So I suppose that's why no institutions own GERN, the "other" embryonic stem cell company, right? A quick perusal of Yahoo! Finance shows that institutions own 30% of GERN stock, and not only do they face the same issues, they don't own the technology to harvest the cells without destroying the embryo thereby removing the abortion debate from the picture. I love the fact that actc is still traded on the otc markets. at some point, assuming good preliminary phase I/II results and barring a buyout or huge partnership/licensing agreement, ACTC will need to go back to the capital markets at some point to secure additional funding to continue on with their clinical trials. That's the time for them to consider a reverse split and uplisting. Until then, their sole focus should be on completing the trials. If and when the time comes, I agree with the poster who said that their reverse split would be different than most that we're used to because they'll be doing it from a position of strength, not because they're scratching and clawing to survive or stay listed. I believe that the outcome of a reverse split for actc under the right set of circumstances would be very different than the type of reverse split (and negative stigma surrounding them) that most here are used to, and IF something like that were to be announced in the future and the stock sold off, I would definitely use it as a buying opportunity because I think it's a given that at least 25-30% of the post-split shares would be snatched up by institutions almost instantly. I believe that would drive the price instantly higher. But let's not put the cart before the horse. Get this round of clinical trials done (hopefully with good results), manage the existing cash wisely and worry about a r/s if/when they need to tap the capital markets again.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
