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.
From the latest 10-Q:
http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=64410575
Scroll down to page 15.
I just bought 5000 and there was 44000 on the ask when I placed my order and it didn't move down to 39000. It stayed on 44000.
Whoooaa....before you start talking patent infringements you need to have the patents approved. To do that they have to prove Novelty and Inventiveness. Simply re-wording the existing verbiage will not change the core novelty of the process. The EPO is not questioning the outcome from the use of stem cells only the novelty and inventiveness which is the key here.
They state repeatedly that many of the claims can be performed by the "skilled man" which means they are not inventive and not a basis for patent approval. How do you propose they re-word the process? It doesn't matter how they re-word it hence my earlier comment that they will need to re-invent the process which I doubt they can do. The process is what it is and appears to be unpatentable in the eyes of the EPO.
One would think anyone would use a flow cytometer when one wants to know cell yield. It's not an uncommon device used at all and not the source of any new revelations. How many different flow cytometer's do you think exist in the world today?
Cell yield sounds great but no one knows what an optimum cell yield happens to be. And what happens when someone boasts the highest cell yield yet someone else can achieve better more consistent results with a lower yield? More is not always better.
Maybe SVFC will issue the EPO a convertible note to help push this through. I bet Frank could help with that.
Curious...why do these patent links not include this one?
https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP11854049&lng=en&tab=doclist
Could it have anything to do with this?
https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=EV7SWG9J5324FI4&number=EP11854049&lng=en&npl=false
THE EPO has stated that multiple claims lack Novelty and multiple claims are Not Inventive.
Or how about the notification sent to the Company by the EPO on July 10, 2014 stating if the Company wanted to proceed with the application by filing a response to the objections made by the EPO they had six months to do so?
https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=EV92YNQT7470FI4&number=EP11854049&lng=en&npl=false
Only 45 days left to go to respond but unless the Doc has magically re-worked the process to qualify as "Novel" and "Inventive" you can kiss the European patent good bye. And those follow on patents...all based upon the same basic process...yeah they go away too.
If this were such a slam-dunk response to the EPO why hasn't the Doc responded with the appropriate material to "correct" the lack of understanding out of the EPO? The sooner he responds the closer to the patent he gets right? What's he waiting for?
Not to worry...I'm sure he'll send something in just to extend the window and further claims of the patent being issued "anytime now" can be perpetuated for another year.
Thanks for keeping us up to date!
I bought some more just before 10AM today. What was odd was there was 2500 on the ask at the time and it was 0.34 flat. I placed an order for 5000 limit 0.35 and it took a full two minutes for my trade to be executed.
But during that wait time, no sooner did I submit the order and I see the ask come down to 0.3399. Well, my order for 5000 fills entirely at 0.3399 and almost instantaneously there is a sell at the bid for I think it was 0.3152 (whatever the low of the day was at the time).
I didn't doubt it before so this is just further validation that some entity is messing with HENC big time. There is no way my original order should have filled a tick below 0.34 let alone the entire order with only 2500 shares showing on the ask. Any true market made in a stock would have taken the rest of my order and filled up to 0.35...whether the next level was 0.342, 0.345, etc.
I'm still adding Gen. I just don't always have an eye and ear available during the day.
What I'd like to know is how long these shorts have before the SHTF once drilling begins and positive results are announced. They are going to be competing with other buyers for stock and there will be little available for them (or anyone) to buy...at least for a little while after a good drill result.
For as many shares as they have shorted, and I refer back to the Accumulation line over the last 12 months and further back, how the heck can they cover without driving the price up sky-high AND generating a loss so huge it can't be ignored? They could short it under the radar but they will be completely exposed when it comes time to cover.
I forget what stock it was not too long ago but I think it was a sub-dollar stock that got a quick mention on one of the business TV channels because it had such a huge run-up in one day that regulators were "looking into" the stock. That part scares me because all they have to do is halt the stock and the SEC or whomever does something in their infinite wisdom to ruin it.
I know. It should be a great problem to have but I don't put anything past the regulators because they sure let a lot of shenanigans go unnoticed.
Can't wait until they drill again. It all ultimately hinges on that and what kind of production rate they can achieve per well. That will make all of this academic by late February or early March from my own guesstimates.
Thanks for doing what you do Genstock.
One of the things that has helped me keep patient has been the accumulation/distribution over just about any length of time.
I haven't seen too many stocks with that kind of line and it's not an insignificant amount of shares somewhere in the 12 million range.
Then I think, hell, this isn't even on the radar of most folks and it sure isn't traded actively like a stock on a bigger exchange. So for this type of accumulation to be taking place for this long when nothing has been going on makes me bullish.
Then I look periodically at the OTC short report and sure enough...there has been and continues to be large percentages of daily trade being shorted. Just look at yesterday. And I remember looking at the ask and seeing it change right after Genstock put in that large amount as bid support. Shortly thereafter, 100,000 shares magically showed up on the ask to counter the 125,000 on the bid.
http://otcshortreport.com/index.php?index=HENC&action=view
We will never know how many shares are actually shorted as Genstock confirmed the dark pool shorting by Fidelity I think it was so I think that whomever has been shorting it has been working this for months trying to claw back and reduce their losses. Even if it's 10,000 shares at a time they've had enough time to do it if they chose to with nothing happening on the fundamental side of the company.
And then again, it could just be an algorithm and it doesn't give a crap. I hope it is a short too Genstock. Once drilling is announced this doubles and any viable producing well and it doubles again or more.
Last but not least, I think back to the 10K or a 10Q from earlier this year where a note holder of $1 million ($940k balance left) tore up the note for a 1% interest overriding royalty interest. So just to recoup their roughly $1 million HENC would have to generate $100,000,000 for them to get their money back. But I doubt they're just interested in getting their money back. Does it guarantee anything...of course not. But I look at this way, if this entity was confident enough to let their $1 million ride I can be patient and ride the coat tails. I doubt they came to their decision lightly or on a whim.
So we just wait until the show gets on the road and add whenever possible.
First announced in the 10-K 3/31/2014
http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=61660212
Scroll down a short ways in Part I to where it says Our Australian Assets.
Under the very next section Onshore Licenses Cooper Basin, you'll see reference to PEL 444 near the end of the third paragraph.
Printed at 2:58PM
I just placed an order for 10,000 at the ask of 0.295. They gave me 2,500 and immediately moved 0.295 to the bid and 0.305 to the ask.
I've nearly tripled my holdings over the last month. Am pretty confident all companies involved know the importance of hitting a gusher with this next well.
Keep up the good work Genstock. You take some heat for not being dead on with timing but to me that just proves you are being made privy to anything you shouldn't be.
The A/D line is still looking good with only some flattening over the last two weeks. If you were blowing smoke the A/D would show it IMO.
Buck up and buy Gents. You might score another penny or two at the most but you most likely won't get all of your order filled...like mine today.
I'm showing 12,500 left on the ask via Schwab if I change my remaining 7,500 order to the ask then someone should be able to take out the remaining 5,000.
GLTA!
Don't break out the bubbly just yet...
Before this gets twisted into oblivion, let's understand what this 13g is saying and when.
First: This is a catch-up filing by JJK. Notice the "Date of Event Which Requires Filing" is May 29, 2013. Why JJK didn't file this previously is anyone's guess.
Second: They don't own 6% of the outstanding shares today. That 6% figure was based on an O/S count of 316,658,806 per the 13g and the date of October 23, 2013. Assuming the 19,000,000 shares they received has not been sold in the open market, they would now hold ~0.86% using ~2.2B O/S count.
Regarding "extinguishment" of the Notes, this may be factually accurate in the sense that JJK and Intellicell no longer had anything material between them BUT.........it appears that the actual debts of $50,000 and $75,000 weren't actually "extinguished"...rather...they were ASSIGNED.
Note from the recent 10-K filing:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1125280/000101376214000516/form10k.htm
Good question. Who's selling those blocks? Another good question.
TY...then as Caz said we shall see if an amended 10-K comes out.
LOL! Maybe the company was making a gesture to shareholders and she's working for free or for a nominal amount like some tech officers (who get paid in options and bonuses instead).
But you see where the question comes from, right?
The portion quoted from the litigation did get Hershman right as Chairman of the BOD, did they make a mistake on Anna or did they get it right? How would they know if she was a former EVP unless someone told them or as I postulated, her title had changed?
There is always something that doesn't wind up lining up right.
BBW, is it required for them to include the announcement of Hershman's appointment in the 10-K? I know from reading up previously around the time we were hoping to hear about the CFO announcement that the requirement was an 8-K or if a quarterly or annual filing was due to be released announcement could be made in the other filing instead.
So I guess I'm asking if it HAS to be included in both? You would think they would include it regardless in the 10-K but is it REQUIRED?
TIA
Agreed. Do you know if Anna is still employed by the company?
The reference to "former" raises that question in the litigation section.
Someone got that from somewhere and it may have been copied from the complaint filed which means the plaintiff could have made the error and not the company.
That's not really spin. If you wanted spin then you would have highlighted this section:
You had to go and make a grill and steak reference!!!!!!!!
Damn man, you fight dirty!
Enjoy Rico!
You know those sections are essentially copied and pasted from a source. The accountant isn't going through to make sure everything stated is consistent.
Looks like they used a template so they could save time and that's why the old info was displayed.
Now if there was a reference to Hershman's appointment like the text from the PR announcement AND the showing of Dr. Victor as Chairman then I might shift the blame to the accountant.
But still, all of these guys signed off on it as being accurate. It just shows that no one is really reviewing these things. I'm sure Dr. Victor assumes those under him are doing this so I don't necessarily blame him. Who is Executive VP of Operations? That's who I blame since that person's name is at the bottom of all of the PRs.
I'm not worried about an omission of Hershman's appointment but it does make me wonder what else may have been omitted.
That's definitely what it looks like. I updated my Correction post because one section does say Dr. Victor is the Chairman but then the other references in the litigation that say Hershman is.
So we're back to that discussion from the other night. LOL!
Did the accountant's leave it out or were they not provided that information?
CORRECTION......
I was able to finally find it down in the accountant's section...
The link where people are getting this from is the 10-K.
Hershman was announced as new Chairman of the Board on October 30th, 2013.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/intellicell-biosciences-appoints-mr-michael-140913002.html
But the 10-K for 2013 does not show any reference to him as being Chairman of the Board.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1125280/000101376214000516/form10k.htm
Do a CTRL-F once in the 10-K and type in Hersh to scroll through all references to his name and you will find no reference to him in any section as being currently or having ever been Chairman of the Board.
This was either a significant oversight and mistake not to include this in the 10-K or simply he isn't the Chairman of the Board.
That's where this originated from.
ETA: The signatures of all Directors is on this document dated May 9th, 2014 and Hershman is shown as a Director.
I know exactly who he is as he replied to an email I sent to the company.
I hope he's right and I hope you're right. Two months down in that case with four to go.
What happens in four months (yes I corrected myself)?
LOL....it's funny being lectured on getting off topic.
If the YA deal is the best financing deal they've ever received then that speaks volumes doesn't it? No need to say it positive volumes.
So we go from the YA deal being the best for 6 months from the date of the deal to share conversions after that and that's not toxic?
YA can't be happy that Dominion is going to dilute their investment can they?
Now I will go off topic and ask since you have Clay's ear, if you would be so kind as to ask how we can learn more about Redwood Capital. There doesn't seem to be anything out there for us so we can learn who they are.
Honest questions here...
I'm not trying to bait just as Kallas was sincere in asking me my opinion earlier.
If there were an announcement that the A/S had to be increased, for whatever reason, as we might not know what the reason was or if it were due to meet the reserved shares provisions of the YA and Dominion notes, what effect on PPS do you think that would have?
And for those claiming there is never both sides discussed I will ask...
If a new licensing deal were announced, say with CHA, obviously not knowing the details of such a deal, how much positive effect would you anticipate that announcement having on PPS? (Let's use tomorrow or current PPS)
And a twofer...
How much positive effect would a PR announcing granting of an international patent have on PPS? (Again using current PPS)
And I'm not asking for a one day PPS estimate rather how much mileage does PPS get out of either of those two?
It doesn't go to trips or lower because new money comes in. That's why all the buzz gets posted on the board about being undervalued, this or that coming.
It draws new people in and it draws additional money from existing holders because when you just look at the potential of the science no one can bring themselves to believe that the PPS can go any lower. Hence, you get runs. SVFC gets into the top active boards and draws interest from new folks. They stop by the board and get caught up in the frenzy going on and hop aboard.
Very few people due any real due diligence. I didn't before I bought SVFC. I liked what I read from the company and the vibe on the board. But you can be certain that when all of the posts predicting this and that began to ring hollow I did start doing the "other" due diligence.
Honestly, I can care less how pennyland works. It hasn't worked out for either us thus far. I'm more interested in how the company works or doesn't work at this point.
And there we have the middle ground!
I think they get acquired and sold in a short period of time, Gannicus thinks they're held indefinitely and you somewhere in between.
It's got a nice balanced ring to it.
I never said it was the same as Hanover. My only comparison was with respect to the dilution that will come from it.
So Clay Parker is providing a public investor with counsel regarding explanation of the terms without a public disclosure?
All of that aside, so what happens in 6 months?
Well...going from a high of what $0.08 last year to $0.0012 I'd say that was a near death experience. I know virtually all of my investment died and is on life support. Yours did as well during that time and you're either in the same boat as I am or you averaged down, flipped, averaged down some more etc.
So if none of us know the float, how can it clearly not be increasing? It sure isn't going down.
I assume the bulk of the new shares are entering the float. No question. No dodging no avoiding. Likewise, you are assuming the bulk are not entering the float. So here we are. And we haven't even gotten into discussion about who those note holders are and that they want their money back since they loaned it or were owed it by the company. Somehow I don't think all the attorneys across the country doing work for these types of companies holds onto those shares as investments. They want their money ASAP and there's some of your new float.
I don't think anyone is disputing that start up companies do this especially the OTC companies. It might be the only thing everyone actually does agree upon. What is in dispute here is whether that consistent dilution hurts, helps or has no effect on PPS.
Yup. But that's also the very reason they have ensured they are eligible for exemptions to those rules. So all they have to do when they want to convert is request the shares and get them registered.
It's a pain in the rear end because I did it but read up on the exemptions.
What they are explicitly prohibited from doing is reselling those shares should they request them otherwise they would be acting like a broker/dealer.
The first 8-K, should it come, would be the clear final authority on what their intentions are going to be.
Not misleading at all. I clearly outlined the timing which was excluded from your argument.
It is easy in retrospect to look back once you know the actual O/S but until it's disclosed no one knows. The sticker shock comes when the investing public actually gets to see what happened rather than speculating during that time frame.
It's obvious you believe shorts caused this entire PPS debacle which you are more than entitled to believe but thinking all of the new shares that have been issued are being held by their original holders isn't realistic in my opinion.
As for SVFC Auctioneer, the Hanover court ordered settlement was well under way. With no TCA/IR problem the stock was still being diluted from well under 100M shares to over 300M shares by the time they were done. And we know those shares entered the float because we kept getting 8-Ks with Hanover requesting more. The only way they could get more was by demonstrating they had sold what they had before as long as they didn't hold more than 9.99% at any given time.
And should we believe that when Hanover's parent Dominion put up the $535k in court to pay IR and got an additional 30% premium added on top along with interest that shows up in late March as a new convertible note that they will not do what Hanover did before and it won't have a negative effect on PPS?
If none of this mattered then aren't more shares being bought to force the PPS higher?
As I've said, for various reasons, in the past, I'm short and intermediate term bearish and longer term bullish.
The short and intermediate bearishness due to the lack of cash flow and known amount of convertibles that exist.
Longer term bullish because the company has proven it has been able to find money from various sources which has and should allow them to continue.
The PPS is just falling victim to the timing of events that have and will take place. The offsets to what is causing the PPS to decline have not come in time to prevent it and there is no clear visibility (yet) to what the revenue generators will actually produce.
I had calculated a while back what possible revenue ranges could be generated from the Andrews deal based on the knowledge we obtained from the agreement of them getting one set of lab equipment to process patient tissues. I did a low and high end estimate and applied typical business hours and the number of procedures we could possibly expect could be done on a minimal patient schedule and a maximum schedule. Those projections looked pretty good if they could be reached and as demand would hopefully pick up Andrews would add more equipment to achieve greater capacity to handle that demand. It will take some amount of time to get them operating at 100% capacity in terms of revenue generation and whatever they do generate the company will hoard this cash to use for operating expenses and I think that is what any company would do.
So that leaves the rest of the mess from the past that so many what to forget but it has to work its way out first. There's always expectation that more new deals will come otherwise no one would be here. And here too, we're back to timing. When will they come? If the Korea visit was productive, why no deal? You would think this would be so compelling that a deal would have been done by now. What about re-licensing Regen Medical? That would be the easiest way to revenue right this minute and could be cited as making progress on the business plan. All of these and other things should have happened by now. We shouldn't be having to talk about all of this other crap if the deals were being made and money was going to be coming in.
Another new lawsuit doesn't help either. Whether or not it goes anywhere the fact that it is out there creates further uncertainty. This gets us back to the lack of working capital and cash which will now be eaten up by more attorney's fees which have been paid thus far in convertible notes.
Revenue is the only thing that will turn this thing around and not just token revenue. If the company can show incremental quarter over quarter revenue growth from Andrews and new licensees should they come then investors will begin to look past the horror show that has been going on for some time.
Here's one of Caz's posts that I believe has all the patent links included.
Just remember when you click into one of the pages, I forget which, it will show today's date which is just the date the report was generated. Many of us had some false starts last year thinking it was referring to a grant date.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=101826929
Not flawed at all. The O/S increased dramatically, yes, in late to the end of 2013 but no one knew how much until certain disclosures came out with the first being January 27th, 2014.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1125280/000101376214000088/formpre14c.htm
That's when we first learned how many more shares had been issued since November 2013.
The PPS went down. PPS recovered to make intraday highs over a penny in the hopes that the new A/S increase was foreboding a partnership/stake or positive financing arrangement.
The day the YA and Andrews deals were announced was the intraday peak in PPS but the stock closed down and has been going down ever since. Coupled with learning the O/S had increased to 1.6B some weeks later and followed by the 2.2B some weeks after that.
I don't know how dilution can be dismissed and its effect on PPS and forward looking effect that there are more instruments that will contribute to further dilution coming sooner than later.
Lower trading volume doesn't eliminate those new shares from coming to market. As you've pointed out over time, people on this board or retail investors aren't selling so where is it coming from? Shorts don't have endless supplies of capital to put up to sell it all and most of them are in and out within a day or two. This why blaming shorts for the PPS decline is a flawed explanation.
There has not been enough buying to force the PPS higher and the buying that has been occurring, because there's always two sides to a trade, has been needed just to try and keep the PPS afloat because of the new shares coming instead of that new money going towards pushing it higher.
As many as they've needed and as many additional they will need going forward.
It doesn't matter. Someone technically "holds" new or old shares at any given time. The fact that new shares come into the mix devalues every existing share before it.
Unless you subscribe to the theory that every convertible holder at SVFC retained those shares it explains quite well why the PPS has gone down.
So as of the 10-K, over 2.2B total shares, how many more millions in convertibles outstanding (hopefully the delayed 10-Q will provide clarity), YA's window opening as early as next week to begin converting and Dominon's window opening in early June...please help me rationalize how another 1B new shares or more or even a raising of the A/S from 3.5B to a higher number over the next 6 months to a year is going to be helpful to the PPS.
Diluted Shares
A diluted share generally is bad news for current shareholders, and is used to refer to the loss of value accruing to each existing share when the company issues new shares of stock. Because each share represents a small but equal portion of the company’s equity, the addition of more shares reduces each individual share’s equity and, consequently, its value. Roughly, the value of an individual share is calculated by dividing the company’s net value by the total number of shares of stock available; while other factors apply, this serves as a general estimate of share value.
The formula for calculating value per share is expressed thusly:
• Net value of company / total outstanding shares of stock
If the total number of outstanding shares increases, the value per share is decreased proportionately. For example, a company that is valued at $100,000 and has issued 50,000 shares of common stock has a value per share of $2.00. If the company then issues an additional 50,000 shares of common stock to the public, this dilutes the value of the previously existing shares and creates a value per diluted share of $1.00, effectively creating a loss in value of $1.00 per existing share and reducing the equity held by existing shareholders.
Some companies elect to issue stock options or other convertible securities (including certain types of preferred shares of stock). While these do not immediately dilute the value of existing shares, they have the potential to do so in the future; as a result, most companies provide their shareholders with a total fully diluted share amount, indicating the number of shares outstanding if all option holders and preferred shareholders exercised their options to purchase common stock. This information provides a measure of security for investors; by assessing the possible risk that these options will be exercised, shareholders can protect themselves against fluctuations in the value of shares held.
Since diluted shares produce lower earnings per share, companies also generally release information on the diluted earnings per share as a financial indicator of profitability. By deriving an estimate of earnings per diluted share and then comparing this with the announced earnings per share, analysts and investors can assess the risk of a major dilution of existing shares and a consequent devaluation of current share prices.
In some cases, companies make a stock offering in order to finance an expansion into the marketplace or an innovative new manufacturing process. While this also results in diluted shares and lower earnings per diluted share, if the effects of the expansion or innovation produce a significantly higher net value for the company, the diluted per share value may actually be higher than the initial value before dilution. This increase in overall value can present a compelling reason for shareholders to approve an additional stock offering in spite of the diluting effect on existing shares; the potential for future earnings may outweigh the short-term loss in value and earnings per diluted share.
http://www.mysmp.com/stocks/diluted-shares.html
Just shy of 900M NEW shares added since the beginning of March COULDN'T have ANYTHING to do with the PPS decline...or did it?
Good night Caz. It's been a rough enough day already. The quicker the conversation about 10-Ks goes away the better.
To end on a positive note, just for you, I've emailed MLB Network to see if they can get me a video link to the roundtable discussion that featured Dr. Andrews over the weekend. If they provide me one or post it somewhere I will link it in a post here.
The last scheduled showing is Tuesday the 13th at Noon EST in case anyone wants to dvr it.
What debt is being reduced? Notes still exist representing that money.
Why not just forgo or give back the salary? Why assign it to Redwood?
Not taking the salary eliminates any liability. How does monetizing the accrued salary benefit shareholders?
You've got it all wrong. They didn't pay Redwood a dime. They took the amount of accrued salaries due the Doc and Anna and created promissory notes that are convertible into shares that carries a 12% interest on the principal until the any or all parts of the note are converted.
Yes....seriously....this is not good.
All of that accrued interest Redwood is getting is also convertible just like the principal. So the company, Dr. Victor and Anna, moved a liability off the balance sheet and onto shareholders because the only way those notes get paid is when shares are issued upon conversion of those notes.
An increase in O/S from 1.37B before the Andrews deal to over 2.2B as of the 10-K filing shows the float is only "locked up" until the float gets expanded by issuance of new shares. None of these note holders are going to convert all at once so we're in for a steady diet of these for a while and we haven't even gotten to the Dominion note yet (am not including the YA note due to the uncertainty of its status).
Nope. They didn't pay Redwood anything. They issued themselves notes then assigned them to Redwood meaning Redwood is now the owner of those notes and is due to be paid the full face value plus interest according to the terms.