CBA Florida Inc. (fka CBAI)

[MrLong]

Has is failing the retail shareholder and has he been beneficial to the insurer - IBC? There's no ambiguity because the results are obvious to all who have money in that till. Was it a difficult pitch to get IBC/CorCell in 07' to understand the insurer was transferring Sibling Donor Program losses to us?

Let's go back to the known math equation and storage statistic fact: 4% of 4.2m store. Does everyone understand that 4% of 4.2m is 168k -> Birth Defects in the USA each year!
How about by state? IBC territory is:
West Virginia 21,501 11.8% BCBS Highmark
Pennsylvania 149,291 12.0% BCBS IBC
Virginia 106,684 13.7%
New Jersey 112,715 13.0% BCBS Horizon
South Carolina 62,973 14.1% BCBS SC curesource
Tennessee 85,543 13.8% BCBS TN
Hawaii 19,484 15.1% BCBS Hawaii

Here is the gray area from known stat figures of a certain x.x% in demand that isn't adding up in storage counts for me.

BCBS IBC/CBAI/CorCell Total Births Territory = 560k/yr

From these territories @ 4% ucb storage for birth defects alone of certain demand in storage = 22.4k/yr.

The Sibling Donor Program is "free" for 5 yrs waiving the annuity costs too. So the percentage of birth defects from the entire 4.2m pie in the IBC territory is substantial.

Is this an insurance scam to have us pay for these birth defect storage costs that generate no annuity? That is my concern. How many stems did CorCell have on ice that met this criteria when CBAI acquired CorCell? That is my concern because the CEO states that less than 1% of an unknown ucb storage total are for the Sibling Donor Program.

Sibling Donor IBC Calculation based on territory:
How about <1% of 4.2m births = 42k/yr "free" whole pie.

-So IBC territory for total births is 13.4% of that 4.2m pie = 560k births in total.
-At a rate of 4% Sibling Donor Program/Birth Defect Related IBC territory then we conclude approx 22.4k/yr IBC births or @4% of 560k total IBC territory births are birth defects (known predisposition to disease at birth).
-@4% of 560k known to be stored then 22.4k/yr could be IBC ucb stores for future transplant per yr. How has IBC fulfilled the needs of the 4% it insures with a birth defect prior to the CorCell acquisition and after the acquisition?

-CorCell stems acquired in 07'. When the Sibling Program was instituted in 04' based on known territory births of 560k we come up with a known 22.4k/yr birth defects in that territory.
-At that rate (22.4k/yr birth defects) when looked at in relation to the known (4.2m births) in total we conclude that .53% are Known Birth Defects from the Grand Total of 4.2m. or less than 1%.

At what average did he dump shares from 300m - 7B? Probably for +$20m in funding with +$3m going to options, some maybe paying for those CorCell ucbs on ice that do not generate any annuity. Do we know what each acquisition accrues in annuity vs costs and what the breakeven point is? No... no idea but we know none of these acquisitions are profitable.
So it depends on the investor. IBC is happy with its investment strategy having CorCell go public. It is saving a ton of money. On the other hand the retail investor is drowning in a pool of AS because this model has no ROI for the retail investor.

Now they want more and a counter reset after choking us out. No freak'n way anyone says give me more of that! Yet that is what is under development in this 14A proposal if you accept to take it. The CMEX deal is more of the same...because CMEX is designed to benefit the insurer not the retail investor. Does anyone believe $10m in revs is generated by CMEX? Are the CCEL filings regarding revs from CMEX somehow hiding the money in a conspiracy theory. All I know is what I see. One stock continues to fall while the other stabilized.

I think it is worth repeating again: The insurance company is likely playing us in this investment. The IBC/CorCell Sibling Donor Program is costly to the insurer. How many people need a transplant each yr yet so few after 07' stored for transplantation. Did IBC store 1% for transplant when it ran CorCell? In 07' CorCell goes public to offset costs for those sickly IBC insured who need a transplant within the 5yr window whereby annuity fees are also waived. We paid for those "freebie" stores and IBC saves. The alternative would have been way more costly from the donor allogeneic bank; at $30k for one stem and $60k for a tandem stem transplant. Is that why CBAI unlike CCEL can't turn a profit? Is it the reason why we have no accurate storage count - inventory comes and goes from the original acquisition lot for transplants. Remember all CorCell samples have been stored at stringent Fact/Netcord transplant ready standards.

If this were a scam the bare minimum standard (cheapest) manufacturing process would have been employed. No HLA typing would have been one area employed to cut costs. That has not been the case here. The insurer benefiting from this model has likely put a drag on the retail investors reward. I am waiting to see how the AS increase from 300m will benefit me but as you know it is not shown in the current pps.

Share Structure History:
AS: 6.945B ( upped from 950M on 03-23-2009 per proxy statement )
AS: 950M ( upped from 300M on 08-28-2008, see #msg-31499433 )
AS: 300M

The CEO timing of this is either with no respect toward the current shareholder or its is becasue CBAI is broke, and he needs the shares to keep the lights on

.

August 28, 2008, 10:00 a.m. Pacific Standard Time
At the special meeting and any adjournment or adjournments of the special meeting, our shareholders will be asked to consider and act upon a proposal to approve an amendment to the Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of Cord Blood America, Inc. to increase the authorized capital stock of the Company to 955,000,000 shares, of which 5,000,000 shares shall be preferred stock, having a par value $0.0001 per share, and 950,000,000 shares shall be Common Stock, having a par value $0.0001 per share.

On July 8, 2008, there were 224,699,718 shares of our common stock outstanding and entitled to vote