I don't want to forget to share with the "good guys and gals" over here. These are a couple of responses to folks I posted on RB a little while ago. Nothing new, just a couple of tidbits and recap...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
spook - I won't be able to hang for your response but I'll check back in the morning. I remember vaguely the break-even predictions for Q1 - was that Phil?
Anyway, I specifically asked Tony how much import he placed on being cash flow neutral or positive versus negative. He said even with the $1 million in forensics revenue (don't know if he's including other sources or whether they will be a separate line item) he was investing what equalled to a burn rate of 2x - 3x that to accomplish his goals. This included patent development and protection, by the way, as asked and anwered by my esteemed teammates.
He has no problems with the negative cash flow as this is characteristic of where we are in the development stages of a new company. He also said he has investors on the sidelines that could step in but he is not giving away any more of the company. This is the point where we discussed the strategy of becoming a drug company and the possible tactics that would lead us there. To me he is totally confident and comfortable where we are. We'll issue shares as necessary to maintain the $200k balance in the bank and wait for the plan to unfold.
If one does the math, and assumes annual revenues will be between $1MM and $2MM this year, a burn rate of 3x means he'll need to issue between 20 and 60 million shares at $.10. I'll take that any day. We save the remainder to make the drug thing happen...
Maybe not blockbuster headlines but cumulatively very big news IMO.
But then again, perhaps I was being schmoozed! lol mjam
-----------------------------------------------------------------
frog, I would say that in terms of little substantive news arising from our attendance at the forensic conference last week you might be looking at the glass as half empty.
We had no news worthy of a PR other than learning of the intention of our becoming a drug company. This was substantiated by publication the next day. To me this was big news because it solidified Tony's intention of pursuing "obscene revenue" versus relying on "proof of principle" and humane ventures such as forensics, Ovanome and Statnome.
We learned of a time frame of 1 - 3 years for big developments to come to fruition.
We learned that indeed further enhancements to the forensics line-up have taken and continue to take place. We have graduated from a 30 AIM test to a 1000 AIM test which is beneficial to geneology more so than drug response.
We learned that it was 10 times easier to develop drug response tests than forensics and that eye, hair, et. al. tests were in the 80% range of completion due to lack of standard definitions for "color" in the iris, etc... These issues are being worked on and are expected to be resolved next year.
We learned to expect $1 million in revenue this year from forensics, which again, to me is big news because as little as 6 months ago some on this board claimed we would have no revenue, ever. Now those will say $1 million is not enough, or that whatever the number is on the 14th is not enough because we were expecting $1 million.
IMO, Tony attended this conference and will be attending several more before the end of the year because we need the exposure for the company and to continue to build the forensics performance while waiting on the drug company plan to unfold. He did not attend because it was a news making opportunity.
This also begs the question: What if Tony HAD announced "other" cases in progress (which he did say there are more announcements that will be bigger than the LA case) or that additional features had been added to the forensic products? IMO this would not have near the impact that our becoming a drug company should have.
We can tool along with soon to be $10's of million in revenue or we can go big with $400 - $500. I think I know which you prefer. mjam
- - - - -
View Replies »
