I think the cost and recycle cost are right. I think the 25-100 time reuse is not accurate. When I original heard about the company a 3 years ago, I think it was 25 not 25-100. There is a big difference between 25 and 100. The reason was the ability to retain the LN2 for the 10-14 day holding period. If it evaporates too fast the shipper warms up when it runs out which LN2. It may be possible that they changed the construction of the unit which allows for more reuse, but I have not heard anything about that. But even with 25 reuses, it has a very nice ROI.

Agreed that if you sell it for less than it costs you will always lose money. But CryoPort is not doing that. From everything I have read and heard, if they rent the shipper more than 2 times CryoPort turns a profit on that unit. They expect to use it 10+ times. Using round numbers lets say it costs $200 to make and they rent it at $100. $100 * 10 rentals = $1000 Revenue. $1000 - $200 = $800 profit.

There is a sales force, workers to process the orders, over head etc. which has to factor in. Right now it would seem that CryoPort is running a pretty lean ship, having survived as long as they had.

Do you not believe in the business model of renting the shipper? Do you believe that costs will continue to be 10X the revenue?

I agree with the numbers but I still don't understand the logic. The cost of the revenue for the existing shippers is already spent, and all future rentals on those dewars will be profit. I understand that $42K is not going to pay the bills.

Saying that every time CryoPort rents a shipper it loses money is not correct. Currently the cost of revenue does exceed the revenue, but the cost of revenue is fairly fixed. If the number of shipments increase it will eventually exceed the costs. The secrete is getting to that point which has not been easy and maybe they never do.

Your statement seems to say that no matter how many shipments CryoPort makes it will lose money. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding your statement.

I've heard you say 'they sell the product for 10 times less than it costs' before. Can you explain where in the SEC filling you are getting this? Everything I have heard in the past is that that the rental cost of the unit (~$100) covers the cost to make and that future rentals are profit. That doesn't take into cost of employees processing/shipping/handling/etc.

But there is a big discrepancy between 10 times less than the cost and 1 or 2. Can someone explain the difference between the numbers.

No. From the 8-A
"The Registrant has applied to have the common stock and warrants to purchase common stock to be registered hereunder approved for listing on The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC under the symbols “CYPT” and “CYPTW,” respectively."

The ticker on NASDAQ will be CYPT. They should have gone with COLD, but it doesn't really matter.

Since you said you are new to the stock market, keep in mind the value of the stock you hold remains the same. 880 * .92 = $809.60. 88 * 9.20 = $809.60. There are some issues about reverse stock splits. I believe tigertrader (might have been someone else) had a good post and link to a article about companies that have performed reverse splits in order to get listed on an exchange.

I don't see it being any difference than any other shipment for FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc. make. It doesn't introduce anything new. And to my knowledge, it can be open and inspected, in fact it will happen at customs. At least you can see the contents of the shipper, the commodities being shipped.

I understand that. I was confused by the statement

"I don’t see how we go over .49 with The S1 price at .49"

The price is yet to be established like you said, so I don't see how the .49 has any affect.

The .49 price in the S1 is just an example price based on the date of when the S1 was released. The actual price will be set to the current stock price at a later date depending on when the S1 will be performed.

Am I misunderstanding something here? I understand news will move things, but I don't see how the .49 price in the S1 affects anything since it was used as an example price.

Forester Research Case Study done about CryoPort and their portal leveraging cloud computing.

http://www.forrester.com/Research/Document/Excerpt/0,7211,48379,00.html?cm_mmc=Forrester-_-RSS-_-Document-_-48379&src=RSS_2

$499 is bit much for me to read it. But this should bring CryoPort in front of a few more people.