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 don't give "advice", only my own opinions, and anything I state, is always stated as such, ONLY my own thoughts and specifically, as only my own opinions. (Just making that 100% clear)
You can buy, sell, hold, trade- whatever you choose to do, based on whatever information you choose to read, not read, absorb, study, use or not use, or whatever.
Don't take anything I say as "advice": I'm not a professional, and am in no way licensed in regards to anything financially related to public stock markets or trading or similar and thus do not give stock "advice" of any kind. I'm not a financial "adviser" of any type and carry no such qualifications from any State or Federal licensing board or similar, nor am I in any way, otherwise qualified to give "stock advice".
Curious, what make one address me as "sir"? I'm not aware of I-HUB stating my "gender" anywhere, that I am aware of? Why would one necessarily address me as "sir", when in other statements, for example, you addressed someone by their screen name, "gsdubb"? Just curious, IMO?
Just making it 100% clear though- my posts are opinions and thoughts for discussion, etc. Not "advice", and I never state it as "advice". I stated that IMO (that means "in my opinion") that "I'd" (meaning if it was me), that I'd hold right now, and that IMO (my opinion), I don't think this is necessarily a "bottom" based on the recent history of how it's (BHRT) been trading, according to specifically "my" own observations and "opinion".
Good luck to you and happy trading, buying, selling, whatever the case may be. Always do one's own due diligence- whatever that entails to each individual.
"Looks like the bottom"? .0063 (yes, 6/10ths of one penny) was "the bottom" only about 5 months ago on, Dec 14th, 2013.
It's done a whole lot of trading in the 1 cent to 2 cent range in the past 2 yrs or so. Bottom? Not IMO. Nothing has really changed about their poor cash position or need to continually dump/dilute shares for survival cash, IMO?
I'd wait, IMO. Bet you can get shares a whole lot cheaper than the present 2.5 cents or so. It already hit .022 just in the past week- like it's moving or gravitating to the 200 DMA, of .019, the ole 2 cent area, where it's spent a lot of time in the past 2 plus yrs. A drop to just 2 cents from here, would be a 20% loss. Patience IMO.
It's in a solid down trend right now and they just authorized to increase available shares to 2 BILLION outstanding. Not exactly a sign of strength, IMHO.
The 10-Q will be out shortly. I'd at least wait till then and see what the new shares outstanding are (how much more dilution has occurred since 10-K), what the cash balance is (how low, or did it increase at all, etc), how much/many convertible share "toxic" type financing deals have been done (if any) since the end of 2013 10-K was issued, etc.
10-Q is not far off, why wouldn't one wait and see what it says? See if MIRROR gets any update, or the same "barely mention" as the last 10-K.
This IMO, doesn't appear to be a "bottom" at all. Dilution, and lots of it, on-going, will only push this lower over the long term, IMO
"When did this start trading on AMEX "? NEVER? It was delisted from the NASDAQ on Feb. 27th, 2009. Only about one year, after it had one of the worst IPO's in recent, NASDAQ public market history.
http://globenewswire.com/news-release/2009/02/26/393349/160467/en/Bioheart-Inc-Receives-Notice-of-Delisting-From-The-NASDAQ-Capital-Market.html
It's been trading on the OTCBB ever since. It's share price has for the most part- steadily declined ever since the original IPO, never trading above its IPO price, and has been, essentially in a straight down trend (a few pumps n bumps here and there) but for the most part- a straight down "ski slope" from the IPO price of about $5 a share, to, today's price of sub 3 pennies.
It's never traded on the AMEX that I'm aware of. Show proof or a link please?
"Bioheart, Inc. to Present"?? Uh, it already happened. Stock tanked about 20% in a blink after big "news"?
See the date on the link posted- it says APRIL 22nd. It's now MAY just in case a calendar is not handy.
Probably should catch up to the present, IMO. That "news" and "event" already took place, as in past tense, and went over like a wet dish towel, IMO, and that of the market apparently.
Sometimes people go on vacation and stuff, but that "event" already happened in case one missed it or slept through it or anything.
Thanks. Just keeping everyone up to date- MAY 2nd.
5% drop, on about a $500 order. That's what happens when this goes "thin" on volume and the spread goes wide open.
That was about 20K shares at .0257 or whatever. About $500 bucks worth. And it dropped it from the illusion of being "up" 8% all AM, to bringing it down, in a straight line drop by about 5%.
That's on $500 worth. If someone wants to unload, say a paltry $10K worth (small by the amount of options, warrants, typical dollar holdings of a listed stock for example)- that $10K if it was a sell order, can drop this thing 20% like was seen yesterday, IMO.
It's thinning way, way out. Again, it looks like the "event", whatever it was, may be pretty much over IMO.
Now, probably a slow grind, slog back to about the 200 DMA of 2 cents or so. A "big boy" unloads or goes short- who knows where the bottom could/would be?
My 2 cent opinion. Volume is way low now though- that's for certain.
Flat lining again, volume dropped way off. It's gone 40 minutes or more w/o a trade. It's "up" 8% or whatever, again on the phony, mile-wide spread.
One $500 buy order or whatever- and they "open it up" to make it look like it's "up" a full 8%.
Typical. Same old pattern. Nothing new.
Volume is really drying up though. Any sell order of any decent size, even say $5K, IMO, sinks it big time, cause they won't get a fill on it w/o dropping the price way down. That's the typical "pattern" on this one, once it enters these "flat line" and "wide spread" periods.
The "big event" appears mostly over now, just a down trend now IMO.
" believe this is going to be a MULTIBillion dollar"?? Based on what?
Right now, it's a sub 3 cent, approx. $11 million market cap, 3 "employee" , cash poor, debt riddled, highly diluted stock "company" and nothing more that I'm aware of as "facts"?
Oh, and another "conference"? Wow? And how many of those has there been in just say, I don't know, the last 4 yrs for instance?
How did the ole, "big presentation" of the 6 month data at the "Aging blah, blah" go over this week? Sold off kinda hard, eh? Didn't see any big "investors" stepping up, based on that, long touted, long heralded, long spoken about "big news"?
What's this "tech week" gonna accomplish? Another "showcasing", wow?
Sorry, doesn't do it for me personally IMO. There's been "talks" and "conferences" and "showcasing" and "seminars" and you name it- in "PR", going back as long as one wants to look IMO. The list of "PR" about stuff like this, is pages, as in multiple pages long, that I've read. And guess what- it's at 2.5 cents today, more diluted than ever, by a huge factor, cash is nearly as low as ever per that last 10-K, and nothing "major" has changed that I can see- other than perhaps even less employees, less resources, no trial progress for a longer time on the key "big" trials- just more time and more water passed under the ole bridge.
"seminars" and "showcasings" and blah, blah- if it gets one excited, then great. It's a quantum, galactic leap IMHO, to speak the $BILLION word in the same sentence when referring to this "company"- beyond a "stretch" IMO, a long, billion mile stretch IMO.
What does it mean? Just what it says. Read it carefully:
""SUNRISE, FL--(Marketwired - Jul 2, 2013) - Bioheart, Inc. (OTCQB: BHRT) announced today the successful enrollment and randomization of the first patient in the Phase III MIRROR Trial using MyoCell® or muscle derived stem cells.
The MIRROR trial is fully funded by Bioheart and will be conducted at up to 35 centers in North and South America. The trial is designed to enroll up to 126 patients over a 12 month time period.""
Thus, IMO, that "PR" is now true, if nothing more was ever said about it or MIRROR again. ONE patient was "enrolled" (I suppose they need to be "treated" to "technically" make it 100% true- as "enrolling" means no "trial" has actually been "conducted" yet?), but when one ads in those two, very, very key, very important IMO, "little" words "up to"- it means, in pure English, engineering or similar terms, anywhere from 1 to 35 "centers" and between 1 and 126 "patients", IMO. That's all it says and nothing more. "up to", being inserted into those sentences changes their meaning in huge ways, IMO.
Those words, "up to", change the meaning entirely. They're not in there by accident IMO. Again, IMO, I'm never used to seeing science/engineering/contract specific type documents worded that way. Especially in regards to a medical trial "sample size"?
It makes the range "unbounded" essentially in a legal, mathematical, probability/stats terminology.
Define "up to" 35 centers? What does that even mean? That means 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 35? What does it mean? A "proper" way to state it IMO is, "The study will take place AT 35 centers." (PERIOD- now you know it's 35). Or if you need some "wiggle" room, "The study will take place at, from between 30 centers minimum to a total of as many as 35 centers, if maximum enrollment and maximum sampling size is used and achieved." (something to that effect). Now it's a finite, definitive, bounded description.
Else, via using "up to", it remains vague, and undefinable IMO.
When one "designs" a study- the sample size, using very specific tools, has to already be known, to make it a truly credible study. There are very, very specific probability and statistics mathematics that must be used, in order to insure that the study outcome will be of any credible accuracy or provide any outcome of any meaning. And step one, typically is determining of the "sample size". It does not come out as a number, that can be worded as "up to" typically. It has a minimum number, an absolute minimum that must be met, or the study outcome will be garbage essentially. It's way to complex to go into the sample size calculation here- it's a lot of math/probability and statistics, but I've never known of it being able to be stated in terms such as "up to". There would have to be a fixed, already determined, lower range, minimum number for the sample size. Here, read this- it's complex, but it gives the jest on determination of minimum "sample size" as being one of the most critical steps in designing a "good" and "credible" study- again, I have no idea how the wording "up to" could then be used, IMO:
http://ndt.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/5/1388.long
"In conclusion, the calculation of the sample size is one of the first and most important steps in designing a study. " (Oxford Journal)
Further, it's kinda funny/comical in a way to me, IMO, to state "one" has been "randomized" when all there is, is ONE? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense mathematically, IMO? Typically, it would take a group, a mathematical "set", a "population" of something from which to "draw from" to create "randomization" - as it means dividing many, "randomly" and placing them into at least two, separate groups (thus, with one, one can only be placed in one group- so what has "it" been "randomized" against?), via using randomization. Not sure how a "set" size containing "one" is "randomized"? Makes no sense to me, mathematically or otherwise, IMO?
Take a jar full of marbles- and it's going to be "randomized"- one picks a person, blindfolds them, then they reach in and select a marble each time, and at every "selection" it goes in one of two jars- first jar "A", next "draw" goes in jar "B", back and forth until the original jar of marbles is empty. The two, "randomly picked" jars of marbles are now separated and taken to two different places. If the original jar of marbles contains one marble, and the "random picker" reaches in and picks the one and only marble, and places it into one of two new jars- it's simply been transferred to the other jar, it's not yet been "randomized" from an original set or sample population- as there was no original "set", there was only one.
Again, there are very specific probability rule/tools used to determine the sample/population size needed typically, to get true "randomization" and also guarantee then, that the outcome will have a definable rate of error and so forth. A sample size of "one" is not "randomized" in any practice/method I'm aware of?
That's how I read it, and it was released in July of last yr, and has never been heard about again, other than one, vague, "boiler plate" statement in the last 10-K, that I'm aware of. No further mention of more "enrollments" other than "one" at what " one center" or anything else has ever been said, that anyone knows of that I'm aware of? Let alone, any addressing the vague wording, describing something of the FDA having something "on hold", but they "intend" to continue to "enroll" while the "FDA issues" are being "addressed" (paraphrasing) that PR.
That's my opinion. Couldn't be more vaguely written IMO. At best, I'd call it "poorly" written by technical or engineering or medical style writing- which should be clear, definitive and bounded. Not "open ended", IMO.
That's it. My 2 cents. Make of it whatever one wants. I think it's vague, and for all one knows at this point, especially given the "no mention" in the last 10-K, MIRROR could be going "nowhere" for all one knows- everything else is just speculation IMO.
"This could be a BILLION dollar opportunity". Yeah, then again, it's 2.5 cents away from zero in reality-ville. And it's got a market cap of about $11 million or less as of today, which is less than it's current debt obligations and cash deficits- meaning, you couldn't even liquidate and make whole on what's owed.
That's a tad shy of a billion "opportunity", IMO? No sales, very little cash, diluting shares by the dump truck full, 3 "employees" left, no sales or even an approved, major product to sell. Kinda a long ways from a billion, IMO. The $billion dollar company club is the stratosphere of business, a rarity among rarities. Sub 3 cent stocks, with "going concern" problems, highly diluted common stock, debt problems, little to no cash, no cash flow, no sales, etc- most, nearly always go BK, or disappear or whatever. They're not exactly the "breeding ground" where $billion dollar businesses come from. Those are just facts.
Sorry, not seeing the path to the $billion club, not even close IMO.
Prior post said: "PRed in last July that it would take about a year to complete the enrollment for phase 3."-
IMO, one should read "PR" VERY carefully. Read it word for word and use "logic" and other means to see what it really says, if read carefully. Here is the "PR" being referred to, in the above quoted statement from the prior person's post:
http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/bioheart-announces-phase-iii-mirror-trial-for-myocell-initiated-otcqb-bhrt-1807938.htm
Lets see what it "really" says if read in detail, and under the scrutiny of say an engineering/tech type document, a contract or similar, IMO.
"SUNRISE, FL--(Marketwired - Jul 2, 2013) - Bioheart, Inc. (OTCQB: BHRT) announced today the successful enrollment and randomization of the first patient in the Phase III MIRROR Trial using MyoCell® or muscle derived stem cells.
The MIRROR trial is fully funded by Bioheart and will be conducted at up to 35 centers in North and South America. The trial is designed to enroll up to 126 patients over a 12 month time period. The first patient has been enrolled in Mexico at the Hospital Angeles with the Regenerative Medicine Institute (RMI). This study will complement the data completed in the Phase II/III MARVEL trial on patients with congestive heart failure (CHF). Patients are randomized into either the treatment (2/3) or placebo (1/3) arm. All patients will receive delivery into the damaged areas of the heart using the MyoCath® Catheter. Data endpoints will include safety, exercise capacity, quality of life, and ejection fraction at 3 months and 6 months. Kristin Comella, Bioheart's Chief Science Officer, said, "We are hoping to achieve results similar to those from the MARVEL trial in which patients improved almost 100 meters over placebo in their exercise capacity test. We believe this therapy can address an unmet need for cardiac patients."
The FDA has placed a hold on the request for an Expanded Access protocol using MyoCell in part because the proposed expanded access study would likely interfere with the clinical development of MyoCell and/or interfere with developing market approval. Bioheart intends to continue enrollment in the MIRROR trial while hold items are addressed with the FDA. In addition, Bioheart plans to initiate part 2 of the MARVEL trial using the J&J MyoStar™ Catheter to deliver MyoCell to CHF patients."
So, what is really in those words- IMO, that "jump out" at me, in my opinion. Thinking like one who'd have to write an engineering or medical spec, or scientific document, or a binding contract for work to be done, just as some examples?
1) "The MIRROR trial is fully funded by Bioheart and will be conducted at up to 35 centers in North and South America.
"
This, IMO, is a very common technique/writing style that BHRT uses often. What does "up to 35 centers" really mean? It means, that anywhere from ONE, to as many as 35 centers "may" be utilized. Meaning, IMO, if just one site, for whatever reason (the Mexico site where apparently patient #1 was "enrolled"- if that's all it ever amounts to, then that PR is 100% true, as between one and 35 was met. Mathematically it's expressed as 1<center<35.
By contrast, one can look at a Baxter PR about a recent stem cell trial of theirs:
http://www.baxter.com/press_room/press_releases/2012/02_28_12_stem_cell_cmi.html
"The trial will enroll approximately 450 patients across 50 clinical sites in the United States, who will be randomized to one of three arms: treatment with their own autologous CD34+ stem cells".
Notice the difference. It's specific. 50 clinical sites in the United States. Not between one and 50 or "up to" 50. But 50. And one can then go to clinicaltrials.gov and view every last one of those sites, listed out.
2) "The trial is designed to enroll up to 126 patients over a 12 month time period".
Once again, there's the "magic" words "up to" 126 patients. Also "is designed to" - not "it will". Again, from an engineering/mathematics terminology, it again means, that one patient would satisfy that statement, or five or 10 or 50 or who knows? It's vague and non-specific. A more typical wording would be, "A minimum of 90 patients will be enrolled and the maximum will be 126 and it is expected that full enrollment will complete in no longer than 12 months."
If I were to submit an engineering proposal for example- and say a machine or production line, as an example, "will manufacture/handle and produce a throughput of "up to" 10,000 widgets an hour" -it's gonna get flushed in 2 seconds. The customer, or whoever is inking that contract proposal, or whoever will be accepting and doing the "buy-off" of that piece of equipment will immediately ask, "what's the minimum throughput?" One? You need to tell us some specifics, or no dice. Example, "The production line will produce a minimum of 8500 units per hour, and if ramped up to full production using the XYZ option, it will be guaranteed to produce 10,000 units an hour". Something worded like that.
Note the Baxter wording- it's "specific" in that it says "approximately 450". Approximately is a "generally accepted term" in that most can assume it's not going to mean 200 or 100 or 10. But "approximately 450" to any person with common sense, would assume perhaps 400 patients to 475 for example. A "reasonably" known quantity, "close" to 450.
"Up to" IMO, is a very, very carefully worded statement. It means almost nothing IMO. Again, it can mean literally 1 or 5 or 50 or 100? No one, IMO, reading that wording can possibly know what it means. It's not, IMO, at all a common tech/engineering/science style of writing or wording things. It is much more "generally accepted" and "expected" practice IMO, to specifically "bound" or put a "range" on numbers. The study will enroll and test, "A minimum of 100 patients to a maximum of 126 and it will be done at 45 clinical sites or at least 40 sites and as many as 50". That to me, IMO only, is how one would draft that wording.
There needs to be no update on "enrollment" of MIRROR (which of course has not been pulished), IMO, as the "one patient enrolled" update, at one site in Mexico, has met the requirements of the PR. Saying anything more- is only what they choose to disclose or say on their own terms. The "PR" as of now, is "true" as stated, IMO.
Lastly, the last portion of that PR, makes no sense to me whatsoever, IMO?
"The FDA has placed a hold on the request for an Expanded Access protocol using MyoCell in part because the proposed expanded access study would likely interfere with the clinical development of MyoCell and/or interfere with developing market approval. Bioheart intends to continue enrollment in the MIRROR trial while hold items are addressed with the FDA. In addition, Bioheart plans to initiate part 2 of the MARVEL trial using the J&J MyoStar™ Catheter to deliver MyoCell to CHF patients."?
I don't even know what that means? Again, because of very careful wording IMO.
"FDA has placed a hold on the request for an Expanded Access protocol using MyoCell in part because the proposed expanded access study would likely interfere with the clinical development "??
OK, "in part"? Well, what's the "other parts" the FDA stated? Something appears to be missing? Again, IMO, using wording like "in part" is very carefully chosen. It means something else was apparently said or stated by the FDA, but we're not saying or telling what it was or said- that's the way I'd read that, IMO.
Also, then it says because "likely" would interfere? Either it would, or would not, IMO. I'm not use to seeing the FDA, or science wording or engineering wording used as "likely". If they thought it would interfere, IMO, they'd just say so. Also, what sense does it make that "expanded access" (more data, product experience) would interfere in the "clinical" development of Myocell and then the "and/or" wording cause, I guess problems with "marketing it"? Why? It's not even close to being "marketed" yet- so why would that come into play? It, IMO, is just a jumbled statement- confusing and convoluted that really doesn't say a whole lot, at least not a lot that's clear and concise and easy to understand IMHO. I just can't read it, and "get" what it's saying?
They then insert even more vague wording IMO, using the "and/or"? What is it then- one or the other? What is "and/or" in there for?
And finally, and this is the real key one IMO, "while hold items are addressed with the FDA"??
OK, WHAT "hold items" are being addressed with the FDA? Something is "on hold" then obviously? They, IMO, carefully say they "intend to continue to "enroll" in the MIRROR trial "while" these apparent FDA "holds" or whatever are being addressed. "intends", not we will for certain? Notice, IMO, it doesn't say "move forward and conduct the MIRROR trial"- only continue to "enroll" while the FDA issues are apparently "addressed" - as if there is now specific, IMO, "linkage" between the expanded use being denied, some kind of FDA "issues" needing to be addressed and IMO, now apparently somehow tied to MIRROR. That's the way I read that, when I parse it and "try" and break it all down- it's worded in a very confusing, convoluted and "vague" manner IMHO.
When did this occur? What is "on hold" and for "how long"? They could have just written it in plain English IMO, and told shareholders exactly what is "on hold"?
They could have just printed the FDA response for all to read- it's commonly done, I've read other companies put the actual FDA response up for all to read. But that's a very troubling statement IMHO, "on hold by FDA"? What? The trial now is "on hold" per the FDA? Or only "expanded access"- they're lumped all in one, long and convoluted statement IMO, that implies to me a "linkage" that MIRROR "could" somehow be "on hold" related to "something" needing to be "addressed" with the FDA, and only "enrollment" will continue in the meantime, but not necessarily the actual "trial" beginning to be conducted and move forward. "enrollment" and actually "doing the trial" procedures, in my book, are two totally different things, IMO. Step 1 is "enrolling people". Step 2, is they undergo the actual "treatments" and research study process, IMO.
As far as everyone thought, IMO, the trial was "on hold" because of "funding". I'd never caught or seen this wording that something is "on hold" because of the "FDA" and the company is apparently "addressing the on-hold issues with the FDA"? Cause that's what that PR and that particular statement says to me?
Another "vaguely" written PR IMO. It's no wonder, IMO, that nothing more has been said about MIRROR up to this point- beyond that initial PR that "one patient has been enrolled in Mexico"- not in the last 10-K, not in PR, not anywhere that I've seen. I'm not surprised to say the least IMO.
In the most recent 10-K, Dec 31st, 2013, PAGE 2 is the only place a "search" function shows the word "MIRROR" to appear in the entire, 70 plus page document. And this is ALL it said- the word "MIRROR" appearing exactly 2 times:
"We have also initiated the MIRROR trial, which is a Phase III, double-blind placebo controlled study for centers outside the US. The SEISMIC, MYOHEART,MARVEL and MIRROR Trials have been designed to test the safety and efficacy of MyoCell in treating patients with severe, chronic damage to the heart. Upon regulatory approval of MyoCell, we intend to generate revenue in the United States from the sale of MyoCell cell-culturing services for treatment of patients by qualified physicians."
That's it- a search showed the word MIRROR appearing nowhere else in that 10-K, other than that "boiler plate" (my opinion) very vague statement (my opinion).
That's my 2 cents. I've seen this many times now, that when one parses their PR, it's often "vague" IMO, and worded very carefully to make them easily "true" or "open ended" w/o anything further ever needing to occur or progress or take place. That's my opinion, and mine only. Make of it whatever one wants.
Good luck trading, buy, sell or whatever only on your own due diligence, my thoughts are just that, mine and mine alone and only opinions as I do my own research.
WOW, those results are as good as 2.5 cents a share and a paltry (IMO), $10.5 million market cap, as of this moment, right now today. WOW !!
I checked "GOLD" and it's at $1284 an ounce, not 2.5 cents? So, not sure about the "good as GOLD" part? Kinda confusing IMO?
Lets compare some facts to those "WOW" claims too (I've added actual references to where my info comes from). Just to do some "comparing":
Wow amazing, just came across this, from most recent 10-K, PAGE 31:
"Failures or perceived failures in our clinical trials would delay and may prevent our product development and regulatory approval process, make it difficult for us to establish collaborations, negatively affect our reputation and competitive position and otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business.
Our product candidates may never be commercialized due to unacceptable side effects and increased mortality that may be associated with such product candidates.
Possible side effects of our product candidates may be serious and life-threatening. A number of participants in our clinical trials of MyoCell have experienced serious adverse events potentially attributable to MyoCell, including six patient deaths and 18 patients experiencing irregular heartbeats. A serious adverse event is generally an event that results in significant medical consequences, such as hospitalization, disability or death, and must be reported to the FDA. The occurrence of any unacceptable serious adverse events during or after preclinical and clinical testing of our product candidates could temporarily delay or negate the possibility of regulatory approval of our product candidates and adversely affect our business. Both our trials and independent trials have reported the occurrence of irregular heartbeats in treated patients, a significant risk to patient safety. We and our competitors have also, at times, suspended trials studying the effects of myoblasts, at least temporarily, to assess the risk of irregular heartbeats, and it has been reported that one of our competitors studying the effect of myoblast implantation prematurely discontinued a study because of the high incidence of irregular heartbeats. While we believe irregular heartbeats may be manageable with the use of certain prophylactic measures including an ICD, and antiarrhythmic drug therapy, these risk management techniques may not prove to sufficiently reduce the risk of unacceptable side effects.
Although our early results suggest that patients treated with MyoCell do not face materially different health risks than heart failure patients with similar levels of damage to the heart who have not been treated with MyoCell, we are still in the process of seeking to demonstrate that our product candidates do not pose unacceptable health risks. We have not yet treated a sufficient number of patients to allow us to make a determination that serious unintended consequences will not occur."
Oh, WOW, and this from the 10-K, PAGE 16:
"We hold limited patent rights in our product candidates. Our MyoCath product candidate is protected by a patent, expiring in September 2017, in which we have an irrevocable co-exclusive license. Our MyoCell product candidate is no longer protected by patents, which means that competitors will be free to sell products that incorporate the same or similar technologies that are used in MyoCell without infringing our patent rights. As a result, MyoCell, if approved for use, may be vulnerable to competition in the form of products that use the same or similar technologies. We have previously licenses certain patents and patent applications relating to our MyoCell product candidate. These licenses have all lapsed as of the date of this report"
Oh, WOW, and this, most recent 10-K, PAGE 25:
"Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Financing
We will need to secure additional financing in 2014 in order to continue to finance our operations. If we are unable to secure additional financing on acceptable terms, or at all, we may be forced to curtail or cease our operations.
As of March 24, 2014, we had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $211,632.80 and a working capital deficit of approximately $13.4 million. As such, our existing cash resources are insufficient to finance even our immediate operations. Accordingly, we will need to secure additional sources of capital to develop our business and product candidates as planned. We are seeking substantial additional financing through public and/or private financing, which may include equity and/or debt financings, research grants and through other arrangements, including collaborative arrangements. As part of such efforts, we may seek loans from certain of our executive officers, directors and/or current shareholders. We may also seek to satisfy some of our obligations to the guarantors of our loan with Seaside National Bank & Trust, or the Guarantors, through the issuance of various forms of securities or debt on negotiated terms. However, financing and/or alternative arrangements with the Guarantors may not be available when we need it, or may not be available on acceptable terms.
If we are unable to secure additional financing in the near term, we may be forced to:
• curtail or abandon our existing business plan;
• reduce our headcount;
• default on our debt obligations;
• file for bankruptcy;
• seek to sell some or all of our assets; and/or
• cease our operations.
If we are forced to take any of these steps, any investment in our common stock may be worthless."
WOW AND THIS, most recent 10-K, PAGE F-2 (their auditors)
"To the Board of Directors and
Stockholders of Bioheart, Inc.
13794 NW 4th Street, Suite 212,
Sunrise, Florida 33325
We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of Bioheart, Inc. (the “Company”) (a development stage company) as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, and the related statements of operations, stockholders’ deficit, and cash flows for each of the years then ended. The Company’s management is responsible for these financial statements. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. The company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audit included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Bioheart, Inc. (a development stage enterprise) as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the two years ended December 31, 2013.
The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements, the Company is in the development stage, and has incurred net losses of $118,180,983 since inception. In addition, as of December 31, 2013 the Company’s current liabilities exceed its current assets by $13,362,480. These conditions raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.
/s/ Fiondella, Milone and LaSaracina LLP"
WOW, people can find, and paste up all kinds of stuff.
18% to 20% loss for some poor dudes, in less than an hour, maybe a few hours. That's gotta hurt, like bad IMO.
Look at the spread now- "tightened" back up to normal range. Tells me, IMO they're done "working" it for today. My opinion- they just unloaded another big position for "someone" (typically means "insiders" and/or someone on the "finance" end IMO). Pure manipulation IMO.
No more complicated than that. This type of behavior seen today, IMO, has very little to do with the avg "retail" buyer/seller- other than the "sucker buyers" they can pull in using the wide-spread and the hype.
"Event" over for today, whatever "they" needed done appears to be over/completed, IMO. Expect more like it IMO, many more.
As stated prior, nothing new here IMO. Same old, same old. Just another day of BHRT and penny-ville in action, IMO.
And here's the dump off. (sorry, not gonna say I told ya so).
It's being "worked"- plain as day, IMO. Look at the spread- it's gone beyond crazy wide-open, IMO. Like they're looking for a buyer to pay a 10% or 15% spread to buy even a $1000 bucks worth? Very manipulated today, IMO. But again, nothing new in the slightest IMO. Same old, same old. Playing it like a Stratovarius.
Watch and learn, IMO. This, as stated previously, IMO- is "highly manipulated".
The tables of "short interest" being posted, just show it all the more IMO. It means the "big boys" are starting to load up their short positions. They'll "ratchet" IMO, short it down, walk it up like this AM, short it down more, wash, rinse, repeat.
It's how an "ASHER" type firm "does what they do" using the convertible, floorless shares they get on the "financing deals".
Again, it's been explained so many times:
Example of how the "death spiral" or "ratchet" is "worked":
http://www.stockpatrol.com/article/key/deathspiral
http://investorshub.advfn.com/~-ASHER-~-25451/
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=68247638
https://www.sec.gov/answers/convertibles.htm
Table of shorting?? And, that's supposed to mean what? WHO did the "shorting"??
All that says, is the OTCBB "network" had "short transactions" take place on it- it doesn't state by who? So what? What's the table supposed to infer? BHRT gets massively shorted- like that's a mystery? ASHER and similar are notorious for shorting companies, in which they hold "floorless" convertible shares- it's how they make more money.
https://www.sec.gov/answers/convertibles.htm
It's called a "ratchet" or death spiral among other names- it's one of the key things that's pushed this to sub 3 penny range, and even a dip to .0063 IMO.
Tell ya what- call up ANY, ANY "retail brokerage" one can name- just pick it: E-trade, Scott, TD, even "big houses" Morgan, Citi, any one you wanna pick.
Call um, and ask for "short inventory" and that you want to "short" a 3 cent stock.
Post back results please. (Hint: there will be laughter on other end of phone).
Penny stocks on the OTCBB or "pinks" don't even have "MM's" (market makers) contrary to the nonsense often stated. There are only "broker/dealers" using computer networks. So, no "house" like an E-trade or similar is holding "inventory" which is what must exist for a "short" to occur for a retail investor- as the "house", the brokerage is "loaning" one the stock.
Again, call any brokerage you want- any one. Guarantee you're not going to find a single one who will allow a short, typically on anything under $5 a share, and if they do, in rare cases on big, mega cap companies that have fallen below $5 (Citi, Nokia, for example) the short "restrictions" are going to be specifically listed and very strict. Anything at $1 or below- forget about it for a retail account, never gonna happen. Again, call anyone you want.
By contrast, just to make an ordinary "retail trade" on an OTCBB- as in just buying or selling, most "retail" houses like TD, or E-trade and similar put up numerous warnings and often restrictions to even buy and sell "penny stocks". Some don't even allow penny buying or selling, they simply don't deal in um at all, period.
Not even close. NO shorting by retail, Joe Schmoe, non "professional" , registered, investment firms with access direct, or in-house to "broker/dealers" on penny stocks. Not a chance.
"shorts in trouble"?? What "shorts"??
There is zero, no, none "retail" shorting of a 3 penny stock, usually not anything under $5 typically can get "short inventory" for a retail trader/investor.
The only people/persons who ever "short" this stock, are the ones who "finance" it, as in ASHER and similar- the very broker/dealers who's symbols often appear on the level II.
They just dumped into the "news" yesterday, that's all. They're simply not done "unloading" a position or are simply "re-pumping" it after a large dumping of a position yesterday. The vol is lower today, the spread is opened way, way up.
I said it before, and IMO, just give it time. Nothing new happening here IMO. It's not even close yet, and hasn't been going on 2 weeks now to re-touching the 50 DMA. They're just "working it" still. There's a lot of warrants that were issued, that at 3 cents, if they can keep it there, could be unloaded "in the money" at almost a 100% gain (I think the strike price was like .016 or something, on over 50 million recent warrants).
This stock is IMO, and has been, for a long, long time- highly "manipulated". My opinion- nothing new is being seen here. Same old, same old the way I see it. Give it time. At some point, a lot of shares need to be sold/unloaded for "financing" and will also, IMO be "converted" by the likes of ASHER and others- and when they hit, the selling will be huge IMO. This pattern has repeated many times on the 2, 2.5 yr and even longer chart.
My 2 cents. Patience, watch and see.
"Is there a rule that states having additional shares.."??
Not a "rule"? Like a "law" or something? No. But it's common sense and well established fact, that unless those shares being issued are "accretive" to a company's earnings per share, or are used for major sales growth for example- as in buying another already profitable or high growth company for example, then they typically harm the common shareholder, that I'm aware of and IMO.
Here is a real, real basic article on "dilution"- it may help.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/11/dangers-of-stock-dilution.asp
This section of the above article, is a good example IMO, of the BHRT situation right now, as I see it, in my opinion:
"Warnings Signs Of Dilution
Because dilution can reduce the value of an individual investment, retail investors should be aware of warnings signs that may precede a potential share dilution. Basically, any emerging capital needs or growth opportunities may precipitate share dilution.
There are many scenarios in which a firm could require an equity capital infusion; funds may simply be needed to cover expenses. In a scenario where a firm does not have the capital to service current liabilities and the firm is hindered from issuing new debt due to covenants of existing debt (read the 10-K section on Northstar and the "restrictive covenants" regarding any new debt- it's all in there. My words, not the article obviously), an equity offering of new shares may be necessary. "
100's of millions of shares on a sub 3 cent stock- not sure of very many, if ever any, historical scenarios where it ends well typically. 2 billion shares on a sub 3 cent stock- not sure of any historical scenarios where that typically, if ever turns out well, especially for the common share holders. Most sub $1 stocks are in deep financial trouble. You get to true "pennies" like say .50 cents, and they're typically in deep, deep financial trouble- nearly insolvent (going concern warnings from auditor's for example) and when you get to true, micro, micro, micro cap "pennies", like in 3 or 4 or 5 or 2 pennies or whatever- and they nearly all, as in probably 90% or more, end in BK, or being shut down, dissolved, common shareholders wiped out, etc, IMO.
That's not my opinions about "penny stocks"- that's just well researched, well established industry norms and market researched facts (academia, govt regulatory tracking agencies (SEC), investment banking firm's research, etc).
https://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/microcapstock.htm
https://www.sec.gov/answers/penny.htm
http://www.nasdaq.com/investing/lowdown-on-penny-stocks.stm
"The second reason that many investors may be attracted to penny stocks is the conception that there is more room for appreciation and more opportunity to own more stock. If a stock is at $0.10 and rises by $0.05, you will have made a 50% return. This together with the with the fact that a $1,000 investment can buy 10,000 shares convinces investors that micro cap stock are a rapid surefire way to increase profits. For some reason, people think of the upside but forget about the downside. A $0.10 stock can just as easily go down $0.05 and lose half its value. Most often, these stocks do not succeed, and there is a high probability that you will lose your entire investment.
"
That's words posted on the NASDAQ official web site- they put um up there and stated them, not me.
Make of it whatever you want. If more shares seems like a "good thing" to a person, then more power to um. Good luck investing and good trading.
"BHRT is prepared to take actions deemed needed to continue operations...."
Well, yeah. If diluting away the common shareholder is not an issue, sure thing. They've been doing it since the IPO date, over 4 yrs now. The share count, around 2010 was 20 million total shares outstanding. End of 2012 it was 190 million or so. (they blew through their allocated charter and approved an increase to about 950 million allocated, almost 1 billion shares)
As of this filing of the most recent 10-K, period ended Dec 31st, 2013, there was already about 420 million shares outstanding.
Now, as of the filing of this latest SEC form 14, only a few months after the 10-K filing, Form 14, the proxy to "allocate" (make available for use) 2 BILLION shares- it's stated there is now about 463 MILLION shares now as having already been issued. Common shares flow out (dilute), essentially non stop- and have been for a long, long time.
So, if pouring common shares out like water constitutes "take actions deemed....", then I'd be in 100% agreement with that statement, IMO.
Very true, IMO. Only problem is, the shares at some point (like sub 3 cents for example) become so more and more and more worthless, that the volume of shares needed to be issued, to even raise a pittance of cash, becomes staggering (kinda like 2 billion shares on a 3 cent stock for example). (and not even taking into account- that those providing "financing" to sub 3 penny, highly diluted, cash poor "companies", demand steep discounts on the shares they get- so they get even more shares for the cash they "finance" and they get um dirt cheap, as in 45% to 50% discount to market for example- read some recent BHRT "ASHER" finance "deals" and look at the discount given on the convertible shares, see 10-K)
What happens probably 95% plus of the time in these situations, based on well written, easily searchable research, SEC warnings, and just historic examples from the "markets", is the common shareholder, for all intents and purposes is essentially "wiped out" IMO, via the historical fact(s) of what happens via massive, common share dilution.
A 3 cent, or sub 3 cent stock/company is hardly in "good financial health", IMO and that of their own 10-K commentary and their own auditor's statements. I've listed names of companies before that typically have 2 billion or so shares outstanding- they're some of the largest, most profitable, highly performing companies in the world. And it often took 30 or 50 or 100 yrs or more of stock splits (because their share price increased so much) or secondary offerings (because their shares were so valuable and they were so profitable - that they issued shares for growth- to buy and acquire other companies that added to their earnings per share)- it often took yrs and yrs to ever reach the multi billion shares outstanding point in their existence.
Not, pouring them out for what, IMO is just "survival", month to month essentially, cash "trickling" in, and also to be used like "cash" to pay all kinds of people and bills and what not. That's not "healthy share" increasing- that's the worst kind of dilution one can experience, IMO and that of many expert commentators and those who research stocks for investment firms, academia, govt. agencies like the SEC and similar.
"We know what it says."? I'd argue one obviously does not "know what it says", based on their commentary.
Further, making a statement such as "BioHeart is in the works of obtaining financing." makes ZERO sense.
Hint: Bioheart is "obtaining financing" on a month to month, or every few months basis, and has been for several yrs now. Else, they'd be BK and lights out a long time ago.
Last yr for instance, they "obtained" enough "financing" to dilute their shares by a factor of 2X, from 190 million outstanding, to now 460 MILLION as of the Form 14 filing. That's known as "financing".
And despite all that "financing"- they ended the yr with $46K cash, total, in the bank- the price of a decent new car now days. Big whoop. And, all their key trials (phase II/III) sat dead in the water as far as anyone can tell, despite all that, highly dilutive "financing".
Maybe one needs to get a basic understanding of what the word/term "financing" means? As BHRT does and is doing "financing" on a continuous basis. When the next 10-Q comes out in a few weeks- it's gonna contain "financing" in it- as the cash balance listed in the prior 10-K, which included dilutive, ASHER "financing" (3 deals to raise a paltry $100K) it included those deals right up through Feb of 2014. That's called "financing"?
Get it? Probably not.
Spread is huge, wide open again- looks like the broker/dealer boys are "trying" to still prop it up, or just make their money on the spread.
"Up" 5% on 144K shares at .0265. That's = to like $3,800 traded. Meaning it could be maybe, qty-3 or 4 $1,000 orders, for someone(s) (a couple of orders) willing to pay the spread.
One decent sell order- say, someone wanting to unload a rather small dollar about like $10K or $20K worth, let alone say $40K or something- is what will tank it 20% in a blink like yesterday, IMO.
The thinner the vol gets, the wider the spread gets- the more it can/will trade down in rapid moves, IMO. Seen it over and over and over with this one.
It's well under the 50 DMA now, a full down trend. It's making lower highs and lower (much lower) like yesterday- when it touched .022, just a tad over the 200 DMA of .019.
I think it's headed for at least that 2 cent area, the 200 DMA, the 2 yr or so "base" range that it has gravitated toward for over 2 yrs now (despite all the "news" and "PR" and "deals" and "talks" and "summits" and "presentations" and what not).
The "big presentation" of the long awaited, highly touted, "6 month ANGEL data" did nothing for it yesterday. My speculation- they've been propping it up, someone's been unloading into that strength leading up to the "presentation" , and yesterday the real selling began to finish the "unload" of whatever position they need to get rid of. That's just speculating, but it's real coincidental IMO, the timing of when this thing unloads, versus PR and other events. It's getting in the price range now- where most of the warrants and instant-vest options and a lot of the other shares mentioned, last 10-K, would start to be "out of the money".
But of course, that leaves the "ASHER" and boys type firms and the floorless convertible shares- and they never go "out of the money". In fact, they get more valuable, and get issued more shares, the lower they can get the price to go.
But, volume is getting lighter and lighter it appears, spreads seem to be getting opened up major wide, and IMO, from watching it in the past, in down trends, that usually equals more big down days to come, big ones like yesterday- where "PR" didn't help, where they couldn't even "paint it up" with a few buys into the close.
Next up is the 10-Q. That's the "big one" IMO. More important to me than that "presentation of data" yesterday or whenever it was, whatever yesterday's big, long touted "PR news" release was about.
My 2 cents.
"I have a very good feeling about this!"?? Why?
What was cut n pasted- just sorta, kinda, left out a bit of info. A real important part of info from PAGE 51, FORM DEF 14C.
Kinda important to cut n paste the entire paragraph above a closing statement that says, "Apart from the above, there are currently no plans, arrangements, commitments or understandings for the issuance of the additional shares of Common Stock which are proposed to be authorized."
Half the page above that statement was not cut n pasted. Here is the entire page- meaning, what that closing, last line is referring to:
"INCREASE AUTHORIZED COMMON SHARES
Material Terms, Potential Risks and Principal Effects Of The Increase of Authorized Common Share
Our Board of Directors and the consenting majority stockholders have adopted and approved resolutions and an amendment to the Articles of Incorporation to effect an increase of the number of common shares of the Company that the Company may issue from nine hundred and fifty million (950,000,000) shares of common stock and twenty million (20,000,000) shares of preferred stock, both $.001 par value respectively, to two billion (2,000,000,000) shares of shares of common stock and twenty million (20,000,000) shares of preferred stock, both $.001 par value respectively. The Board of Directors and the consenting majority stockholder believes that the Increase in Authorized common shares is in the best interest of the Company and its stockholders because the increase in the number of authorized but unissued shares of Common Stock would enable the Company, without further stockholder approval, to issue shares from time to time as may be required for proper business purposes, such as providing for reserves that are often required when and if necessary to raise additional capital for ongoing operations, business and asset acquisitions, present and future employee benefit programs and other corporate purposes as we make every effort to become cash flow positive.
The increase in the authorized number of shares of Common Stock could have a number of effects on the Company's stockholders depending upon the exact nature and circumstances of any actual issuances of authorized but unissued shares. The increase could have an anti-takeover effect, in that additional shares could be issued (within the limits imposed by applicable law) in one or more transactions that could make a change in control or takeover of the Company more difficult. For example, additional shares could be issued by the Company so as to dilute the stock ownership or voting rights of persons seeking to obtain control of the Company, even if the persons seeking to obtain control of the Company offer an above-market premium that is favored by a majority of the independent shareholders. Similarly, the issuance of additional shares to certain persons allied with the Company's management could have the effect of making it more difficult to remove the Company's current management by diluting the stock ownership or voting rights of persons seeking to cause such removal. The Board is not aware of any attempt, or contemplated attempt, to acquire control of the Company, and this action is not being presented with the intent that it be utilized as a type of anti-takeover device.
Stockholders should recognize that, as a result of this proposal, they will own a fewer percentage of shares with respect to the total authorized shares of the Company, than they presently own, and will be diluted as a result of any issuances contemplated and potentially executed by the Company in the future.
Plans, arrangements, commitments or understandings for the issuance of the additional shares of Common Stock.
On November 20, 2013, we entered into an Investment Banking Agreement with Cassel Salpeter & Co. (“CSC”), who will act as exclusive third party financial advisor in connection with investment banking matters. The term of the Investment Banking Agreement shall be for a period of twenty four months unless terminated or extended in accordance with its terms. Part of these services may involve the closing of a Mezzanine Financing consisting of non-convertible subordinated debt and/or sale of equity securities. In the event a Mezzanine Financing is closed, additional securities may be issued. There are no definitive agreements at present for a Mezzanine Financing.
Apart from the above, there are currently no plans, arrangements, commitments or understandings for the issuance of the additional shares of Common Stock which are proposed to be authorized.
51"
End quotes, end of all of PAGE 51.
Thus, the last line means- that apart from the "above", that entire body of written text - the approved increase by the BOD to 2 BILLION shares, there are "currently" no plans to add anymore.
Kinda important IMO, not to use "selective" cut n pasting.
The share issue is a done deal. All that last statement says, it that no more "plans" to issue/authorize more than the 2 BILLION are "presently" planned.
When something says, "apart from above" and is the last line on a page, with a bold header titled, "INCREASE AUTHORIZED COMMON SHARES", one needs to read and cite the entire page "above", not just the selective part that "sounds good", or whatever, IMO.
All that page means and says IMO, using basis English comprehension, is that 2 BILLION shares are now authorized/approved and "at present" (date of that document) there are currently no more plans to "authorize" anymore. Of course shares are being "issued" on a near daily basis with this company- it went from 420 million as of the 10-K filing, to already 463 million as of the date of the FORM 14. By this next 10-Q, my guess is it will even be much greater than that.
" You are correct there was mortality in the study, but causality was not shown do to MyoCell. "?? Really- that was proven beyond doubt? Where has that ever been stated in any company documents?
And "All-in-all, safety was not a concern"?? Again, really? That's not what the 10-K says?
From the COMPANY'S OWN WORDS, in their legally filed, most recent SEC document the 10-K, Dec 31st, 2013, PAGE: 31
"Our product candidates may never be commercialized due to unacceptable side effects and increased mortality that may be associated with such product candidates.
Possible side effects of our product candidates may be serious and life-threatening. A number of participants in our clinical trials of MyoCell have experienced serious adverse events potentially attributable to MyoCell, including six patient deaths and 18 patients experiencing irregular heartbeats. A serious adverse event is generally an event that results in significant medical consequences, such as hospitalization, disability or death, and must be reported to the FDA. The occurrence of any unacceptable serious adverse events during or after preclinical and clinical testing of our product candidates could temporarily delay or negate the possibility of regulatory approval of our product candidates and adversely affect our business. Both our trials and independent trials have reported the occurrence of irregular heartbeats in treated patients, a significant risk to patient safety. We and our competitors have also, at times, suspended trials studying the effects of myoblasts, at least temporarily, to assess the risk of irregular heartbeats, and it has been reported that one of our competitors studying the effect of myoblast implantation prematurely discontinued a study because of the high incidence of irregular heartbeats. While we believe irregular heartbeats may be manageable with the use of certain prophylactic measures including an ICD, and antiarrhythmic drug therapy, these risk management techniques may not prove to sufficiently reduce the risk of unacceptable side effects.
Although our early results suggest that patients treated with MyoCell do not face materially different health risks than heart failure patients with similar levels of damage to the heart who have not been treated with MyoCell, we are still in the process of seeking to demonstrate that our product candidates do not pose unacceptable health risks. We have not yet treated a sufficient number of patients to allow us to make a determination that serious unintended consequences will not occur."
That's the company's own words, in their SEC doc. It is not in agreement with the "claims" made in prior statement, IMO. Not even close, IMO. I know what I believe and trust. The company didn't put that verbiage in there because they wanted to, it looks bad, IMO. If they'd "proven" any of it, as not true or relevant or a strong risk- they'd remove it the sooner the better, IMO. They put it in there IMO, because they have to, under full disclosure laws, or the down-stream consequences could be very serious, and they know it, IMO.
"The Transparency of BHRT in SEC Filings shows...? WHAT? Huh?
Transparency, i.e truth in SEC filings = "integrity of the leadership"?
Since when? As far as I know, being "transparent" on govt. regulated, legally binding, fiduciary bound documents- is called being "normal" and in compliance with "law" and anything less than that, would typically be called being "in violation of the law", IMO.
It's simply being "legal" and "in compliance" with what is expected of "leadership" and does not indicate or display any special attributes or "integrity" above and beyond what is "generally accepted" business practices, IMO. Further, a fiduciary bound and legally licensed audit firm, also puts their name and reputation on those SEC filed documents- and could put themselves, their firm, their licences, etc in jeopardy if anything less than "integrity" and "transparency" was used in preparation of any SEC filed documents, IMO.
Being anything other than 100% "transparent", truthful, full disclosure, whatever term one wants to use- can land whoever signs off on those documents (and their audit firm), in trouble with Federal law, as in SEC law. Which can include anything from fines, up to, and including prison time. So, not sure how being truthful or "transparent" on a SEC filing is anything but what is "normal" and expected of the management of any public traded company? Anything less and it's considered potentially criminal, typically, IMO.
"it appears that the Marvel Trials where suspended because of the feasibility (not feasability) of the usefulness of the therapy on the patients"?? Huh? What? Huh again?
Most recent 10-K, PAGE 2:
"We are seeking to secure sufficient funds to reinitiate enrollment in the MARVEL and REGEN trials. If we successfully secure such funds, we intend to re-engage a contract research organization, or CRO, investigators and certain suppliers to advance such trials."
Thus, according to the company's own words, in their own, most recent filed 10-K: the Marvel "trial" singular (not "trials") is suspended for lack of funding and if funded, per that statement above, would begin to "reinitiate" (which means to re-start something, that's been stopped previously)
I don't find any company statement indicating that, "Marvel Trials where suspended because of the feasability of the usefulness of the therapy on the patients that where facing the worst outcome from Severe Heart Degeneration."??
If that wording, or anything similar to it, is in the 10-K, or any BHRT SEC filed document, a document name and page number reference, or cut n paste of exact wording would be much appreciated.
"(Pending Litigation)? Dade County? Outside the IP agreements? "?? Have no idea what that sentence means, or is supposed to mean or imply or what? Anybody having an idea- would appreciate some input on it. Thanks in advance.
"A Safety Study would be productive in advancing treatment for patients outside the control groups of the Marvel Trial. Without the safety Assessment it would be like throwing money away as Marvel was already in front of the FDA. "??
Again, have zero clue what that statement is supposed to mean, or even says? Any help, further input, clarification would be much appreciated? Marvel was already "in front of the FDA"? What does that mean? "studies outside of control groups"? What does that mean?
Any help- much appreciated. Thanks again.
Wow!! .022 is day's low so far today. (not gonna say I told you so, but well....)
That is major tankage IMO. It's heading for the 200 DMA IMO, at .019 or so. The ole 2 cent, historical "base".
Market cap right now is back around a paltry $10.5 million, even less on that .022 dip- it's not even worth their current debt and/or cash deficits.
2 billion shares gonna be available real soon, can't be good, IMO. Really wanna see the outstanding share count when this 10-Q is out in a few weeks. That form 14 proxy said 463 million shares or something already- wonder if it goes way up, even more by the 10-Q filing? Gonna be interesting to say the least.
The big "trial" news today- obviously didn't hack it though- that much is clear IMO. Almost, IMO like someone's been unloading in the weeks leading up to it, like they knew. They've held it flat and slightly up for weeks now, then the PR hit, the big "presentation" and it tanks hard? Kinda makes one wonder IMO. Were they unloading a big position for someone, before letting it tank now? Or is it the "finance" people, now unloading and/or going short now that the big "PR" event is over? Hard to say- but not looking good here. No support under it at all- it's in free fall IMO.
Spread back to GRAND CANYON wide now- the sure sign the broker/dealers have it in the solid down trend, and selling pressure is high IMO. They're trying to "pump" it back a bit IMO, but looks like no one's willing to pay the "wide" spread right now, for the most part- "maybe" some $500 or $1000 "nibble" buys to "paint it".
It's in a solid down trend and people are pulling the ejection handle, probably giving up on the pump price of the past 4 weeks or so- and just gonna take the loss.
That's what I'm seeing in my opinion. When it goes down big (13% in a blink) on decent volume, and the spread opens up like now, and it's "flat lining"- look at chart (40 minutes or so, not a single trade) it's just sitting there now, then it's ripe for big drops IMO. Seen it over and over and over again with this one.
And that's despite the "big" PR day- the long awaited, highly touted, big "news" that's been mentioned probably no less than 200 times in the past month. The long awaited Angel, 5 person, Mexico, "trial", 6 months "results" at a "big presentation" and all. Well, down 13% on decent volume. Market is speaking IMO.
The ole "presentation"- like a lead balloon, eh?
Well, that appears to have gone off real good? Only down 13% on my screen- and it's on higher vol than the "closed flat" days of recent.
Guess that big, phase I ANGEL, done in Mexico, 5 "patients" total, 6 month ole "data" just didn't cut it, maybe? The market is "speaking" IMO, and it's not making much of a "hit" that I can see?
Perhaps, IMHO, it just sounds/sounded like so many other "PRs' and "results" already given, how many times now, over how many years?
Maybe, what the market was/is looking for- is why the big, ole phase II/III trial(s) (as in plural- more than one, and originally U.S. based) are never heard about again and have never gone anywhere or amounted to anything? Or the big one, the "financing" word- that just never seems to materialize?
That's my, lousy, 2 cent opinion and nothing more. "Bud" and all the rest can love it, be incredibly impressed, "it's going to the moon", gonna be at .50 cents shortly, and all the rest.
Good luck to all and happy trading of course.
"reverse stock split coming....soon?"
Who the heck knows IMHO at this point? The increase to 2 billion outstanding shares- sure came out of left field IMO. I thought the 950 million number, only increased about a yr ago was mind blowing for a then, 2 cent or so stock. 2 billion shares on a sub 3 penny- it can't mean anything good IMO.
Don't have a clue what they're doing, or where they're going IMO. It's BioHEART, and it seems now, one hears less and less about the "heart" part- and now everything else under the kitchen sink from ED (erectile dysfunction) to "orthopedic" to "eye" stuff to "animals" to "medical tourism" all over who knows where in the 2nd/3rd world, to I haven't got a clue anymore? I can't even keep track anymore of all the "stuff" they claim to be involved with using "stem cells" and all the "deals" and what not- all with 3, total employees left according to their own, recent 10-K? Makes zero sense to me anymore?
Seems that the key "heart" trials are like not even the big "focus" anymore IMO. This next 10-Q, which should be out in a few weeks, this one IMO, is thee big one. If there's not some key update info and other key info in it, then IMO, this "thing" has gone rudder-less and is just drifting, tossing anything at the wall to see if it will stick, etc.
That's my 2 cent opinion only, just mine and nothing but an opinion. Anyone else (ole bud) can love it, think it's about to explode upward, gonna trade at .50 cents "soon" or "go to the moon" (heard that one a few times recently), has "imminent BIG financing" that's supposedly "about to happen" (the ole "bridge loan, or "mezzanine" finance of recent lore), one can buy, sell, hold, trade- whatever they want - certainly don't listen to me to make decisions.
My opinion, mine only- the 10-Q is the next big, critical piece of info.
Notice- the ole "PR MACHINE" release today about the "big talk at the aging blah, blah" -whatever it said (I personally don't even need to read it, IMO), notice how much it's "helped" the share price and market reaction today? For a 3 "employee", micro, micro, micro cap company, I'd swear, IMO, they put out more "PR" on average than freaking Apple or Facebook or Microsoft for example. I'd have to count um on an average month say, but they sure put out a lot of "PR" IMO, and put out a "PR" about "something" (anything) on a schedule you can practically set your watch to, IMO.
And I think one can reach the point of "PR saturation"- it just doesn't "do it" for many anymore IMO, cause they read the same old PR "stuff" over and over and over again- then watch their shares sit at 3 cents, or now at sub 3 cents, while waiting on the "real news" like a phase III trial, that just never seems to come. That again is my opinion and mine only.
"IPO during the financial meltdown of 2008 "- the ole myth, IMO, that it was the "financial meltdown" as to why BHRT had one of the worst IPO's in modern market history. (and traded straight down essentially, from day one after the IPO, being delisted almost exactly one yr later)
"well led" companies (the "professor's" term), do what's called "pull the IPO" IMO, if the timing is not right, or the underwriting is not good. BHRT chose, their own choice to move ahead and do the IPO. It was a total bust. The company originally stated is would raise approx. between $45 and $70 million in their IPO. From a web article:
"On Feb. 19, 2008, Bioheart finally made it across the goal line in what is arguably one of the worst IPOs ever — it netted the company only $1.5 million, of which $600,000 came directly from Bioheart founder Henry Leonhardt."
http://venturebeat.com/2007/10/12/i-told-you-so-eat-your-bioheart-out/
http://venturebeat.com/2008/02/19/three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust-bioheart-makes-it-across-the-ipo-goal-line-but-with-little-to-show-for-its-struggles/
By contrast, for yr 2008 there were 43 U.S. IPOs which raised at least $50 million.
Total U.S. IPO proceeds were $28 billion, in 2008.
" 87 U.S. companies filed for IPOs (2008) but then withdrew this year" (that's typical for well-led companies IMO, they pull the IPO if the timing is not right and wait, you read of it happening all the time, even in recent yrs)
List of the majority of U.S. exchange 2008 yr IPO's and amount raised in $millions of dollars: note, it's the dollars raised listed, not the share price. As in Visa raised $17,864 million or $1.7 BILLION dollars. Cardionet, a medical company- raised $81 million (note, two raised over $1 billion) (bottom of list BHRT)
Visa $17,864
American Water Works $1,247
Intrepid Potash $960
GT Solar International $499
Colfax Corp $337
Williams Pipeline Partners $325
Western Gas Partners $309
RiskMetrics Group $245
Hatteras Financial $240
Navios Maritime Acq Corp $220
Whiting USA Trust I $217
American Capital Agency $200
Safe Bulkers $190
RHI Entertainment $189
Rackspace Hosting $187
Verso Paper $168
Pioneer Southwest Energy $156
Cascal B.V. $144
Grand Canyon Education $126
Britania Bulk Holdings $124
Energy Recovery $119
IPC The Hospitalist Company $83
CardioNet $81
ArcSight $61
China Distance Education $61
Chardan 2008 China Acq Corp $55
Real Goods Solar $55
MAKO Surgical $51
North Asia Investment Corp $50
China Mass Media Corp $48
ATA Inc $46
Heritage-Crystal Clean $21
BioHeart $5.78 (we'll add the decimal since it's so low)
Note, the majority, if not all the "successful" IPO's had what would be called "major" underwriters- the "big hitters" ,the "who's who" of Wall St firms to take a company "public"- as in Goldman, Citi, UBS, Lehman, etc. BHRT had some small time, sorta no-name IMO, underwriter named "Dawson James Securities, Inc. ", and I believe BHRT even fired/changed their "small time" underwriters several times- before limping across the IPO finish line; if you read the early PR about the "IPO", the names of the underwriters changes/changed several times.
http://www.pehub.com/2008/02/bioheart-barely-beating/
And how did it "perform" post IPO, only months later, as of Jan 2009? Well, it came in as the "anchor man", bottom of the list of worst performing, post IPOs yr 2008, and was already down 85% from the offering price, initial share sales. It's been a bust since IPO day one IMO, and all the data on research sites, IMO, says the same. Many would argue, they never should have gone public in the first place, at least not when they did- that's my opinion, and that expressed by many other writers/web sites/financial sites I have read or researched.
"How Some 2008 IPO's Fared
Friday, January 23, 2009
Courtesy of CNN Money, here's a quick list of some IPO's and how they have fared thus far. LOPE and V are the standouts, while HOO and BHRT are really struggling. V, also, has a large hedge fund presence by prominent funds, as we've noted in our hedge fund tracking series."
(list shows what price was on IPO day, then what it was on Jan 23,2009. Percentage positive as in Grand Canyon Education 57%, means it was trading UP 57% from its offering price. BHRT -85%, means it was down already 85% from the IPO price of $5.25 and was then at .79 cents)
Grand Canyon Education LOPE 57% $18.81 $12.00 20-Nov
Visa Inc. V 27% $55.73 $44.00 19-Mar
Hatteras Financial Corp HTS 7% $26.56 $24.00 25-Apr
Heritage-Crystal Clean HCCI 4% $12.01 $11.50 12-Mar
American Water Works AWK -4% $20.72 $21.50 22-Apr
IPC The Hospitalist Co. IPCM -5% $15.15 $16.00 24-Jan
Energy Recovery ERII -14% $7.34 $8.50 2-Jul
Western Gas Partners WES -15% $14.02 $16.50 8-May
RiskMetrics Group RMG -18% $14.38 $17.50 24-Jan
Pioneer Southwest Energy PSE -27% $13.90 $19.00 30-Apr
Intrepid Potash IPI -33% $21.38 $32.00 21-Apr
Fifth Street Finance FSC -48% $7.30 $14.12 11-Jun
RHI Entertainment RHIE -51% $6.87 $14.00 17-Jun
ATA Inc. ATAI -52% $4.60 $9.50 28-Jan
Safe Bunkers Inc. SB -53% $8.95 $19.00 28-May
RackSpace Hosting Inc. RAX -54% $5.81 $12.50 7-Aug
Navios Maritime Acquisition NM -60% $4.01 $10.00 25-Jun
Real Goods Solar RSOL -62% $3.77 $10.00 8-May
Pansoft Company PSOF -65% $2.45 $7.00 9-Sep
Cascal NV HOO -67% $3.93 $12.00 28-Jan
Bioheart Inc. BHRT -85% $0.79 $5.25 19-Feb
By Jan 2009, they were at .79 cents, down from the $5.25 IPO price. Pretty amazing. Remember, they were delisted from NASDAQ, about only one year after going public- another pretty amazing "accomplishment" IMO.
http://globenewswire.com/news-release/2009/02/26/393349/160467/en/Bioheart-Inc-Receives-Notice-of-Delisting-From-The-NASDAQ-Capital-Market.html
IMO, this company has had major financial problems going way, way, way back- across multiple CEO's and multiple BOD members/departures. It's nothing "new" IMHO. The data supports that opinion, I believe, going back many years, at least 5 yr if not more perhaps.
"This is critical... "- is they're nearly out of cash at any given moment, have huge debt payments to make and have a sub 3 cent stock, now down 10% on the day. Oh, and the big "trials" appear to be going nowhere essentially, but the "tweets" are really "hot" according to many. Wow.
Yeah- that's "critical" in my book and opinion. Right on.
Down 10%, and there she goes. The "break" to the big down is starting IMO. It may not stay down today- who knows. But once you start to see these large down-side breaks, when vol has been getting light, IMO it's in the solid downtrend, every time in the past.
I stated previously- when you see the vol start to really thin out, and when you see days where it "flat lines" (doesn't have a single trade for an hour or more)- my opinion, get ready.
One sell order of any, decent size, and it will break down big, if the historical norm proves out. It's thinly traded dollar wise per day, and the broker/dealers open the spread. "Grand Canyon" wide IMO, when they need to fill to the downside.
And that's not even considering if someone like an "ASHER" turns and starts to go short- which they most certainly will at some point, IMHO. It's in a full down trend now. Never once re-touched the 50 DMA in over 10 trading days now, and now is breaking down big to the low side.
Despite all the "PR" and "tweets" and "talks" and "seminars" and blah, blah, blah.
"well-led "?? I'd love to see the ole professor elucidate the definition of BHRT being "well-led" by using any, any standard, generally accepted business metrics used across all industries, business segments, from start ups, to mature companies (how many years has BHRT been around ??), and especially among public traded companies with common shareholders- even citing one, one "metric" where BHRT is/would be deemed to be "well led"??
ROI (return on investment)?
Cash on hand? ($46K close of last 10-K, added some via toxic financing, bringing total to about $211K, not even price of a small condo, in a bad neighborhood in my area)
Operating cash flow?
Profit/loss?
Approval or bringing to market a key, new product and generating rapid sales growth, leading to high bottom line profit?
Return on capital?
Book value? Book value per share?
Price to book?
Operating margin? (-2,947.13%)
Return on assets? (-1,424.72%)
Stock price appreciation?
Growth of any kind?
Return on shareholder equity, especially to common shareholders? (early investors got creamed too, as far as I’m aware also)
Bottom or top line growth?
Product innovation- they didn't even "invent" as far as I know, they "licensed" the original tech, and most of the patents/and or licenses are now expired or lapsed as far as I know (can cite 10-K pages if needed)
Expansion- as in providing employment? Have laid and/or fired off nearly entire staff of company, now 3 "employees" remaining?
Cash flow from operations? Or even cash use mgt?
Inventory turns- they have no sales essentially, scratch that one?
Productivity or return per employee?
Employee RETENTION- well, that one pretty much says a lot IMO. How bout CEO turnover, or BOD turnover-departures?
How bout Sr. Mgt turn over and/or departures, same for Sr staff such as engineers/tech people ?
Backlog, as in sustainability- well, does not apply again?
Debt and ability to pay it and cover interest? Especially as not having debt go into default? Other than massive dilution- well, we know where BHRT is on that one. One key loan already went default, Northstar was the result?
Gross margins- well N/A again for the most part?
Compliance- they got delisted from a major exchange, only about one yr after IPO, they have no FDA approved products to date?
Execution of stated businesses plan(s)- short and long term? Want the list of all past "Pr's" and claims made therein of what the "grand plan" was, and what's "come true" so far to date? It's not that hard to do using that amazing tool called Google. Can read every PR, across multiple CEO's of how FDA approval "was/is close" and "imminent financing" and "will lead to big sales" , etc going back 4 plus yrs. Not hard to do?
Execution of key business plan items ever brought to success- one phase III trial ever completed, one key, major selling product ever FDA approved, resulting in sales, growth and profits for example?
Would love to see the ole "professor" do the detailed break-down, using any "generally accepted" performance metrics and tell why, "BHRT is well led"? That, IMO would be fascinating to say the least. Of course, that'll never be printed IMHO. Just easier to toss out the name of the company and say it's "well led" w/o a single point, single sentence or paragraph, etc to "enlighten" all as to why the "theory" of being "well led" is substantiated by any actual, tangible, measurable evidence. Everyone's entitled to an "opinion"- and the way that "article" is written, it's nothing more than a pure "opinion" piece, IMO. It lays out no data, verbal written claims, written explanation, etc to back up the "claim" being posited? Thus, it's just a "statement" - and not researched, or backed by data in any way, shape or form apparently that I can see, IMO.
What's really funny IMO, is the "professor" open's his "article" with the following statement:
"I’ve seen it time and time again. A startup or early stage company with a truly innovative technology or service and ample funding begins to take off (well, BHRT never "took off", my words), ascends rapidly (BHRT never ascended rapidly IMO, my words again), then levels off (it never "leveled off" -it's traded straight down since IPO day for the most part, my words again), declines and crashes."
$5 a share or so, to sub THREE PENNIES, IMO generally meets the term/definition of "and crashes" as applied to a public traded stock and what has happened to the original investors in this company and especially any common shareholders (especially when massive dilution of shares is added in) IMO. The opening statement defines BHRT IMO, yet later it's kinda slipped in, in a one liner as being "well led" with no supporting data, not a single statement to define/back up the "claim" as to why it's supposedly "well led" etc.
The "professor" also makes the following statement - which again, is kinda funny to me- "and the founder/leader given the boot."
Um, last time I checked, I think the "founder" of BHRT was given the "boot" as CEO, and/or Chairman also, and has left the company, if I'm not mistaken?
The "professor" also mentions a start-up firm "being bought out" as if it's almost a bad thing? At least that's my read in the way he states it? Which is odd IMO, as there is an entire "start-up" model, industry, incubator concept used in Silicon Valley- who's entire purpose is to generate repeat start ups, build them rapidly to critical mass- and their sole and only goal, is to be quickly "bought out". There are some enormously successful people, enormously wealthy now also, who have done this repeat times. It's an entire, very common business "model" now- build it, to have it acquired or rapidly bought out- usually in 2 to 5 yrs max. Usually, the sooner the better. Just look at some of the names "bought out" recently- Instagram, Facebook and Google- can't even keep track of how many companies each has bought recently, I know Google alone has bought-out over 100 companies, I read averaging one a week or so since about 2010(often young start ups), Skype, Nest bought by Google, Youtube bought by Google, Tumblr bought by Yahoo, snapchat is being chased right now w/ offers- and on and on and on, and those are the big name ones, Yahoo, Google and similar- buyout a lot of sub $50 million dollar deals all the time- just "check book, petty cash" money deals. I recently read of Yahoo buying some teenager's (literally a teen) his company for like $12 million or something- noise level money to them, but he's well off now, and will "do it again" if possible.
The entire little "article" makes zero sense to me, IMO. If one makes a "claim" something is "well led",then essay writing 101 per generally accepted college/university standards, let alone making such a claim in front of say a biz leadership or finance or similar "team" of experts, says the sentences/paragraph following “the claim”, better specifically be the statements to back up the "claim"- it's essay 101, basics. If I made that "claim" in a college level course/essay- the prof. would rip it to shreds IMO, with the simple statement, "Where is your back-up statements to support your position that those companies named are "well led" and contrasted with 2 or 3 examples of why companies X, Y and Z are not "well led"? It's writing 101. Basic as it gets IMO. If I was a potential investor sitting in a room- and someone said, "Company XYZ" is "well led", therefore you should put money into it. My first question would be, "Give me specific, very specific and measurable examples of why you're making the "claim" this company is "well led"". If they can't instantly answer that, I'd be heading for the door.
It's seen on nearly every episode off Shark Tank. The company owner (the one asking for investment money) says, "We're the best, I know how to run this business, we have a great idea, this is a winner !!" And the first question back, from the self-made, centi-millionaire or billionaire investors, is always, " Oh really, give me 5 examples, quick, very specific examples/details, measurable metrics, to back up why you just made that claim that your company and you are so great ?" Many of the people (start up company owners) stumble, bumble and can't answer quickly, coherently, and concisely using well laid out facts- and it gets an instant "I'm OUT" from the investors. Every single time.
The "professor" is connected to "Florida International University" (stated at bottom of article). Someone else comes to my mind with connections to, "Florida International University"? I know who comes to mind for me- but that's just my opinion, and mine only of course. You can love the "article" if you like. It's a free country. Enjoy.
P.S. First comment at bottom of article in "comments" section:
"bio heart has been around to long too be in this story and has been a terrible investment !!!!" (guess that guy wasn't mincing any words, eh?)
Just an FYI on Youtube videos getting pulled down- it happens 1000's if not, 10,000's of times a day. Youtube has "review" staff working "flagged" videos, 24/7, 365. A simple google search will reveal 100's, 1000's of articles and videos on "how to not get your video removed" or "how come my video got removed" and all variations thereof.
It doesn't take a law firm or litigation to get a Youtube video pulled down for a violation of Google/Youtube TOS.
I watch all kinds of videos- rock and other types of bands, movies, aviation, comedy, just about anything. And videos I had "liked" or whatever, get yanked down all the time, and for all various reasons. It's common knowledge to anyone even remotely familiar with being a Youtube user on a regular basis. It's one of the biggest complaints- is that videos you "liked" or want to re-watch or whatever, just "vanish" and get yanked constantly.
Most of the time, someone just shoves um right back up again- happens 1000's of times a day. There was a great recording of Tom Cruise doing his famous (deemed bizarre and funny by most) "scientology interview" - it went massively viral. Then, the late night comedian, Craig Furgeson did his own spoof of the interview- funny as all get out and it went even more massively viral. Of course Tommy Cruise and crew step in and start getting um yanked down. As fast as one would come down, another dude would just repost it. Went on for months. Happens ALL THE TIME.
It's not a big "legal case", involving or needing a law firm of all things, to "pull" or "get a video pulled" on Youtube as you're "trying" to infer IMO. It's a simple deal to "flag" a Youtube video- and watch it vanish. Just Youtube SOP, typical, another day as usual, no big deal IMO. Doesn't take some law firm, and the board "internet lawyers" tossing out the ole "libel" and "slander" talk as usual. Same old, same old nonsense talk as always, IMO.
"On 3/9/2014 BHRT was above .06". Um, yeah, for TWO DAYS (the 8th and 9th), the following day, the 10th it was collapsing (the dump IMO) and it was as low as .03 with a high of .045. All, "supposedly" because of "one commenter"?? Wow, what a fantasy imagination, IMO. That's too funny.
AND from Sept 2013 to Feb 2014, it was at one cent. Yep, one penny. In late 2013 it actually dipped as low as 6/10th of one cent, .0063. Then from about Feb to March 3, 2014 it was 2 pennies.
It has spent a whole lot more time, at, or below 3 cents, even at 2 cents or below, than it's ever spent above it; for at least the past 2 yrs. Pull up a 2 or 3 yr chart. On a 2 yr chart, it's been on avg about 2 cents, maybe 3 as a high, and a substantial number of periods at one cent.
.35 to .40??? Any clue when the last time it was, that it saw that price? And it's more diluted by a massive amount now, and in worse financial shape now IMO- and it's "supposedly" was "going to" .35 or .40 "no hesitation"?? Based on what fantasy? Try 2011, last time it remotely saw those prices, and it didn't last very long, before resuming the long, sure, downtrend it's been in ever since.
"was clearly on its way up"? It wasn't "clearly" anything, IMO. It crashed from .08 to .03 in less than 2 trading days. That's known as a pump n dump, IMO, and most penny-ville circles, and generally accepted sources, including the SEC's own warning site on penny stock behavior(s). Not a "clearly" anything, IMO.
"momentum"? Huh? It spent a few days pumped up, then rapidly crashed, just as fast as it went up. Pull up a chart from March 3rd 2014, to today. Classic, IMO.
"The momentum was broken by ONE COMMENTER. "?? Now that is laughable, really funny stuff IMHO. And I mean laughable. Comedy laughable. It was "up" on zero news, zero material events IMO, zero anything. AND, it just "happened" that several stock chat boards and "twitter" and "facebook" and all the rest just "happen" to light up like a freaking Christmas tree- all these different boards and media/communication outlets, exactly at the same moment when it got pumped up on no material event? Yeah, just a "coincidence", right? Just like the 100 plus commenters a day now on here, since the big pump happened? Sure thing. Right. The endless nonsense noise and chatter- the "promotion campaign" now blasting this board 100 plus empty, nonsensical, vapid comments a day now, that's all a "coincidence" too, I suppose IMO? And, they start like a clock, 10 minutes before market open, and like a light switch, shut off exactly each day, exactly at market close- not to be heard from until the next trading day? Ole budfox from the movie "wall street"- him and a half dozen or more like him, never seen here prior, just appear out of the woodwork when the pump occurred and are now "working" this board, every trading day, for over 2 weeks now, after the pump collapse? Yeah, all "chance", right? Posting verbatim repeat posts, cut n pastes, day after day after day for several weeks now? "one commenter"? Really? And then, it crashed as fast as it went up on the pump, IMO. And that crash was due to a "commenter"?? Really? What an amazing "hypothesis" - if it can even be called that? Wow?
It's gonna see 2 cents or below, long before it ever sees .35 or .40 IMO. It's in a down trend now and volume is drying up big time. Despite all the hype on here, "the promotion campaign", all the "PR" and the rest of it- the volume is drying up and it's making lower highs now and lower lows. It's also flat lining a lot of days now- periods where it essentially sits, no trading for an hour or more. One major sell order from someone needing to unload, or an ASHER type going short or whatever, and it's gonna drop like a rock IMO, and I believe the historical chart will show that to be the "norm".
Also, further massive dilution isn't gonna help anything, that's for sure IMO. Only gonna get worse, the more the shares are dumped out on the market. Passing 460 million now, from the recent SEC form 14, wait till 10-Q day, and lets see what the share count is then. Is the massive dilution due to "one commenter"? Too funny, IMO.
Who is this supposed, "mystery" um "commenter" who has the power to "break the momentum" of the magic 3 penny pump um up, that was supposedly soaring to .35 or .40, all except for this "one commenter"? Wow, amazing powers this "one commenter" must have. Who?
Of course, nothing to do with the 100 other, nonsense pump and hype posts a day- nope, it's all off-set via that pesky "momentum ender" from that "one commenter". Not the 200 million shares of dilution in a yr, nope, that "one commenter" did it all. Not the NO FUNDING for trials that are not advancing, nope, it's that "one commenter". Wow, IMO. Just amazing the insight. The shear depth. Stunning. "One commenter"- not the management, not the ASHER firms and the millions, probably 10's of millions of steeply discounted shares in floorless, toxic convertible "financing" deals, or the 50 million "in the money" warrants, or the instantly-vest piles of recent options- nope, it's that ole "one commenter" who drives it all, controls it all, has the total power.
These are truly stunning revelations IMHO. Amazing beyond even what a late night, midnight to 4 AM talk show might cover. Real Area-51 kinda stuff. "one commenter". Amazing. Thanks, really. I'd have never known about the "one commenter" if not for this tremendous insight just revealed. I probably won't even waste time reading that ole 10-Q when it gets released soon- I mean, what's the point? "one commenter" is all that matters anyways, IMO, right? I mean who cares what those pesky ole SEC docs and actual reality says, right? IMO, now that the "one commenter" truth has been revealed, I just don't see any point. Wow again, IMO. Thanks, really.
"matters of libel and slander against the company. "?? What "libel and slander" against the company? Where? When? Give examples please?
You kinda left out the other parts of what they do- as in "intellectual property" and "privacy" - and look at the date of that "PR" announcing them as a "service provider" and then look on the Broward county court site, for the filing date of the suit naming Comella as a defendant. Just saying, they're pretty darn close together IMHO. Only an opinion- but the dates sure line up awfully close IMO. (PR Sept. 30, 2013) (Broward county site, filed suit, Oct 28th, 2013)
The latest 10-K just got released, they always contain a section(s) regarding disclosure of any "litigation" matters, and it says they're involved in none. So what "libel and slander" litigation and legal actions are being taken? Got any proof?
In that most recent 10-K, the name of that firm you cite- it appears nowhere in the 10-K that I can find? Not one name in that firm, not the firm- no reference to them is made in the 10-K?
Most recent 10-K, PAGE 17:
"We are not currently a party to any litigation or other adverse proceeding related to our patents, patent licenses or intellectual property rights"
Most recent 10-K, PAGE 48:
"Legal Proceedings
We are not presently engaged in any material litigation and are unaware of any threatened material litigation."
Most recent 10-K, PAGE 80:
"At present, there is no pending litigation or proceeding involving any of our directors or executive officers as to which indemnification is required or permitted and we are not aware of any threatened litigation or proceeding that may result in a claim for indemnification."
So, if this firm, " Mitrani, Rynor, Adamsky, & Toland " appear nowhere in the most recently released 10-K, and, every instance of the word search "litigation" says they are involved in "none"- then what makes this "claim" being stated as valid, IMO?
Does one ever check the legal, SEC filed documents? Or is it always just conjecture and hyperbole and made up opinions, IMHO?
"the lawsuit"- still shows "pending" though on the Broward County clerk of the court website.
https://www.clerk-17th-flcourts.org/Clerkwebsite/BCCOC2/OdysseyPA/CaseSummary.aspx?CaseID=7155410&hidSearchType=party_case&DisplayCitation=no&CaseNumber=CACE13024037&SearchType=
Seems the clerk of the court would keep that site "current" IMO, as in it lists a specific, assigned case number, a judge by name, badge ID, etc. So, if the case was still not "pending" in their system, I'd think it would have been removed, IMO.
"form DEF 14c"- it's not new. It's just the finalized version of the "pre" form, of the same filing that was posted on 4/17.
It just means they met the mailing/announcement requirement. They've set it up so insiders (Northstar, etc) control everything anyway, so it clearly states they needed, nor wanted no returned "vote" from common shareholders, regarding the proxy filing.
It was a done deal, from the day they first posted it on the 17th, IMO. Just more massive dilution to come, IMO. They must be burning through shares even faster than anticipated when they had to revise the corporate documents end of 2012, to up it from 190 million shares total allocated (they were already blowing through that number, passing 200 million shares then from dilutive financing), to then upping the allocated/available to about 950 million.
It's staggering, IMO, to think that since end of 2012, they went from 190 million authorized and used common shares, to then 950 authorized (of which they've now used already over 460 million as stated in that form 14) and that's still not enough on a sub, 3 cent stock, so they're now going for 2 billion shares? Amazing IMO. And, going back to only around 2010, they had a grand total of something like 20 million total shares outstanding. Talk about diluting away the common shareholder? And one wants to know, IMO, why it's at 3 cents or below, even going as low as .0063 (yes, 6/10ths of a penny) just a few months back?
Can't be good for the common holders IMO, gonna dilute down even farther than they already are- if that's even possible. Not much room left between 3 cents and zero.
"still be around with no income over a decade"? Well, "no income" is correct, technically.
But sorta left out the part about burning through over $118 million of OPM, "Other People's Money". So, it's not like there hasn't been a lot of coin sunk down the sub-3 cent drain IMHO. $118 million gone, is nothing to sneeze at IMO (and there's still debt and a big cash deficit too boot; see latest 10-K).
Meanwhile, despite the $118 million being sunk, the common shareholders have been diluted out to near nothing IMO, and, the insiders have set-up the vote, so the common holders have no say anyway (see latest form 14 proxy as example)- "we're sending it to you, but your vote or input is not needed, nor wanted, it's a done deal, and has already been decided" (paraphrasing) regarding the massive increase to 2 billion shares available.
"hopefully before then we have info on some financing for phase 3 though"??
"financing" for phase III has not materialized in over 4 yrs now, so why now? What would make it "imminent" now- they're down to 3 total employees reported in 10-K, and in worse financial condition than 4 yrs ago IMO, so why would "financing" for the phase III suddenly materialize now, of all times? Not seeing it, IMO?
Down 99.39% on the 5 yr chart. That's pretty impressive IMO.
That's about 7/10ths of 1% away from zero.
Yet, it's "claimed", many times over, by many commentators, on a daily basis, to be a "strong company" and "looking good", oh, and a "professor" even said recently it's "well led" and all the rest of the "stuff" I read on a daily basis? Pretty amazing- common stock being down 99% plus for the common shareholders is deemed, I guess, an overwhelming "success" of some sort? That's new to me, but what the heck do I know IMO, right?
Man, I sure wouldn't want to see a company "in trouble" and what it looks like, IMO? Wow.
Got awfully quiet? Early lunch today on the E. Coast? Campaign budget been spent or running out or something?
What happened?
Volume drying up big time IMO. It's "flat lining" now like the old days. 120K shares at one hour into the trading day.
But it hasn't traded a share essentially past the first 15 minutes or so- it's just sitting there for almost an hour now. That's the "old" pattern, when the hype has dried out, gotten old- and then it will dump hard to the down side at the first, decent sell order IMO. When it goes "flat line" like this- it's usually going down soon from past patterns, IMO.
"everything is moving forward!"??
What exactly is "moving forward"?? They started "trials"- but have some as old as 4 yrs or more, that have not "moved forward", not one iota that I'm aware of?
What exactly is "moving forward" as far as key, advanced stage, clinical trials? Details would be appreciated (from 10-K, 10-Q or similar). What's paying for these trials "moving forward", since the last 10-K, just recently released, said the "key trials" (later stage phase II/III) are essentially "stalled out" for "lack of funding"? Can give 10-K page number, exact quote if needed.