"well-led "?? I'd love to see the ole professor elucidate the definition of BHRT being "well-led" by using any, any standard, generally accepted business metrics used across all industries, business segments, from start ups, to mature companies (how many years has BHRT been around ??), and especially among public traded companies with common shareholders- even citing one, one "metric" where BHRT is/would be deemed to be "well led"??
ROI (return on investment)?
Cash on hand? ($46K close of last 10-K, added some via toxic financing, bringing total to about $211K, not even price of a small condo, in a bad neighborhood in my area)
Operating cash flow?
Profit/loss?
Approval or bringing to market a key, new product and generating rapid sales growth, leading to high bottom line profit?
Return on capital?
Book value? Book value per share?
Price to book?
Operating margin? (-2,947.13%)
Return on assets? (-1,424.72%)
Stock price appreciation?
Growth of any kind?
Return on shareholder equity, especially to common shareholders? (early investors got creamed too, as far as I’m aware also)
Bottom or top line growth?
Product innovation- they didn't even "invent" as far as I know, they "licensed" the original tech, and most of the patents/and or licenses are now expired or lapsed as far as I know (can cite 10-K pages if needed)
Expansion- as in providing employment? Have laid and/or fired off nearly entire staff of company, now 3 "employees" remaining?
Cash flow from operations? Or even cash use mgt?
Inventory turns- they have no sales essentially, scratch that one?
Productivity or return per employee?
Employee RETENTION- well, that one pretty much says a lot IMO. How bout CEO turnover, or BOD turnover-departures?
How bout Sr. Mgt turn over and/or departures, same for Sr staff such as engineers/tech people ?
Backlog, as in sustainability- well, does not apply again?
Debt and ability to pay it and cover interest? Especially as not having debt go into default? Other than massive dilution- well, we know where BHRT is on that one. One key loan already went default, Northstar was the result?
Gross margins- well N/A again for the most part?
Compliance- they got delisted from a major exchange, only about one yr after IPO, they have no FDA approved products to date?
Execution of stated businesses plan(s)- short and long term? Want the list of all past "Pr's" and claims made therein of what the "grand plan" was, and what's "come true" so far to date? It's not that hard to do using that amazing tool called Google. Can read every PR, across multiple CEO's of how FDA approval "was/is close" and "imminent financing" and "will lead to big sales" , etc going back 4 plus yrs. Not hard to do?
Execution of key business plan items ever brought to success- one phase III trial ever completed, one key, major selling product ever FDA approved, resulting in sales, growth and profits for example?
Would love to see the ole "professor" do the detailed break-down, using any "generally accepted" performance metrics and tell why, "BHRT is well led"? That, IMO would be fascinating to say the least. Of course, that'll never be printed IMHO. Just easier to toss out the name of the company and say it's "well led" w/o a single point, single sentence or paragraph, etc to "enlighten" all as to why the "theory" of being "well led" is substantiated by any actual, tangible, measurable evidence. Everyone's entitled to an "opinion"- and the way that "article" is written, it's nothing more than a pure "opinion" piece, IMO. It lays out no data, verbal written claims, written explanation, etc to back up the "claim" being posited? Thus, it's just a "statement" - and not researched, or backed by data in any way, shape or form apparently that I can see, IMO.
What's really funny IMO, is the "professor" open's his "article" with the following statement:
"I’ve seen it time and time again. A startup or early stage company with a truly innovative technology or service and ample funding begins to take off (well, BHRT never "took off", my words), ascends rapidly (BHRT never ascended rapidly IMO, my words again), then levels off (it never "leveled off" -it's traded straight down since IPO day for the most part, my words again), declines and crashes."
$5 a share or so, to sub THREE PENNIES, IMO generally meets the term/definition of "and crashes" as applied to a public traded stock and what has happened to the original investors in this company and especially any common shareholders (especially when massive dilution of shares is added in) IMO. The opening statement defines BHRT IMO, yet later it's kinda slipped in, in a one liner as being "well led" with no supporting data, not a single statement to define/back up the "claim" as to why it's supposedly "well led" etc.
The "professor" also makes the following statement - which again, is kinda funny to me- "and the founder/leader given the boot."
Um, last time I checked, I think the "founder" of BHRT was given the "boot" as CEO, and/or Chairman also, and has left the company, if I'm not mistaken?
The "professor" also mentions a start-up firm "being bought out" as if it's almost a bad thing? At least that's my read in the way he states it? Which is odd IMO, as there is an entire "start-up" model, industry, incubator concept used in Silicon Valley- who's entire purpose is to generate repeat start ups, build them rapidly to critical mass- and their sole and only goal, is to be quickly "bought out". There are some enormously successful people, enormously wealthy now also, who have done this repeat times. It's an entire, very common business "model" now- build it, to have it acquired or rapidly bought out- usually in 2 to 5 yrs max. Usually, the sooner the better. Just look at some of the names "bought out" recently- Instagram, Facebook and Google- can't even keep track of how many companies each has bought recently, I know Google alone has bought-out over 100 companies, I read averaging one a week or so since about 2010(often young start ups), Skype, Nest bought by Google, Youtube bought by Google, Tumblr bought by Yahoo, snapchat is being chased right now w/ offers- and on and on and on, and those are the big name ones, Yahoo, Google and similar- buyout a lot of sub $50 million dollar deals all the time- just "check book, petty cash" money deals. I recently read of Yahoo buying some teenager's (literally a teen) his company for like $12 million or something- noise level money to them, but he's well off now, and will "do it again" if possible.
The entire little "article" makes zero sense to me, IMO. If one makes a "claim" something is "well led",then essay writing 101 per generally accepted college/university standards, let alone making such a claim in front of say a biz leadership or finance or similar "team" of experts, says the sentences/paragraph following “the claim”, better specifically be the statements to back up the "claim"- it's essay 101, basics. If I made that "claim" in a college level course/essay- the prof. would rip it to shreds IMO, with the simple statement, "Where is your back-up statements to support your position that those companies named are "well led" and contrasted with 2 or 3 examples of why companies X, Y and Z are not "well led"? It's writing 101. Basic as it gets IMO. If I was a potential investor sitting in a room- and someone said, "Company XYZ" is "well led", therefore you should put money into it. My first question would be, "Give me specific, very specific and measurable examples of why you're making the "claim" this company is "well led"". If they can't instantly answer that, I'd be heading for the door.
It's seen on nearly every episode off Shark Tank. The company owner (the one asking for investment money) says, "We're the best, I know how to run this business, we have a great idea, this is a winner !!" And the first question back, from the self-made, centi-millionaire or billionaire investors, is always, " Oh really, give me 5 examples, quick, very specific examples/details, measurable metrics, to back up why you just made that claim that your company and you are so great ?" Many of the people (start up company owners) stumble, bumble and can't answer quickly, coherently, and concisely using well laid out facts- and it gets an instant "I'm OUT" from the investors. Every single time.
The "professor" is connected to "Florida International University" (stated at bottom of article). Someone else comes to my mind with connections to, "Florida International University"? I know who comes to mind for me- but that's just my opinion, and mine only of course. You can love the "article" if you like. It's a free country. Enjoy.
P.S. First comment at bottom of article in "comments" section:
"bio heart has been around to long too be in this story and has been a terrible investment !!!!" (guess that guy wasn't mincing any words, eh?)
