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.
What percent out of the universe of 1000's of penny stocks? I'd estimate it can easily be proven that less than 1 or 2 percent, certainly less than 5 or 10% at most, ever go from pennies to a $1 or more a share.
By contrast, I believe there is a lot of industry/SEC, stock research firms and similar data that would say the bankruptcy rate for any stock under $1 is very high, under .50 cents is extremely high and at true "pennies" as in 1 to 5 pennies say, is astronomically high- as in 90% or better probably, IMO.
Nine out of how many? At one time, there was probably more than 5000 over the counter OTCBB and "pink" sheet "over the counter traded" companies. Most ending up there because of being on the verge of bankruptcy, out of cash, no assets, unable to meet the minimum status to remain "listed" as set forth by either major exchange, many just empty shell companies with no business at all, etc.
So, to site 9 companies- what does that really mean? Lets be generous and say that the total OTCBB has declined (tighter regs, crack downs on old ways, IPO/public company decline in general) and lets say there was/is about 2000 companies at the time of the 9 cited.
That would mean that those 9 represent about 9/2000 = .0045 or about 4/10th's of one percent of the "penny world" of penny stocks. Hardly a significant data point IMO.
Further, I believe if you read that- all but one of those 9 were major players at one point who then fell on hard times- usually due to bad mgt, major poor biz decisions, etc. In other words- most, if not all of those 9 has sales well in the $100's of millions if not more at one point, were highly profitable, had significant assets like plant, property, inventory, equipment, etc.
None (perhaps one cited) came from little or no cash, and essentially no assets and a price of pennies and then became large. It was the opposite. They were large, had a lot of sales, were once profitable, had a lot of infrastructure, filed for BK or closely approached BK, then re-emerged, rebuilt their businesses and then re-emerged successful once again. 4/10ths of one percent of the "poo" of penny companies.
Statistically, just well documented by the SEC and many others- any stock that gets to true "pennies", as in 50 cents or under say, or lower- is highly likely to end in BK or total dissolving of the business. Just reality and well studied/documented. Companies end up "un-listed" and on the OTCBB or pinks for a reason. And it's not cause things are going well or that they are financially healthy. Just the reality of it.
So, not sure what the relevance of citing 9 "unusual", what most would be considered extreme "outlier" data-points, or examples is, IMHO? Don't see any connection to BHRT's situation whatsoever IMO? None.
For example- kinda left out 4.3: (further, these sections being cited, are "recommendations" and are "non-binding") they're part of a much, much bigger set of rules/regulations the FDA relies on, IMO and as far as I'm aware of. 3.1, 4.3, etc are just one, of many "recommendation" of process/procedure.
Also, If I'm not mistaken, it's the "CFR" (Code of Federal Regulations) sections that are the actual "law" as codified, passed by congress, etc. The area you cited is equivalent to FDA internal "guidelines" as far as I am aware and reference back to the relevant "CFR" actual law/regulations which are book-thick as far as I am aware. My opinion. Example:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm?FR=860.7
That's the actual "law" portion- and it's long, complicated and goes into sub, sub, sub categories, etc
4.3 Additional Factors in the Assessment of the Probable Benefits and
Risks of Devices
Uncertainty – there is never 100% certainty when determining reasonable assurance of
safety and effectiveness of a device. However, the degree of certainty of the benefits and
risks of a device is a factor we consider when making benefit-risk determinations.
Factors such as poor design or poor conduct of clinical trials, or inadequate analysis of
data, can render the outcomes of the study unreliable. Additionally, for certain device
types, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between a real effect and a placebo effect in
the absence of a trial design that is capable of blinding investigators and subjects.
Furthermore, the repeatability of the study results, the validation of the analytical
approach, and the results of other similar studies and whether the study is the first of its
kind or a standalone investigation can all influence the level of certainty. In addition, the
generalizability of the trial results to the intended treatment and user population is
important. For example, if the device requires in-depth user training or specialization, the
results of the clinical study may not be generalizable to a wider physician population.
Likewise, if the device is intended to diagnose a disease in a subpopulation, it may not be
useful in the general population. In general, it is important to consider the degree to
which a clinical trial population is representative of the intended marketing or target
population.
Characterization of the disease – the treated or diagnosed condition, its clinical
manifestation, how it affects the patients who have it, how and whether a diagnosed
condition is treated, and the condition’s natural history and progression (i.e., does it get
progressively better or worse for the patient and at what expected rate) are all important
factors that FDA considers when characterizing disease and determining benefits and
risks.
Patient tolerance for risk and perspective on benefit – if the risks are identifiable and
definable, risk tolerance will vary among patients, and this will affect individual patient
decisions as to whether the risks are acceptable15
in exchange for a probable benefit.
When making a benefit-risk determination at the time of approval or de novo
classification, FDA recognizes that patient tolerance for risk and a patient-centric
assessment of risk may reveal reasonable patients who are willing to tolerate a very high
level of risk to achieve a probable benefit, especially if that benefit results in an
improvement in quality of life. How data concerning patient risk tolerance and other
patient-centered metrics are developed will vary depending on a number of factors,
including the nature of the disease or condition and the availability of existing treatments,
as well as the risks and benefits they present. FDA encourages any sponsor that is
15
21 CFR 860.7(d)(1) states that “The valid scientific evidence used to determine the safety of a device
shall adequately demonstrate the absence of unreasonable risk of illness or injury associated with the use of
the device for its intended uses and conditions of use.”
"AMONG OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS" - sorta missed that little ole "tid bit" of KEY language? Sorta. Further, that is a citation of ONLY 3.1. There's about another 500 pages of "review process/standards" missing there?
For example- something as simple as "the magnitude of the so called "benefit" is a determining criteria. In other words, a "small" benefit may be deemed not worth it by FDA: FDA-
"The magnitude of the benefit(s) – we often assess benefit along a scale or according to specific endpoints or criteria (types of benefits), or by evaluating whether a pre-identified health threshold was achieved. The change in subjects’ condition or clinical management as measured on that scale, or as determined by
an improvement or worsening of the endpoint, is what allows us to determine the magnitude of the benefit in subjects. Variation in the magnitude of the benefit across a population may also be considered. "
A "refection" can come down to something as simple as the FDA saying, "the benefit is small to almost nothing at all, therefor there is no purpose to approve this "new" drug/procedure/device"- seen it happen many, many times.
Other examples:
:In addition to section 513(a), the criteria for establishing safety and effectiveness of a device are set forth
in 21 CFR 860.7. Subsection (b)(1) notes, “In determining the safety and effectiveness of a device … the
Commissioner and the classification panels will consider the following, among other relevant factors …The
probable benefit to health from the use of the device weighed against any probable injury or illness from
such use.” (21 CFR 860.7(b)).
To make this determination, “the agency relies upon only valid scientific evidence.” (21 CFR 860.7(c)(1)).
Valid scientific evidence is defined as “evidence from well-controlled investigations, partially controlled
studies, studies and objective trials without matched controls, well-documented case histories conducted by
qualified experts, and reports of significant human experience with a marketed device, from which it can
fairly and responsibly be concluded by qualified experts that there is reasonable assurance of the safety and
effectiveness of a device under its conditions of use.” (21 CFR 860.7(c)(2)).
A reasonable assurance of safety occurs when “it can be determined, based upon valid scientific evidence,
that the probable benefits … outweigh any probable risks,” and can be demonstrated by establishing “the
absence of unreasonable risk of illness or injury associated with the use of the device for its intended uses
and conditions of use.” (21 CFR 860.7(d)(1)).
Similarly, a reasonable assurance of effectiveness occurs when “it can be determined, based upon valid
scientific evidence … the use of the device for its intended uses … will provide clinically significant
results.” (21 CFR 860.7(e)(1)). The evidence of which is demonstrated principally through “well-controlled
investigations” (see 21 CFR 860.7(e)(2)), as defined in 21 CFR 860.7(f).
2
Section 513(a)(3)(A) of the FD&C Act."
And that's just a small, smattering of how complex that section is and how many pages and sub-references and other "statutes" and other areas of FDA regulation are involved.
"Silicon Valley is overcrowded. Venture capitalists are looking outside of the comfort zone"???
Sources, links, articles by industry people, venture capital firms- all appreciated. Again, thanks in advance. Was not aware of this "fact" and find it fascinating IMO? Interesting that nearly ever major VC firm, the who's who list of venture capital keeps an office, their main office in Silicon Valley - despite this "overcrowding"? Also, fascinating that every multy billion company of the past 10 yrs that I am aware of on a major U.S. exchange- still had major ties in one way or another to major players in "The valley" - Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram- go back a bit further and it's youtube, skype (who became a VC who's owner is now a VC investor in several more huge successes), paypal, etc
Guess they never got the memo about that "overcrowding" problem that's apparently going on?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2013/05/08/the-top-ten-in-venture-capital-today-midas/
Really never knew these amazing "facts"? Again, would love to read lots of articles, industry insider news via published writers, actual venture capitalists making these comments regarding it being "overcrowded" - would love to read all of them, if they exist of course?
"That's the determining factor. "??
Would like to see a citation/quote from an FDA or other Euro regulatory handbook, operations manual or similar that emphatically, and clearly states that the main/primary criteria and only criteria for reviewing and then approving a new drug, med device or similar is, "Do the benefits out way the risks, PERIOD".
Didn't know that's why they take minimum 6 months, to often several yrs to approve a new drug/med device cause all they are looking for, searching for is "Do the benefits out way the risk, PERIOD"? (it's outweigh by the "way"). But never knew that? That's fascinating new info IMHO. Is this a new, published policy of the FDA or similar?
Links, copies of handbook, public statements by govt. bodies as to this clear and specific policy, etc all appreciated. Thanks in advance.
I'm assuming you don't know any of the implications of that, EITHER. (EXACT wording of original post regarding "assuming")
According to the FDA and the Hippocratic Oath among other sources, I don't believe DEATH of the patient or serious complications worse than the state of the patient prior to being given "said treatment" is considered "treating" anything, IMHO. Further, there is only "research" going on, in this field as of this date, I am not aware of any approved "treatments" in existence? A "treatment" is generally an FDA or similar regulatory body, peer reviewed and widely accepted method/drug/device within the medical community. I don't know of anything in "cardiac stem cells" that meets that criteria yet?
According to the U.S. FDA, there is only one, FDA "stem cell" approved "anything" in existence to date. In fact, the FDA made a point to create a "warning" to this effect for consumers:
http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm286155.htm
"FDA has approved only one stem cell product, Hemacord, a cord blood-derived product manufactured by the New York Blood Center and used for specified indications in patients with disorders affecting the body’s blood-forming system."
"To draw celebrities ranging from Pitbull to Howard Stern, this event will be a lot bigger than typical showcase type events. "??
Huh? PROOF? Facts? Data? A "rapper" is hardly the pinnacle of a "tech investment" um "event" IMO? I don't think there's ever been a credible Silicon Valley, MAJOR venture capital "event" where anyone cared if a "rapper" was in attendance or not?
Further, all the headline says is Stern was/is "invited" - not that he's attending or not and it says he's there "to party" with said rapper. Talk about grasping at meaningless straws, IMO. What does Stern have to do with anything in high technology?
Claim it will be "a LOT bigger than typical showcase events" -as opposed to say something put on by a credible firm like UBS, Cowen, Morgan Stanley or JP or Citi or various tech/VC incubators out of silicon valley- where most, serious tech "investment" money comes from- not some place in Florida, of all states?
Thee "big" one, JP Morgan Healthcare Conference. This convention is held in San Francisco’s Union Square every January. This is the granddaddy of all biotech industry conferences, having been around for more than 30 years. All the top executives in biotech and Big Pharma are there, along with the major venture capitalists, fund managers, Wall Street analysts, and media.
"Bio" in San Diego (which has a huge, bio-tech incubator campus) is also one of the top- for example, Sir Richard Branson, a billionaire who loves investing in tech, will be there this yr, not some "rapper"
http://convention.bio.org/?gclid=CPTDx678wb0CFVKIfgodhW8AgA
Biopharm America, Boston is another biggie- every major player is there typically. Boston of course, for anyone in the know, is also a huge tech corridor area. Again, don't think they put "rappers" on their billing ever or care if Howard Stern is mentioned?
http://www.ebdgroup.com/bpa/index.php
Top names in Silicon Valley- as in the who's who of venture money would be names like Kleiner Perkins Caulfied & Byers, Sand Hill Ventures (entire books written about the fame of "Sand Hill Rd" and the companies launched from that area) and the following- perhaps the most famous names in all of VC money investing and no, not familiar with any "rappers" ever associating with them:
Accel Partners - Investors in Real Networks, UUNet, Foundry, and WalMart.com.
Andreessen Horowitz - Investors in Airbnb, Instagram and Twitter.
Benchmark Capital - Investors in eBay, AOL, Pointcast, Geoworks.
Bessemer Venture Partners - Investors in EToys, Verisign, Verio, PSINet, Flycast.
DAG Ventures - Investors in BitTorrent, Chegg, Funny or Die
Draper Fisher Jurvetson - Investors in Hotmail, I-Cube and Upside.
Canaan Partners - Investors in DoubleClick, Computron, EStamp.
CMEA Ventures - Specializes in high-technology and life sciences.
Foundation Capital -- Investors in Netflix, SimplyHired, Atheros Communications.
Greylock Partners -- Investors in Facebook, LinkedIn, Oodle and Claria.
Khosla Ventures - Led by Vinod Khosla, Sun Microsystems co-founder
Hummer Winblad - Investors in BizTravel.com, TheKnot, NetGravity.
(Vinod is a LEGEND in Venture Capitol - appears in Forbes regularly for example)
Institutional Venture Partners - Investors in Excite, Seagate, Cirrus Logic.
Interwest Partners - Investors in Cyrix, Silicon Graphics, Stratacom.
Khosla Ventures - Founded by well-known investor Vinod Khosla.
(Again, Vinod is LEGEND for his stream of VC successes)
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers - Investors in Google, Sun, Intuit and AOL. (Kleiner alread mentioned above- LEGEND IN VC WORLD)
LightSpeed Ventures - Formerly Weiss, Peck and Greer Venture Partners. Investors in Brocade Communications, Blue Nile, Adaptec, Doublelick.
Mayfield Fund - Investors in Amgen, LSI Logic, Broadvision and Silicon Graphics.
Meritech Capital Partners - Late-stage Venture Capital.
Mobius Venture Capital - Formerly known as Softbank Venture Capital.
Mohr, Davidow Ventures - Investors in Critical Path, Rambus, Brocade and Viant.
New Enterprise Associates - Investors in Macromedia, The Learning Company, Silicon Graphics.
Norwest Venture Partners
Onset Ventures
Palo Alto Venture Partners - Investors in AdForce, AvantGo, Career Builder and Esurance.
Redpoint Ventures - New firm from partners of IVP and Brentwood.
Sand Hill Capital - Offers bridge loans to high-tech firms.
Sequoia Capital - Investors in Electronic Arts, Yahoo, Cisco Systems (LEGENDS OF FAME IN VC WORLD)
Silicom Ventures - Group of angel investors
Sutter Hill Ventures
Technology Crossover Ventures
US Venture Partners
Versant Ventures - Investors in biotech and medical devices.
ANY of those are names that serious players try/need to get in front of to typically "go big" IMHO. It's the "rolodex" of not only the money world, but the "connections" world- where members for board seats come from, and CEO's are eventually found for rapidly growing firms, where top mgt skills for rapidly emerging firms is located via key "connections", etc. I don't think Howard Stern is known for any of that, but that's just my opinion. "rappers" - same.
It's the FDA, the SEC and numerous "other" regulatory bodies that "require BHRT to list those risks" and "material FACTS" (it's not imaginary or made-up "risks"), else, serious consequences can ensue.
That's my opinion. I don't believe "Dr Seuss" or "wordolgy" has anything to do with it.
" stating someone is correct just because they are a "leading expert" or have a phd,md,pe etc. "
as in, of course, being weighed against, oh, say, um, like, opinion of anonymous info on stock chat boards? Yeah, I can see that?
"I took an undergrad class". I took lots too, and many way beyond that, don't need to "google" a thing. That M.D., commenting on effects of heart scar tissue, also took a lot of "undergrad classes" and then about another 12 yrs of schooling/residency and then more specialty training to reach the title "Cardiologist" and is also the spokesperson for a major, publishing/published, peer reviewed, highly credible cardiology association. Again, I know where I'd put my chips and what info I'd rate in the "more credible" category of medical information.
But hey, that's just me and my opinions only of course. If stock boards are one's source of "medical information", and issues regarding "cardiology/heart research" it's a free country. Good luck.
Oh, found her resume/curriculum vitae too: She's ONLY published over FIVE HUNDRED times. Has been in practice as a cardiologist it appears for about 24 yrs now. Done numerous clinical and research studies, etc. Seems pretty flush to me, as opposed, to say, an M.S. in a field of chemical engineering and has never practiced medicine or obtained a board cert as a licensed Cardiologist, kinda like something like that many boast about endlessly?
Cindy L. Grines, MD, FACC, FSCAI
http://www.dmccvi.org/grines
Just happens to be, "Editor-in-chief of the Journal of Interventional Cardiology"
(must of took a few undergrad classes to get that position?)
"After completing her medical training at Ohio State University, and a cardiology fellowship at the University of Michigan, Dr. Grines spent three years as an assistant professor of medicine and director of interventional cardiology at the University of Kentucky at Lexington. She has practiced in Michigan since 1990.
Dr. Grines is widely acclaimed for her research in acute myocardial infarction and has initiated and designed the PAMI studies, which have brought primary angioplasty to the forefront as a leading reperfusion strategy revolutionizing the management of heart attack patients. Listed in the “Best Doctors in America,” Dr. Grines has earned worldwide recognition and respect as a leading interventional cardiologist and researcher, participating in numerous clinical research trials, with over 500 publications, numerous book chapters and hundreds of medical journal articles regarding cardiac catheterization, angioplasty, acute myocardial infarction, chemical intervention to break down arterial blockage, and gene therapy.
She is also editor-in-chief of the Journal of Interventional Cardiology, serves on the editorial boards of many leading national and international medical journals, and has co-edited several medical handbooks.
Dr. Grines is a member of the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and is an active participant in their scientific programs and committees.
In the medical community, she is well-known for her expertise in the fields of acute myocardial infarction, coronary reperfusion and percutaneous revascularization procedures and lectures extensively throughout the United States and abroad."
An expert in " acute myocardial infarction"- know who's "opinion" or input I'd follow. Yep. But that's just me and my opinion.
So again, they just toss all that wording/language and warnings in the 10-Q/10-K's for NO reason other than to, apparently, "fill empty space" - cause a stock chat board has debunked it all as "meaning nothing"?
Cool. Great. Makes sense IMO? Understand. Must need to just make those ole 10-K's and similar longer reads- so they just casually "toss" in a lot of this "stuff" and then make sure to report it/repeat it in every SEC 10-Q/10-K since, right up until the most recent one?
Ok, it's all clearer now IMO? Sure. Got it.
"Wait a minute. That doesn't make sense. "??
So, clinical level, M.D. and Ph.D. level researchers in Europe, and conducting industry/University level research and publishing their findings and commenting on them, and U.S. based CARDIOLOGISTS reading the data and/or commenting on these types of procedures "Don't make sense" cause someone on a stock board says/thinks so?
Wow, that's amazing. I'll send an email over to um right away and tell um they all don't know what they're doing or saying, cause it's all been invalidated via a stock board, chat discussion.
Great. That should change everything? Amazing how M.D. and Ph.D. level researchers just get it wrong so often, and all it takes is a chat board post to correct all their mistakes. Amazing IMHO.
That statement about the needle causing "scar tissue" and in effect causing potential damage/rhythm problems was made by a DOCTOR as in " Dr. Cindy Grines, a cardiologist with the Detroit Medical Center and a spokeswoman for the American College of Cardiology."
My opinion- SHE is qualified to make any statement she wants and, to have it questioned as "not making sense", on a stock chat board, is well, take it for whatever you want.
"Grines said she (a CARDIOLOGIST, M.D.) looks forward to reviewing safety data from the new trial and future trials, since needle injections can cause an increased incidence of irregular heart rhythm. The tiny scars left by the needle can divert the electrical signals of the heart."
http://www.drugs.com/news/stem-cells-may-rejuvenate-failing-hearts-study-suggests-50994.html?utm_keyword=ZootRock
"I recall reading in the published Marvel results that patients in the placebo group experienced arrhythmia as well."? Huh?
So, AGAIN, BHRT just put that pesky ole "boiler plate" (I suppose, it's what many "claim" it to be supposedly) ole "so called" language in their own SEC filed, and Sr Mgt signed documents, and used "little" words like "Our product candidates may NEVER BE COMMERCIALIZED BECAUSE" and "INCREASED MORTALITY" and "SERIOUS ADVERSE EVENT(s)" and "SIX PATIENT DEATH" and "COMPETITOR CANCELLED TRIAL IN PROGRESS for SAME REASON", blah, blah, blah. (10-K, PAGE 31)
Sure. Yep. Makes sense IMHO. Yeah. Companies always like to put wording in their 10-Q/10-K when, when you know, it's just not really needed and doesn't mean a thing. Sure? Makes perfect sense IMO? Right on? Just toss some extra words in to what, make the 10-K read a little longer, more interesting? And leave it in every 10-Q and 10-K since, since you know, according to some, it never really means anything or serves no purpose anyway? Sure. Right on.
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."
Very important key words from linked page, "May" and "Study suggests" and :
"Grines said she looks forward to reviewing safety data from the new trial and future trials, since needle injections can cause an increased incidence of irregular heart rhythm. The tiny scars left by the needle can divert the electrical signals of the heart."
That's a BIG ONE IMHO- messing with heart rhythm, up to and including, potential death of the patient cited in several studies/reports. Where has that been heard before? This is far from being settled science or even close to slam-dunk technology IMO from all the various sources/reports. Seems it's years, many years out from any FDA or Euro type approval IMO.
BHRT, latest 10-K, PAGE 31:
"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."
Seems like a common, potential problem IMO, maybe a big one? A competitor, it says, prematurely discontinued a study they felt the issue serious enough. Interesting to say the least.
Baxter, one of the MEGA med device/pharma products companies on this planet w/ a $39 BILLION market cap, over $15 BILLION a yr in sales, is over 80 yrs old as a company, is also a major player in this space. They have about 60 THOUSAND employees and $2 BILLION in "net" earnings and several hundred million in free cash flow.
http://www.baxter.com/press_room/press_releases/2012/02_28_12_stem_cell_cmi.html
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01508910?term=baxter+renew&rank=1
BAXTER PHASE III, STEM CELL HEART TRIAL - and YES, would assume it's "funded" and YES, it's registered on clinicaltrials.gov site for all to see.
BHRT has what again, 4 or 5 employees and a few hundred thousand in cash left as of the 10-K?
Kinda puts things in perspective IMHO.
Apple was PROFITABLE from DAY ONE. And then, MASSIVELY profitable after that- a cash generating machine with a hockey-stick sales chart. Further, you had Job's and Woz- two individuals that probably come along once every 100 yrs or so in any given field. Bonafide and certified geniuses- no one I know would even try to debate that as a fact.
You laugh at a guy who can and does write checks that can buy-out BHRT 20 times over on any given day? No clue who/what Silicon Valley Bank is or does? SVB Financial is the holding company for the bank - see their name by the videos? They've funded over 30,000 start-ups, some of the most successful ever created.
Too bad BHRT can't get a seat at the table with um, eh? Too bad IMHO as they "finance" bio-tech companies among other ventures. Mocking a guy in that video who sits down with, dines with, conferences with, can call on a whim and get the phone picked up and rubs elbows with the "who's who" of the most successful, largest and most profitable companies ever created and their CEO's and BOD's and other key people and advisers, while in love with a 4.5 cent penny stock? Wow? What can be said except wow IMO?
Pier 1 did not start as a "penny stock" - it was a highly successful,initially highly profitable business, already strongly established business that went to the brink of BK for various reasons of mis-mgt and bad econ times per its biz model. Those are the few exceptions of companies that ever reached "penny status" and emerged to regain their once prominence. Never the reverse that I am aware of. Not what the original statement posited. Find a company that grew from a penny stock level, then gained initial sales, then became a billion or even several hundred $million in sales.
"esteemed"?? It's at 4.5 PENNIES?? It's on the pink/OTC boards. It's at the bottom, sub 2% of all public traded companies according to "Mr Market". It's a nano-market cap and is NOT an "early stage" start-up or whatever. It's a once listed stock, NOW DE-LISTED and for many, many reasons. It RECENTLY has traded for a penny to under ONE PENNY- something most people won't even bend down to pick up off the street. "strong supportive bidding" based on FACTS? The stock is DOWN about 98% or MORE from it's IPO- a ski slope straight down essentially? What "facts" support "strong supportive" anything?
Financial REALITIES from the company's own 10-K and similar do not = "scare tactics ". The "going concern" and numerous other warnings are THEIR, BHRT's words, not any outside parties?
It's own financials and OWN 10-K DIRE WARNINGS and desperation cash raising (toxic convertibles is not conjecture- it's a WELL recognized industry standard terminology and used on the SEC's own site):
https://www.sec.gov/answers/convertibles.htm
NOTICE- the UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION uses the terms, "colloquially been called "floorless", "toxic," "death spiral," and "ratchet" convertibles." These are NOT "invented" terms?
Reality versus pumped hype IMO. Simple as that.
What's it take/like to reach even $50 MILLION in sales, let alone, ever reach the incredible stratosphere of a company with $1 BILLION in sales?
$5 to $10 a share? That would be an increase of about 110 times to 220 times in price/market cap from today? For a company that just did qty-3 (in 2014), life-line "financing" deals of $32.5K + $32.5K + $35K = $100K dollars to hopefully pay their next month or so of immediate bills?
At $5 to $10 a share, the market cap would be in the range of 420 million shares X $5 or $10 = a range of $2.1 BILLION to $4.2 BILLION dollars. Wow, and that number would be based on what?
Lets put it in a little perspective. Of over 11,000 IPOs in the last 30 years, only 440 companies have reached $1B/yr. in revenue. That's 440/11,000= .04 X 100 = 4%. Yep, 4% of ALL IPOS. The largest source of billion dollar revenue companies in the US has been specialty retail.
And I don't believe ANY of those 440 companies, that ever reached the magic $1 BILLION in revenue (to put them in the billion plus market-cap club, stratosphere of all businesses ever started or created- many in business for 100 yrs or more before reaching $1 billion in sales) was ever a penny-stock. If it can be proven different, would love to see even a single case presented. Nearly all those companies, if not all, went public at $20 or $40 or more a share, were often profitable from day one, and never traded much below their initial IPO price and were certainly never a penny stock.
A common misconception in the market is that MSFT or Walmart or Cisco or whoever was once a penny stock when people pull up their long term charts. 100% incorrect: their charts only go back so low in price, as they've had so many stock splits as their share prices continually appreciated and never down-trended or ever looked back.
Worried? BHRT is most worried about how to pay just their immediate bills and debt obligations, let alone ever making any real sales, IMHO and via what's stated in their own most recent SEC filings. Latest 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."
And NO, that is not so called, typical "boiler plate" language found in every company's 10-Q or 10-K, another fallacy. How do most penny-stocks end up? Well, statistically, BK or failure is the norm for the vast majority. A penny stock is considered anything often below $5 (SEC definition) a share and certainly under $1 a share. A market cap under $50 million isn't even considered a micro-cap, it's a nano-cap. When you get truly down into "pennies" as in 4 or 5 pennies or whatever, I'd guess (can find the research data if needed) that more than 95% end in BK and total failure. Those are just the simple facts and reality of a long history of markets and public companies IMO and based on easily found, credible research.
That's a question for buyers at .06 to .08 IMHO? Based on volume during that period, there's a whole new, BIG chunk of bag-holders here, IMO.
As stated, just give it a little time. 2 yrs chart- tells all. This is not new at all, again IMO. Pattern, same.
Is volume not tapering off sharply from .06 to .08 peak, am I wrong?
.08 to .035 then back to about .04 or so, all in about 5 trading days or less, maybe 10 days tops- is generally, probably, safely considered a form or variation of "crashing" by all standard definitions IMHO.
Pull up a two yr chart- you gotta just wait a bit longer, that's all, IMO. This is not the first time by a long shot.
Someone being underwater now close to 50% from .08, in under a few weeks or less is no joke. Lots and lots more down at least 30% or so in under a few week from the plus .06 range- hardly a solid "investment" and "looking strong" IMO? Losing 30% in a few weeks or less? That's a "good" thing? Really?
Also, don't know of a single statement made where "hoping" for one or two penny or whatever was mentioned? Reality versus hype, that's all.
Lots of pumping statements though, versus "hoping" for a penny or whatever, those statements are found by the 100's, IMHO. Easy to find.
Volume appears to be slowly, but surely drying out now, and with it, the spread is being opened up, GRAND CANYON wide by these brutal penny broker/dealers IMO.
2.5 hours into the trading day and what, about 350K shares traded? That's about 350K X .042 (say average this AM) = about $15K total dollars traded.
So assume maybe $10K of that is buying, then someone or a few people just had to pay a "up",plus 15% spread to fill maybe qty-5, $2000 dollar orders? Wow. Hardly "up" 15% when all you had traded was a grand total of $15K dollars?
Just penny-ville IMO. The broker/dealer still wants this "up" for whatever reason(s) on any buy orders, so that's what it will take to buy yourself a couple of grand worth of shares. On a listed stock- the trades are in fractions of a penny and fractions of a percent. Paying a 10% or more spread to get a fill on a few thousand bucks worth of stock- not me, no way. That's highway robbery IMHO.
Similarly- I'd put bank on it, that if you wanted to unload $10K worth right now, they'd take it down 10% or more in the other direction for your order to "fill". These broker/dealers are brutal on this one IMO.
See, they just took it down about 1.5% to fill 500 shares or so, lets say a 1000 shares to be generous. That's 1000 X .045 = $45 bucks worth, and it took a 1.5% spread to fill that $45 bucks. Wow-o-wow-o. Oh well, to each his own. Good luck trading.
All good points. I'll play devil's advocate on a key point though. By the way, agree after doing own analysis, that these warrants being "in the money" was a bit interesting- as there are like 100 million warrants out, in that warrant summary table: problem in the past is nearly all were way out of the money and I think 20 million or so already expired worthless- would have to look at table again. So it appears sort of a "new thing" this go around, that a big block of warrants was issued at such a low strike price (avg being .016 and "cash" for shares- a part I missed in my first post, when first looking at the "bridge loan" theory). So, having a pile out there this time at a pretty low strike is, agreed, perhaps a new twist. Interesting and what it means/could mean and why they gave um out at such a low strike and to who? That's the big question(s) for sure IMO.
But again, let me play the devil advocate position on statement, "My guess is that whoever holds these warrants, if exercised, would certainly work to keep the price up":
In that warrant summary table going back quite a ways, no one, none appear to have been exercised in recent, past several yrs. Meaning no one, it appears wanted to barf up cash and buy more BHRT shares. Now that could be cause their warrants never got "in the money" or "enough in the money"? But, a theory, IMO, if it's say an Asher type firm- they don't want to pay cash for shares on options, as they are already getting their shares on the "convertible" at a steep discount and usually, at some point using them to "go short" in the ole "death spiral" plays anyway.
Part 2 of "devil's advocate" would be, say they are mostly to Asher and similar- they could use those low price warrants to obtain even more shares at low cost- and then also use them in their "Short play". Since they'd be getting the shares cheap (.016 avg from table), say they exercise um and use um to buy chunks of stock here and there that they then sell ASAP, stock drops more from selling pressure, they use their convertibles getting even more shares, wash, rinse, repeat- the ole death spiral play. The warrants at such a low strike may have been demanded as the "sweetener" by the likes of an Asher- so they could use them, right along with the convertibles - use um for "quick flips" when price is high/up as stated in post, but also- theoretically use them also to the downside if/when they go on the short play. Just a theory- inkling IMO.
Who knows for sure though- as it's not even clear who's holding the bulk of them- the warrant stuff is complicated as they appear to have been handed out all over the place- to Cassel for instance getting 5 million or whatever, I think Northstar may have got some, maybe even other insiders got some- it's really hard to decipher in my opinion- I used browser search for word "warrant" and tried to read every line/word where they appeared- and was still left clueless as to "who got um and who got how many"?
Yes, if they were sold, they'd bring in "some" money to BHRT, but as you state, at the present "burn rate" it's only a few months, maybe, a quarters worth perhaps of survival level cash, again.
Don't know- it's all speculation at this point IMO. I still don't see ANY connection whatsoever to a "bridge loan" though. A bridge LOAN, key word LOAN, is just that, A DEBT LOAN. Meaning, ALWAYS done with hard collateral - typically real estate or plant and equipment, etc and a high interest rate, relatively short term to boot. Thus the term "bridge" as in a temporary fill while waiting on other things to pan out. BHRT IMO has no chance of a "loan" now as they are riddled with debt already that they're barely servicing and have no real "hard" assets with which to offer as security on a loan/debt instrument.
My 2 cent opinions.
" why Bioheart hasn't received significant funding for their trials?"
Well, one would assume that would mean "recent" trial(s): as in the past they have received substantial amounts of money- the total paid in capital since inception I believe now exceeds $100 million (would have to check 10-K, so don't take that as hard fact- but it's a lot of money, no matter what the exact number is).
Why "recently" are they struggling with "financing" and raising money? Don't really know- but one could speculate on many things? Part of the story is in their own documents, I believe, IMO. Read the section about the formation and existence of "Northstar"- it's a complex deal IMO. It was formed when a key loan (think it was the B of A loan went into default- that was as close to BK as you get, IMO).
So they create this sort of "shell" company within a public traded company who then "assumed" the loan that was in default, I assume via putting up personal collateral/guarantees (probably homes, businesses, cash, whatever- banks want hard collateral, tangible assets). For instance- read this statement from the last 10-Q:
"Our ability to obtain additional debt financing and/or alternative arrangements, with the Guarantors or otherwise, may be limited by the amount of, terms and restrictions of our then current debt. For instance, we do not anticipate repaying our Northstar loan (described below) until its scheduled maturity. Accordingly, until such time, we will generally be restricted from, among other things, incurring additional indebtedness or liens, with limited exceptions. See “We have a substantial amount of debt...” Additional debt financing, if available, may involve restrictive covenants that limit or further limit our operating and financial flexibility and prohibit us from making distributions to shareholders."
Notice- it points out that Northstar is sort of in "first position" as to who gets paid, and thus "we will generally be restricted from, among other things, incurring additional indebtedness or liens, with limited exceptions"- that IMO is a way of saying it will potentially make "getting financing" with "others" perhaps more difficult, maybe a lot more difficult?
Same 10-Q PAGE 27- again look at the wording:
"These provisions could have important consequences for us, including (i) making it more difficult for us to obtain additional debt financing from another lender, or obtain new debt financing on terms favorable to us, because such new lender will have to be willing to be subordinate to Northstar, "
Notice- "others" need to be "willing" to "be SUBORDINATE" to Northstar- THAT IMO , is a BIG ONE to a lot of "finance" people. Think of a 1st or 2nd mortgage on a house- many lenders are very specific about the need to be in "1st position" as they want to be sure to get PAID BACK FIRST if one or both loans goes into default or anything goes wrong.
Other reasons speculating: They have a lot of debt that someone getting into bed with them would have to clean up probably. Also, they have numerous, numerous "loans" and "finance deals" that go on for pages- again, very complicated and would probably need "clean up" by the standards of certain types who want to lend or "finance" people via equity stakes. Just an opinion- but finance people don't like past "messy situations" and old, long trails of "loans" and "warrants" and "convertible" shares and "whatever" they have to "inherit" or live with if they get on board as the "new guy". Know what I mean?
I'll give a simple example- the TV show Shark Tank. The people on there are the real deal, self made centi-millionaire to billionaire "investors" who essentially are doing what BHRT wants- they are putting up "private equity" to "finance" a new or start up or growing business. Not totally analogous, as BHRT is already public traded, been around a while- but from a "financing" point of view- to me very similar concepts IMO.
You watch Shark Tank- several of the episodes had some people asking for some pretty big money- say $500K to as much as $1 MILLION- a pretty good chunk of change for a venture person to put into a relatively small time operation. These businesses had to have pretty good sales (several million dollars a yr + patents and more) to be asking for that kind of money. Many of the "Sharks" were intrigued by how that person got the business that big already. Question ALWAYS comes up: 1) Do YOU the biz owner have your own money in it? 2) Do you already have "investors" and DING DING DING- when the person said "yes". Sharks immediately wanted to know- how much "equity" does the other "investor(s)" already have or debt or whatever. It was a deal killer in nearly every instance. The Shark didn't want to get mired into working with a trail of others who already had ownership rights in the biz, and especially other loans that had to be paid taking cash flow out of the future growth, etc. They just saw it as all too "messy" and said pass. That's just an example.
My opinion- you read the BHRT 10-Q or 10-K and they are "complicated" to say the least IMO. I mean- pages of old deals, loans, and financing- pages and pages. It's hard to even decipher who is still owed what and what it takes to "service" the old loan(s) and in what "position" it is to other loans, loans have been "split"- I saw a page describing a bunch of those- which I don't even know what that means. You got insiders owed money, private people appear to be owed money and then these major bank deals from days gone by owed money and then "Northstar" right there too.
Also, look at the part where they granted Northstar a "lien" on pretty darn near, as I can tell, everything BHRT owns, might own, all intellectual property, future rights, etc. THAT ONE has, IMHO, got to be a mega biggie for some "new" person to step in "behind" or else have to "buy out" or "clean up" or whatever you want to call it. Here is the wording, last 10-Q PAGE 28:
". In addition, the Company executed a security agreement granting Northstar a lien on ALL patents, patent applications, trademarks, service marks, copyrights and intellectual property rights of any nature, as well as the results of ALL clinical trials, know-how for preparing Myblasts, old and new clinical data, existing approved trials, all right and title to Myoblasts, clinical trial protocols and other property rights. In addition, the Company granted Northstar a PERPETUAL (as in FOREVER) license on products as described for resale, relicensing and commercialization outside the United States. In connection with the granted license, Northstar shall pay the Company a royalty of up to 8% on revenues generated.
In addition to the limitations imposed on our operational flexibility by the Northstar loan as described above, the Northstar loan, the Seaside National Bank loan, our obligations to the Guarantors, and any other indebtedness incurred by us could have significant additional negative consequences, including, without limitation:
•
requiring the dedication of a portion of our available cash to service our indebtedness, thereby reducing the amount of our cash available for other purposes, including funding our research and development programs and other capital expenditures;
•
increasing our vulnerability to general adverse economic and industry conditions;
•
LIMITING our ability to obtain additional financing;
•
limiting our ability to react to changes in technology or our business; and
•
placing us at a possible competitive disadvantage to less leveraged competitors."
See that "LIEN" wording- that is BIG IMO as stated. They, Northstar, appear to pretty much OWN IT ALL- "trial" results, IP property- the whole ball of wax. Meaning, IMO if BHRT went belly up tomorrow, Northstar walks away owning rights to all "trials" to all intellectual property and methods, everything in that list above.
I think IMO that is a major impediment to a "typical" finance person wanting to "step in" on a deal- a huge potential issue IMO.
That's my 2 cents as to some possible reasons. Pure speculation and only my opinions. Just some possibilities from reading the documents. Don't know for sure- only way to know would be, to be a "fly on the wall" and listen to some pro-level "financier" person reply after going of the BHRT books and records. That's the final answer- no one has said "yes" to this point recently, so there must be reasons why? Not sure.
"So BHRT paid all their expenses and still had money left over?"? What indication is there of that?
According to the 10-K they sold shares/dumped shares to the likes of Asher right up until Jan 14, Feb 10 and Feb 19 of this yr, 2014 ($32.5K +$32.5K + $35K = $100K cash via convertible (toxic) share sales). 10-K, page F-41, last page.
Cash left on the balance sheet dated 12/31/2013 was $46,227.00. ($46K) (10-K, page F-3), (the entire purpose of the "balance sheet" is to show the balance of assets versus liabilities and cash on hand, etc in a "snap shot" of that moment- there is no "hidden" sources of cash stashed away somewhere). So, if that is to be considered "money left over" so be it- $46K wouldn't even last part of a month at their spending rate. Thus, they raised cash on Jan 14 as indicated above, or would have been insolvent according to the document- IMO.
BHRT appears from several past 10-Q's and this 10-K to survive, limp along with a few months cash at any given time and needs to sell shares/do "financing" deals every month or two to keep enough survival cash coming in- or they'd be out of cash by all indicators of the balance sheet, cash position and "financing" activities shown in each 10-Q and now this 10-K, IMO. Thus their warning statement such as this 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."
It's all right there in black n white- the numbers appear pretty clear IMO. Not sure what there is not to see or understand?
Stand corrected on re-read:- the warrants are indicated as "cash"- so when/if the holder exercises them, then that 1.6 cents per share to 3 cents per share, that portion does go to BHRT who in turn would issue a share to Asher or whoever, who can then turn around and sell those shares. It of course is more dilution for each new share issued. So, stand corrected there after noting the "cash" based warrant terminology.
So, 50 million, and the table said 1.6 is the "Average" price- if all were exercised then 50,000 million more shares would be outstanding and BHRT would get 50 million x 1.6 cents = $800,000 more dollars- that's ONLY if the warrant holder chooses to exercise them and buy the shares of course and nothing guarantees all or part ever get exercised. So, it appears those warrants were still outstanding as of the 10-K issue and not exercised yet as of close of 10-K period. So yes, there could be money generated if the holder exercised the option and took a share of stock in turn, again, increasing the outstanding shares.
That would be it at that point, the warrant then vanishes, more shares are outstanding and the company received the 1.6 cents to 3 cents or so, or whatever per share- regardless of where the price was (unless of course it's less than 1.6 or 2 or 3 cents or whatever the warrant price is- then the warrant is worthless).
Still, IMO I don't see any connection to a "bridge loan" here or anything else. This is just a continuance of typical "financing" and warrant issuing (say to Cassel for example and Asher) that BHRT has been doing for a long, long time- many of the warrants expiring worthless or near expiring worthless now.
Will double check the math, and re-check that warrant table in the 10-K, but it appears they were not exercised yet. Check the math yourself- I could be wrong, but that's after giving it a 2nd look and seeing the "cash" term in there- so I don't think BHRT has received anything for those yet.
If you look at that warrant summary table, 10-K page 57, there are about 100 MILLION warrants out, however the average exercise price is like .13 to .22 cents. So a large portion of those are worthless as of now so they would never be exercised of course until the stock got well above those prices. The recent, 2013 50 million being at around 1.6 to 3 cents appear intriguing though- as those might be "in the money" enough to entice someone (an Asher) to pay up some cash, buy the stock in order to turn around and flip it, IMO. Will have to see- that could be a source of some funds to keep month to month going- but dilutive again as shares would go up by an equal amount to each one exercised. We'll see- interesting. Again- don't see any connection though to "bridge loans" or anything else though, IMO.
Of course, the warrant holder has no obligation to ever use/exercise the warrant if they don't want to or choose to- in which case no money comes in from them- which has happened quite a bit looking at that past warrant table. That's the re-do correction math IMO, my take.
Minor correction in terminology- said they would be "sellable" by now. Meaning, the warrant holder could buy the stock via the rights given by the warrant (say at 1.6 cents) and have turned around and sold into this strength. The money goes to the warrant holder- not BHRT. So not sure where the implication that "funding is coming" because, say Asher, had warrants now "in the money" (example warrant strike is 1.6 cents, stock is now at 4 cents, warrant is worth something now), the 6 month hold had passed, so they exercised them, bought the stock at 1.6 and then sold the stock for a profit?
The money transaction of "funding" on those warrants already took place- meaning BHRT got the funding from those deals (the warrants are usually given as part of the "note" debt portion to sweeten the deal for the likes of Asher or similar) BHRT then booked the cash in 2013 and most is already spent and gone per the remaining cash position on the latest 10-K, that's my opinion and interpretation of reading the 10-K. If there's a different explanation, would love to hear it.
What is a "warrant"? It's pretty straight forward:
"A stock warrant in its most basic form is simply the right to purchase shares of a stock at a certain price. Warrants are good for a fixed period and once they expire, are worthless."
In the case of the 50 million or so warrants granted/given to various people/financial lenders in 2013, per the BHRT 10-K, they got the right to buy the stock at about 1.6 cents (average given in the table of summary of warrants in the 10-K).
So, if the 6 months had passed- and say Asher wanted to use/exercise their warrants (some of them say) then they could have bought the stock in the past few weeks at 1.6 cents, turned around and sold it at say 4 or 5 cents and booked the profits. The money goes to Asher. That's about it IMO.
What else is there? What "secret" or "upcoming" so called "financing" can be inferred from this- is again a big mystery IMHO and I don't get what that would be, or how it can/would be inferred via looking at the warrants issued as part of financing and other deals done all through 2013? Again, if that's wrong- explain it in detail for everyone please. Look forward to hearing how it would "work"? Curious?
That's my take/opinion on it.
"when do you predict funding to come in"? Someone who is not an insider can "predict" when funding can "come in"? Really?
Can you explain in great detail how someone does that w/o insider trading info or a crystal ball or some other unknown means that a common shareholder or typical investor must not know about? Would love to hear how that works?
Is there a "prediction machine" one can purchase? Or an insider trader hot line to call?
Really, please elaborate for all of us- it would be very exciting and interesting to hear IMHO? Wow. Didn't know "predictions" can be made like this? How accurate do you think these "predictions" are? 10% certain? 50% certain? 90% certain? Can you give us an exact date and amount of this "funding" that is being "predicted", please?
That would be great and really a help to many IMO. Thanks.
A warrant is "born"? What kind of term is that? Warrants are granted. Read the terms- they have a 6 month wait/hold period and then a "life" before they expire, in this case about 9 or 10 yrs it appears. Many were granted clear back in early 2013 per the 10-Q.s and statements in this 10-K. By the 10-Q ending Sept 30, 2013 it said 35 million had already been granted. Do the math- 6 months from there means a great deal, or most of those 35 million are already issued and would be sellable IMO and understanding of reading the documents. Show otherwise if that's not correct?
What is not clear about that? Why would someone think this has something to do with some impending, supposed "big" finance deal? Nothing points to that whatsoever IMO. They've issued warrants like this on the same type of financing for many yrs in a row.
Look at the 2012 numbers for warrants issued: 10-K, PAGE 58
"During the year ended December 31, 2012, in connection with the sale of common stock, the Company issued an aggregate of 22,396,432 warrants to purchase the Company’s common stock at an exercise prices from $0.014 to $0.03 per shares exercisable in six months and expiring three years from issuance."
So in 2012, they did the exact same thing- less options of course, as they sold less shares for less financing and the dilution increases, means someone like Asher gets more shares upon conversion. But still, 22 MILLION warrants in 2012- and no "big" supposed "imminent" financing "deal" came of it.
Assuming some "big" finance "deal" can be supposedly "inferred" based on the warrant statement in the 10-K makes zero sense, IMO? Elaborate on this theory to back it up? What proof is there to any of this speculation, which is all it is IMHO? Also, as noted in, those warrants are NOT necessarily all "Asher" as was implicated- read the 10-K.
Late to party CHANGES TUNE?
Doesn't jive with:
"by all accounts the Company is broke. Mgt/BoD has been paying expenses for the past three years. Mgt/Insiders created NorthStar to safe guard IP of Company and to replace a loan that was causing 8-10m shares a month in dilution. recent share increase from 190m A/S to 950million a/s CEO in blogs has been hinting at JVPs etc. ANGEL study under way. Company filed to the FDA for compassionate use and that should either be approved or an update on that with in the next three weeks. Company needs $10million to complete MARVEL Phase 2 of approved Phase II/III . roughly about 150 patients in the Phase II. same ole game lots of good science, but broke. "IF" funding is secured look for a pps in a run to the mid 30's. If not then look for a massive promotion IMO and a dilutive one at that,.but none the less a possible run. BTW, nobody ever went broke from taking a profit....."
http://investorstemcell.com/forum/bioheart-inc/29401-3.htm
5-2-13
You figure it out. "Feed" can't keep the story line straight or does it change based on other "factors"?
What's also noteworthy is just how WRONG that statement above is: "Mgt/Insiders created NorthStar to safe guard IP of Company and to replace a loan that was causing 8-10m shares a month in dilution. "?? Huh? What? The LOAN WAS IN DEFAULT. That's why Northstar was "created"?
http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2010/07/26/daily1.html
The loan was being "called" as in default, as in imminent BK, IMO of course, but read the news story in the Florida journal above, or simply read the 10-K about said loan being in default. Man, talk about spin zone? It's not to "safeguard IP"? They signed over the "IP" to Northstar as collateral for taking on/assuming the loan. That's the only "interpretation" that I'm aware of, again, from reading the 10-Q/10-K and similar. Or, just make it up as we go along?
Below is NOT "ASHER" IMO? Page 51, 10-K: That statement is a summary of the entire yr common stock sales and also of warrants issued, according to the way I read it. It does not say "Asher" anywhere on it? Further, that .11 is an error/typo- in the line above it, summarizing all options over various yrs, the last line is 2013 and states, "warrants issued in connection with our private placements in 2013 to purchase an aggregate of 50,350,536 shares of our common stock at prices from $0.011 to $0.0299 per share expiring ten years from the date of issuance." (it's .011, not .11, and NOT 3 to 11 cents as stated in "analysis")
Thus the price is just over ONE PENNY to about 3 cents, being the highest- hardly a big incentive IMO. They'd be "in the money" at 2 or 3 cents on many of them, huge in the money at say 4 cents, the hold period is 6 months, which is most likely past on most back into mid 2013 (see past 10-Q's; 35 million were already granted by Sept 30, "In conjunction with the authorized issuance of common stock, the Company granted approximately 35 million common stock purchase warrants during the nine months ended September 30, 2013."
In the summary table cited below, it in fact lists the aggregate avg price as about .016 total, all 50 million warrants 2013. So, anyone getting these warrants would be able to buy at about 1.6 cents. If the stock were at 3 cents, that's double your money.
I don't see ANY connection to this being related to any supposed, upcoming "financing" deal IMO?
They sold common shares all throughout the yr via all various parties from Asher to the Greystone line and other means.
They issued warrants for the yr, totaling the 50 million or so in the statement posted. That's a yr's total as shown in the total "warrant summary" table on page F-34 of the 10-K. Average exercise price of .016 and 9.2 yrs time to expire. See table. Those warrants went to more parties than just Asher as far as I can tell?
As an example, they granted about 5 million warrants to Cassel, November 20, 2013, as part of the deal with them. "For these services, CSC will receive a one-time $25,000 fee, $5,000 monthly fees and 5,207,630 ten year common stock purchase warrants, exercisable at $.0113 a" page F-36, 10-K.
Further, Asher is hardly known as a facilitator of "bridge loans"? Asher does "convertible security" share for cash deals (often called death spiral, toxic or ratchet) financing.
https://www.sec.gov/answers/convertibles.htm
A bridge loan is just that, "a loan" and is typically collateralized with something like real estate or plant/equipment or similar. It's a debt instrument with an interest rate as far as I'm familiar with. That is NOT what Asher is known for, or typical does, or has been doing in the case of BHRT and "convertible" share for cash deals.
BHRT has made many "PR" announcement in the past of "hiring" or "engaging" firms/groups for "financing" or "legal" or "advisors" or "raising an amount of financing" or "sales" or whatever- most not heard about again later, is my experience:
http://www.bioheartinc.com/assets/press/2AdvisoryBoard.pdf
http://www.bioheartinc.com/assets/press/VitalmexTermSheetInvestmentOffer-Final.pdf
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Bioheart+Inks+Deals+with+Distributors+to+Introduce+Home+Heart+Failure...-a0215804014
http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/news/2011/04/26/bioheart-terminates-anc-bio-investment.html
" hired Boca Raton-based LifeTech Capital as its financial adviser as it seeks new sources of much-needed capital."
http://southfloridahospitalnews.com/page/Bioheart_Leads_Development_of_Cellbased_Treatment_for_Cardiovascular_Diseases/651/1/
" "We’re looking for the release of our product in Europe next year and in the United States in 2007.That focus "product" is MyoCell™"
http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1597595/bioheart_adds_key_senior_members_to_its_team/
"Matt brings solid sales leadership experience. He has beaten nearly every sales goal set for him in his career. He has a goal at Bioheart to achieve more than $20 million in sales in 2009. "
http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/news/2012/08/01/bioheart-close-to-raising-2m-to.html
There's lots more that could be listed - just google them, "deals" and "partnerships" and "investment firms" - all kinds of stuff.
Statements of some "imminent big financing" deal based on that analysis given because of warrants issued and common shares sold to raise cash in 2013, make zero sense IMHO? Not seeing it at all?
" Paying people to like and comment on the videos"? PROOF? Where? How? When? By whom?
Who cares about a freaking video, when there is an actual case filed on the Broward 17 circuit site, that's been given no comment by the company and didn't appear in the 10-K under "litigation" when it clearly names a company officer and several companies that I'm certain I've seen in previous BHRT PR and other documents?
That's what intrigues me, IMO. It's there, on a real govt site and yet not a peep or comment regarding it? Why? As if it's secret? Again, in PUBLIC traded companies, from all I'm used to, it's all about disclosure. Just say it's there, say it's pending, say who they are or are not going to retain as legal counsel, say if the company is paying for the defense or if it involves them or is strictly personal against the CSO, etc. Whatever- I don't care about videos or tweets or whatever and I don't think most others do either.
I don't freaking care about some video scan of a document? I care that there's a case I.D. assigned and all the other info on the Broward County site- which I know isn't a fake. It's a secure, govt run web site. It's natural for people following the company to now be curious what the heck it's about- since it may involve intellectual property and proprietary methods, specifically related to techniques/methods they used in something like Angel.
What the heck- people are not going to want to know? Of course they want a statement about it. That's my opinion. When Samsung and Apple got into a tangle- it's ALL public and disclosed. When some bank company officer is named in some suit at like JP or Citi or whatever- it's plastered all over the news. People on here act like this is some secret and is a crime to talk about- when the Broward site is the source of info? The court system is the people who decide this stuff is public knowledge and is to be disclosed- you can look up any case you want, in any court across this nation- it's the way our courts operate. Big deal- no "secrets" here or anything. Why are people here trying to put out veiled threats and innuendo that people knowing this case exists are somehow "in trouble" or something for even speaking about it? It's nonsense IMO- it's public information.
Just had a bunch of politicians raided by the FBI the past few days- all across the country- and EVERYTHING about the accusations, charges, courts, etc is already plastered all over every news outlet in the nation- and they've only been "accused" and had cases "filed" - probably don't even have a judge or counsel named/assigned yet. I knew a person at work who had something bad happen to a family member, in a different state- I and many others went to the court web site on that case and looked up everything about it and our local reporters have covered it and re-printed everything on that court's website about the "pending" case- hasn't even gone to court yet. It's normal for our PUBLIC and OPEN court's in this nation. So what?
"I really hope Google complies with BioHeart's subpoena requests."?
WHAT "subpoena requests"? Someone knows specifically what legal documents have been given to "Google" of all people? Really? Wow? How would anyone except an insider or the BHRT law firm possibly know that w/o inside, very specific information? Is there a page in the 10-K stating this? Someone list 10-K page number please, would like to read the details of these "Google" um "subpoenas".
Please post copies of these "subpoenas"?
Also, is the 17th circuit, Clerk of Court site fraudulent in listing the case it has posted? That is an official site of a govt. court system? It's fake? The judge assigned is not real? The case number is fake? Really? Interesting IMO?
https://www.clerk-17th-flcourts.org/Clerkwebsite/BCCOC2/OdysseyPA/CaseSummary.aspx?CaseID=7155410&hidSearchType=party_case&DisplayCitation=no&CaseNumber=CACE13024037&SearchType=
What's the case about? The link is there, why are you asking me? I clearly stated I haven't paid to get more info off the clerk's site?
https://www.clerk-17th-flcourts.org/Clerkwebsite/BCCOC2/OdysseyPA/CaseSummary.aspx?CaseID=7155410&hidSearchType=party_case&DisplayCitation=no&CaseNumber=CACE13024037&SearchType=
Call the clerk of the court or look up the plaintiff law firm and call them personally- their name is listed in plain English.
What's it about? It says on the clerk site, "Case Type: Contract and Indebtedness". You have a post on here who said, "they have read it" so ask them. How, or when they "read it" and even did that- who knows?
What's it about? I don't know? Read the information, make phone calls or send emails if you want to know? It's posted on a public, duly elected, clerk of a Florida court site, the 17th circuit of Florida and that's a simpleton fact. Others on here want to attack based on that, want to imply based on that, want to accuse based on that- but it's listed there, and that's a simpleton fact.
What else is there to know? I don't know? Figure it out? I'm not some legal source of info?
"you have an individual such as Dr. Samuel Ahn, distinguished practicing cardiologist, who keeps buying more shares in this company."?? Where, when? Prove it? It's the opposite- he's getting granted options all the time. Options are GIVEN to you, you don't "buy" them. He's also getting paid back at interest and also via share grant blocks. What "buying" of shares - prove it.
Why does someone stick around? How bout they just more than tripled their own salaries- one of them to a total compensation of nearly $1 MILLION per yr. You think a "couple of phone calls" lands that kind of coin? The other boosted to over $300K a yr- with a masters degree from an average school and under age 50. Again, you think a "couple of phone calls" generates that?
Further, cite a single post that said "scam" as you stated? Posting that they are low on cash, which is pure REALITY is not saying it's a "scam". Posting that MIRROR appears to be going nowhere and that a "blog" added nothing to a 10-K is not saying anything is a "scam"- prove otherwise using facts.
The only site I'd rely on 100% per that alleged suit, is the clerk of the court site, run and maintained by official govt. agency of the court system.
Here is the link:
https://www.clerk-17th-flcourts.org/Clerkwebsite/BCCOC2/OdysseyPA/CaseSummary.aspx?CaseID=7155410&hidSearchType=party_case&DisplayCitation=no&CaseNumber=CACE13024037&SearchType=
Broward County Case Number: CACE13024037
Case Type: Contract and Indebtedness
Incident Date: N/A Filing Date: 10/28/2013
Court Location: Central Courthouse Case Status: Pending
Magistrate ID / Name: N/A Judge ID / Name: 13 Haury, William W., Jr.
Sharon McQuillan, et al Plaintiff vs. Kristin Comella Defendant
It's listed as a 100% real suit, has a judge assigned, a case number, etc. The speculation on the video linked in the post, is that it's a scan of the initial filing probably. The Broward county clerk of court site, appears to have a service in which you can pay a fee and probably see the documents if they are on file there. I haven't paid or care to pay- I think it will update in due time. The plaintiff named attorney who is listed as retained is the real deal- you can look um up and their web site, they're a serious firm with a serious track record and are located in Florida as would be expected.
Where that will go- who knows? But, she's an officer of the company and those companies named on the Broward clerk site as plaintiffs indeed are all related to places she works/worked and also have deals, I believe in some form or another with BHRT. Certainly Stemlogix does- that was in prior PR and I believe 10-Q's, as well as, Ageless I believe.
Have to wait and see- it's civil litigation which can take a long time to move along (filed 10/28/13 is only 5 months or so). I found it interesting in the 10-K that they didn't mention anything under the litigation area? Although from that clerk site, she appears named as an individual- so maybe that's why? But usually, when you're an officer of the company- I'd think that'd fall under the 10-K or similar "litigation" section?
Who knows- that's just my opinions from reading the Broward clerk site. But that's an official, govt run site of the court- so to me, it must be legit to one degree or another. Wait and see I guess.
What's interesting too- is the verbiage above the compensation table isn't even correct as far as I can tell- which makes me wonder who edits/reads the 10-K before they put it out?
PAGE 71, 10-K above the compensation table says, "The following table sets forth, for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, the aggregate compensation awarded to, earned by or paid to our Chief Executive Officer and our two most highly compensated officers (other than the Chief Executive Officer), who were serving as executive officers as of December 31, 2013, or the Named Executive Officers."
BUT, then the table goes on to list the 2012, 2013 compensation? The verbiage above looks old- as it says 2012, 2011? Doesn't make any sense to me?
Oh well, not surprising to me. IMO I think the table and verbiage are mis-matched. Like they updated the table to show the bonuses and new base salaries given in 2013, which as far as I know is fiscal yr 2013, but the verbiage says 2011, 2012? I've found other areas in the 10-K just like this- old language carried over going back clear to the prior 10-K, lines with verbiage that seems to make no sense or reference things incorrectly, etc. It seems like a pretty important document to have errors in it. A typo of a word I can see- but mismatching the header of a table to what's in the table? Oh well- again, that's my opinion and take on that page 71 compensation table. Read it yourself- maybe I'm wrong.
Any way I slice it- it comes up BIG SALARY INCREASES and BONUSES to me- which rubs me wrong when cash is tight and we were just told that thee major trial is probably held up due to "funding". That's my take and mine only.