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.
Re prior post, I decided to skim it quickly. It strikes me as a final shot at satisfying the company's pressing needs. (1) They need some money to start the clinical trials (without which, it’s game over and lights out), and, (2) based on this and prior filings, they apparently have a group of investors and former insiders who are pressing hard for a liquidity event. After the last IPO attempt failed, they were previously going to satisfy the latter by listing the shares and letting the market set a price. Apparently that plan failed, like everything else.they've tried. So now they're doing a two-pronged attack, where they do a bare minimum IPO to raise modest funding, and they let this privileged group of investors sell their stock separately (after some accounting gyrations to create the stock). The result, if it all works out, is a stock price of 5 or 6 bucks a share on the NYSE American. The elite group of prior investors presumably doesn't sue them (I imagine that’s in writing somewhere), and they raise 4 million or so to do the clinical trials.
The problem with all of these plans is that nobody has ever heard of this company, in large part because: they do no PR; the various CEOs have done no media or public appearances; and there is no buzz, and no awareness of what they even do. For any IPO or fundraising of any kind to work, there has to be awareness of what you do. This company has done nothing to create that awareness. They seem to expect that people will suddenly buy their shares because... well, I have no idea why they would expect that. My sense is that this plan will fail like all the others, due to lack of demand for the shares. But let's hope I'm wrong. This is the bare minimum offer they can execute that keeps most pink sheet investors whole while generating anything close to the cash they need to do the clinical trials. If this fails, I have to assume that it's game over.
Even if things go right, I do not expect any significant appreciation of the share price for a while, until (1) one or both clinical trials have encouraging Phase 1/2 results, and (2) the expected sell-off from the privileged investors is absorbed by the market. Good luck with the latter – I expect the SP to plunge initially, with a possible quick exile to the OTC markets. More specifically, it doesn’t say this specifically, but I suspect that Dr. Z will suddenly have a couple million fungible shares. And if you don’t think that dude will be cashing out ASAP, I have a bridge to sell you. If he can sell a couple million shares for a buck each, I imagine he would do that. But who knows -- this is speculation.
The only hope for longer-term, legacy investors (like me) is that the IPO actually succeeds and the clinical trials go exceptionally well. Given the very, very small float, any tailwind like this could, and probably would, send the share price to $20 or more based on pure speculation. My advice is to hope the IPO happens, prepare to ride out the inevitable sell-off from former insiders and their girlfriends and nieces, and hope that at least one of the two trials goes well. We will all make money if that happens, possibly a lot of money. But a lot has to go right. Honestly, I think the science end of it is a decent bet, as I think their underlying product proposition is solid and compelling. Whether they can convince the investment community to supply the capital to prove it is a much more tenuous proposition, particularly given their abysmal communication strategy (or total lack thereof).
https://www.sec.gov/edgar/browse/?CIK=793171 Honestly, I don't have the time or inclination to read it. Wake me up when it's over.
@pcarew... Thanks for the info. Still at $0 in my Schwab account. There was an SEC filing this week that does suggest to me that something is happening. But I will believe it when I see it.
The quarterly report is out. It says the usual pile of nothingness wrapped in the the standard gobbledygook of warrants and convertible this or that. They still claim to be planning to start two clinical trials, but they have been saying this for a number of years now, so it doesn't mean anything. The only "news" of note is the sales of AlloRx for offshore treatments is picking up significantly, as demand for stem cell therapy picks up. If you missed it, an NFL quarterback (Kirk Cousins) was treated recently with AlloRx. So, who knows , maybe that business will grow and keep them afloat. "For whom and for what" is separate question, as the company seems on a 100-year path to nowhere, as though stockholders have the lifespans of biblical patriarchs.
@grandslam... There's nothing to talk about. Speculating about a company that says nothing to its shareholders and seems to do nothing but execute quarterly financing agreements to stay afloat is exhausting and, ultimately, pointless. I've never seen anything like this. Complete silence from a CEO??? The guy has never said a word, never addressed the shareholders. The clinical trials??? What clinical trials? They never started, as far as anyone knows. What does this company even do? Is it a front for something? Some sort of weird tax write-off? Why are they bothering to pay people? Is there any plan? Any strategy? Nobody knows. And I'm tried of thinking about it. It would be nice to recover my investment someday, but at this point I don't see how that could be possible. As I've said recently, this company should rename itself Seinfeld, Inc. -- because, as far as anyone can tell, it's about nothing. It's certainly not about shareholder value, which remains at... let me check... right... zero.
Aaaannnd... It's May. The crickets are getting very monotonous.
It seems like Furman's vision was to spin off the offshore stuff to Zamora and kill the nutraceutical boondoggle, focusing on becoming a legit biotech with real clinical trials (of course, we'll never know, since Furman might as well be a projection on a wall). Unfortunately, it appears that all he has done is create an unsustainable burn rate that funds accountants, with zero progress toward the only thing that matters in this strategy -- namely, doing the clinical trials. They seem to have no interest at all in explaining to shareholders what the hold-up on those is. Nor will they admit that they literally have zero chance of a valuation that would support a listing on a major exchange until they at least start them, rendering moot all the talk about creative ways to kickstart a NASDAQ listing. It's like 2+2 is supposed to equal 5 or something, and the world is supposed to accept that. None of this makes any sense. They've had a candidate cell therapy ready for testing for something like five years. It just doesn't add up.
Aaaannnnd... February is now April. Crickets. They should rename this company "Seinfeld Biopharma" -- a company about nothing.
Yes... LOL. A couple months ago it seemed evident that former insiders & investors were exerting some pressure to resume trading. But nothing ever seems to happen, other than occasional SEC filings that state some objective -- which then falls into the black hole that is their communications. Continued deafening silence from the CEO, and no updates on the only thing that really matters, which is if and when the clinical trials will ever start. So who knows. Are they just going to burn through another $3 million in darkness and silence, announcing nothing and filing required SEC documents? March will turn into April, which will become May and then June. And we'll be sitting in front of our computers asking the same questions. I suppose if those insiders and investors decide to blow it all up with lawyers, that could make a difference (though it would be the end of the road for most of us). It's not clear that the company has any intention to do anything real, unless forced to do so. They might not like to read that, but what do they expect when they don't communicate, outside of required boilerplate filings?
Yeah, it is crazy. You know, sometimes you just have to believe your lyin' eyes. When they announced the IPO at $17 million, I set up a spreadsheet with different scenarios, and tried mightily to figure out how they could make it work, considering listing requirements of a major exchange and the equity positions of Musick and Zamora. Ultimately, I just didn't see how the major investors needed for an IPO could stomach it, unless those two somehow sold into the IPO to reduce their control (which ultimately would have severely diluted legacy investors like us). But that was never going to happen. I think it might have worked if it was just Musick owing a plurality, as he is a scientist and this is his life's work. But the Zamora thing was clearly too much for rational investors to bear. I have no idea how the company allowed that to happen. All we really know is that the Furman regime took action, and subsequently stripped Zamora of direct control over his shares. I suspect they realized that they were never going to be taken seriously if they didn't do something. It's still not ideal. But anyway, yeah, one would hope the $3 million is enough for them to generate some results and establish some credibility.
@grandslam... It can be very confusing, and I don't have the time to detangle it all. It is important to distinguish "what we care about" -- by which I mean "total number of existing shares + total number of potential shares via options, notes and warrants" -- from the share counts discussed early in the latest filing. The latter is dealing specifically with shares that will be eligible for public trading if/when they go live on the NASDAQ. I'm not particularly concerned with that. Roughly speaking, I think what they are getting at is that most/all of the Musick and Zamora shares are not part of this, but a number of shares are being created via options, notes and warrants.
But, again, I'm not really concerned about, say, the daughter of a former CFO suddenly being able to trade 3,000 shares. I'm concerned about the total share count today and the total share count that will exist if all those options and warrants become shares. The share count is 4,430,535. As best I can tell without going crazy there are 1,681,077 additional shares that could be created. That number could be (probably is) wrong in certain respects, but I think it's a decent general gauge, insofar as 1.1 million of the 1.6 million are just stock options.
Bottom line: I think there are roughly 6,000,000 shares (4.4 million + 1.6 million) either in existence now or that will likely exist if the company survives. Of these, roughly 2 million will be tradeable on the NASDAQ, if and when the listing ever happens. Which reflects the fact that Musick and Zamore own two thirds of the company (which I think, more than anything, is why the IPO likely failed).
@grandslam... If I'm reading it correctly, there will be roughly another million shares added to the total from exercise of warrants, or shares issuable under prior agreements. Of the 2,179,344 shares in the filing, 1,224,183 shares already exist, leaving 955,161 in the "to be created" category. But it is very difficult to figure all that out in a 10 minute read, particularly in light of information later in the document where they delineate all of the various outstanding warrants and their respective exercise prices. I don't have the time -- or, frankly, the interest or expertise -- to figure all that out. All that really matters is that a return to trading is looking very likely in the next few months, if the NASDAQ approves their plan and a market develops. As I've said, I think the fate of the share price will then depend heavily on their moving forward with the clinical trials this year, as advertised. If bona fide trials are underway, there should be enough speculative interest to maintain a market for the shares for a while.
They files another S-1 with the SEC that seems to formalize their previously announced plans to enter the NASDAQ without an IPO, with pricing determined by the market -- all seemingly in response to a demand for liquidity by various influential shareholders. The only real "news" here, based a quick skim, is they are setting the baseline share price at $15, until trading commences and the market speaks. At $15/share, most investors from the penny stock days would likely see a gain of 200% - 500%, depending on when you bought. Which would be nice, if it held up. But I don't expect that to hold up initially, as I don't know where the demand will be coming from, given their apparent determination to remain utterly unknown in the marketplace. But you never know. They keep doubling down on the clinical trials starting this year. Should positive early results, or rumors of same, emerge, that could provide a tailwind later this year. But I will believe all of this when I see it.
@grandslam... It's discussed in some detail under "Risks Related to Ownership of our Common Stock", and also in a prior 8K. The more I think about it, the more I think it's a bad idea to relist on a major exchange, until and unless they generate some buzz with the clinical trials. If there is no demand for the stock, the price will plummet, even with the tiny float. There must be buyers. And if the price plummets, another delisting will occur, helping no one. If they are only doing this to appease shareholders who want some liquidity, but refuse to do the things necessary to create awareness of their business, it seems to me that a lower key listing on an OTC board would be more appropriate.
The 10K (Annual Report) is out. If nothing else, they are at least filing robust reports nowadays. No, we never get to talk to the CEO to ask questions, but at least the info exists. My takeaway from skimming it is that they are serious about re-entering the equity markets, they are ready to initiate the first two clinical trials, and they plan to build a second manufacturing facility. I don't think they have the funding to do that last one this year. It seems to me that they probably have the cash to do the clinical trials or the new facility, but not both. But who knows.
So, yeah, I think this is finally the year that the logjam breaks, on multiple fronts. That doesn't mean the results will be good. It could be the year that the equity officially becomes worthless. Or, who knows, the shares could be trading at $30 this fall with some favorable buzz. But I do think we'll finally be out of the black hole we entered in 2020.
@grandslam... it's in the SEC filing.
They replaced the CFO. Haas remains as a consultant for a time. Since we only have conjecture to lean on with these folks, one can only surmise that the failed IPO was the end of the road, and/or the recent agreement with large shareholders to obtain a NASDAQ listing through the back door involved a lot of inside pressure to try someone new. The new CFO is highly incentivized to get this done, although that can only go so far. One does wonder how they expect a market to suddenly emerge for the securities when they have done exactly zero public communications over the past couple years to generate awareness. I guess we'll see if the new CFO understands this basic fact of life, and maybe suggests to the CEO that maybe, who knows, it might be a good idea to actually, you know, say or do something in public. Stranger things have happened. There's a first time for everything.
Would it really kill this company to release a bleeping press release that outlines their plans for the funding they just acquired? Really. Just a one-page, simple little statement that says this or that clinical trial will begin on this or that date, and the schedule for others has been adjusted as follows. Is it really that hard? (Hint: It's not -- I've written plenty of them). I do not understand the silence. I really don't. They're acting like they want to be a private company, and yet they're spending money on things that only public companies need to do. This is perplexing. They seem to want to be invisible, while expecting the market to value them on ...what exactly?
They filed another 8-K today with the SEC, to document what appears to be the remaining $1,000,000 of the $3,000,000 they authorized last fall. Again, my assumption is this funding is in lieu of the failed IPO to (a) pay the bills for a year or two, and, presumably (b) to start one of the clinical trials. If all of that is true, I would expect them to announce the initiation of one of the trials with some public fanfare in Q1, while simultaneously trying to enter the NASDAQ through the back door, as previously discussed. I assume the theory is that the juice of initiating a clinical trial will provide the momentum to price the shares adequately. But who really knows. Until the apparently deaf and mute CEO addresses the shareholders, it is all conjecture.
@grandslam... It is promising to an extent. I think they have made a lot of good and correct moves over the past couple years, with one exception. The good news is the new people have put the company on the road to legitimacy, taking what Dr. Musick and his tiny staff did, in terms of developing a product and manufacturing technology, along with an offshore clinical treatment protocol, and turning it into a real company that is doing what is necessary with the SEC and establishing real inroads with the FDA. That's all great stuff. Where they have fallen down (IMO) is in their complete disregard for publicizing what they have done and are doing. Basically, no one is telling the story. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one coming close -- on an obscure investment board that nobody reads.
I had a lot of hope when they made Zamora the CEO -- a young doctor with a potentially appealing media presence who could tell the story. But he didn't. Aside from one or two limited interviews, he did nothing. As far as anyone can tell, he's in it for him and his dermatology practice. The documentation they released to the SEC after removing him suggests that he milked things to his own benefit and did very little.The new CEO and CFO clearly understand the mechanics of public companies, which is good. But, again, they have done nothing to promote the company or just make it something worth investigating to potential investors. I know a good number of people who are serious investors, and none of them have ever heard of VB. That's on VB. It's like they are trying to remain under the radar -- and I could understand that in the days of mostly operating in offshore facilities trying to build a portfolio of safety and efficacy data. But they're past that now.
People don't throw money at unknown entities. If VB wants to be seen as $50-$250 million biotech startup, it needs to start telling the story. If they don't have anyone to tell the story, they should pay someone to do it. ThinkEquity certainly didn't. It sounds like they have hired another consultant. I'd love to talk to that person/company, and see what they have in mind. Because nobody associated with this company seems to understand that you'll never be taken seriously as an investment vehicle without some level of public awareness. The latest CEO has literally never even addressed the shareholders, let alone done any significant media. I don't know what they're thinking. Any attempt to re-enter the serious equity markets without someone or something blazing the awareness trail is going to fail. And I hope that the people who run the company understand this.
I read a little more of the most recent filing. It seems pretty obvious that some sort of deal was struck by some existing shareholders that would provide them liquidity, and this is somehow related to whomever just gave them $2 million. The latest S-1 specifically states "We are registering the shares of common stock in order to permit the selling stockholders to offer the shares for resale from time to time." The "selling stockholders" are listed by name, and include the former CFO John Evans. One would presume that a number of influential shareholders are tired of their shares being untradeable. Well, join the club, fellas... But who really knows. We'll just have to see how this plays out.
And so it is (i.e., symbol removed from Schwab listing). Hadn't noticed, or considered that the VTRO symbol was tied up with the IPO filing, which was tied to the AMEX. With that now officially dead, yes, they will need to refile the VTRO symbol with the NASDAQ. But I suspect we won't see it reappear in the Schwab listing until and unless the shares start trading. The only question now is what the market thinks the shares are worth. If it's north of $10/share (and a $40-50 million market cap), then we will be on the NASDAQ. If it's less than that, then we will have to see if they are willing to re-enter the OTC markets. The problem with that for them is that it will be harder to raise capital. We'll just have to see if demand materializes for the shares. And on that note, it sure as heck would help if they would start publicizing the technology, and if their CEO would come out of hiding. It's hard to generate interest in something that the public has never heard of.
As an aside, given the small number of shares post-split, the initial SP would almost certainly need to be north of $10/share. I can't see how they would meet the NASDAQ standard for market capitalization otherwise, if there is no demand for the shares at that price level. Whether they would consider an OTC listing if it fails is anyone's guess. I can't see why not, with the IPO off the table and some working capital in hand. The main downside to a listing is it will kill legacy investors if they have to raise money again and the public share price plummets. But hopefully it doesn't come to that. Conversely, if it does meet the NASDAQ threshold, most legacy investors will be in the black by a considerable margin, and those seeking to exit intact will have a window to do that. Not my strategy personally, but I'm sure there are a lot of folks out there that just want out.
Following up briefly to earlier post, I read a little more, but not everything. They are effectively allowing the market to determine the price of the shares. On the day that trading starts, there will need to be sufficient pre-market buy/sell orders to create a functional market for the securities, as determined by an independent financial advisor. If/when the market for VTRO meets those standards, VTRO will become active on the NASDAQ. There is no date in the filing, but I have to believe that we will be seeing actual news from the Company very soon regarding these plans -- it makes no sense to do this and keep it a secret. But, bottom line, the liquidity and price of our shares (the filing specifically mentions "legacy" shares -- a term that I have not seen to date other than in my comments) will be determined by the market. So we can all stop conjecturing about schemes and shenanigans and such things. There will be public demand for the shares or there won't. And if there's not, then there is nothing that anyone can do.
There is a significant S-1 filing with the SEC today. I have not read or digested it. It appears to makes shares tradable on the NASDAQ, without an IPO. I will need to read it later. Best guess (only a guess) is this is perhaps part of some deal to acquire the $3 million previously announced. I don't know what the implications are for legacy shareholders, good or bad. I'm just posting this in case anyone wants to go check it out before I do. Short story seems to be that the shares will be listed on the NASDAQ without an IPO/underwriter process, meaning that the shares will be priced by the market before the commencement of trading. I have no experience with this, but it sounds like there will be extreme volatility at first, and extreme caution is advised. On the bright side, it does sound like the shares will be trading again soon.
@grandslam... The symbol doesn't mean anything. You can't just ignore valid shareholders in the underlying entity. You can dilute them into virtual irrelevance (and it is a miracle that hasn't happened here, given how long VB has been around -- which I think speaks to Dr. Musick's commitment to shareholders, and keeping expenses under control). But you can't ignore them. You'd get sued immediately, and probably also face criminal securities fraud charges. All that aside, I think it would be a mistake to confuse their highly unfortunate lack of communication over the past few years with any kind of desire to harm those shareholders. I don't think they have any desire to harm their shareholders. Being in the minority, we just don't matter all that much. They've done what is required to legally bind our ownership interest during the transition. At this point, it would be really nice if they would release a shareholder letter to simply explain the strategy going forward, but they are not required to do that. I assume that they don't want to be held to any promises, such as the ones that Dr. Musick made in his final shareholder letter before stepping down as CEO (he said that they would pursue a listing on a higher-end OTC board after getting straight with the SEC). Otherwise, we have shareholder rights, and they are respecting them for the most part. But we have very little power, and they are taking advantage of that too.To pcarew's suggestion of bankruptcy, that would be a last resort, if (and only if) they were actually bankrupt. But it would be like dropping a hydrogen bomb on attacking forces on your own soil -- sure, you eliminate the threat, but you also destroy yourself in the process. But, again, there's no point in doing any of that. Legacy shares probably comprise something like 10-20% of the share count at this point (I haven't looked at it recently). We're not worth the steep cost of eliminating. We don't have to worry about such things. What we need is for the Company's core product (AlloRx) to get some attention and prove itself in clinical trials. If and when that happens, a lot of money will be chasing a very small share count, the Company will have a market cap in the hundreds of millions, and we should all make 10X or more on our investments. But it's a huge "if". If those trials never start, or peter out, it's game over for everyone.
Well, they wasted a boat load of money if the plan is to go private. And they'd have to come up with the cash to buy back a lot of shares. I don't think it is realistic. I think it all comes down to these clinical trials. They've been sitting there for a couple years, approved and unstarted. I don't think any traditional IPO money wants to touch this until they get through Phase I/II of a clinical trial. So, hopefully, what we're seeing with the $3 million is enough cash to make it that far. In that case, what I'd hope to see in the coming weeks is some attempt to publicize the commencement of one of these trials. If and when things go well, then maybe then they can seek further funding via an IPO. It would be a feast or famine type of situation for investors. Unfortunately, they are in a "prove it" world of biotechnology. Nobody is giving stem cell startups any benefit of the doubt, particularly with the headwind that Mesoblast encountered with the FDA a few years ago. So hopefully this cash infusion is enough to get the clinical trial ball rolling.
@grandslam... A minor addition to your point. They filed a follow-up Form D that shows the complete filing is for $3 million, not $2 million. The $2 million is in place, and I guess they are looking to fill the other million. To me, this is likely Musick and the board telling the newer management team "time's up, we need to move forward with one of the clinical trials". Perhaps the idea is to start one of them, generate some media around it, and use that exposure to perhaps complete the IPO. Whatever the case, per your point, a company doesn't attract $3 million in capital if it is planning to shut down. I do have to wonder if this is foreign investment though, perhaps from China or elsewhere in the Far East.
@grandslam... Indeed it is a common outcome. OTOH, this company has always been different. There is no reason in the world why it should still exist, after decades of floundering. And yet someone -- now someone with reasonably deep pockets -- continues to invest. And this after spending a ton of money to right the ship with the SEC and prepare for an IPO ...only to have it fail at the altar twice this year.
It's just too weird. The rational part of me says that it's a lost cause. But the part of me that owns a boatload of shares can't let go completely. In the end, I think it just comes down to the fact that Dr. Musick believes in the product and the science behind it. As he told me once, it's his life's work. My sense is that he wants to see it through very badly. I suspect that he wants to be the one who finally put cell-based treatments on the mainstream map. And he won't take no for an answer. And he's not young. I think he has seen some remarkable results overseas, which don't count with the FDA except as basic safety data. But the results are the results. And I think he wants to do these domestic clinical trials very badly, to prove a point. Just one person's conjecture.
But, again, the rational side of me finds it difficult to see any near term path to eventual ROI. It's going to take a major surprise, some sort of breakthrough. And I'm fresh out of that kind of optimism at this point.
@B&BB... What's it to you? I actually don't follow this much anymore, because there isn't much to follow. But they announced an IPO, and spent a lot of money doing everything needed to re-enter equity markets. So it seems childish -- and, frankly, stupid -- to assume they did all that as some sort of deception. It's very obvious that their third-rate investment bank has failed to generate the interest required to price the IPO -- difficult these days in mainstream biotech, let alone this. So now, presumably, they have hired a consultant to work on that. Do I care? Not really. Do I expect it to succeed? No. Do I still glance at their SEC filings and report what I see? Sure. Why not? I own a lot of stock. Do I expect it to amount to anything? No.
Should anyone still care (and I'm not sure I do anymore), in today's installment of Death By A Thousand Cuts, they filed another 8K with the SEC to register yet another dilution/funding event to keep operations rolling (not that anyone has the first clue what those operations might be, since they stopped communicating with the world and the CEO has been invisible, per custom established by his predecessor). This placement is for $2,000,000, which should keep them going for a while (and maybe get the wheels turning on a clinical trial, finally?). Per another custom, we have no idea who the sugar daddy is, though I would imagine it is an insider. But who knows. VTRO is a black box, and nobody is allowed to know anything apparently. On that subject, I contacted the CFO a couple weeks ago. He was kind enough to respond, but it was unreadable gobbledygook jargon that said nothing. But, hey, at least he responded, even if it did sound suspiciously like it was crafted by an attorney.
Anyway, in separate news, the 8K also mentions that they have retained a business consultant on what amounts to a stock deal. Reading between the lines (since their "lines" rarely say anything anymore), it looks like this person's job is to push the floundering IPO over the top. Which would be great if s/he succeeds. Good luck with that, whoever you are. One does wonder what the point of an IPO is, if they can find investors willing to shell out $2,000,000. The IPO itself was downsized to $10,000,000.
Since we are left to conjecture, my take is they are doing what they have to do to survive, and perhaps get one of the trials started. Which is good, but it's also becoming clear that original investors are slowly being diluted into irrelevance. If someone from the Company would like to challenge that assertion, I am open to arguments.
@grandslam... Their filings with the SEC over the past year or so suggest that an investor or an insider has been keeping them afloat while they await IPO funds. I have no idea if that is sustainable, and, if it is, for how long. I think your question is reasonable -- they haven't updated their web site in months, and they seem committed to silence. At first, the actions of the new CEO seemed reassuring, but the guy has been invisible to investors. We literally have no reason to believe that he is still involved, or capable of communicating, or alive, for that matter.
This can't go on forever. It does feel like we're reaching either the end of the road, or some significant existential event. I suppose there's always a chance that they are in negotiations to be acquired. Short of that, I don't hold out much hope for ever seeing the money I invested. In the vast picture of our civilization, it is borderline criminal new and promising medical technologies are completely ignored, while we waste billions of dollars on consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals that consumers can't even buy. It's a very screwed up world.
The Company needs to release some information to legacy investors immediately -- not SEC info, a joint letter from the CEO and CSO. People need to know what's going on. Is the IPO dead? Do they have a survival plan in the absence of IPO funds? Are they planning to be acquired? How are they planning to maintain their present, elevated burn rate? Investors are entitled to know what's going on.
@pcarew & @bbb... They are too small to have an actual investor relations department, regardless of what the web site says. I have direct, albeit infrequent, lines of communication with the CFO and CSO. They won't address the IPO. And, realistically, they probably can't, with insider trading laws. Other than the CEO (whom I've never communicated with, and who has been as invisible as Zamora was) and the regulatory expert (who I don't think is really all that involved), there isn't anyone else outside of ThinkEquity who knows what is going on. Perhaps the ex-CFO, who I think is still a consultant. And maybe the board member they hired last year, who I never heard of. And, of course, Zamora -- yeah, good luck with that. As to @bbb's standard invective, it's a tiny company trying to enter the big leagues, in desperate need of IPO money in a strapped IPO market, trying to break through in a field with a fierce headwind. It always was a longshot. But they have done everything right in the past year or so, after a couple years of horrible missteps. Whether that amounts to anything is TBD.
@grandslam... the "webull" site. No way of knowing if it is credible, but the first two IPO dates that they posted were. However, in this case I see no further corroboration elsewhere. I have no idea where webull gets its information.
I'd encourage people to also peruse the withdrawn IPO list, available in various places, including MarketWatch. Mainly because I'd guess that this is where VTRO's IPO is heading. IMO, this is classic chicken & the egg -- they need the IPO $ to do the clinical trials, and they need the clinical trials to attract enough interest in the IPO. In the end I suspect they will withdraw the IPO and find an angel to pay for the clinical trials, with significant damage to legacy shares. Obviously, I hope I'm wrong. But they can't keep doing IPO dates and failing to price them. They can't survive on current revenues with the current burn rate.
It appears that our next date to be disappointed is next Friday 10/6.
@grandslam... I think Yahoo was just reacting to events, and the mechanics of their boards are probably semi-automated. I.e., the IPO was pulled in August so they pulled the VTRO board. Not sure why they didn't do the same in September. In any case, I think it's pretty obvious that ThinkEquity is having difficulty with IPO demand. I think an IPO has to be 90% sold (or something like that) or they have to refund the money to those who bought -- basically undo it. And nobody needs that. ThinkEquity is a lower rated investment bank, with a shaky track record, so it is not a big surprise that they are having trouble selling larger investors on this. If I were a larger investor, the question I'd have is "look, so you have a good product, great, but what is your plan for FDA approval? -- Mesoblast had a 9-1 advisory board vote and still didn't get approval on an orphan drug for suffering children with no alternatives". I imagine that many discussions have been taking place behind the scenes with Dr. Mosessian, who handles the FDA issues. And I can only guess that they haven't sold enough people on their prospects. But we'll see. $10 million is chump change in the biotech business. You'd think that there are at least a few investors willing to take a flyer.
I saw the article when it came out. I didn't take it very seriously when I saw "NASDAQ". Obviously a cheerleader type article written by someone (or an AI), who hadn't bothered to read any of the filings from recent months.
Lacking any info to the contrary, it is evident that ThinkEquity is having trouble generating interest in the IPO. The Company keeps issuing bits of paper to stay afloat, which presumably isn't enough to start the clinical trials, and accomplishes very little. So I can't imagine any upside to delaying the IPO. All other details seem to be taken care of.
What I don't understand, not being an equities expert, is how the August and September dates were generated and publicized. There has been nothing from the Company for over a year, except the SEC filings. Is that info coming from ThinkEquity via the AMEX? Or are those dates simply presumed by someone and then repeated on questionable web sites? I doubt the latter, since more mainstream sites seem to react to the information also. They seemed like real dates. But I have no idea where they originate, or if they were mirages with legs.
Yeah, you're right. That was wishful thinking. I can only assume that if ya got nothing good to say, you say nothing. Lacking such information, the only reasonable conclusion is that ThinkEquity is unable to generate enough interest in the IPO. Without which we're left with a top-heavy company with no money and no obvious path forward. At that point I think they probably need to think in terms of licensing or selling the manufacturing platform, and shutting down the primary product and research businesses. It's not clear to me how (or even why) they would continue to operate as a domestic biotech if they can't do very basic clinical trials. But hopefully they'll prove us wrong. Maybe they wanted to wait until the beginning of the next fiscal year in October? More wishful thinking ...but that's all that's left when you're working with deafening silence.
Another IPO date come and gone with no news. At this point I can only assume that ThinkEquity is failing in its attempt to sell enough of the IPO for it to launch. Which wouldn't be surprising, given that they trimmed it to bare minimum valuation & share price over the summer. But who knows. It would be nice to hear something from the company, with two IPO dates now passing quietly.