Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Dais Analytic Corporation Message Board

lnsideoutsideupsidedown 1651 posts  |  Last Activity: May 19, 2014 4:06 PM Member since: Feb 20, 2003
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    What does 33,832,836 shares mean? part 1

    by techread May 19, 2014 10:53 AM
    lnsideoutsideupsidedown lnsideoutsideupsidedown May 19, 2014 4:06 PM Flag

    I suspect the overall reduction in holdings is even higher, due to additional debt conversions over the past few years.

    I don't see anything wrong with PM selling at higher values and the 5-10M per year is really not that bad considering their holding level and length of holding. They have a right realize some profits.

    However I'm more concerned with the 10M in the first 40 days for Q1. That's a lot of shares in a short period on a depressed stock valuation. Why would PM offload substantial holdings at that time?

    But there are a few items, as we discussed that keep me from passing judgement until I know more.

    1) Volume during the timeframe doesn't appear to support 10M shares sold by a singled entity open market.
    2) Rumours from OTL is that somehow PM compensated MG in significant NAVB shares for his separation.
    3) IMO PM has previously sold into strength.

    While the rumours on the OTL are unsubstantiated by the SEC filing rules as we understand them, due to their track record, I'm holding out for judgement until after Q2 per DDB's mention of a possible July confirmation. An amended PM Schedule 13D could reveal more.

  • Reply to

    wow...

    by techread May 12, 2014 10:24 AM
    lnsideoutsideupsidedown lnsideoutsideupsidedown May 12, 2014 2:05 PM Flag

    My point being that if they separated common shares out to another entity, they would still convert preferred to reach back up to the 9.99% mark, in order to still maintain voting influence, this being another scenario to add to your list.

  • Reply to

    wow...

    by techread May 12, 2014 10:24 AM
    lnsideoutsideupsidedown lnsideoutsideupsidedown May 12, 2014 1:36 PM Flag

    we'll have to wait and see. We should get confirmation down the road in future filings based on what the two entities jointly own.

  • Reply to

    wow...

    by techread May 12, 2014 10:24 AM
    lnsideoutsideupsidedown lnsideoutsideupsidedown May 12, 2014 1:22 PM Flag

    Platinum has always tried to maintain 9.99% common shares ownership. This maximized their voting power giving them maximum influence.

  • Reply to

    wow...

    by techread May 12, 2014 10:24 AM
    lnsideoutsideupsidedown lnsideoutsideupsidedown May 12, 2014 12:59 PM Flag

    I think you missed the gist of my previous post..a load of grammar issues and typos probably didn't help. If you look at the 2012 filing, both PPVA and PM jointly owned the same 9,539,684 shares representing 9.99% .. and preferred were noted in the notes. However, In the recent 2013 filing, only PPVA reported owning the common..10M shares representing only 7.5% (less than 9.99% mainly due to Crede dilution) while PM reported only owning the preferred. There is now an explicitly split of ownership (not just within the notes) in the 13D reporting, which did not exist previously. There was a distinctive change in how the ownerships were reported. It could be an error in reporting or a change in the reporting rules, but the reported shares for PPVA coincidentally matches the shares missing from PMs ownership based on the latest 10K reporting. I'm not an expert on 13D and 13G reporting, but I suspect this 13D was what was required to separate shared ownership and we'll see more confirmation of this in future filings.

  • Reply to

    wow...

    by techread May 12, 2014 10:24 AM
    lnsideoutsideupsidedown lnsideoutsideupsidedown May 12, 2014 11:06 AM Flag

    Techread, I don't post nor read hear much, but occasionally I see one of your posts and read it as you have decent analysis. However, I come to the realization that the facts do back up that PM has not sold. If you look at the last 13D that was filed, there was a subtle difference to previous filings. Previous filings had PM and PPVA funds showing shared voting power for the entire NAVB PP ownership. However, this time around PPVA has shared voting power for only 10M while PM has voting power for the remaining (series B equivalents), so the shares have been separated between these two entities in the 13D reporting. The 10M with PPVA are the same number of shares that calculated to what PM has lightened their portfolio with. Any It's subtle, but the 10K reporting specifically states PM and not PP or PPVA and if PM is no longer claiming those 10M shares, but leaving PPVA to claim the remaining, this accounts for the discrepancy while showing PP as a group is not selling. As now two separate entities, only PPM is at the 9.99% level and they subsequently converted 14M shares from preferred to get to the 9.995level, after already carving out the 10M to PPVA. As to the shares going to MG, I don't know, but it appears to me these shares had been specifically carved out from PM per PP last 13D filing, and the 13D filing to show this was back on 11/13/13.

  • Reply to

    Crede Capital Share Price Manipulation

    by umesentosa29 Mar 6, 2014 1:47 PM
    lnsideoutsideupsidedown lnsideoutsideupsidedown Mar 9, 2014 9:48 PM Flag

    1 day prior. Exchange price is set 2 days prior.

  • Reply to

    CHMP

    by techread Feb 17, 2014 4:08 PM
    lnsideoutsideupsidedown lnsideoutsideupsidedown Feb 18, 2014 12:26 AM Flag

    During the last presentation, we were told by the end of the Q. There is nothing on the CHMP agenda for Feb, it looks like LS will be up for discussion in March.

  • Reply to

    Paly, paly...crede, not PM

    by dscorr98 Feb 14, 2014 6:24 PM
    lnsideoutsideupsidedown lnsideoutsideupsidedown Feb 15, 2014 12:32 PM Flag

    quantsbank. The filing states on each entity reporting that the aggregate amount of shares owned is 3,169,015. 3,169,015 is not 1/3 of the initial 10,563,381 common shares issues but equivalent to the precise number of commons shares equivalence for the warrants or .3 x 10,563,381. This is a joint filing for jointly owned shares.

    Also under the ownership section in conclusively states:

    "As of the close of business on December 31, 2013, each of the Reporting Persons may be deemed to have beneficial ownership of 3,169,015 shares of Common Stock, which consists of 3,169,015 shares of Common Stock issuable upon exercise or exchange of the Warrant, and all such shares of Common Stock represent beneficial ownership of approximately 2.3% of the Common Stock, based on (1) 134,345,483 shares of Common Stock issued and outstanding on November 5, 2013, as reported in the Form 10-Q filed by the Issuer on November 12, 2013, plus (2) 3,169,015 shares of Common Stock issuable upon exercise or exchange of the Warrant."

  • Reply to

    Paly, paly...crede, not PM

    by dscorr98 Feb 14, 2014 6:24 PM
    lnsideoutsideupsidedown lnsideoutsideupsidedown Feb 15, 2014 12:19 PM Flag

    techread, Crede is under 100M. You can go back and look at their filings and deals. DDBUYER posted a summary of transactions showing potential holdings..check OTL 11/18 post "Everyone should read the full 10Q!". I think it accounts for 80M or so, and that's if they were still holding. NAVB would have put them over the top, but they sold 10.5M before the end of the Q, keeping them under the threshold. They may have sold other holdings as well.

  • Reply to

    Paly, paly...crede, not PM

    by dscorr98 Feb 14, 2014 6:24 PM
    lnsideoutsideupsidedown lnsideoutsideupsidedown Feb 15, 2014 12:05 PM Flag

    quantsank. I disagree concerning Crede.. Crede owns only 3M in equivalent stock , simply because they own restricted warrants. In Q4, they sold all 10.5M shares of their common holding at market, immediately after they shares were acquired through their financing deal with Navidea. They single handedly destroyed long term shareholder value and it's yet to be determine if they will hold their warrants or stock equivalents when they become unrestricted March 24th.

  • Reply to

    Paly, paly...crede, not PM

    by dscorr98 Feb 14, 2014 6:24 PM
    lnsideoutsideupsidedown lnsideoutsideupsidedown Feb 15, 2014 11:08 AM Flag

    That is true. There were definitely nice pickups in Q4. If this becomes a trend, we may finally start to see some appreciation and stabilization in the SP.

  • Reply to

    Paly, paly...crede, not PM

    by dscorr98 Feb 14, 2014 6:24 PM
    lnsideoutsideupsidedown lnsideoutsideupsidedown Feb 15, 2014 10:54 AM Flag

    Crede's not considered an institution simply because of their total assets under management doesn't meet the required filing threshold.

  • Reply to

    Paly, paly...crede, not PM

    by dscorr98 Feb 14, 2014 6:24 PM
    lnsideoutsideupsidedown lnsideoutsideupsidedown Feb 15, 2014 10:25 AM Flag

    when you consider full dilution, you also have to consider Platinum and Crede are holding much of those undiluted shares, so institutional holding probably increases on that basis.

  • Reply to

    Paly, paly...crede, not PM

    by dscorr98 Feb 14, 2014 6:24 PM
    lnsideoutsideupsidedown lnsideoutsideupsidedown Feb 15, 2014 10:23 AM Flag

    How do you figure? After their form 3 filing in Nov, I assume they must file a form 4 with any change to their common holdings. Granted, the Form 13F seems to have reported more common than the Form 3, so something doesn't add up to me.

  • lnsideoutsideupsidedown lnsideoutsideupsidedown Dec 5, 2013 5:49 PM Flag

    Look at it from an investor's perspective. A week ago,we were waiting for results, expecting positive results and submission for approval. One week later, after results were released, we've been informed by lifetech that the commercialization will be delayed and another trial is required. So from an investors perspective, we've gone from waiting for results and then near term submission and approval to now waiting for device changes, another trial and additional dilution. If Lifetech is correct about a new trial, investors are not better off than they were a week ago. If Lifetech is wrong about a new trial, there is now added risk that the issues found during the trial could results in a rejected device and still the need for a new trial before resubmission.

  • Reply to

    The Life Tech report is not entirely accurate

    by ace2727 Dec 5, 2013 1:05 PM
    lnsideoutsideupsidedown lnsideoutsideupsidedown Dec 5, 2013 4:31 PM Flag

    Thanks...I'll have to go listen to the call, as that's in conflict with what lifetech released...Lifetech doesn't seem to go out on a limb, but is explicit on the need for an additional trial and even reference Echo's expectations of a Q3/Q14 release. I

    " Of particular concern, IV acetaminophen (as used in ICU) interfered with the Biosensors and as a result, 3 patients were excluded from the trial. While management believes they have identified a solution, this is a known issue in the field and would hamper the commercial prospects for the Symphony system. The result is that Echo Therapeutics will be required to make all the fixes and perform another clinical trial. Assuming that all the fixes work and the trial is successful, Echo expects a limited launch of their Gen2 version in Europe in Q3/Q4 2014."

  • Reply to

    The Life Tech report is not entirely accurate

    by ace2727 Dec 5, 2013 1:05 PM
    lnsideoutsideupsidedown lnsideoutsideupsidedown Dec 5, 2013 3:51 PM Flag

    At their last offering, it was obvious based on cash burn that capital would be needed by year end or early Q1, i'm certain I posted this conclusion. Nothing's changed. They should take Platinum's suggestion and partnered instead of crushing shareholder's once again. How much can raise this time? How far will it get them?

  • Reply to

    The Life Tech report is not entirely accurate

    by ace2727 Dec 5, 2013 1:05 PM
    lnsideoutsideupsidedown lnsideoutsideupsidedown Dec 5, 2013 3:39 PM Flag

    Ace, where did you get your info? I haven't been able to find clarity on this. I would think some of the changes are being put in place, because they may be needed to mitigate an initial rejection.

  • lnsideoutsideupsidedown lnsideoutsideupsidedown Dec 5, 2013 3:22 PM Flag

    Info for delay was in the proposed stock offering...missed that..I'm still curious as to what was said about this on the call.

DLYT
0.0525+0.0075(+16.67%)Jul 22 12:03 PMEDT