I haven't read an IPO prospectus in years, but out of curiosity, I did skim OPGEN. I don't know whether it's more of a comment on the company or the status of the current IPO market but it amazes me that a company like OPGEN can attempt to go public with language in their S-1 clearly stating, "The report of our independent registered public accounting firm on our financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 contains explanatory language that substantial doubt exists about our ability to continue as a going concern. Our monthly cash burn rate is approximately $500,000. Our current operating assumptions, which include our best estimate of future revenue and operating expenses, indicate that our current cash on hand as of December 31, 2014 of approximately $0.7 million, plus the 2015 convertible note funding and additional secured demand note funding in 2015, will not be sufficient to fund operations through the second quarter of 2015.
'In the event the Company is unable to successfully raise additional capital, we will not have sufficient cash flows and liquidity to finance our business operations as currently contemplated. Accordingly, in such circumstances the Company would be compelled to reduce general and administrative expenses and delay research and development projects including the purchase of scientific equipment and supplies until it is able to obtain sufficient financing."
Were I not familiar with TINY's past proven non-communications skills and ability to participate in monetization events that never translate to TINY's shareholder benefit, I might be tempted to say that with language like this in the S-1, it's no wonder they're silent.
I've been a fan of INVE for a couple of years but ultimately bailed out of all my high risk stocks in October - couldn't stand the volatility. So I don't mean to come across negatively, but your comment could easily be turned around as a negative implication for INVE instead of a positive. What crossed my mind with this announcement was I wondered why CSCO didn't exercise the same strategy with INVE that Apple did when they chose to buy out Authentic at its very low market cap when they decided to use AUTH's technology in teh then upcoming IPhone? AAPL decided to lock in AUTH's technology and growth completely for themselves by stealing the company from AUTH's shareholders when they knew the impact of their own decision to use their tech. CSCO didn't do the same thing. I wonder why? Could it be the market's over estimating the long term value of this deal or that CSCO doesn't really consider INVE's tech that far ahead of the competition? I have no answers and kind of feel like Debby Downer in even bringing it up. It's just my cynical mind coming up with alternate thought for no apparent reason. I don't own INVE anymore, and won't be jumping in no matter what, so take this from whence it comes - a cynic with no dog in the hunt and no in depth analysis done.
Just in case somebody would actually like to discuss TVC, can anyone explain why TVC and TVE are trading so close in price right now? After both issues reset, with TVE reset at 3.36% and TVC at 3.55%, how can they be trading within 10 cents of each other? What's even more difficult to understand is why are both, especially TVE, trading higher or at least at the same price as it did last week when long Treasuries have increased 20 basis points this week? I don't understand... TVC is justifiable because you can still put them back to TVA, but why is TVE still trading at a premium to par?