While I agree on some parts the following I disagree with you on.
The reason I disagree is PMBS entered into an agreement. They also announced financing to get their last phase going and that being distribution of their product. I agree that some money does come from selling shares but not all.
Also sometimes companies are given loans for future royalties and not interest on a loan. This means that if I borrowed $10,000 from someone and they did not want interest but wanted a certain percentage instead of future royalties that would not look as bad on the balance sheet.
Too many unknowns at this point to make point blank statements because we do not know enough about all of the variables. That is what makes investing in stocks what it is. If the right news hits at the OS we are currently sitting on, we could easily make it to a penny. Depends how our man Russ is handling all of this. Just because he handled things one way (one particular time), doesn't mean he will make the same mistake the next time around. There is an element called learning curve. Hope Russ is smart enough to not only learn quick about running a company but also that he gives a hoot about his shareholders. At this point I have mixed emotions both good and bad of where Russ stands on the welfare of his investors. At least this is not an empty shell, has a product and has another company working with them to distribute their products while they continue their research.
Go PMBS!
In conclusion with your question, however rhetorical it is, here is an obvious answer that many in Pennyland with any experience will agree with me. Company's with no money can only pull monies thru the shareholders by releasing innacurate press releases all year long. It's easier to reinvent the press releases than to reinvent the actual product...it's free and it's lucrative. Take it with a "grain of salt" and have the "show me da' money" or "da' television commercial" type of attitude.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
