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.
Any concern with the way AWM has been unloading over the last 90 days? I know they are the biggest shareholder but have sold about 500K (or 25%) of their shares from middle of September through just two days ago.
Some company is about to get some money.....hopefully it is some of the companies being discussed here on the board. They just moved 750 million from the defense budget to a new budget to fight all types of Ebola type items.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/13/us-health-ebola-usa-money-idUSKCN0I223N20141013
For anyone following this board or the phase III trial, I found this blog from this person who claims to be the wife of someone in the trial on colon cancer site. I don't know the legitimacy of the blog but everything she had indicated seems to follow the path of a normal trial. Anyway, thought I would share with the board.
http://coloncancersupport.colonclub.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=47465&start=60
Got it. Thanks.
I have no idea why that comment was next to Newl on the OTC addition site.
In order to be on any exchange, you need to supply certain information or meet certain requirements. As you move down the pecking order from the likes of NYSE or Nasdaq, the requirements are not as stringent. The OTC site simply indicated NEWL was added back in July and had a comment about use of the 10Q.
As someone pointed out, all this means very little in the big picture for NEWL.
I guess we all see where it ends up somewhere down the road. For now, I will go back to my hole.
I was trying to answer two questions brought up by the board with one response.
All it says at the OTC is that NEWL is a new addition and they used their 10Q. I was not saying anything more….
If you go to the link they provided you in your email, you will see that Newl was recently added. Hopefully, that clears it up
Obviously they still have issues as a company but hopefully this small part has been cleared up.
BTW, before they could be added to the OTC, they had to be removed from the Nasdaq as the OTC won't let you be on two boards. Someone else had a question on this so just added it. the link is provided below; See general questions section.
http://www.finra.org/Industry/Compliance/MarketTransparency/OTCBB/FAQ/#600
Just in case you think it was dilution, it was not. I sold my shares today. Actually 650,000 shares. I had made a few purchases over the last few months and elected to move on. Good luck to you and the others here.
Looks like ROC or Western Lithium might be a couple to view as well. See this article from a few hours ago. It mentions Western Lithium.
http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2014/09/04/nevada-tesla-location-low-taxes-lithium/15096037/
Just joined the party at .112 - had a 100K request for several minutes but see it just took.
Here is another article from the Dallas Morning News today about soda sweeteners and the hunt for the next sweetener because soda sales are on the decline. Stevia mentioned quite a bit in the article.
Soft drink makers have a powerful thirst for a new sweetener
19
18
0
22
AA
Andy Jacobsohn/Staff Photographer
David Thomas, executive vice president of research and development at Dr Pepper Snapple, is at the tasting table in the Plano headquarters. Dr Pepper has Ph.D.-level employees working on sweeteners.
By KAREN ROBINSON-JACOBS Staff Writer krjacobs@dallasnews.com
Published: 09 August 2014 11:03 PM
Updated: 09 August 2014 11:09 PM
Steps from the lobby of the Dr Pepper Snapple Group headquarters, a row of inauspicious Rubbermaid bins holds the crystallized future of the nation’s third largest soft drink player.
The tubs contain sugar, the artificial sweetener aspartame and similar snowflake-like substances.
Like its competitors Coke and Pepsi, Plano-based Dr Pepper is deep in the hunt for a new sweetener that can replace existing artificial sweeteners. It has to taste like sugar yet be lower in calories. And it has to be natural.
The stakes are high. The Big Three soda makers lead an industry that’s rounding out a decade of declining sales.
As regular sodas, and now diets, lose their fizz, soft drink makers are spending increasing amounts of time and energy looking for ways to sweeten the pot.
“This year will be the 10th year” of decline, said John Sicher, editor and publisher of the authoritative trade publication Beverage Digest. “Without new sweetener technology, I can’t see a reason for that trend to change.”
Carbonated soft drinks — the fizzy water that’s been around since the 1800s — make up about 65 percent of sales of “liquid refreshment beverages.” That’s a roughly $120 billion retail category that includes everything from energy drinks to bottled water.
While price hikes have kept total soft drink revenue from tanking, the amount of soda sold (called volume) has been falling.
In 2013, total carbonated soft drink volume slid by 3 percent, according to Beverage Digest. That followed a 1 percent volume drop in both 2012 and 2011.
Between 2004 and 2013, sodas have seen a drop of 1.6 billion cases sold, according to Beverage Marketing Corp., a New York-based research and consulting firm.
The decline is especially steep in diet sodas.
For example, Dr Pepper’s total volume slipped by a modest 0.2 percent last year, while Diet Dr Pepper lost 6.3 percent in 2013. Diet sales at rivals Coke and Pepsi have followed suit.
‘Vilified unjustly’
The suspected culprit behind declines in both regular and diet sodas is the sweeteners.
Researchers and nutritionists have linked the consumption of regular soft drinks — which can have up to 170 calories and 45 grams of sugar in a 12-ounce can — to increasing U.S. obesity rates and development of Type 2 diabetes.
Drinking more than one can of regular soda per day can put consumers at increased risk of cardiovascular disease, according to the Centers for Disease Control.
David Thomas, executive vice president for research and development at Dr Pepper, thinks the soft drink industry has been “vilified unjustly” and counters that sugar-sweetened beverages represent just 6 percent of the average person’s daily caloric intake.
On the diet side, some consumers have begun to shy away from artificial sweeteners amid reports linking at least one sweetener, aspartame, to an increased incidence of some cancers in lab rats.
Per capita sales of diet soft drinks have declined by about 25 percent since 2007 and are now lower than they were in 1998, said Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a watchdog group.
No one knows exactly what’s behind the diet drop, he said, but some “have suggested that it reflects a mild swing away from artificial products.”
Thomas has heard the complaints.
“Artificial sweeteners are safe. It’s been proven over and over and over again,” he said emphatically. “With that said, we know there are head winds: some of the verbiage that’s out there. If [consumers are] concerned about the low-calorie sweeteners that exist, there’s the emerging ones.”
Front-runner
Food and drink makers are testing several natural sweeteners including extracts from monk fruit, a food consumed in China for centuries, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
But the apparent front-runner is stevia, a leafy plant native to subtropical regions such as Paraguay and Brazil. Compounds extracted from the stevia leaf can be 400 times sweeter than regular table sugar.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration allows highly purified stevia extracts — called steviol glycosides — to be used in food and drink.
Because the extracts have no chemical additives, products made with stevia are being marketed as naturally sweetened. That’s expected to be a key selling point with diet soda consumers who’ve grown leery of the existing crop of artificial sweeteners.
Unlike the term “organic,” the FDA does not have a strict definition of what constitutes a “natural sweetened” food or drink.
Malaysia-based PureCircle Ltd. describes itself as the world’s largest producer of high purity stevia ingredients — responsible for producing up to 80 percent of the global supply.
Jason Hecker is president of Pure Circle’s commercial division, which is based in Oak Brook, Ill.
He’s looking beyond just making diet drinks more palatable.
“The interest coming from large carbonated soft drink companies is not only as a result … of the decline they’re seeing in diet,” said Hecker, “it’s also in the re-invention of regular. If you take a look at where the vast majority have launched today they’ve used stevia in conjunction with sugar.”
Hecker estimates that in the past 12 months, more than 400 products with stevia extracts have been introduced in the U.S., including about 230 beverages. That’s a fragment of the estimated 2,100 stevia sweetened products introduced worldwide over the past year.
But it shows what could be ahead for the U.S. market, if consumers warm to the taste of the new sweetener.
‘Certified flavorists’
At Dr Pepper Snapple Group, carbonated soft drinks represent about 80 percent of sales volume. That makes solving the sweetener conundrum of crucial importance.
“We’re spending more on sweetener technology than we ever have,” said Thomas, who leads a 70-member research team that includes scientists, engineers and “certified flavorists.”
“We have Ph.D.-level people fully focused on sweetener technology.”
Professorial and tall, the University of Wisconsin-Madison Ph.D. recently ushered visitors through the company’s research and development center in the headquarters building.
At 23,158 square feet, it’s about the size of a small supermarket. The spacious lab was almost library quiet and operating-room bright.
Each section holds an array of blinking, mixing and analytical machinery.
With bleached white lab coats and missionary zeal, much of the research team right now is working on finding a breakthrough in “sweetener technology.”
In June, the company wrapped up a three-city, three-month test of 60-calorie versions of Dr Pepper, 7Up and Canada Dry.
The mid-calorie drinks, marketed under the name “Naturally Sweetened,” are made with a blend of sugar and stevia.
Thomas likens stevia to one color on a painter’s palette.
“It’s a great tool, but it’s not the Holy Grail,” he said, as researchers nearby prepared samples of stevia-sweetened test drinks. “There’s no one magic bullet to this. It’s really a holistic approach.”
Some early incarnations of stevia-sweetened drinks had an aftertaste that critics likened to licorice or metal. And it did not seem to work well with colas.
Hence, the continuing research.
“It’s the sweetener technology and the flavor technology,” said Thomas. “These have to come together to make a great tasting product.”
Sweetness code
Dr Pepper is not alone in trying to crack the sweetness code.
PepsiCo has boosted global spending on research and development, which includes research on sweeteners, by 27 percent to $665 million since 2011.
Sales figures tell why: Volume for Pepsi-Cola was down 3.6 percent last year, while Diet Pepsi shrank by 6.9 percent.
The soft drink maker began testing a stevia-sweetened version of Pepsi, called Pepsi Next, in Australia in 2012. The product has since been expanded to other countries including France and Canada.
Pepsi Next with stevia contains 100 calories and 26 grams of sugar in a 12-ounce serving.
In the U.S., however, Pepsi Next is sweetened with the artificial sweeteners ace-K and sucralose along with high fructose corn syrup and sugar. It has 60 calories and 15 grams of sugar in a 12-ounce can.
The company has not said when it will test Pepsi Next with stevia in the U.S.
At a beverage industry conference in June, Al Carey, chief executive of PepsiCo’s Americas Beverages unit, said the company plans to reformulate its lemon-lime soft drink, Sierra Mist, with stevia and roll out the revamped drink nationwide this fall.
PepsiCo also reportedly is looking at Monatin. That’s a naturally occurring sweetener derived from the root of a South African shrub, according to a book on sweeteners by Kay O’Donnell and Malcolm Kearsley.
PepsiCo chief executive Indra Nooyi, who’s been under pressure from investors about soda sales, called the company’s sweetener tests “promising.”
Atlanta-based Coca-Cola, the world’s largest soft drink maker, is about a year into a test of Coca-Cola Life, the company’s first reduced-calorie cola sweetened with stevia leaf extract and sugar.
The pilot launched in June 2013 in Argentina and in November in Chile. The soft drink has 64 calories and 16 grams of sugar in a 12-ounce serving.
In June, Coke’s Great Britain arm announced that Coca-Cola Life will be available across the U.K. later this year, marking the product’s first appearance in Europe. Several publications predict a U.S. test soon.
Neither Coke nor Pepsi agreed to an interview with top company executives on the topic of sweeteners because of the sensitive and highly competitive nature of both the research and testing plans.
Instead, Coke issued a brief statement:
“Coca-Cola Life is our first cola sweetened with a blend of cane sugar and stevia leaf extract,” the emailed statement said. “This innovation underscores our continued commitment to the sparkling category.”
No cure-all expected
In the search for a new sweetener, Sicher of Beverage Digest is not looking for a “eureka” moment.
“It’s unlikely to me that it’s going to be one single ingredient and one company is going to have it,” said Sicher. “There are going to be various forms of stevia, and other sweeteners, as well and sweetener enhancers,” he said.
Gary Hemphill, managing director at Beverage Marketing Corp., expects to see soft drinks with new sweeteners make it to the market before year’s end. Yet he cautions against expecting too much from tiny plant leaves.
“I don’t think a new sweetener is necessarily a panacea to cure all ills of the industry,” he said. “It’s one potential innovation that would be likely to improve category performance.”
As consumers have moved away from carbonated soft drinks, other categories, including water and energy drinks, have gained traction. That competition’s not going away.
“We’re continually seeing other new categories emerge,” Hemphill said. “That fact remains regardless of what happens in areas like flavor innovation.”
Follow Karen Robinson-Jacobs on Twitter at @krobijake.
How sweet it is
Food and drink makers are allowed to use a variety of “high intensity” sweeteners that are many times sweeter than common table sugar.
ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS
Sweetener
Brand name examples
Product examples
Sweetness vs. sugar
Advantame
None yet
None in the U.S.
20,000 times sweeter
Acesulfame
Potassium (also called Ace-K )
Sweet One
Coke Zero*, Diet Pepsi *
200 times sweeter
Aspartame
NutraSweet, Equal
Diet Coke, Diet Dr Pepper
200 times sweeter
Neotame
Newtame
N/A
Up to 13,000 times sweeter
Saccharin
Sweet’N Low
Diet Canada Dry Tonic, TaB
Up to 700 times sweeter
Sucralose
Splenda
Diet Mountain Dew
600 times sweeter
NATURAL SWEETENERS
Monk fruit extract
Nectresse
Zevia Cola
Up to 250 times sweeter
Stevia leaf extract
Truvia (made by Cargill)
Purevia (made by Pure Circle)
Pepsi Next **
Up to 400 times sweeter
* Used with Aspartame
** Sold outside of U.S.
SOURCES: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; Center for Science in the Public Interest; Dallas Morning News research
For those with a little more patience, here is a recent article on the impact of Biochar (both to revenue and to the environment) for a group in BC. If our little company can keep up on the mfg side, we should see quite a bit of improvement in the sp over time.
http://www.wltribune.com/opinion/261265321.html
I believe it is just 'out of sequence trades'.
I have seen a few where they don't which is silly. Almost all of them halt trading until adcom over.
Just sharing a bit of research on the average time for turnaround for the 510K. Most are 90 days but appears the average is closer to 150 days for those that will be seeing this thing through.
http://www.fiercemedicaldevices.com/story/fda-looks-trim-answer-times-510k-apps/2012-10-29
No doubt the loss of the revenue over the last 18 months led to a lot of the odd financing. I see the rapimeds as a project for the company and hope they continue to build back up that revenue through these small deals. Maybe I turn out to be a shuck, but I have not invested more than I can afford to lose. Time will tell.....
I too will wait a little longer and see what happens. My hope is that these new deals slow down the converts and we see that on the next 10q. I am hoping between the last two deals that it means at least 1mm in revenue per year (hopefully that is low). I can understand the converts becasue they lost most of their revenue. The recent deals bring hope, but I still really hate the convert deals they did. Even paying them off early costs a fortune. If they can get a couple of more deal similar in nature or these recent deals are bigger than I am guessing then they can get totally away from these converts which should help the sp immensely. The cherry on top of the normal business would be the rapimeds project.
I bought as well. Not as much as CN but will see where this goes. I like what I have read so far.
Status Filled at $0.135
Symbol NRTI
Description INERGETICS INC COM USD0.066 (POST REV-SPLIT)
Action Buy
Quantity 100,000 Shares
Route UBS CAPITAL MARKETS L.P.
Order Type Limit at $0.135
Time in Force Day
Order Expiration 04:00 PM ET
Conditions None
Trade Type Cash
Market Session Standard
Order Date 09/04/2013, 08:14:15 PM ET
Cancel Date
Order Number I04DRFHQ
Google news search hit my email with this item that references SCRC; http://www.sbwire.com/press-releases/penny-stocks-bullish-and-bearish-momentum-graphon-corporation-otcbbgojo-scripsamerica-inc-otcbbscrc-mediswipe-inc-otcmktsmwip-transwitch-corp-otcmktstxcc-319236.htm
It was dated 8/31/2013.
I honestly dont know where it will stop (wish I did), but I do believe a lot of the selling has to do with the notes and I believe the breakeven for most of them is .17 (I think I recall that from one of the documents but will double check). I think like a few have pointed out, the most recent 10Q had a lot of information that indicates there is still much work to do for management. The recent distribution announcement will help and the rapimeds release is exciting but it too must be successful to get to the numbers mentioned on numerous posts over the last few months.
Just all my opinion...GL
It may not make up for whoever is selling but just bought 15000 more shares.
I agree with you the notes are a problem. My hope is that the new contract makes up for some of those issues caused by the other contract losses and agree the dod is basically a dud. I doubt they would put out a press release showing just a day worth of revenue and that was it. Even if it is just 3 times per week, that is almost 2m in revenue. I guess we will see on the next report but still hanging in there.
I asked a couple of your questions on their website. Here is the response:
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Bob <bob@scripsamerica.com>
To: 'William Herring
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 7:52 AM
Subject: RE: New contact form received
Dear Mr. Herring,
Unfortunately answering your questions would violate SEC inside information disclosures. Projections are not permissible however we intend to update our shareholders on the progress of the new relationship on a regular basis. It has been stated before in press releases that it is our intention to pay the convertible notes as they come due to minimize dilution.
Thanks for your interest and support.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: William Herring [mailto:texansx5@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 8:36 AM
To: bob@scripsamerica.com; bob@scripsamerica.com
Subject: New contact form received
You have received a new contact form message.
Name : William Herring
Email :
Message : I have a question about your recent deal with WholesaleRX. You indicated your first day revenue was about 12K. Is this something you expect daily, weekly or somewhere in between for this new partner. Secondly, do you expect this new source to allow the company to pull back on the number of convertible notes it is issuing quarterly?
Thank you.
William
I am fairly new to this stock as well and understand what you are saying. No doubt the DoD deal is not the most lucrative. This came on the heels of the loss of the McKeeson, Cardinal, etc revenue streams. What I do like is that they got rid of those deals where the margins were dwindling. Unfortunately, it caused them to go essentially a year with little revenue outside the DoD which has led to a lot of these convert notes. Now my hope is that the new deal with WholesaleRX replaces a lot of that revenue from McKeeson and others and puts the brakes on the converts. I think they need another one to really get it over hump and would like to see what the revenue is besides the one day deal mentioned but to me that was a huge step! After that, it is all about RapidMeds. I dont know enough about the margins on that product but a little research online shows that the retail cost is about 30 cents per melt. Maybe someone else here can answer that one for us?
To me, even if they need the financing, we need to get it off and running before winter sets in. You could more than make up for the financing with a strong initation (and a little help from mother nature).
At my local walmart, there is some form of walmart brand right next to about anything on shelf from aspirin to canned vegetables to captain crunch cereal so I doubt they would cause a stir over some beltways. They would however look to clone them in some form or fashion just as they have done jut about every other retail item you can possibly fathom.
Couple of thoughts from the 10Q
It looks like if they just hit the minimum on the unit requirement, it would be roughly 4MM in revenue for the company and about double that the second year (using 30cents retail per pill and taking 67% for SCRC) I guess even at 50%, it is still some good revenue just for the minimum which would be about 800,000 packages using 24 units per package. I am making some assumptions here so feel free to nitpick.
Also, good to see they are basically bailing out on the packaging deal. Write off and reserve there so hopefully that shuts the door on these frequent convert items. Appears there will still be some form of funding needed (which may have already been done for all I know) to kick off rapimeds but I did not see anything else alarming.
With the new distribution announcement this week and hopefully rapimeds getting off to good start, we would be looking at somewhere in neighborhood of 8+ million of annual revenue soon (this does not even include the china, asia, etc markets or any other uses beside the children flu)
I would say 2014 looks to be promising and beyond anything close to what they have done in the last few years.
I came up with a number a little higher at 3.1 and just rounded up to 3.5mm because they expect it to grow. Definitely great news and good timing because it replaces most of the revenue lost from lost business earlier in the year.
Hopefully, other deals and the launch of Rapimeds slows/stops all these convert issues as I believe those will continue to keep the price down because a lot of these guys are just selling the shares for anything over 17c. I think once the convert items stop and they pay back the loans, the price will rise quickly.
I would agree with Kris and Bob about post R/S consolidation, but it seems a lot of companies also complete some form of funding right after r/s as well. I think the hire of Singh is great long term but agree some things need to unwind.
No confirmation but this post came from the guy who seems to be getting the most credit about calling the old conference call line to confirm the cc tomorrow before the PR actually came out.
Professor Poon Will be on the CC
by twforrer.37 minutes ago.Permalink
.
011 - 852 - 2255 - 3111 : Ask for Professor Ronnie Poon. Confirmed he will be on the Conference Call tomorrow.
Told him it would help me thesis out so much! ha
At this point, all that matters is getting that "yes" from the FDA in April. Hopefully, we keep seeing the movement upwards until then but I am sure we will see some ambush from AF along the way if we move too fast.
If you do little research on this guy, it seems he has a penchant for doing such things. Look at this article about his articles on DNDN just before it was approved.
To summarize, he came in at the last minute and started trashing DNDN and the FDA and lowered his price down to $1.5 (90% reduction - sound familiar to today's downgrade).
http://www.deepcapture.com/tag/brean-murray/
Paul, I am new to bio world but follow around bioman, Karen and few others as I try to get smarter in this area. The volume is definitely scary to an amatuer like me but I will hang around. If nothing else, I can surely learn more about the subject.
I agree 100%. With the overwhelming items found by the FDA, it seems it would not have even made it this far....
Really? Are we listening to the same conference?
This is only my second review to listen to, but this is nothing like the other one; ARNA which I heard earlier this year.
I wish those with CFS luck, but I am out of this stock.
This statitician speaking does not seem to be much of a fan of the information provided.
Just thought I would share a little research into a similar issue involving MAPP. Back in March, they got a CRL for what was described as manufacturing issues. Their stock took a tumble (down about 30%) but actually recovered the same day to a loss of about 5%. After reading the notes from their meeting with the FDA (which took place about 90 days after the CRL), it is clear it was a little more than manufacturing, but the first few days may be a decent indicator for what we are looking at here. I know no two stocks will react the same but just thought I would share anyway...
I am sure over the next couple of days many short term investors will bail out on VVUS now that it is approved and look to HZNP and AMRN.
You guys are not alone. I bought in at 7.9 the first time and then doubled up today at 7.15 and 7.10. I agree with everyone that this should go up as we get closer to the pdufa date.
I dont post much, but watch all the comments each day for my stocks.
For you longs, here is a good article that came out about 45 minutes ago...
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obesity-journal-publishes-new-study-on-lorcaserin-a-weight-loss-medication-recommended-for-approval-by-fda-advisory-panel-2012-06-26
I may jump back in as well.
I screwed up last time and sold before the run up because I needed funds elsewhere. Still keeping an eye on this one.