already accounted for all of the available shares in the S2. There are no more without another reauthorization round, It's doubtful that such an effort could be completed by February.
I figure that the cutoff value is 0.013125. Comments?
regards,
frog
mingwan0, We will be sorry to see you go. For the first part of your tenure here as the board monitor the quality and integrity of the board increased markedly. However, in recent weeks it has become evident that you no longer bring the same level of zeal to the position and a certain level of antagonism and acrimony has crept back into the forum. Perhaps your decision is for the best. Good luck in the future.
regards,
frog
I am also amused by the DNAP-centric viewpoint that DNAP is driving this deal.
People, this is a Biofrontera deal from the get go.
Frudakis didn't start talking about the future as a drug company until Gabriel came on board. Gabriel and Tambori appeared, apparently out of nowhere, but actually as Biofrontera investors on a mission.
Immediately after their arrival they become major shareholders in DNAP based on their willingness to sacrifice salary for stock. The existing company structure is turned on it's head, most of the scientists are ejected, and the new world order takes over.
After enough time has passed to conceal the obvious nature of the plan, lo and behold the 'drug company' that has been hinted at for months ends up being Biofrontera...what a coincidence.
Has it totally escaped your notice, that nowhere in any of the PR's or documentation, from either company, does it ever mention DNAP will have"CONTROL" of Biofrontera. No, it never does! They only ever talk about a Major equity position and gaining 'access' to the drug pipeline, never operational control.
DNAP has agreed to purchase 68% of the Preffered Class B shares. Now if you are paying attention you will be able to deduce that IF 68% of the class B shares is worth 51.7% of the equity in the company, THEN there are obviously other classes of stock in play. Worktoplay has already shown you the differences that exist in the voting characteristics of the various classes of stock. Put 2 and 2 together and see what you get.
For those who can't do such complicated math, the calculation suggests that there is NO direct connection between owning 51.7% of the 'equity' and owning 51.7% of the voting rights. Given that the 'Control' word has never been mentioned, it is a safe bet that DNAP will NOT have voting control over Biofrontera.
I defy anyone to produce evidence to the contrary.
regards,
frog
Sorry gunnabe,
I have been responding to many people lately and I dropped the ball, please forgive me.
>>"3) Finally, please reply to my earlier question: 'If another company wanted to purchase that same 51% of Biofrontera [and cut dnap out of the game], do you BELIEVE that bio would accept less than $25Mill.....?????'"
That is a more complicated question than it appears on the surface, so allow me to break it into it's component parts.
DNAP is not paying $25 Million dollars for 51.7% of Biofrontera. As is clearly stated in the documents, they are paying $2.7 Million for a 51.7% equity share of the company. The rest of the money will be provided over a couple of years and is a 'sweetener', as the control of the shares takes place immediately. Everyone here assumes that means that they are gaining control and have thus 'bought the company'. That is not necessarily so. Worktoplay has recently explained (on RB) the difference in voting rights between dual class shares. You might find it interesting, and even relevant.
(btw: the irony of the title kills me)
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=DNAP&read=312644
So my answer to your question (after apologizing for the extended digression) is; Of course they would accept less than $25 Million for the same 51%. They have already agreed to do so. If someone else came along and offered the $2.7 Million for the shares and the 'sweetener' in weeks instead of years they would cut DNAP out of the game in a heartbeat.
regards,
frog
Wrong again.
DNAP will own and control the 51.7% as soon as it pays $2.7million. Read the text.
bag8ger, lol, It's just CYA.
In a few months, when the rest of the shoes have dropped, I don't want anything to get in the way of my great big, "I told you so" grin.
best regards,
frog
Miss Scarlet,
Nice to hear from you. I agree, no one knows how this will pan out. All we can do is calculate, at a personal level, some value of confidence/risk, and make investment decisions based on those risks.
I find it much more advantageous to calculate those risks based on historic performance and facts, as opposed to 'winning the lottery' fantasies, that's all.
Best regards,
frog
1USGrant, How's the diet?
cosmic,
>>...nice try but it doesn't work. You said: "The resulting slope of the line is extrapolated assuming that present conditions continue."
That's exactly what speculation is....assuming...
----
ALL extrapolations are based on assumptions. If you extrapolate the rotation of the Earth into tomorrow to calculate tomorrow's sunrise, you must assume that the present conditions that affect that rotation will remain continuous. Yet tomorrow's sunrise time is hardly a speculation.
>>And especially not true when your analysis intentionally precludes and excludes any possibility of additional DNAP products (drug classifiers and/or new drugs) possibly coming to market in the near future (1 to 2 years).
cosmic, my analysis precluded nothing. I merely extrapolated the present conditions into the future. Hopefully many positive things will happen, but to count those things as a given is pure speculation. Especially given the track record so far.
Please don't lecture me about what 'intelligent investors' do. One has to establish some credibility in a specialty before one can pontificate. lol
gunnabe,
Sorry, but I am not prepared to accept the va;uation placed on a deal by a PR. Especially one that is predicting valies based on promises that are two years away. We always seem willing to accept everything positive that is pitched even when it is inherently innacurate. The PR claims that it is possible to buy more than half of a company for less than half of it's. A value that is ostensibly defined by the deal itself.
Would you expect the PR to suggest that control and majority ownership of DNAP had been purchased for $35 Million dollars and DNAP was going to use $2.7illion of the received money to gain control of Biofrontera? Every investor would have demanded the purchase price be reflected in the pps. Instead by pitching it as they have, everyone will accept both the dilution AND the lower pps.
regards,
frog
gunnabe,
>> Hence, you're acknowledging future dilution [even to Dutchess] but ignoring the impact to the % ownership to further your unbalanced analysis.
Not so fast. I clearly stated that they would go on to increase their % of ownership, thus the analysis remains 'balanced'.
>>After they have issued more shares and Dutchess gains a controlling interest in DNAP...
Market value is established by multiplying the number of shares times the purchase price. If DNAP is going to get 51% of the shares for $2.7 Million then the market share is established, period. It's not an opinion.
cosmic,
Simple facts, laid out and graphed. The resulting slope of the line is extrapolated assuming that present conditions continue. That's all.
Any assumptions and speculations that might influence the conditions are not included in the existing reality. There is nothing inherently negative about such an analysis.
Assumptions and speculation are a welcome diversion and the potential results of same are not unwelcome. However, regardless of the color of your glasses, they cannot be the baseline by which you measure progress.
My analysis is ONLY negative when it is compared to your speculation, NOT when it is measured against the facts.
Additionally, my own investment criteria is irrelevant to my participation here. Although I am invested in this company, and have been on and off for a number of years, the inclinations that define my position have not been related to my investment for some time now.
regards,
frog
cosmic,
You are welcome to your opinion, as always.
"Hypothetical speculation" is a little over the top considering the analysis uses nothing but facts taken directly from company publications. However since you qualify your response with your penchant for choosing fantasy over reality... "I'll take the exciting possibilities for DNAP over your negative speculation every time." ...I will let it pass.
regards,
frog
gunnabe,
A few points;
- The '300,000,000 shares equals 30%' statement comes directly from the S2.( You can look it up) It is an interim state in the transaction, before all the shares are allocated, as I inferred.
- As you say the $50 million is based on the termination value based on the $25 million for 51% touted in the pr. However, the reality of the situation is that DNAP gets ALL of the shares, and control, for $2.7 million. They only promise to come up with an additional $8 dollars per share in the next two years. The shares change hands for the $2.7 million. So, as I said, the 'face' value of the company based on that figure is $5 million.
You say DNAP is worth $10 million (rounding down) I was more optimistic and said $15 million (rounding up). Fair enough.
My analysis stands.
regards,
frog
Question three, (I'm on a roll)
When this particular transaction has been completed and Dutchess has purchased 300 million shares and thus owns 30% of the company. When DNAP (as their proxy) goes ahead and buys 51% of Biofrontera for $2.7 million (and a promise). Does the 30% stake in DNAP combined with the shares controlled by management enable Dutchess (and present management) to increase the share authorization whether the rest of the investors like it or not? Oh yes!
After they have issued more shares and Dutchess gains a controlling interest in DNAP and thus controlling interest in Biofrontera, how will they combine the assets of the two companies and how will the present investors be included?
Remember that at this point in time 51% of Biofrontera has a 'face value' of only $2.7 million, or a capitalized value of $5.3 million.[the rest of the advertised value is based on the 'promise'] Combined with the present value of DNAP about $15 million that is a total value of $20 million.
The combined company will be 'owned' by the present investors in DNAP and the present investors in Biofrontera. Assuming that the Biofrontera people maintain 49% of their share DNAP investors will own the rest. Of the 51% of the company owned by DNAP investors 26% will belong to Dutchess based on their half of DNAP. Present DNAP investors will own the other 25%.
Present shareholders (not including management) own probably half of DNAP (assuming mangement has maintained a controlling interest so far). Those same investors will own 12.5% of the combined company. [49%-Biofrontera investors, 26%-Dutchess, 12.5% DNAP management, 12.5% everybody else].
So current DNAP shareholders go from the current state of 50% ownership of a $15 million dollar enterprise to a 12.5% ownership of a $20 million dollar company.
Thoughts?
So the Private Placement was only able to attract 7 guys?
Well you got the "Duh" part right!
Hopefully there are hundreds of people that 'want' DNAP shares. The question however, was what makes these guys so different/unique/special to be included in this particular deal?
It has been suggested that DNAP is just doing a little accounting housekeeping and using this S2 as a convenient placeholder for previous minor transactions. That's a possibility, but it begs the question, What deals were those and what did DNAP receive in return?
regards,
frog
Question two.
If DNAP is going to purchase more than 50% of Biofrontera for $20Million and thereby gain control.
And if Dutchess is going to finance this deal with $35 Million dollars. [Much more than the market value of DNAP btw]
And if in exchange for the $35 Million they are going to get more than 50% of DNAP's outstanding stock.
Then, who owns [and controls] DNAP?
Just curious.
Question One from the S2
Who are these people in the S2, and what is their relathionship to DNAP?
The obvious ones need no introduction.
Athena Capital
Duchess Privat Equity
La Jolla
But then the list has a number of private individuals only one that is familiar.
Jack Luchese[former management]
Timothy Burke
Kevin Cimino
Douglas Weiland
Ven Rekula
Jeffrey Gilfillan
Mark Nelson
Robert Lindan
Who are these guys and what do they have in common, why are they a part of this deal?
I have some questions regarding the wording in some of the PR's from DNAP and Biofrontera. Perhaps one of the leading lights here on the board can explain some of these things.
In the initial PR, DNAP announces that they will acquire 'Majority Ownership'. They will do this by obtaining 68% of the series B shares for $25 million. We are told that this equates to 51.77% of the 'equity' ownership. Additionally we learn that this increases Biofrntera's capitalization to $51 million.
My question has to do with the semantics of these statements. It is assumed by most of the members here that 'Majority Ownership' translates to 'Controlling Interest' [I know that's how I interpret it]. Interestingly enough there is no mention of 'control' in any of the PR's from either side. In fact, Biofrontera announces just exactly how they will spend the money, when one might assume that DNAP would, upon gaining control, decide where to spend the money.
Now $25 million only buys 49% of a $51 million dollar company. Furthermore if 68% of Series B shares is equal to 51.77% of equity, then 100% of series B shares is worth 76% of that equity. That means that some other Series of shares accounts for at least 24% of the equity. Have all shares been released yet?
My next question has to do with ownership dilution. Assuming that $25 million buys 51.77% of a company today and realizing that the deal will take 24 months to complete, what would be the effect on the 'ownership fraction' if someone else comes along in that time frame and buys another $25 million dollars worth of newly released shares?
I base this question on the Biofrontera statement that lists it's major shareholders as Heidelberg Innovation and the 3i group, and lists DNAP as a company that has agreed to obtain a 'significant stake' in Biofrontera. When the DNAP deal is completed do Heidelberg and 3i suddenly become minor shareholders? What happens to DNAP when the next investor comes along?
Anybody got any insight?
regards,
frog
twelks,
No one is making a judgement here. Merely pointing out the differences between viewpoints.
You are free to believe anything you like, just don't try to tell me that something is a fact just because you believe it.
Investment strategies can be built on any on kind of foundation that can be imagined, from throwing dice to casting bones, to reading tea leaves or tarot cards. All approaches are equally valid to their respective practitioners. Quite often an ouija board has a better chance of being correct than an investment banker. The conflicts occur when beliefs are (sometimes even unintentionally) passed off as facts. Even when those doing the passing, do it with the best of intentions and secure in the comfort of their own faith induced confidence, it is potentially harmful to the trusting types who cannot discern the difference.
---
Whose interpretation of reality are we supposed to believe?
---
If you have to ask me that question then you have not been paying attention. LOL
regards,
frog
OT: Cosmic,
How refreshing...but confusing.
FYI, The condescension was not related to the dribble comment.
I am quite comfortable with both the known and the unknown, so filters are unecessary.
Until we open the box, Schrodenger's cat is irrelevant. LOL
There is no contradiction. Belief has no affect on reality, but your 'belief filters' can have a marked effect on your perception of it.
Wish away! lol
regards,
frog
Cosmic, LOL
How very condescending of you. Unfortunately what you 'believe' has very little bearing on the reality of the question.
Belief is the acceptance, as truth, of any cognitive content unsupported by fact.
Cognitive content that is supported by fact is considered knowledge.
So reality breaks down fairly simply into the known and the unknown. People who are uncomfortable with the unknown, quite often populate it with their own version of what they would like it to be. In other words they believe.
You are an accomplished believer, and even though you consider yourself to be open minded you are limited by your belief structures. Since you can't conceive of an alternative paradigm, you necessarily project your world view onto others.
best regards,
frog
Cosmic,
I am afraid you have mischaracterized my response again. The truth is, I don't do 'belief' of any kind. Therefore to suggest that I 'believe' that DNAP is a pipedream, is incorrect.
Furthermore, while you have amassed an impressive list of 'possibilites' for drugs or classifiers that may or may not be in a DNAP pipeline. products that may or may not have any connection whatsoever to DNAP, based on a number of fairly tenuous connections and what can only be hopeful assumptions. What you may have failed to consider is that one of the basic attributes of a pipeline is that aside from it's ability to accept input at one end, eventually something has to come out the other. Otherwise it it is not a pipeline, but just a place where questionable concepts go to die.
For the sake of all of the loyal investors here, I hope that you are rewarded with at least a dribble of results from this 'pipeline' in the not too distant future. Some of those concepts have been reported to be imminent for a number of years now.
regards,
frog
cosmic,
I mean that DNAP did not obtain anything. I was responding to this;
----
DNAP just obtained majority interest in a drug company...a majority interest that will show up nicely on DNAP's assets... That's far from a company whose assets are dwindling from sellng shares...
----
They have obtained nothing, and nothing will appear on the asset sheet for a long long time. At best they have proposed a pathway to obtain an 'equity' share of 51.7% two years from now, providing a number of immense obstacles can be overcome.
The biggest obstacle, [remember the topic of this thread] is the state of 'DNAP the pps'. In order to reach their goal, they need to trade every share they have authorized as well as many more that they have yet to authorize for monthly payments toward that goal. If 'DNAP company' cannot directly link itself to 'DNAP pps' in such a way as to improve the state of the latter, then all the rest of this stuff is just 'DNAP pipedream'.
regards,
frog
Cosmic,
DNAP gained no such thing!
It is your imagination that is working overtime.