Farview, I wish I knew why I'm the one supposedly beating the subject to death when it's you who keeps saying that the dilution isn't already priced in. I'm simply asking you to lay out your rationale as I have done numerous times, and while I haven't even posted here in several days, you're still opining how the dilution isn't priced in. But yet when I ask a simple question that can't/won't answer, I'M beating the subject to death LOL.
Further, where is your billion share figure coming from? If you add up the shares in the last 8k,it's 428,000,000. I understand that this is ONLY for (supposed) max # of shares needed to settle the lawsuits and that the 428,000,000 doesn't include the Ackman lawsuit in federal court, and assuming that Rabin was counting the other $17 million in Socius funding when he said that they were sufficiently funded through the end of the current trials (meaning at .10/share, another 170,000,000 shares), I'd say we're probably looking at 750,000,000 new shares that would need to be issued. You, however, seem to discount that a JV deal may occurs after the Phase I/II trials end. At that point, I don't think it would be too early to think potential JV deal could be consummated.
It just seems to me that you've been pulling out all the stops to cast a negative light on the company and presenting the "worse than worst-case scenario" than what the company laid out to be not only a possibility but fact. Add to that the fact that you're trying to add more uncertainty by calling Rocky out for not posting here for three+ days (even though you acknowledge that you know he's been posting on iCell), making unsubstantiated claims that you think he's "associated" with ACTC in some way despite the fact he's stated unequivocally that he's not numerous times in the past, and then alluding to the fact that since he hasn't been posting regularly that there must be something "wrong". You're a smart guy farview, but IMO you have a clear agenda right now. To further prove my point, let's take this statement you made:
"And no, I'm not trying to scare folks and buy cheaper shares; clinical testing and FDA may take care of that by themselves."
Well so far based on everything currently known it would appear to be going well based on the DSMB results and the outcomes from the pre-clinical animal testing, but yep, despite that, you don't need to SCARE folks because the science might not work anyway. And then what? You can buy all the cheap shares you want? Doesn't make sense, but good job trying to plant the seeds of doubt though.
I see nothing wrong with playing devil's advocate and I do that regularly with a few stocks I own. I do, however, find it disingenuous when you take facts stated by the company and posters here to which you refer and twist them negatively to intentionally cast doubt on the company at a time when the stock has been under selling pressure. Whether it's intentional or not, that's exactly what it appears that you're doing. Being a concerned shareholder playing devil's advocate is one thing, intentionally twisting facts to fear-monger is quite another. Whether you want to admit it or not, your recent posts resemble the latter, not the former.
AI
