InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

stockfan100

04/18/17 1:47 AM

#85005 RE: noahboah #85000

Please check as many small cap companies' 10K as you want. super majority of them use a similar language and the reason is they want to protect themselves from any possible legal issue in the future.

As for tomorrow's stock price direction, no one really knows for sure. It depends on many factors such as flippers and MMs actions. But, one thing is clear for sure...Despite any possible short term stock price fluctuations, the price will go up over time when cream sales, the cancer product and other products' trials are announced.

I'm fairly new to digesting 10k's but it seemed like there was a lot of forward looking possible negative attention.

icon url

Patrkci

04/18/17 2:00 AM

#85007 RE: noahboah #85000

Disclaimer - I'm relatively new as well but from my little experience here is what I've gathered...

1 - No. And just because they must dedicate 60% of the time doesn't mean they can't dedicate more. That is legal jargon to protect themselves....I'm new to investing as well but I've noticed a lot of these 10ks have applied these same protective measures in their filings.

2 - dilution is how companies grow. All companies dilute their shares to raise capital. I don't think there is a 10k that doesn't mention further dilution. Seeing as there is no date attached to "when" and also the use of "we may issue" makes this claim more legal jargon to protect future claims against the company.

3 - same as above. They are forced to add that footnote because they are prerevenue, same as all other prerevenue companies.
icon url

skitahoe

04/18/17 2:22 AM

#85009 RE: noahboah #85000

I believe that management have essentially dropped practically everything else to build OWCP. When they assure 60% routinely, I suspect they'd give 150% at times when it's needed.

As for dilution, if they are as successful in increasing the share price as people here believe, it won't take that many shares to bring in tens to hundreds of millions. I.E., if it's necessary, it should be acceptable.

As for defending the patents, remember if their business plan works, they'll start seeing sales revenue in the third quarter. While this may not eliminate the need for future dilution to run clinical trials, it should provide the necessary funding to do what's needed with the patents.

This is just my opinion, but I believe we've discovered a company with phenomenal knowledge and personnel, and they believe in what they're doing so much that they're willing to work for far less than they could make working for others. Their reward in the end will be what they'll gain by building the company.

I've been an investor in other biotech's that really went nowhere, but the management made big salaries, and often retired only to bring on replacements who did the same. This company, without a single full time employee appears to have far more dedication to their ideas which form the basis of this company than any of the other managers I've seen who managed to spend hundreds of millions, and still don't have a viable product to show.

Gary