Kjg. First of all the amount of selling from Dr. Moro and Wittenberg in the 2004 spike (who are the major shareholders in this company were minimal). They only disposed of 65.000 shares each.
Compare that to how many they owned and you will see that the percentage was very low.
The management decided quite a while back to get paid in shares rather than a normal salary to preserve their cash position for research. And selling a tiny percentage when the shares rose like that is acceptable for me even though (as you stated) it always has a negative impact on the pps.
The really important thing in this aspect was that there never was a huge dilution in the number of shares following the spike. You see that is typically how P/D schemes work. They massively dilute into spikes. They choose this approach because the dilution will not be realized until next 10Q comes out. Eventually you end up with 100 of millions of shares if not billions (often after having gone through several reverse splits).
Biocurex NEVER diluted the crap out of shareholders as seen in P/D schemes. In fact they have been/are extremely conservative when it comes to dilution.
And if you check the filings, you will see that management did not sell a single share into the subsequent Abbott deal price spike.
Secondly, the market cap at present is not 40 million at present, but around 27 mill (36 mill*0.75). Compare that to other licensees of Abbott, and you will find that we are undervalued. I reckon, that the risk reward ratio is very favorable here. The risk of Abbott deciding not to use the tech or getting approval is small compared to the possible future earnings or other license deals. And we are getting closer and closer to possible revenues or for that matter to the point in time where Abbott “comes out of the bush” and release data in the tech. We have a mammoth, who is represented in some 130 countries around the world working for us. This it not the typical OTC crap story.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
