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.
This price target was set by Maxim Group - the same firm that facilitated the recent stock offering (and was paid about $500k to do it. They also own significant warrants from prior offerings. Not exactly an unbiased, third party "analyst"
Not sure why this vid from 5 months ago is a "must see" and supports talk of a $1B valuation.
hout - First, thanks for this great work on our behalf. Second, if you don't mind a little constructive feedback, if I'm reading this piece in a vacuum, it feels more like a pump piece than a purely reasoned response. I'm a lawyer and a writer (3 published novels), and I'm always put off and suspicious of anything with lots of exclamation points and phrases like "exploding revenue!" You also make it sound as if the $4 million in cotton rev is a confirmed number before revealing that you are extrapolating based on earlier reported per pound pricing. We all hope that number will hold true, but it may be that APDN has discounts available at larger volumes. If you want the piece to be taken as seriously as possible (and shared widely be serious investors) I'd take every exclamation point and anything that isn't purely analytical and factual out of your next draft. It should sound like a research paper, not a shill for the company. IMHO, I think your report skews close to the latter, taking from the effect of the facts themselves (which are compelling enough). Just my 2 cents and, again, thanks.
AP1 - when I said "going away" I meant the 2 year development agreement with guaranteed $, not the govt related business itself.
Couldn't care less about the past stuff. My only concern is with allegations of paid pump and prognostication on 2016 Revenue drop. On the other side, Someone I didn't recognize as a previous poster here was throwing around 7 million Rev for the quarter because of cotton, which seems way out of whack to me. You're always in the ballpark with Rev predictions, AP1. What are you thinking? I would guess $3 million, but that includes the govt contracts that are going away soon. If cotton can't get them to break-even soon, we're going to be back in the world of dilution. Extreme as the SA piece is, it is a "crime" (at least metaphorically speaking) that Heyward has taken home the kind of cash he has while investors have been diluted beyond recognition.
I added a sizable chunk at $3.15 just before the close. Either the smartest or dumbest investment decision I've ever made.
Not much meat on the bones of the APDN response. I hope we see more.
I hope you're right to, apdn, but that's sort of like saying: "think how successful this will be if everyone buys it!" That goes without saying. I'm just not sure "If you build it, they will come" applies to a marketing website.
Agree with Hock. Despite my mostly skeptical post this morning on the SMR PR, I believe in this companies products - or at least their potential - and I'm holding very long term. If REAL big news comes (Pharma) there won't be time to trade in. I used "flier" money from my IRA, bough all my shares years pre-reverse split, starting at .05 and averaging .10, so I'm just about back to break-even now. It's been a rocky ride, but I didn't to go on this ride for a 50% gain. I'm "all-in" - risking a total loss for the chance at a 10-20 bagger.
apdn1mill - I'm not sure I "get" this PR. On the surface, it seems huge, but when you dig down, I'm not sure what's there. The agreement is with a marketing firm - maybe even an one-man operation. Note that there is no "About SMR" section, only "About APDN". Here's all I can find on SMR (even the name is vague) http://www.securitymarketing.com/who-we-are/
Also, saying it "paves the way" for all of this training of law enforcement, etc., may just indicate that this marketing firm will be trying to introduce SigDNA to police departments and providing a website ("portal" in the PR) through which kits can be purchased and training scheduled.
It's just a weird PR for APDN and seems more like it was written by SMR as part of their "roll out" marketing plan. I don't see any "contract" here that promises actual revenue. Sorry to throw water on the fire. I was excited when I saw it to, but the dearth of info on SMR troubles me. Maybe they're a great firm, and security business will start rolling in, but I think all this PR says, in the end, is that we've hired a marketing firm. At first, at least, this probably goes on the cost side versus the revenue side.
Thanks, johnsyn - so what do you think all the fuss is about? Something as yet unannounced. I just don't see the recent PRs (as nice as the are) driving this kind of volume and PPS move: a nice contract for Fog, acquiring tech from an academic start-up and a quality assurance cert? It wouldn't have surprised me if these were meant with the usual yawn. There's something still out there. Do you agree?
Can someone explain the significance of the ISO 9001.2008 certification? Could this really be what all the fuss has been about the last few days?
No, Mr. Big - not yet. We closed at 6.60 late last October. YTD highs, yes, 52 week no. Fingers crossed, though. Despite the fact that I started buying at .06 years ago, I kept buying on the way up, so I need to get to that 6.00 level just to be event again. I don't even want to think about where I COULD have sold this stock a couple of years ago, but it was about a triple for me at the time....
AG-
I'm not sure this is accurate, and in light of today's PR, I'm curious to know if anyone on the Board understands the legal niceties of this. If the mark is made from completely natural, inert components that themselves require no FDA approval, and they are added to the drugs in miniscule, trace amounts, does there, in fact, need to be a separate FDA approval process for the mark and/or the addition of the mark to the drug? Are the inks the drug companies use "FDA approved inks," or would a drug company simply be able to add APDN marker ink to their tablets without approval, so long as the components of the ink are components that, themselves, don't require FDA approval?
Buried in this PR is that the CFO is resigning. She was brought on only 18 months ago with much fanfare and was supposed to clean up a messy situation. She was also a long-time Board member. Why is she leaving? I wonder whether she challenged the company to change the way they are compensating officers and directors and was rebuffed. Anyone have any info?
Why is there always such secrecy surrounding who these contracts are with? I can understand it somewhat in connection with the military-related contracts, but why is it a secret as to whom they are marking cotton for? Regardless, nice to see all these PRs coming. I just hope they're not meant to blunt less than expected numbers on the 10th.
Q1 Conference call scheduled much earlier than usual. Guessing this means good (or at least better) news for once. http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/applied-dna-sciences-schedules-fiscal-first-quarter-webcast-february-10-2015-9-00-am-1986277.htm
I'd ask about expenses/burn rate. There is no excuse for not having cut substantial payroll with the way the mandate failed to play out as anticipated. I have no idea what those 50 people on the payroll are doing, or what they anticipate them doing at this point. When you're a company that's losing $12 million a year, you don't hire in ANTICIPATION of need, you hire WHEN you need. They need to cut costs and cut them now, and they need to communicate that to their shareholders.
They uplisted purportedly for the purpose of attracting institutional and other more sophisticated investors. Unfortunately, those folks actually look at financials, and APDNs stink to high heaven.
Shail - The link you provided is NOT for financing. It is simply a public offering or $12 million worth of stock. They can offer all they want, but if there are no buyers, there is no $.
I'm not sure this indicates a "done deal", does it? Also, I'm not convinced the Dr.'s $1.8 million will last them through the time of the RS. They may need interim cash.
I did miss that. It has never shown up on my etrade feed. Could you repost a link? Thanks.
The PR we need now is one that says they are getting financing somewhere. The $1.8 million the Dr. loaned the company won't last long at their current burn rate. I'm guessing that sweat is starting to flow regarding little things like "payroll." Hopefully, the volume bump is as a result of a few folks knowing that there is some $ coming in soon.
Wow. Why is it OK for the CEO to charg3 12.5% interest in this low-interest rate environment?
Doc's Bailout?
I've been off the Board for a few days and have seen a few references to the Doc floating a loan to the company, but I can't find the original post that gives that info (when, how much, etc.). If true, NOT a good sign. You wouldn't think that the government would let them sink, but maybe they'll let them flounder and them and force them to sell the technology for a song.... Can someone point me to the original post?
Sorry, AP1, just say this - guess this answers my question about effect of the mandate on the total revenue attributable to the class?
Thanks AP1. Much appreciated. I'd be curious to know the effect of the mandate on the amount of contracts awarded. In other words, did the DLA end up purchasing less in the mandated class after imposing the marking requirement, due to suppliers refusing to go along? If so, we have to take the numbers in the new classes with a similar grain of salt.
I keep parsing the PR, because is seems so purposefully vague. On the one hand, there is not, technically, an expansion of the mandate. On the other, this also isn't worded like a "test" or "trial" that preceded the current mandate. It's almost as if the DLA is going to be paying APDN to systematically get the suppliers in these new classes set up to mark. If that's the case, we might not have to wait 2-3 years for the actual revenue to begin to appear. Certainly, there would still be significant ramp-up time, but I don't think we have to wait for another mandate after the contract is up. Is anyone else parsing it this way?
AP1 - I'm sure you've done this before, but can you post what the 2013 numbers were for the currently mandated class for comparison's sake? Thanks for your great work.
All-caps, obnoxious and annoying or not, there is one thing vince is right about. Unless this DLA contract (and the future revenue it promises - though WAY in the future) somehow convinces a more traditional lending institution to give APDN a line of credit or similar, we are looking at years more dilution here. We are still a LONG way from break-even, and if the wheels on these new categories turn as slowly as they did for the current mandate, we are going to have to hope for big things from the other revenue sectors to have any hope of break even pre 2017. Hope, generally, is not a strategy.
Would there be any strategic reason that the company would wait to put some meat on the bones of this PR until after the RS?
AP1 - You have been by far the most accurate prognosticator here, but won't the revenue depend completely on the number of markings, and won't there be far fewer markings per classification when we are talking about larger parts (bearings, tubing, etc.) than the many thousands of microchips? I agree that this is great news and that many might not realize the number of hidden sub-classes, but can we really extrapolate directly from the microchip experience? As a side note, I'm unclear on the actual revenue numbers directly attributable to the currently mandated class. Is that alone really $2.5 million (meaning it is the vast majority of total revenue)? and didn't it take a full 2 years post-mandate to get there? Thanks for all of your good work.
Slow and steady growth is great if your expenses are under control and growing at a similar pace. I understand that they have to have the infrastructure in place for large contracts they hope to get, but this company needs an explosion in revenues, and they need it fast. They raised $2 million in cash from insiders, and they're burning $2 million per quarter. Do the math. There is no end in sight for the dilution of our shares. And don't you think they would have raised more than $2 million if they could have? I think the confidence level of even the insiders is being shaken.
Here's the transcript:
Blah blah blah blah blah blah highest revenues ever
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah we're thrilled
Blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Anyone else listening think the doctor sounds drunk? Sounds like a 72 rpm record slowed to a 33.
Vans - This will be my last reply to anything you post here. This "clown" is the one who predicted they wouldn't beat last quarter while most here were predicting $1 million plus in revenue. While you are investing based on your excitement over DBA sniffing dogs, I'm analyzing actual numbers. Good luck with that.
Ouch, This call was worse than even I expected. Less revenue than last quarter, and only 1 other federal contract in negotiation. I had been assuming there was a large back-log of federal contracts in the negotiation stage, being that we were told there were "hundreds" of suppliers in the category at the time of the mandate. The Dr. twice referenced being on track to beating last year's numbers, as if that was a big deal. With expenses exploding, they need to do a hell of a lot more than beat last year's numbers to avoid needing numerous and significant new capital raises that will further dilute all of us. I'm betting the next big PR isn't about new business, but new financing. Ugh.
Vans - Operating expenses are UP $2 million for the quarter, not down.
Thanks, AP1. Very helpful.
Vans - I have said repeatedly that I believe in this company long term, and that I am a holder. I'm just not fond of the unsupported euphoria that you repeatedly bring to your posts. This company will fly when/if actual numbers start to show up. Right now, we have a company with $10+ million in annual expenses that has never had a much as $1 million in revenue in a quarter (and, I'm betting, won't in this quarter either). That means further dilution (on a stock that is already incredibly diluted) and it means that they are going to have to make a LOT of money to justify anywhere near $1 share price. Could some big boy come in and buy this technology for a billion? Sure. But short of that, this company still has a VERY long, hard runway ahead of it. Everyone thought that the mandate was a panacea, and we were told by the Dr. that the contract prospects in this category alone numbered "in the hundreds." A year and a half later, how many contracts are there, and how much actual mandate revenue have we seen? Contracts take time. They have to be negotiated. Couple that with the push-back we've had from suppliers (and that push-back will only grow if the mandate is expanded), and you have, again, a long, hard road. At some point, I believe this will hit the tipping point, and I'll be there, holding my stock when it does. But until we start to see big contracts and real, convincing numbers, this is just another unproven penny-stock, and constantly pumping it only leads to bigger disappointment (and more knee-jerk selling) when they fall short of expectations. I hope I'm wrong, but pre-numbers trading has been too quiet for me. I don't think tomorrow is going to be pretty.
Still smell something, Vans? Just hope it's not a gapper the other way tomorrow morning.
No. As I already said, I'm holding. But I'll bet you a good bottle of wine that we don't see anything close to $1 million on Tuesday. There has just been nothing to indicate that we should expect substantial revenue growth. Lots of talk about new opportunities, but no talk of significant, new, revenue generating contracts.
I agree that a lot appears to be "happening" on other fronts. I'm just not convinced that we are going to see much evidence of those happenings in the revenue numbers. Again, there has been a complete dearth of PRs that would indicate actual near-term revenue growth.