I love this company. A few weeks ago, I took a chance and emailed Michael Szycher, the CEO, and simply asked how's it going. What I got was the following reply. [Notice: he doesn't say whether the "acquisition" refers to acquiring or being acquired, does he? I think he's talking about the former.]
Here's what he said,
"Although I generally do not answer stockholder questions by email, in your
case I will make an exception.
(1) I am awiting final results from the BI Deac on the antimicrobial
(2) We are now selecting a medical "advisory" team to conduct animal trials,
leading to clinical trials. We have identified 4 good candidates.
(3) I am hot on the trail of a major acquisition. Big, big ****.
Besides that, I am taking it easy.
Agreed. We've kicked the can enough . . . and I still don't know what to make of the email. I have neither bought nor sold CTE since receiving the email, so it goes into my file of useless info for now. I'll continue to hold the company. I think it has a number of interesting potential up-sides.
New direction: what do you think about the fact that the shares to pay off the 340k loan to dkp end up being valued at .91? Doesn't that seem like a pretty good deal for them? Of course, I'm sure that some consideration of interest lost was included in the negotiations? Perhaps, they are exercising options which were a part of the original deal?
there is a big difference between a private communication (email) between a company executive and a private party and a statement made on TV. The statement made on tv can be regarded as publically distrubuted information, while the private communication would not. Therefore such private statements could be considered inside information depending on how the SEC would choose to pursue such an issue.
A good example of this was an interoffice memo at a large company regarding earnings or earnings release was accidentally sent to more people than intended (company or plantwide rather than the one intended management recipient). So the company made a public press release of the information as soon as it was discovered that non-insiders had access to this information.
Another side of this is that acquisitions tend to hurt stocks, until an acquisition is producing a better bottom line and the borrowed funds are beginning to be paid down. Of course, the opposite often is true if one is the acquired.
When I was mentioning SEC regulations I was referring to predictions of big news releases. Of course all companies that want to remain competitive/grow are always on the lookout for acquisitions, mergers, joint ventures, special licensing agreements. That's just good business. I would expect CTE to be doing that.
This week, I saw the C.E.O. of a large firm on CNBC. He said he was working hard on some "major acquisitions". He declined to say what that meant. These guys are always hot on the trail of some kind of deal or another. Lexus is correct - the majority of these pursuits bear no fruit.
But, one of you has me thinking . . . why would Mr. Szycher anser MY email. I'm a nobody. While my investment in the company is large (for my family) it's peanuts compared to others. Why did he answer ME? I can only come up with two reasons: 1) he wanted to touch base with Joe-average; 2) he thought I was someone else.
Both possibilities are plausible.
Corporations are always working on "deals" subject to market conditions,ability to obtain financing,ability to develop terms "fair" to all parties,etc.etc.Over 95% of all such discussions never leave the bargaining table for one reason or other.
I think you're wise to question the stuff of chats. In answer to your question, no, there is no way to verify this type of thing.
The response I received from Michael S. is a real response. What it means is, of course, open to interpretation. And, I seriously doubt whether he would clarify point #3 at my request. It may actually mean nothing at all. That's the information/speculation game we all play at every level.