Revenue "PR", fails to explain enormous cost increases, that off-set, and far exceeded any "revenues"? That apparently was left out of the PR?
10-Q, PAGE 5:
Gross revenues were about $322,572- $94,446 = $228,126 / 3 = $76K
That's approx. $76K per month in "revenues" (gross)
The SG&A expense line grew by more than double over same period last yr. (SG&A is marketing, general and admin costs/expenses, SALARIES being a big component of it)
Marketing, general and administrative Q-1, 2014: $838,329
Marketing, general and administrative Q-1, 2013: $370,533
That's an increase of $838,329 - $370,533 = $467,796 / 3 = $155,932.
That's about $156K INCREASE in expenses/costs per month.
Revenue $76K per month
Increased costs about $156K per month
All resulted in a operating loss, that was bigger than same period, Q-1 last year
10-Q, PAGE 5:
Net loss from operations Q-1, 2014(620,923)
Net loss from operations Q-1, 2013(531,084)
So their operational loss INCREASED, despite said revenues in "PR"
Thus, their Q-1, yr over yr net operation loss INCREASED by
$620,923 - $531,084 = $89,839.
Or, about $90K / 3 = $30K more, per month, increased net operating loss, per same period (Q-1), yr over yr.
Whatever revenue "increase" was far off-set by costs/expense increases. They didn't get anywhere close to cash-flow positive. Any revenue "increase" was wiped out by rising costs, IMO and according to the balance sheet entries, latest 10-Q.
10-Q page 11:
"NOTE 2 – GOING CONCERN MATTERS
The accompanying unaudited condensed financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis, which contemplates the realization of assets and the satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business. As shown in the accompanying unaudited condensed financial statements, during three months ended March 31, 2014, the Company incurred an operating loss of $620,923 and used $257,762 in cash for operating activities. As of March 31, 2014, the Company had a working capital deficit (current liabilities in excess of current assets) of approximately $11.1 million. These factors among others may indicate that the Company will be unable to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time."
So the "revenue" did not stem the net loss, or cash bleed and did not eliminate their need to state a "going concern" warning. They also, even made an additional statement, specifically using the words "liquidity problems", despite the "revenues" that made it in a "PR".
10-Q, PAGE 12:
"There can be no assurance that the Company’s financing efforts will result in profitable operations or the resolution of the Company’s liquidity problems."
The market/shareholders appear far more interested in the 2 billion share increase notice, IMO, than some "revenues". It opened sharply down yesterday, and never even touched, or made it back to the previous day's close, all day yesterday. Making a low, down around about .022 or so.
They never put PR out about 2 billion share allocation increase? I checked many times and never did find any "PR" about it. Only the SEC Edgar database filing. The sharp share price drop for 2 days now, IMO, is because the official proxy was mailed/sent (most get it email probably now days)- it went out late night/early AM on yesterday/day before, I guess depending on your time zone.
Many here were obviously aware of the 2 billion proxy as they read things like SEC filings, pay closer attention to detailed filings and so forth. The proxy had already been discussed, here, since it came out as the 14D pre-file or whatever they call it, then the 14C comes out meaning the "wait" period passes and it's official. Then the "official" notice gets sent to all shareholders. Many shareholders apparently only found out late Tues. night, Wed early AM and IMO, it appears, they don't like what they see, IMO.
A PR about a "Mediterranean Conference", but not a PR to inform broader public you're making an enormous increase in shares available? With their low cash, wonder how much a "Mediterranean Conference" costs?
Apparently a lot of money is available to be spent on "conferences" and travel and stuff, but almost nothing going to "R&D/trials" for a medical "research and development" company? Very "odd" IMHO.
(remember, the word MIRROR, did not appear even one time, in this latest 10-Q filing. The word MIRROR, or any words about that "trial" do not appear in the document, none that I could find via an thorough search)
10-Q, PAGE 5 (balance sheet)
Research and development Q-1 2014: $9,857
Research and development Q-1 2013: $163,974
Yep, $10K spent for THREE months of "research and development" for a company working to bring an FDA regulated product/process to market? That's 10K/3 = about $3K per month. That's probably the utility and lab equipment bill (disposable gloves, chemicals, clean-room items, sterilization products, etc) for a very small, university type lab, IMO.
I would "guesstimate" that one "Mediterranean Conference" expenses for one or two people, will cost more than $10K, exceeding the entire Q-1, "R&D" spending IMHO.
The SG&A spending/expense ratio to R&D spending is completely out of whack IMHO. Their SG&A spending was $838,329 / $9,857 = 85 TIMES. Yep, 85X more spent on SG&A versus R&D for what is, essentially IMO, an R&D based company?
For example, Pfizer- one of the best managed, most successful "medical/drug" research and development companies on planet earth:
From their "income statement" (balance sheet):
Spending for SG&A was $16 Billion or 28% of revenues of $58 Billion
R&D spending was $7.8 Billion or 13% of revenues.
Just about a 2:1 ratio. Which is "typical" and "healthy" per industry standard "norms".
Thus, a typical "industry norm" for SG&A to R&D spending is maybe about 2 to 1, sometimes even 1 to 1 in a super "lean" run operation. 3 to 1 is probably considered getting "high" by most standards, IMO. Meaning, you hit 3 to 1 "general expenses" to what you're spending on R&D, as a research based company, and you got cost control, out of control cost/expense problems. 85 to 1? Don't even know what an analyst would say, IMO? It's so out of whack, who knows? HOW, can they possibly be doing "FDA" type phase II/III "trials" on about $3K a month R&D budget/spending? How?
Makes zero sense IMHO. None.
AI
