is steven seinberg a paid basher?

someone suggested to me that i was paid to bash biotime (btim.ob). i replied that the paid bashing on the net was being done by steven seinberg, chief financial officer (cfo) of biotime, in posts to the securities and exchange commission.  it is of interest possibly to note that  some anonymous person publicly stated a day or 4 ago that biotime was about to receive a $5mm grant.  That’s the kind of world where bucket shops and boiler rooms thrive: people doing honest analysis must be “paid bashers” while people doing mindless and dishonest cheerleading to protect teir positions are considered “loyal shareholders.”
here’s an example f what i mean:

the 8k filed on 0417 describing what happened on 0415:

The maturity date of our Revolving Line of Credit has been extended to December 1, 2009 with respect to $2,669,282 in principal amount of loans. (a revolving line of credit for $2.669mm got a new date, 7 1/2 month away.)

“We repaid $223,834 of principal and accrued interest on loans that matured on April 15, 2009 and were not extended.
(some part of the credit line was shut off, and paid out. does biotime bother to be honest enough to say which part?)

” In addition, certain lenders exercised their right to exchange $572,404 of principal and accrued interest on loans for an aggregate of 473,131 of our common shares.”
Does biotime bother to say how much of the $572k was principal and how much interest?  some loans were at 12%.
if one speculates that 12% is the figure, and 1 year the time period, then the lender lost oportunity for 1 year on apx $511k, and then was traded for 473k shares, for a basis of 1 3/32 ish…. ($1.08).
And actually, its worse than that. How??
becuase, to use a term from aother world, biotime had to pay vigourish on the loan. it was forced to give for free  91,526 shares, based on a 6% iterest rate, to the lenders.
91,526 is therefore 6% of what? 6% of the $2mm comes to $160,156. and that converts to 91,256 shares how? on a basis of 1 3/4 ($1.75 a share).
does this sound like an invented number?
biotime identifies this number:
“Promissory notes that were exchangeable for our common shares at a price of $1.50 and Embryome Sciences common stock at $2.50 until April 15, 2009, may now be exchanged for our common shares at $1.75 per share”
and i offer that as evidence of the soundness of this analysis.

a coupl;e of days later 14ds were filed with the sec, and the movement from the dtc to the recipients had to cross the tape. it crossed it at prevailing prices f the moment, cuasing some to see a “rally” which they traded into and or out of.
However, the idea that the buyers actually paid anything more than is stated above is a fiction.
Biotime would, imho, have a moral and fiduciary duty to identify it as a fiction.
Did it?
ask the reporters who called (or were they called??) what the ceo, dr michael west said.
then the prudent speculator has a metric for the integrity of the “science” of biotime.

the “good news” in this 8 k is that the exchange price isn;t 16 cents.
the hoest news is that this is the 5th amendment to a credit agreement that is nowhere near being retired, and there is no evidence in the 10k as to how it ever will be.
bottom line?
people buying biotime stock are not buying equity in biotime, bcuase there is no equity except patents 1/2 way thru their life.  they are supporting the acquisition of biotime by al kingsley and neal bradshear, who are paying next to nothing for it.

” We may borrow up to an additional $830,718 under our revolving line of credit if we elect to do so and are able to obtain additional loan commitments from our current lender or from new lenders.”

notice how bio time cannot, unnder thee covenenants borrow $1 mm from somebody new.
notice how biotime evidently needs permission from the current creditors to eve look for financing, up to the $830 mark.

Use a Highlighter on this page

Posted under business

Wasn’t Alameda a swamp once before?

The prudent speculator will generally listen to what management states as goals.
Somwhere in the s3 there will be something about “we intend to make widgets. there are already widgets out there, and so we may not succeed. we expect to succeed because we have a new way to make widgets.”

Under sec law, random people may attempt to raise a $million under a 504, which functionally only needs to state the goals of raising a mil for some purpose to be later identified.

Generally, people become medical doctors to practice medicine, and people get nasdaq licenses in order to move stock on the nasdaq.

Interestingly enough, as part of the cloning/stemcell/corpsicle, infuse groundgog genes into the brain thinking of the collateral group around dr west of biotime, there is another hybrid:

:”One of the main goals this year for West is to get BioTime traded on either the American or Nasdaq stock exchange.”

http://www.insidebayarea.com/business/ci_12211685

The prudent speculator might think the main goals of a deeply in the hole biotec would be to develop product and revenue stream. That’s one of those antique ben graham ideas that the modern trader knows to avoid. the goal of a development stage biotech is to sell stock, even if it’s been a development stage company for 17 years; actually, especially then.

The prudent speculator might think that a ceo who doesn’t clarify for the press that a “purchase” of shares recorded in a 14d was actually the registration of shares granted as a penalty for failure to meet loan covenants, and as a result as at a basis of 0.

The prudent speculator might think that when the ceo, dr. west, states that
“We’re optimistic that we’re going to be handsomely profitable in a short while,” and is talking about a company that was required to tell the sec in a 10k that if it didn’t refinance debt and obtain further on april 15, it would not be able to continue operations, and told the sec in an 8k on april 17th that its net credit lines had not fundamentally changed, and had had to issue free stock as a penalty, that the “handsome profits” come from selling stock, not from doing biotech product development, especially if said cmpany had once before had a board member (ron barkin, former attorney) publicly state earnings estimates based on a mix if sheer fantasy (instant full market acceptance for off label use) that would be priced in violation of fda guidelines concerning pricing equivalent product.
barkin was gone shortly after that.
how much longer will dr. west and his secrets of immortiality be hanging aorund alameda?

Use a Highlighter on this page

Posted under business

This post was written by admin on April 25, 2009

Tags: , , , , , ,