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.
Speaking for myself (tho others may agree), this is one of those days where the Company needs to step up and (Hobby Lobby decision aside) do what is needed to at least sustain PPS and maintain or improve shareholder value.
One week after a presentation that *should* have marked a sea change in PPS, prices and volumes remain flat enough that a single trade worth $37.50 shortly after noon today caused an erosion of over $250,000 in market cap by close.
You cannot blame this on nefarious action - even our resident IHub basher. There is no reason (outside of the Company's failure to engage in serious public outreach) for this Company to close with only a couple of hundred dollars in trades (if that) during the course of a day. I've reached out to several people I know over the last few months, many of whom have thrown a few bucks in, but iHub members should not have to serve as the Company's IR department.
The Company must do more to engage potential investors. Period.
I suspect that most contributors to this board have a good sense of what was covered during the preso; I'm hoping that they can capitalize on the momentum from AACR and share it with a broader audience.
I totally agree that they'd be screaming about a signed deal (as well they should).
I'm looking for that middle ground between announcing a signed deal and meaningless pump. They've announced that they were presenting, but then didn't discuss what they presented, how it was received, or put it into terms of how it may benefit the company.
I'd love to see them use this as an opportunity to describe what they spoke about (without getting too far into the weeds) to create perceived value around ABBIE without resorting to pumpy "there's an LOI to investigate the possibility of a partnership at some point in the future" type stuff. Call it a substantive pump, if you will.
With a fully reporting company, a PR is just that - an announcement to the press about *something*. It need not have direct revenue implications, or specifics. It's generally just fluffy good news.
With a non-reporting company, it has to do double duty - announce disclosure that would normally go into an 8-k, but also do the good news reporting.
While most pinks swing waaaaaay too far toward the fluff end of the spectrum and dive into pumpy bullshit, I think SHMN would benefit from sharing a bit more good news (albeit substantive good news).
Update their own website at a bare minimum - I would think this would be front page material, but its got to at least appear on their PR & Blog sections (neither of which have been updated since January). Flood the channel with PRs about the preso, and anything good that came from it. Try to find one or more investor focused websites to do a fluffy story (Seeking Alpha types). Posting several summaries across multiple socials.
Just hoping to see that the word is being spread as far and wide as possible, both as a means to increase investor awareness and with a secondary impact on the sales channel.
This strikes me as a situation where a solid IR team should be going to town. Further boosting awareness of their preso would likely lead to more interest from both investors and prospective customers.
I really am surprised at just how little traction was gained...this total lack of engagement is either distrust or disinterest, it can't reasonably be attributed to any third party acts. The Company needs to find a way to overcome that resistance - at this point I suspect it comes down to nothing less than a demonstration of top/bottom line impact of their initiatives.
Over the history of the Company, yes...a lot of dreams, but not much follow thru. For *reasons*, that may be changing...
In the past two-ish years, the Company has made more concrete steps to actually delivering on its promises - Obtaining third party funding for expansion (which, while ultimately dilutative following a conversion of pref shares, did not require toxic convertible notes); using that funding to obtain potentially marketable IP; and bringing in new advisors/officers with both a vested interest and the requisite skillset to capitalize on that IP to name a few.
There are still some question marks - what are the status/use cases for the new facilities? Why are we only seeing a portion of the pref in the 2023 fins? Shouldn't there be more expenses related to facilities/loans/COGS on the fins? Where do all of the previously announced 'just around the corner' deals stand, and why have we not seen any tangible impact on top/bottom line?
SHMN is the prototypical pink pharma company that wants to become legitimate, but IMHO has an above average shot of doing so. They haven't buried themselves in toxic financing, maintain a pretty good balance sheet, and seem to have found a legitimately novel product to bring to market. I'd love to see a continuation of the migration to SMEs within the leadership structure who can drive the company forward, and hope that they can bring in some technical sales folks with the connections to market the new IP solutions.
All in all, like a few on this board I hold a decent bag, and have enough interest in what's coming to keep holding. My basis and need for liquidity are both pretty low, so I can afford to do so. YMMV.
GLTA
Dude, just stop.
Agreed. For most companies in a similar position, simply announcing the licensing discussions would be enough to spark some activity. The market's non-reaction is further evidence that SHMN needs to demonstrate concrete results that impact the bottom line.
And more controversially, should they? My (admittedly lukewarm) take is no. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.
The legally defined purpose of the BOD (and by extension, management) of a publicly traded corporation is to "increase shareholder value". While these trading shenanigans have an indisputable impact on PPS, the movement of tens or hundreds (or tens of hundreds) of dollars of shares, even if they make for major swings in market cap, don't materially impact the underlying shareholder value. If PPS drops by .0002, or even .002 because of a 50,000 (or 5,000, or 50) share trade, the impact on market cap is big, but the impact upon the true value of the stock is minimal. If people are cashing in on this bullshit, good for them. If the company and its share price were in a stronger position, trades like this wouldn't happen.
I would much rather see the company focus on initiatives that will drive the underlying value (ie coming up with a real and demonstrable sales pipeline, bringing ABBIE to market in a tangible way, etc.) than worry about some punk(s) who are flipping shares for a .0003 profit. If the Company is generating solid revenues/following through with their stated initiatives/generally demonstrating that they are acting like they are worthy of investment, the needle will move, and the ticky-tacky bullshit flippers will not be able to orchestrate their pocket change flips.
Yes, this is a pink company. But as I have attempted to articulate in the past, they seem to have a real path forward (if they can just get shit done). I'd vastly prefer to see them leverage their public position in a manner that drives sustained upside for the shareholders than focus on the pedestrian actions of those who are willing to spend hours orchestrating these flips to realize a few hundred bucks of profit.
As always, my opinions only...YMMV
Negative.
Per the University of Arizona collaboration PR:
We'll call it a sunk cost then. In any case, I've long since written off any cash equivalent I have put into this stock - I'll do/say what I can to see it rise, but feel no need to recover my initial investment. Other investors' cases may (and do) vary.
And no, you didn't wind me up. Just my own personal reaction to the general sense of angst on this board compounded by the absurd volatility in PPS due to negligible volume. Trying to insert a balanced counterpoint to folks who are inclined to react to "significant" drops driven by pocket change trades.
I agree with Myth that there is "something" in the works - specifically ABBIE - and I have been consistently bullish ever since the announcement of the upcoming conference presos in March and April. Whether academic or commercial, organizations typically don't make advance announcements about these types of presentations unless the presenter is very well aware of what they will be saying, and how it will be received. I remain positive about the implications for the company.
But....Always a but.
The market for SHMN stock is in Missouri mode - show me. There has been much reaction (and a lot of that, negative) on iHub to ticky-tacky swings, flippers, and low stakes traders, with a prevailing theme of 'good shit is coming, shush about the rest'. But let's be honest, neither the actions nor the reactions (here or across the myriad of social media, message boards, reddits, etc.) of these traders meaningfully impact PPS for investors; only the traders & flippers. Charted out over the long haul, the stock's gonna do what the stock's gonna do based upon the Company's actions (not what any of us say), and a swing here or there will simply be blips in the course.
The "something" in the works that I and other investors eagerly anticipate is more accurately viewed within the context of my original statement: "something to generate some real (and sustained) interest & volume", which is what it will take to make this ticker climb (and stay there). Not saying that ABBIE isn't *that* (and indeed, I'm hoping/praying/banking on the fact that it will), just that it's not that thing just yet. And that's OK.
In the meantime, I'm happy for the folks who want to jump on short term opportunities and realize a buck or two (sometimes literally), but honestly, I could care less about a day, several-day, week-long pump or trend. To that end, I will not hesitate to comment here or anywhere else that the company may be listening to effectuate change which will improve long term prospects, even if such comments may be perceived as deleterious in the short term - I can't liquidate in the timeframe of a pump, and if many folks here are being honest about their holdings, they can't either...we will need a lot more interest/volume if we are going to unload millions/tens of millions of shares and realize profits.
As most folks on this board know, I'm playing with house money, so I'm willing to wait to cash out...even if it means that I watch other opportunities pass me by. Bummer if I make statements contrary to your interest but sorry, not sorry.
Comments are my own, and reflect my own priorities (tho I hope they might be helpful to others). YMMV.
We need *something* to generate some real (and sustained) interest & volume. SHMN has lost almost half a million dollars in market cap with less than $600 traded today.
nevermind how inane this entire argument is, that was funny.
Yup. Specifics around what is required with those reports have varied over time (ie, attorney letters went from annual to quarterly and then back to annual), but the timelines themselves have been consistent for as long as I have been involved with OTC companies:
From the OTC Disclosure guidelines:
I suspect it was the status of the patent filing and the reality of marketing new technologies. If a company has already initiated the patent process, they have their proverbial stick in the ground. With a complex technology like targeted gene manipulation, the assumption is generally that an individual/small company inventor will not be the party to commercialize the offering - there's just too much required to scale it in production in a meaningful way. Instead, that individual or small organization will typically license the technology to larger organizations.
That said, the path from provisional patent application to utility patent application to granted patent is long, complicated, and *very* expensive - enough so that it is not uncommon to see the IP get sold (and the application assigned) during the process. There isn't really a section of Amazon or eBay that caters to this type of transaction, so they frequently happen between friends/coworkers/associates.
Again, only my opinion based upon experience in IP and corporate law; I have no factual knowledge of what has happened here.
Myth, I don't disagree that this makes SHMN like the rest of the pinks...that was part of my point.
It was noted that following this stock is like groundhog's day. I agreed insomuch as the "day" that we are repeating is in the form of a dribble of news that incrementally boosts PPS, only to see it fall again in the absence of further clarity, tangible results in OTC filings, and a failure to sustain whatever effort started the cycle in the first place. I fully agree this is par for the course in OTC land. It's why we see so many short lived pumps/runs, and so many companies whose PPS goes in the tank after days of zero volume because someone gets bored and decides to dump off $1.50 worth of shares.
I agree that the ABBIE announcement is absolutely substantive. But if it is going to drive a persistent and sustained increase in PPS, there needs to be a tangible benefit associated with it (in Q1 we are licensing ABBIE to Geneco for $XXXX), public disclosure verifying the benefit (Revenues have increased by $XXXX this quarter), and be repeatable (In addition to Geneco, in Q2 we are licensing ABBIE to DNACo for $YYYY, etc.). I'm not saying that these things won't happen; indeed I remain extremely hopeful that they will. Instead, I point out that until they do, the announcements around ABBIE can't be expected to have a lasting impact.
I couldn't agree more.
Moreover, I think we'll continue to live this day over and over until this company can make an announcement that is:
1) Substantive - detailing achievements rather than thoughts and prayers, nothingburgers, or generic fluff
2) Impactful - focused on actual changes to top line/bottom line numbers, not blue sky
3) Verifiable - reflected in the quarterly/annual filing(s) directly following the announcement (whether appearing in the P&L as line items or as an announced subsequent event), not something that may appear several quarters down the road (when everyone has forgotten about it)
4) Repeatable - continues the above on an ongoing basis.
Barring this, we'll likely continue our pattern of low volume/low value days punctuated by unsustainable flurries of activity and heightened PPS, which then give way to low volume/low value days punctuated by unsustainable flurries and heightened PPS, which then...
FWIW, SOHM's use of the term "stakeholders" predated Night's tenure.
https://web.archive.org/web/20111123164827/http://www.sohm.com/2011/11/14/sohm-inc-announces-third-quarter-financial-and-operating-results-through-a-video-message-for-its-stakeholders/
I agree they have new folks in place and am hopeful that change is afoot (both in top & bottom line performance, and in performance of their obligations to shareholders). At present, the Company has not made any statements about replacement of the prior regime, only additions to it; it remains to be seen if Aguilar et. al. are focused primarily/exclusively on operational delivery (not necessarily a bad thing) or if they are also taking an active role in management of the pubco piece as well.
Again, I'm hopeful...
I generally feel like the management of this company fundamentally misunderstands its relationship with its shareholders - a situation not uncommon for microcaps generally, and specifically for those folks who find themselves running pubcos through a reverse merger.
We have seen repeated instances of the company eagerly reporting forward looking 'good news' but failing to follow-up with any additional details/progress, and indeed of going silent for extended periods of time, only making a public announcement after incessant badgering by their shareholders. Numerous posters have pointed out the string of past hype events that have fallen by the wayside without comment (CBD, Brainwise, share buyback, etc.). This strikes me (as I have commented in the past) as indicative of a company that does not understand its *obligation* as a publicly traded corporation to notify current and future shareholders of material events, and more pointedly, of a company that has little concern for its current shareholders.
I'm hopeful that as the company accelerates its growth through the development of new production capabilities and IP assets, the retention of qualified personnel, and by actively seeking outside investment (and other funding opportunities), it will become more disclosive and provide more frequent and timely updates of *all* relevant events - good or bad. Perhaps they will do so out of a desire to help the current shareholders, but past experience tells me that they really don't give two shits about us.
Historically, and I say this not to bash or promote, their performance guidance (where offered) has been uniformly positive but not tied to empirical results (and not necessarily reflected in PPS).
Until revenues increase by a meaningful amount, a "strong" quarterly performance as measured by a YOY percentage increase in revenues may mean only a $10-20k increase in actual proceeds. A good trend, but nothing that will drive share price.
The announced $5MM funding round was purportedly predicated (at least partially) upon Pref stock issuances (bonus points for alliteration). The prior share structure would have prevented the conversion of those Pref shares into common - in all likelihood, an increase in A/S was a prerequisite for the transaction.
Beyond the above and the restricted common issuances to the new officers/advisors (neither of which require advance SEC filings), there have been exactly zero filings necessary to offer shares in either a public (generally a S-1) or private (generally a Form D) transaction.
Funny...my thought was less "they're hiding something" and more "they're making damn sure that everyone knows that this is SOHM, and not some stock photo"
To-may-to/to-mah-to.
We may both be right.
Admittedly, I read the blub below through the lens of my own biases and assumptions:
Large-scale is relative. There won't be a retail market for this, and what market exists (Pharma; Agri; etc.) will consist of relatively few organizations with the ability to take the technology and scale it into production of a final commercial product (targeted gene therapies, bioengineered crops, etc.). Instead, I assume that SHMN would focus on creating 'kits' containing the enzymes and/or graphene components necessary to perform the splices to distribute to those labs considering licensing the product.
As far as Japan, your hypothesis is as good (probably better) than mine. It is also possible that rather than a JDM license agreement, the talks were related to licensing the technology to develop a single application for global distribution (e.g. a variety of genetically engineered soybean). Or he may have been travelling to custom spec his order for the Lexus LFA Successor (https://www.carscoops.com/2023/03/could-the-lexus-lfa-successor-first-launch-as-a-hybrid-and-then-an-ev/). Who knows?
Not familiar with all of the nuances of GAAP, but in layman's terms a third party paying to license the technology would generally constitute a commercial sale.
The problem/reality is that SHMN doesn't have the juice to be able to fully commercialize ABBIE. This isn't a slam, it's a reality for small scale developers of IP.
IMHO, their best bet is to continue to 'talk about' it and secure interest from someone with pockets deep enough to fully take it to market. I believe that SHMN will focus on small scale product development around ABBIE, not as a revenue source, but as proof of concept. If they can show that there are beneficial uses of the technology with only meager investment, it makes the IP more attractive to a potential licensee with enough resources to more fully develop it.
This approach is a win/win. SHMN reaps significant ROI for their initial investment in ABBIE through licensing fees without assuming the risk and expense of bringing it to market themselves. The Licensee realizes significant margins through their commercial activities in exchange for assumption of the above risk/expense, but did not have to expend the time/capital associated with its initial development.
Again, all of the above is rampant speculation and a projection of how I would approach the asset (given what little we know about it at this point).
Correct - 12 mos. for non-reporters, 6 mos. for fully reporting companies.
As far as I know, yes.
To be clear, not trying to concern troll, just wanted to share some of the changes in how broker dealers are handling sub-penny restricted share transactions (recall that as recently as mid 2023, nobody would clear them/remove the legend, and broker/dealers wouldn't deposit them.
I don't expect there will be any sort of rush on those restricted shares any time soon (not just because they're still more expensive to transact than they would be if PPS > .01).
Don't forget these:
8/21/2023 New Issuance 5,000,000 Common $0.001 No Dr. David Aguilar Service/joining bonus Restricted N/A
8/21/2023 New Issuance 5,000,000 Common $0.001 No William Dewey Rushing Service/joining bonus Restricted N/A
8/21/2023 New Issuance 5,000,000 Common $0.001 No Neetu Jha Service/Advisory Board Restricted N/A
8/21/2023 New Issuance 10,000,000 Common $0.001 No Hari Shah Service/Digital Restricted N/A
A few thoughts on the restricted:
The number of restricted shares has been mostly static in recent years (with the exception of the recent grants). This means that the vast majority of issued restricted shares have been held long enough to satisfy the holding requirement to have the legend removed under Rule 144.
Further, the limitations that broker/dealers had placed on clearing and trading restricted sub penny stocks are beginning to ease. Firms that have refused to transact these shares in recent years are beginning to do so, albeit at a cost premium that makes clearing/trading a dubious proposition.
All of this goes to say that we *could* see the current restricted shares move at any time, but it still remains more probable that they will not do so until PPS exceeds .01.
I'm far from pumping this stock or cheering every announcement as the second coming, but there's a big difference between DD and bashing.
Muting this broken record.
Presumably you mean obtain convertible notes, which would then be converted and dilute the existing shareholders.
1) Sure, this is possible, but...
2) The company has already announced third party funding in excess of the amount needed to finalize the initial cash portion of the ABBIE IP acquisition.
3) Heightened SEC Enforcement (https://www.securitieslawyer101.com/2023/sec-charges-adam-r-long-and-his-two-companies-l2-capital-llc-and-oasis-capital-llc-as-unregistered-dealers/) and pending rules changes (https://www.securitieslawyer101.com/2023/sec-takes-on-the-toxic-lenders/) have put a SERIOUS dent in the number of firms willing to participate in these types of schemes.
4) As has been exhaustively noted when you have fearmongered about this possibility in the past, any convertible notes issued now would have a minimum one-year holding period from the point at which they matured (and a one-year holding period from the point at which they were actually converted, if the pending change to Rule 144 is adopted).
Seriously? You're comparing SHMN with MSFT? $.0013 to $375?
Yes, there is some (well earned) distrust with SHMN's announcements, and they need to prove to the market that they're not blowing smoke. In the meantime, investors will want to do some enhanced diligence.
I suspect that there may have been more than a few investors who were actively following up with Microsoft's claims when they were trading at <$1 back in the 80s.
...or it's possible that both will be up and running in Q1. Or neither will. It's all just rampant speculation at this point.
SHMN still needs to learn that nature abhors a vacuum. Tell your story, or someone else will do it for you (without benefit of the facts).
It's late enough in the year that I'd be surprised if we hear anything that moves the needle before the holidays. With breaks in trading on both 12/25 and 1/1 (and lots of folks taking additional time off), it wouldn't be a stretch for them to delay news until 1/2 with the intent of maximizing impact and maintaining momentum.
In my experience, the clock doesn't reset when the amendment is filed.
The expectation is that the filing is due 90 days after EOY, and the attorney letter 30 days after that. If a material misstatement is discovered and subsequently corrected, I believe that the now updated annual filing would not be considered fully accepted by OTCM until after the updated attorney letter is received. Since we're well outside of that original 120 day period, the company is thus deemed immediately delinquent until the updated attorney letter is filed confirming that the revised annual constitutes adequate public information.
Not positive that this is the case (I've never faced this particular scenario before), but given my past dealings with OTCM, I'd call it an educated guess.
True, but they published an amended annual report after having previously posted an attorney letter - I suspect that OTC has just realized that they need to file an updated attorney letter to reflect the amendment.