His ultimate goal with that article wasn't to see ACTC fall. He's using Seeking Alpha as a method to support and manipulate his trades. His goal was to manipulate the stock price for STEM by promoting it to ACTC shareholders with slanted facts and by neglecting important details about ACTC and the company's progress. Fortunately, STEM is barely up 1%. Why people buy and sell ACTC based off his articles is insane.
Nearly all promising biotechs that I've researched that jumped to the Nasdaq did not see a big jump after getting there.
I don't remember seeing your name around 2-3 years ago. It's easy to be optimistic if you're new.
I believe that if he tries to massively dilute stock without anything substantial besides Nasdaq uplisting, and it ultimately fails to produce - we'll see shareholder lawsuits.
As we move closer to the ASM, it'll be interesting to see what happens with the share price. With the recent filings, ramped up hiring, ASM location and more, I think many shareholders are expecting big news that will give the share price the catapult that we should have received already with trial results.
However, long-term share holders know better. Time and time again, meeting after meeting, we've waited for big news that rocks the share price. We've been given stories of a bright future and building shareholder value, only to get taken advantage of further and big milestones get trampled into nothing (e.g. the recent trial results).
Some people talk about a potential JV and/or financing. With my knowledge of ACTC's past and the information available, I do not think they have anything like this lined up or they would not have requested such an obnoxious amount of shares. If you read and think logically about their own proposals and quit daydreaming about massive riches, you'll see that they want funding to go at this for at least several years on their own.
I think that, once again, come ASM, we'll get rose peddles and dandelions, a lot of talk of potential and a bright future, but at the the end of the day - very little that will give us all the share price boost that we want and an announcement that will have an immediate and permanent contribution to the share price. In fact, we may get the opposite. A lot of talk about the "tide turning" and "big potential" but then an announcement of big dilution to make it onto the Nasdaq.
By the way, any other biotech that I've seen hit the Nasdaq has NOT had a substantial lift. In fact, they're opened up to shorting a lot more.
Just my thoughts! I really hope I'm wrong, but that's my suspicion as a long-term shareholder. I think ACTC's big day (or even big milestone, shareholder value wise) could come, but I don't think it will be this November.
Oct 21, 2014 7.05
Oct 20, 2014 7.08
Oct 17, 2014 7.18
Oct 16, 2014 6.95
Oct 15, 2014 7.69
Oct 14, 2014 7.97
Oct 13, 2014 6.83
Oct 10, 2014 6.96
Oct 9, 2014 7.07
After researching, I doubt uplisting will have much of an impact. I've looked at a number of promising biotechs that saw little to no movement after uplisting.
It prevented further degeneration in 17 of 18 patients. I'd say that's basically curing AMD. Is it marketable yet? No. But is a cure? Sure seems so!
You do realize that the trial results, financing, etc was all started BEFORE he got on board, yes? Wotton just happened to come on board at a *very* convenient time when ACTC's work began unfolding.
IMO, his execution has been lacking. Announcing a shelf registration before trial results, lack of news circulation and PR with trial results, massive dilution rather than a partnership. I mean, we essentially just cured blindness and the stock DROPPED.
With the amount of shares and dilution they're requesting, it doesn't seem like this is happening. They seem to want to still fly solo and off the shareholders backs. The recent 3M LP deal indicates it, the verbiage of the recent filings, and the share request. I sure hope they get some common sense and partner up, though!
If the company dilutes to 110 million shares, it would need to be a BILLION dollar company to get the share price back into the $9s. This likely isn't happening before commercialization, which could be as late as 2020, per Lanza.
Just letting everyone know as you vote for dilution.
If Paul executed things better, we could've seen benefits to uplisting and be higher than where we are today.
What I had hoped that Paul would do was iron out a deal that benefits shareholders more. I'd even be open to dilution, which is realistic given this a phase 1 biotech, but a better deal would have gotten us much further. For example, even if he surrendered, say, 30% in common stock in exchange for uplisting qualification assistance and phase 2 funding with an investing partner, made the announcement, and then uplisted along with trial results, we'd see a very different picture today.
By throwing in the three million shares to LP, the $100M in share offering, and the 40-60% dilution, he really eliminated some serious possibilities and decided to continue to fund the company through a method that is highly toxic to shareholders. While a deal remains a possibility, the verbiage on the recent filing, the amount of the dilution requested, and Paul's words seem to be suggestive that they intend to do what they always have - ripping apart the common shareholder as their sole answer to financing.
Paul Wotton's intentions seem to clearly suggest that he has every intention of forcing shareholders to fully fund the company through dilutive proposals, with no effort being made to pull in non-dilutive investors. The proposals put forward for the ASM and the words from the conference further back this up as well.
With Phase 2 taking 18-24 months, no institutions will likely be interested in buying ACTC in large quantities, and going to the Nasdaq will make it even easier and more tempting for folks to short the stock. With little to no institutional buying, a growing short interest, and no significant breakthroughs for at least several years, going to the Nasdaq at this point could do more harm than good.
For these reasons, I feel Paul has been a severe detriment to ACTC. I personally feel that ACTC *does* have other options to bring in non-dilutive financing that doesn't jeopardize the company or that would seriously prohibit future profits, especially with such great results being released from phase one trials.
With all of this in mind, and a stock price that has seen a decline from the $12s to the $6s under his watch, I feel that Paul is just following the lead of previos management by destroying shareholders and shareholder value. In fact, I feel that it could potentially be argued that he has caused more damage than any other previous CEO in such a short amount of time.
Keep this in mind as you vote for or against dilution and ACTC management.