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.
I do think the company can survive and the PPS improve - as long as the OEM partners (both in place and future) can generate the business. Whatever happens, it needs to be at a level that would generate new (and not short term) investors that are willing to buy and stay in longer than just flipping and churning for short term profits. Off hand I don't have an immediate sense for what the market would require for that to happen.
Share structure is still a challenge, despite what you may have read (and will likely read again in response to this post). It's not even worth arguing that share structure has impact - again, it's simple supply and demand, and there needs to be a s***ton of demand to compensate for 25 billions shares, not counting note holders, etc. Laws of supply and demand apply to equities just like they do with anything else. That's a challenge yet to be resolved, and has some impact on the amount of sales a profits that will trigger those long term projected prices under current structure.
A penny is certainly doable, but when someone starts talking a dime - it's kinda laughable. If you had a billion shares of this at trips and it hit a dime, wouldn't you be tempted to dump? Most would dump long before that - and hence the problem with sustained PPS growth at this share structure. The market cap at ten cents - or even a nickel - would require, again, a s***ton of profit be justified.
Repetitively blaming MM's for BIEL's PPS is the same message repeated on each and every sub-penny stock in creation. That's followed by 'wait until we squeeze the shorts'. Only - there aren't any shorts to squeeze. Mere MM buys and sells doesn't adequately explain BIEL's share price morass.
What does explain it is billions of shares, few to no new investors, and a coterie of longs continuing to buy on dips. Nothing yet to sustain any increase, which is exactly the behavior the share price has exhibited every time it has risen - it's always followed by a slow, painful decline on low to moderate trading. That's not attributable to anything MM's do or don't do - it's simply the market acting as it usually does.
The regsho report is mostly useless - Occam's Razor applies here as elsewhere. No need to look for complex explanations for what is really quite simple - in this case, the law of supply and demand. Too much supply, not enough demand.
Increased sales and profits will change that - if they happen - and then everyone will forget about blaming MM's. Happens. Every. Time.
Completely understand - however:
The majority of penny stock investors confuse true shorting and daily failures to deliver, and wind up thinking they will benefit from the (almost always) mythical MOASS. It happened with Game Stop, but THAT wasn't a sub-penny ticker. Without 'real' short interest, there is no MOASS, ever.
As far as the rest, all the talk over the last years about MM's and the regsho has amounted to not one thing in reference to BIEL's PPS. It's about irrelevant. The stock performs as anyone could expect regardless of MM activity - it jumps on good news, then slowly falters on limited trading because flippers and profit takers exit and new long term investors either don't exist, or do in such small numbers that they cannot sustain the higher share price. Longs keep buying and holding, but nobody else does. It's an echo chamber.
If sales a profits ever take off, new blood will come in; unfortunately those billions of shares will still create short term profit takers which will do as they always have - inhibit sustained price growth. Meanwhile, not a shred of evidence has ever been presented which validates any claims that MM's are holding the price down. Not. One. Shred.
Please refer back to the reference taken directly from the FINRA website - authoritative.
Brokerages charge exorbitant fees to short a sub-penny stock, if one can even find a US brokerage house to do it - the premium can be $2.50 per share. FINRA official bi-monthly report has nearly always shown short interest in BIEL at zero. Again - authoritative. Any short interest that has appeared over the last ten years has been minimal in terms of overall shares available (minimal as in a few thousand shares).
There is zero proof on ANY shorting of BIEL, and plenty of proof that there is absolutely no short interest in BIEL. Banking on a short squeeze when there is no short interest is a very poor investment strategy.
There are no 'shorters' of BIEL, so nobody to get 'nervous', a little or otherwise.
The FINRA website provide a bi-monthly report of true share shorting, and there has historically been minimal to zero shorting of BIEL stock - ever. It is nearly impossible (and extremely cost prohibitive) to short sub-penny equities.
Following is a nice explanation from FINRA regarding the difference between its bi-monthly report and the daily regsho report, which is often improperly cited as proof of short interest in an equity (which it is not):
In addition to short interest data, FINRA also publishes Short Sale Volume Data. The Daily Short Sale Volume data provides aggregated volume by security for all off-exchange short sale trades. This data excludes any trading activity that is not publicly disseminated and is not consolidated with exchange data.
Some market participants mistakenly conclude that the bi-monthly short interest data is understated because the Short Sale Volume Daily File reflects volume that is much larger than the positions reported as short interest. However, short interest position data does not—and is not intended to—equate to the daily short sale volume data posted on FINRA’s website.
The statute says it applies only to SEC registered companies. BIEL is not an SEC registered company. Therefore, the statute does not apply to BIEL.
The statements are true, and the logic sound, so the conclusion is correct.
BIEL can do an R/S, it's just that they aren't limited to what the Maryland statute allows for SEC registered companies (which I believe is not more than 1/10 and only once annually). They could R/S at any ratio they choose.
Of course they can do a buyback as well. No idea if they are considering either, or neither, of those options. Seems premature on both counts until they start showing profits, but that's just an opinion.
According to Kelly W the BIEL website was hacked and found to contain malware, which is the reason it remains down/under maintenance. Clearly taking some time to correct.
The Maryland statue limitation on an R/S only applies to SEC registered companies, which BIEL has not been since April 2011. Doubtful BIEL will be subject to that restriction, should they ever consider an R/S.
All:
Just a reminder that this board is for discussions of BIEL: the company, its prospects, shares, share price, etc. This is not a forum to discuss posters, or additional items that would be considered off topic.
Posts mentioning deletions, etc., will be removed. If you think you have had a post removed improperly, please appeal to iHub Admins who will review and restore where appropriate. Admin decisions cannot be changed by assistant mods.
Thanks
I never posted any of those items - and the fact is that MM's have NOT stifled BIEL's stock price.
Hilarious.
Total available stock is SHARES, not market cap.
Supply.
Demand.
Supply.
Demand.
GameStop demand out-stripped supply - which created a huge share price uptick, and that created a very unreasonable market cap.
BIEL has 50 billion shares - lots and lots and lots of supply will require lots and lots and lots of demand.
Please refer to laws of supply and demand. In play in every marketplace - stock market included.
I have adeptly explained why market cap is NOT all that matters, because we are speaking of trading/buying/selling, and not company value. For this, the market cap discussion is not particularly relevant - reference recent GameStop trading.
Again - despite misinformation to the contrary regarding market cap, which is NOT the issue under discussion - it's really about supply and demand, which plays in the equity market as it does in any other market.
If I have a thousand items worth a dollar, then I have a thousand dollars worth of goods (or market cap if you will). If I have one item worth a thousand dollars, it has the same value as my thousand items at one dollar. The math is simple of course.
The difference in trading, or buying and selling, is that having only one of something can make it extraordinarily valuable if there is great demand- and for that issue market cap is irrelevant. Refer to GameStop - the entire juggernaut in the price surge was completely unrelated to market cap; in fact market cap had zero impact on it. It was strictly a case of supply and demand - shorts HAD to buy - at any price - to cover their butts, and that drove the price up dramatically. Nobody believed the previous market cap reflected the company's true value, and certainly nobody does now. Market cap had no impact on any GameStop trading during this historic short squeeze.
BIEL has billions and billions of shares - and that can be, has been, and may continue to be impactful on the trading of its shares. After all - that is the playground for flippers and day traders, if nothing else. It is NOT an insurmountable issue, but it IS an issue.
Daily undelivered shares have virtually no bearing on share price. The MM's pick up those shares within a day or two, or even after market close, and that's the end of it. The MM's aren't holding the share price down.
The share price languished in bottom feeding territory for years, and it was exactly where it belonged. It's rising now - and for good reason. Perhaps people think it should rise higher, and more quickly, but there are a number of factors that are slowing that down. Some will be easily eliminated - for example, when sales show up on financial reports, and when the company starts to show quarterly profits, etc., etc.
That said, there are some inherent challenges that will need to be addressed along the way...there is still a great deal of room for day traders, etc. And, there is the myth that market cap is all that matters. While it's true that market cap is how a company is valued - share structure does have a lot to do with how an equity trades, and how it trades is not solely a function of market value. You see some of that impact in the recent pull back as profiteers take the money and run. Again, that is not of the MM's doing.
After all, does anyone think the current market value of GameStop is realistic? It's market value certainly wasn't the driving issue behind its recent run.....
The daily FTD's are largely meaningless, and completely so in BIEL's case, both historically and currently. Every penny and sub-penny stock ever always features some maligning of MM's and supposed manipulation - and nearly all the time it isn't manipulation at all, it's simply the vagaries of trading in the pinks.
Them MM's have not stifled BIEL's stock price, have not prevented its upward movement, have not negatively impacted shareholders in any non-negligible manner. It's just the pinks...that's all.
Agree totally on the questionable practices; from what I have seen it appears to be on the part of the brokerage houses primarily, if not entirely. I don't see any justification for halting trading because some online community executed a short squeeze under perfectly legal circumstances. Meanwhile Google deleted 120,000 negative reviews of Robin Hood which were written after it halted trading on GameStop. Big babies all around.
Fat cat hedge funds have been shorting for years - often at the expense of the retail investor. When they get burned - they cry and moan and the trading platforms step in to help them? NOT fair! The big guys know shorting is risky - and they got burned. I don't see much sympathy for them anywhere, nor should there be. Actually - it's pretty damn funny.
GLTY
Shorting under current market rules is entirely legal - whether or not it is ethical is another (legitimate) question.
As for BIEL - it hasn't suffered one bit from shorting - because there isn't any short interest here, nor has there really ever been. The MM 'shorting' you reference is not the same thing as true equity shorting as happened in the case of GameStop. FTD's do not represent true shorting and have little significant impact on share price in almost all cases.
GameStop is not responsible for what is currently taking place with its stock. It was the most shorted company on Wall Street due to hedge funds and others betting on its demise, and its stock price at the time being way overvalued. The Reddit community got together and conducted some orchestrated buying, which in turn created something that is constantly referenced in theory and almost never happens in reality - the dreaded (or highly anticipated) short squeeze - in GameStop's case a true MOASS.
The hedge fund companies were severely burned by having to cover their shorting at outrageous share prices, for a company whose market cap is now completely untenable. The brokerage houses, on the other hand - those that stopped or restricted legitimate trading - they certainly have something for which to answer. Shorting is risky and the shorts know that, but manipulating fair trading to protect them is another matter entirely.
As for BIEL having good fundamentals? Assuredly NOT - yet. The bet is that it will, and soon, but that isn't the case until these sales show up on financial reports and the company starts to show profits.
Intelligent DD where financials don't matter: oxymoron.
DD that ignores a company's financial statements or claims those 'don't matter' is anything BUT intelligent DD.
The proper response to anything disrespectful would have been utter silence, and keeping her head down and running the company. Sadly, she directed her unprofessional responses to all shareholders, both those who showed no restraint, and those who did, and voiced their concerns respectfully.
Engaging in a Twitter/Facebook war of words while the company fails to perform is both unprofessional and malfeasant.
Shareholders have every right to express their frustration with company management. Respectfully would have been preferred, but that can't always be expected by a CEO, and her reaction to it was truly unprofessional.