It means that the 84M shares from the offering on July 10th are now unrestricted. And yes I do think that it is the reason for the slide today.
For what it's worth. I sent an email to the company asking if we would have access to the slide deck from Pierce's presentation. I got a response saying they did not plan on doing so.
Spin? lol! Right. You used AIG as an example of how a r/s worked, attempting to argue that unless BCLI is in a position similar to AIG when they r/s that it would fail. That is total BS and shows how clueless you are about biotech companies and how they operate. Of course they are different, that was my point. You can't compare the two. Just because a r/s worked for a company in a completely different situation in a completely different sector, does not necessarily mean it won't work for a company with a completely different set of circumstances.
And I am the one who needs a course in reading comprehension?
You can be condescending as much as you want, I could care less. It doesn't really help your case though and makes you come across as a typical yahoo troll. You points would be received better by others if you weren't trying so hard to be macho on an internet message board.
I emailed IR asking if a slide deck would be available. So far no response. It would be disappointing not to have access to the details of what was discussed.
By the way. this "naive investor" has been pretty accurate in his thesis of this stock over the last few years.
Comparing the fundamentals of a global insurance company like AIG to that of a young biotech company like BCLI is comparing apples to oranges and shows that you don't really understand how this sector works. In the biotech world, "solid fundamentals" are defined by; a product that is safe and works, good cash position, no debt/shareholder shareholder liability, no major outstanding litigation. BCLI fits that bill and therefore this is the right time to do it in my opinion.
Derp! That comment was made before they filed the DEF 14A.
Nice post though coming from a guy whose posts read like amateur hour, lol.
One thing I can say for almost certain is that the reverse split will be approved via the proxy vote. Whether anyone likes it or not I think we can put to bed the argument of whether or not it will happen.
I also think based on the quote that I pasted, that it is 97% likely they will up-list to the Nasdaq.
The question is when will it happen. Per my post on the other thread. I'd prefer them to do it in the very near future in conjunction with positive Phase I/IIa trial data. As opposed to doing it later in Phase II when they should be focusing their attention on partnerships.
I anticipate there will be some panic selling once the reverse split happens, and if so, I'll personally be using that opportunity to buy.
For the record, I do not feel that current shareholders will get washed out by a r/s/up-list/shorting/etc...as others have stated. Sure there will be some volatility, but the fundamentals are sound, science is strong, and there is a lot of momentum with the company. This should be seen as a very positive event and I believe it will be seen this way by the broader market. In my opinion now is the time to do it.
"Reasons for the Proposed Reverse Split
The primary reason for the proposed reverse split is to increase the per share market price of the Common Stock to enhance our ability to meet the initial listing requirements of a national stock exchange (which may include the Nasdaq Capital Market or another Nasdaq exchange, an NYSE exchange or other stock exchange) or to make our Common Stock more attractive to a broader range of institutional and other investors. In recent years, including currently, the closing bid price for the Company’s Common Stock has remained below $1.00 per share for extended periods. The Nasdaq Capital Market requires, among other things, a minimum bid price per share of $3.00 for the initial listing of the Company’s Common Stock and following initial listing, and maintenance of a continued price of at least $1.00 per share.
The Board feels that the Company is at the threshold for listing on a national stock market, provided we can achieve and maintain the required minimum per share bid price. The Board recommends that the interest of the stockholders may be best served by a reverse stock split in order to increase the Common Stock bid price. The Company believes that the reverse stock split along with results of growth and operations could be a substantial basis for achieving the stock bid price necessary for a national stock market listing. However, there is no assurance that our stock price will achieve the minimum bid price amount and that our stock price will continue to meet the minimum requirement for continued listing."
This is the last comment I'll make on this since I am basically repeating myself and people are probably getting tired of it.
I don't think it is smart to wait until they are well in to Phase II or between Phase II/III to up-list, as imo that is the time to start getting serious about partnering. Might as well do it now and get it over with so that they have gone through those early "growing pains" and have settled in on the new exchange. Rather than having to worry about r/sing and up-listing and partnering at the same time later on. I also don't see such a doom and gloom scenario as I believe Fiorino is smart enough to have investors lined up and ready to go. Maybe wishful thinking in my part.
Sure there will be added pressure and much more (much needed in my opinion) liquidity of the stock. Likely some volatility as well after it happens, but like I said I'd rather get it out if the way now.
Thanks for the post. I have to respectfully disagree. Primarily because the basis for your argument is not correct in my opinion.
Reverse splits don't usually work when a company is struggling and needs to do one in order to beef up the share price or avoid being de-listed from an exchange. You can see this from the examples provided in the article you linked. In short, they do the reverse split from a position of weakness out of desperation.
BCLI on the other hand, is doing this from a position of strength. They are doing it in order to up-list, not in order to keep from being de-listed. That is a huge difference.
I am not sure what "looming dilution" you are referring to. Shorting will happen. That is just the nature of the game and consequence of playing with the big boys. I'll take it if it means more liquidity on a daily basis and more deep pocket investors having the chance to buy and hold the stock.
There are plenty of examples of reverse splits working. Your article cited several. Again, the difference is the reason why the company is doing the split. Reverse split or not, the important thing for me is the market cap. Would the current market cap still be considered undervalued post reverse split? In my opinion, yes. Obviously Perceptive, Sabby, and Sphera feel comfortable holding now as well.
Apologies, not sure why I wrote 20:1/10:1. Of course it is 1:20/1:10.
Now that that is corrected, why would it matter if you lose the bulk of your shares? The value still stays exactly the same. It's like exchanging your 4 quarters for one dollar. I never understand why people think that is such a big deal. The run-ups and subsequent change in value of your shares is all relative. A run up to $1 pre-split would be just as difficult (or easy) as a run up to $10 post 1:10 r/s.
20:1 would only leave a little over 11M o/s. However, if they don't they are playing with fire in terms of hanging onto the share price requirement.
20:1 at today's market cap would give them a $7 pps. 10:1 at today's market cap would put them at $3.5 (appx. numbers). We'll have to see how Fiorino chooses to play this. If they have some big news/great published Phase I/IIa final data to push the pps up a bit then that would help in terms of going with the smaller r/s ratio.
The o/s share amount was updated in the S-! filed the other day:
The S-1 filing provided us an updated O/S. Common stock outstanding: 224,834,618 shares as of June 20, 2014.
That would translate to a market cap of no less than $78.9M at the current pps ($.351).
I guess I'll go ahead and add my perspective. I am relatively new to this stock. Just started buying last week and have been adding into this recent free fall.
As someone who is new to this stock, I haven't had to deal with the slow bleed down from the $.90's. I know it stinks for most of you who have been in this for a while, but for someone who is in this fresh like me, I am actually enjoying adding more on the way down. I don't like to buy into rallies and have no problem lowering my cost average, as long as I feel the fundamentals are sound and have confidence in my thesis for investing. When people are panicking, that is usually when my "buy sniffer" goes off.
I do still think there is some major risk with this company. As someone else mentioned, it is a speculative biotech. The cash position is good, not great, and the market cap is a little high for me as an entry point. There are countless companies out there who all think they have a viable cure for cancer, and while we have heard a lot of positive hints from management, ONCS has yet to "prove" anything in terms of how ImmunoPulse works as a combined therapy. Until they do provide solid data (Phase IIb trial data) showing that they can do what they are indicating, I won't be surprised to see continued volatility.
However, the recent positive developments (Pierce leaving his cozy job at Merck to join a broke biotech, the sudden shift in focus to combined therapy, speed in which they revved up with the center in Seattle, beefing up the size of their employee base, etc...) made me feel comfortable enough to open a position. If you don't feel comfortable holding stock in the red for a long period of time, they this sector may not be for you, lol. For what it's worth, I held ACTC in the red for almost 3 years, at one point down as far as 75%, only to be up 140% a few days later on positive published data. Not saying that will happen here, but it is not impossible.
Can you tell us the date of that article? I tried to look it up, but so far can only find a different article. Not one that mentions Merck pre-treating patients with Yervoy. Thanks!