Seeking Alpha

Doug Dallam

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Doug Dallam's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Advanced Cell Technology: Maximizing Profit On Reverse Splits And Phase I Results [View article]
    rd88

    Yep. It is very simple, after the fact. A professor once said to us in class that all valid arguments, math, etc., are obvious after the fact. What he meant was that the necessary condition of a "zero" to do higher math is very obvious too, but it escaped humankind for centuries. You know, Roman numerals have no zero.

    But your point is a good one because if you see what I am saying, and it looks "simple" or "obvious" after you read it, then I have done my job. Thanks.
    Aug 27 11:42 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Advanced Cell Technology: Maximizing Profit On Reverse Splits And Phase I Results [View article]
    emv

    Thanks for your questions.

    First, let me say that currently ACTC is not a dilution machine, nor does it have the dynamics of such--at all, definitively not!

    Yes the company knows what reverses splits can do and all of the positives and negatives inbetween.

    As stated in the article, I guess they could put it all together before the publication data, all above board behind closed doors; but without public knowledge of results, the price would just fall back again. So that leads me to believe they will not uplist before publication data is released.

    Does that clarify things any better?
    Aug 27 11:37 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Advanced Cell Technology: Maximizing Profit On Reverse Splits And Phase I Results [View article]
    Craig,

    You have a lot of evidence gathering to do before you have an argument. I too hope for the best, but I also know that evidence is king, not assumptions.
    Aug 27 11:28 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Advanced Cell Technology: Maximizing Profit On Reverse Splits And Phase I Results [View article]
    Because they don't know if they are not treatable unless they do a biopsy on the eye itself. That is covered in the article.
    Aug 27 11:27 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Advanced Cell Technology: Maximizing Profit On Reverse Splits And Phase I Results [View article]
    stem,

    Splits apply to all company, regardless of market cap. Of course I'm not comparing Apple to ACTC. Apple was an example of a split that has universal application to all or most equities. Again, I did not come up with "split theory."
    Aug 27 11:25 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Advanced Cell Technology: Maximizing Profit On Reverse Splits And Phase I Results [View article]
    Brook,

    Brook, thanks for the positive on the sound reasoning.

    My question to you is specifically what would you like more clarity on, specifically?
    Aug 27 11:22 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Advanced Cell Technology: Maximizing Profit On Reverse Splits And Phase I Results [View article]
    Thank you!
    Aug 27 11:16 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Advanced Cell Technology: Maximizing Profit On Reverse Splits And Phase I Results [View article]
    Brook,

    I can see your point about the end of the article. But, it's only a couple of sentences, and it doesn't call into question the good will of the company. Also, what I stated at the end of the article is very factual.
    Aug 27 11:16 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Advanced Cell Technology: Maximizing Profit On Reverse Splits And Phase I Results [View article]
    I can't argue or discuss non arguments with you. I have to have a valid counter example. For instance:

    "It would appear ACTC plans on P1 publication any day. Otherwise why wouldn't ACTC ballot for the new reverse split authorization time window now?"

    That's not a valid counter example. It's a question with more than one possible answer. So I would say, I don't know because I have insufficient evidence to answer!

    But let me try to address your points.

    There are no SEC rules that say a company must put to vote a reverse split. That must come from state law or from company policy--or they could just do it to show good will to investors, I guess, I don't know corporate law. I posted that link somewhere on here. And the SEC website states it directly without confusion. So until I know 100%that they must resubmit the split to shareholders, I'd say I have a variable, not a fact (you haven't provided any evidence that they "must" put a vote before they can split). If you have that information, that would be great!

    Reverse split and uplist simultaneously: Yes, they should, but the fact they say it doesn't make it so until they do it. I have no reason to believe that ACTC is in anyway other than a 100% above line company, now that they have cleared their books of past problems. That said, taking that statement at 100% future fact without any type of alteration is at your own peril. I'm just being cautious here, not negative.

    "Soon" can mean many things to many people. For me,'soon' does not have an inviolable time frame attached to it.

    "It would appear ACTC plans on P1 publication any day." We've seen that same comment for the last 4 months. Like I said, 'any day' and 'soon' are not concise.

    "I would like to think he has things buttoned down - or why else would he join the company?"

    The problem in this idea is contained in the subject itself" I would like to think. . . "

    I'd like to think that at the end of a rainbow there is a pot of gold, but that doesn't make it true. Look, our beliefs do not create truth. The truth is what it is and to uncover those truths we need evidence (I'm not trying to be harsh here, so bare with me).

    I tend to think that, given the evidence, the new CEO came to ACTC for good reasons--but there are plausible other explanations. (e.g., Perhaps he knows his other company has gone as far as it can, that there are internal problems that are intractable, and unknown to outsiders, and now was a good time to get out. Those are all assumptions, but it just shows that what we want to believe, our assumptions, can be wrong.

    "At this stage, you can author all the SA articles you want, but the only event that matters is the P1 data publication."

    The reason for writing articles isn't to call into question positive interim results, but to understand the positives and negatives of future company probability of success. And, yes, the only thing that matters currently is interim data from the publication. That is 100% true!
    Aug 27 11:09 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Advanced Cell Technology: Maximizing Profit On Reverse Splits And Phase I Results [View article]
    MG

    Was it truly the uplist that did that and no other relevant variables?

    No matter, the point is that after an uplist, the equity went from a minimum of uplist price requirement to 9.30. That's "only" a 100%+/- increase. So taking ACTC as an example, and using the 1:100 split, if you had 1M shares before the split and it went to .50 you would have 500K, and if it went from $4-10 after the split (at .10 cents), you would have 20K. (I've already stated this in the article.)
    Aug 27 10:42 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Advanced Cell Technology: Maximizing Profit On Reverse Splits And Phase I Results [View article]
    CR

    That's a lot of ideas all at once! I'd like to see you unpack each one because I think you are at least mostly correct. But the way you have it is like a shut gun affect without much support of interesting assertions. Just take one small piece at a time and we'll vet it.
    Aug 27 10:38 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Advanced Cell Technology: Maximizing Profit On Reverse Splits And Phase I Results [View article]
    CR

    "From this evidence the real question should be is ACTC doing poorly? If we agree the answer is no, does the evidence you cite even apply?"

    That's a little to general to grab on too.

    There are many variables and there are many academic papers on the subject. Like I said in the article, argue with the PhD's about "split theory." - lol

    More to the point:
    My point was not to compare "companies to companies," rather, to show that "split theory" applies to most equities, universally. Again, this is not my theory. I just grabbed the information and put it out there. You know, kinda like a writer takes the English language and writes a book, he or she doesn't invent the language. He just takes the language and organizes it. (Not a one to one analogy, but you see my point.)

    My position is that, as stated, I think I have a better chance of profiting the more shares I have. I know, it's controversial because it's all %age, so I don't know what else to say or how to say it differently.


    Your comment on DOW is relevant though. Can you expand on that? It sounds like good information to have, relevant or not here.
    Aug 27 10:32 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Advanced Cell Technology: Maximizing Profit On Reverse Splits And Phase I Results [View article]
    MG

    No problem with your assessment. I think I should have made it clear that I was not comparing company to company in any of my examples. I was trying to show a universal idea ("split theory") that is applicable to all or at least most equities, regardless of type or market cap.
    Aug 27 10:18 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Advanced Cell Technology: Maximizing Profit On Reverse Splits And Phase I Results [View article]
    Thanks Jay. That's what SA is all about--an author puts out his ideas, hopefully valid and supported with evidence, and then we all get to ask question. That question and answer system is how we come to have a much better idea about an equity and if we want a position in it.

    For instance, some articles are seemingly a rehash of other articles, and they give us no new information. I'm guilty of bashing those articles at times, but I am wrong to do so--there may be others out there who haven't read all of the previous articles and also those that have may need to see it said in a different manner.

    So your point is well taken.
    Aug 27 10:15 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Advanced Cell Technology: Maximizing Profit On Reverse Splits And Phase I Results [View article]
    Please support your position with evidence, because it flies directly in the face of what is on the Apple website. I quoted "Apple" on why a forward split. That wasn't my assumption.
    Aug 27 10:10 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
6,713 Comments
4,427 Likes