Bruce, You're probably right about them not bei
Post# of 15624
(Total Views: 467)
Posted On: 03/22/2019 2:52:08 PM
Bruce,
You're probably right about them not being able to get a tally, but I know in the case of another company I was contacted about voting, so I believe they were aware I had not yet voted. At that time I told the person contacting me that I did intend to vote, but had yet to make up my mind as to which way.
I realize it's easier to gain financing on a penny stock, but it can be done, and they've done it in the past. Inflating the share price to over a dollar, so you can issue tens of millions or more of new stock won't keep it there very long, but look what it does to current shareholders. Let's say they do a 1 for 100, that brings the O/S down to roughly 1.5 million, if that did give them a price of $3 post R/S it's doubtful to hold at over $2. At that time they offer 10 million shares to bring in $20 million, the O/S becomes 11.5 million, original shareholders own just over 10%, It just won't take long before more shares are issued, and even though positive events may be happening, the O/S is approaching the 150 million shares we began with, so we're down to owning 1% of the stock. Most of us have shares at an average price in the $.20 to $.40 cent range, so just to be break even after such a reverse split the price would have to go to $20 to $40. I wish I felt more confident about that happening, but without seeing approved patents and supportive clinical trials, it's doubtful.
On the other hand, if they didn't do the reverse split, but did gain approval for at least a few patents, and if they had even a single trial where efficacy was seen in a product that had a patent, I believe the share price would easily see $1 or more. They have told us they're pursuing the patents, they're planning the trials, all we need is a little success and the share price will take care of itself, and yes, they will be able to bring in sufficient funds with dilutive financing.
Perhaps more importantly, with an approved patent and a trial demonstrating efficacy, they will be very likely to attract a partner for that product, and that alone could take care of all immediate financial needs, perhaps with no dilution, or possibly with a BP taking a equity position in the company.
Note, I'm not suggesting that they must complete a Phase 2, or even Phase 1 with a product, in an unblinded Phase 1 it's possible to look at what happens with each cohort as dose escalation continues until they either see DLT or determine they're getting the maximum benefit as higher doses aren't improving the result. At that point, efficacy should be clear. Certainly such efficacy doesn't get FDA approval, but it's sufficient to interest a BP partner, that's what I'm talking about.
Gary
You're probably right about them not being able to get a tally, but I know in the case of another company I was contacted about voting, so I believe they were aware I had not yet voted. At that time I told the person contacting me that I did intend to vote, but had yet to make up my mind as to which way.
I realize it's easier to gain financing on a penny stock, but it can be done, and they've done it in the past. Inflating the share price to over a dollar, so you can issue tens of millions or more of new stock won't keep it there very long, but look what it does to current shareholders. Let's say they do a 1 for 100, that brings the O/S down to roughly 1.5 million, if that did give them a price of $3 post R/S it's doubtful to hold at over $2. At that time they offer 10 million shares to bring in $20 million, the O/S becomes 11.5 million, original shareholders own just over 10%, It just won't take long before more shares are issued, and even though positive events may be happening, the O/S is approaching the 150 million shares we began with, so we're down to owning 1% of the stock. Most of us have shares at an average price in the $.20 to $.40 cent range, so just to be break even after such a reverse split the price would have to go to $20 to $40. I wish I felt more confident about that happening, but without seeing approved patents and supportive clinical trials, it's doubtful.
On the other hand, if they didn't do the reverse split, but did gain approval for at least a few patents, and if they had even a single trial where efficacy was seen in a product that had a patent, I believe the share price would easily see $1 or more. They have told us they're pursuing the patents, they're planning the trials, all we need is a little success and the share price will take care of itself, and yes, they will be able to bring in sufficient funds with dilutive financing.
Perhaps more importantly, with an approved patent and a trial demonstrating efficacy, they will be very likely to attract a partner for that product, and that alone could take care of all immediate financial needs, perhaps with no dilution, or possibly with a BP taking a equity position in the company.
Note, I'm not suggesting that they must complete a Phase 2, or even Phase 1 with a product, in an unblinded Phase 1 it's possible to look at what happens with each cohort as dose escalation continues until they either see DLT or determine they're getting the maximum benefit as higher doses aren't improving the result. At that point, efficacy should be clear. Certainly such efficacy doesn't get FDA approval, but it's sufficient to interest a BP partner, that's what I'm talking about.
Gary
(1)
(0)