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.
The only snippet that you ever posted refers to put notices explained elswhere in the k.
For your edification, "put" is a generic term that can refer to several different types of options. In this case the option is in reference to the funding agreement with Dutchess in which the put notice stipulates the time (and therefore, price) that Dutchess purchases restricted stock.
It is a "put" in that DNAP sells restricted stock.
It is an "option" in that the decision to sell stock is at DNAP's sole discretion.
I don't have a grievance. This doesn't have anything to do with my investment decisions (which nobody here is privy to) and it doesn't have anything to do with DNAP's IR (or lack thereof)
What I was asking was:
1.How is it possible for an otc company to buy or write options against it's own stock? What kind of mechanism would enable this?
2.Where does it say that DNAP does this? There are "put notices" which is probably what you saw. But unless I've overlooked something, there is no reference to putting the stock itself.
I saw reference to the "put notice" that determines the time and price of the Dutchess funding which is a type of "option". But I did not see a "put option" that is bought or written against their own stock. Furthermore, I don't believe that it's possible - even if they wanted to.
Are you sure you have your facts straight? Or does this go in the 50 board member pile?
that actually doesn't explain anything.
could you explain the mechanics by which an otc company can exercise puts on their own stock?
Actually, there were a couple insults. Slow down, read your own posts.
If you want to repost what you already said without repeatedly calling Team an idiot - go for it.
I sent you a PM about the subject. Sometimes when there's not much of substance to talk about the conversation strays to more volitile subjects. I think this is one of those times.
what exactly is the question?
board politics....
If you care to leave board politics out of it you can say whatever you like.
sent you a PM. eom.
That would be ideal, IMO. eom.
You are very savvy.
care to make any predictions? That way we can just leave it there. If you're wrong, you're wrong. And if you're right then everyone on this board will be very sorry they didn't listen to you...
I'm well aware of their disclaimers.
You do realize that this is the DNAP board. Even if you're right, you can't expect everyone to subsribe to that point of view.
Actually, that's not true.
rather than have me explain everything to you perhaps you should just buckle down and read it for yourself.
Since you've showed up on this board you've made very broad sweeping generalizations and then asked people to prove that you are wrong. A very lazy approach for someone who still doesn't even know what the company does.
they can't hurry up and sell them. they're restricted. you didn't know that did you?
I'll take a contrarian view from yours (just something to consider) If there was a grant for mega bucks that would imply a long range project with a long range completion date. As a shareholder, IMO it would be far better for this to be a smaller project with a shorter completion date. The overarching goal for the grant is to get ADB, etc. into the hands of many different researchers quickly and economically without surrendering control of the test itself. They should do whatever it takes to accomplish this but I'd rather see it be a $100k, six month project than a $2MM two year project.
thought it was the 7th. eom.
I don't know why no $ figure in the PR. But I also think it doesn't matter. That is the least of my concerns. It's not revenue, is it? What counts is the time frame because a short time frame would imply that ADB can find other markets sooner rather than later. But a time frame wasn't mentioned either. Would have been nice if it was. I don't write the PR's so I can't answer for it.
I don't know what your talking about with the "50 MILLIONS". That's news to me.
I can see why you never pursued accounting...your too lazy to read more than a couple pages. Stick to TA.
The balance sheet *is* a disaster. The balance sheet is exactly what one would expect from a company that has sustained itself via dilution for 4 years.
But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about your "analysis". You're admittedly not interested in what the company does or the nature of their funding. You're not interested in FA......and yet you post a torrent of pseudo-FA one liners.
Got too much time on my hands today. Slow day.
I see. As soon as someone calls you on it you say "I don't do FA" and leave.
I have something against ignorance. Again you don't even know what DNAP does and you haven't read through the Dutchess agreement but you pretend to pass yourself off as some kind of FA guru. Your not - and I'm calling you on it.
This company was started with nothing. No cash, no assets. Nothing. You can debate the wisdom of starting a company in that fashion but I find it hard to believe that funding the company to keep the lights on is bad for shareholder value. And that ignores what they've actually created with the shares they've sold (but you wouldn't know anyting about that because you don't know what the company does)
Do you really think a company with no collateral or assets can get an $8MM loan? Are you rea'ly so ignorant as to believe that that's what they should have done?
I haven't seen anyone who knows so little about a company pretend that they know so much as you.
how bout' you do it? all you've done so far is skim over the last filing.
That's couch potato analysis. Your more concerned about what other people think about your alias that actually being right.
You don't know anything about the Dutchess funding and you don't even know what DNAP does. All your posts are either cryptic or vague.
I mean, do you even know what this company does? Do you even have the slightest inkling?
Not to be nit-picky but that wasn't a PR that Team posted. Also, you need to read through the Biofrontera agreement - you don't seem to understand the structure of the funding.....
Not likely that the size of the grant matters considering what it's for. A time frame for the grant would have been nice tho.
A "PIPE" is a different sort of animal than a convertible. In a PIPE an investor or group of investors will negotiate a fixed price for shares (at some discount to market) in exchange for cash. It is usually a "one time" deal. In a convertible the cost of financing is continually adjusted according to the trading price of the stock.
They both have their upsides and downsides. In a PIPE there is certainty about how much dilution you create. But it is usually limited to smaller sums of money than a convertible. Both are subject to shorting unless you specifically exclude it in the deal. With a PIPE, a hedge fund will acquire shares in exchange for cash and then take a short position in another account. Then they cover after selling their long position. Its much more profitable than taking a large position in a small company and merely hoping that the price goes up.
This scenario is very common with junior pharmaceuticals and can lead to incredible volatility. Wallstreet doesn't particularly like PIPEs or convertibles (regardless of what Dutchess says on their website).
Don't know. If I'm not mistaken, Dutchess is acting as an agent. They are not the ones who are actually putting up the money.
That's the odd part. eom.
The JC agreement covers approximately 2 years. They cannot terminate it without penalty. But I was under the impression that it's ahead of schedule and will be done with in 2005.
The Dutchess agreement is a little more interesting. It gives DNAP more control over dilution. In a nutshell DNAP determines when Dutchess must buy shares and the conversion is at 96% of market. Still a convertible - but not nearly as bad.
Not that it matters stockboy but what he said in 2001 was:
"If the market forms the way we think it will, we could definitely become a Fortune 500 company within a decade."
So you'll have to wait till 2011.
Thanks. I don't own any. Just curious about the company. I've been waiting for them to take the next step to legitimize their science but it hasn't been forthcoming. Still waiting.
FYI - a prospectus came out that shows deteriorating financials. So be careful! Good luck.
http://www.shareholder.com/GNSC/EdgarDetail.cfm?CompanyID=GNSC&CIK=1110009&FID=1047469-05-15...
I agree with the facts but not the conclusion. I think you overestimate the options available to this company.
If you made the leap of faith that all the promises about their technology were true, there is still no way - none whatsoever - that they would qualify for a decent interest loan. This is a company whose value is predicated on intellectual property.
When you are a publicly traded penny stock, you are valued not by your accomplishments but your share price (unless your are fortunate enough to have assets, right?). How can one justify an $8MM interest loan for this company if it is valued at $30MM? If the company has real value then you wouldn't. You would just buy 25% of the company. A convertible is just about the only realistic option for an assetless penny stock.
IMO, there is one mistake that the company has made that has cost they and their shareholders: They grossly overestimated the amount of dilution that the otcbb could bear. The otcbb is a closed pool. It consists of the same traders and investors going over the same small number of stocks over and over. There is very little new money. I think they understand that now, but they didn't when they implemented the original convertible with JC.
Their financial reports suggest they know little, if anything, about financial management
How do you figure?