There has been the feeling by some (experienced Wall Street veterans) that either or both of Maxim Group and Network 1 Financial have been "double dealing:" working with Provectus in appropriate, necessary ways to facilitate the "PVCTP" IPO, while at the same time (in other areas of the respective firms) contributing to driving the PVCT.OB share price down for the benefit of firm clients (the math here is simple: if these firms assume Pete will agree to an "at market" conversion ratio, the lower the common stock share price at "IPO" pricing [if the "IPO" goes off], the better the value proposition for the preferred stock).
In the case of Maxim, as lead underwriter of the PVCTP "IPO," Paul LaRosa, Executive Managing Director - Capital Markets, works with Pete in this regard. See my previous comments here.
At the same time, Maxim's retail side appears to have been tasked to seek 300+ prospective buyers (since the key NASDAQ listing requirements are a $15MM raise, minimum $4 per share price and 300+ round lot holders). There have been no pricing or other details for the "IPO," because, according to Peter, these parameters continue to be worked out between prospective investors and him. Maxim retail reps have been telling folks, allegedly, the "actual details" of the IPO, which appears to have contributed to the downward pressure on the common stock.
Have other parts of Maxim been talking down the stock down or facilitating its drop? Communications from Leonard Greenbaum, Maxim's Managing Director - Equity Derivatives, to Dr. Adams appear to indicate such activity or behavior:
Beginning last week, Mr. Greenbaum appears to have advised the initial sale of common stock (of an existing position) as soon as possible to avoid further losses because the share price was falling rapidly. It appears he also suggested taking an aggressive short position concurrently to take advantage of the greater share price decline Mr. Greenbaum believed was to come because the lower the price of PVCT, the greater the benefit to the eventual holders of PVCTP. It appears he also concluded all existing shareholders had the opportunity to participate in the "IPO," so this was fair.
Share your Maxim stories with Pete at pete@pvct.com. Please be accurate, and document as many details as you can.
Showing posts with label Dr. Adams. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dr. Adams. Show all posts
October 17, 2012
October 10, 2012
$PVCT.OB: A Collection Of Thoughts & Non-Thoughts
Thought: PVCTP "IPO" pricing has not yet been established.
Non-Thought: Maxim Rep #6 said (paraphrasing) his earlier comments on the call regarding an "at market conversion ratio" as a definitive deal term was hypothetical and he did not know what the conversion ratio was or would be until it was told to him. I said (paraphrasing) I appreciated these latter comments. He must be new to the financial services industry and the Maxim retail desk.
Non-Thought: This same rep said (paraphrasing) Peter told him the conversion ratio was "at market." When pushed on the veracity of such a claim, he said (paraphrasing) Peter implied it to him. When asked for an e-mail of this be sent to me, none arrived. When he offered to set-up a call first this in the morning with the capital markets/investment banker point person on the deal and I said (paraphrasing) "Please do," no call thus far has materialized.
Non-Thought: According to Maxim, the PVCTP "IPO" appears to have been pushed off to the week of October 15.
Non-Thought: Maxim Rep #4 empathized with me as a common stock shareholder by saying (paraphrasing) he too felt saddened or aggrieved that "others" were suggesting selling the common stock to buy the preferred stock. An important aspect of customer service indeed is to empathize with a prospective client.
Thought: According to several sources, Maxim has secured the necessary 300+ prospective "IPO" buyers for the security to be listed on the NASDAQ. This item is important because, aside from establishing the appropriate deal terms for the PVCTP vehicle, the confirmation enables Peter to know whether Provectus can indeed use this financing approach if the board and management chooses to do so.
Thought: You will recall management has not raised money through common stock or warrant issuances below $1.12 for some time (I should get around to listing such information in a subsequent post in a few days). Raising money at or above this level for philosophical (they have drawn their own line in the sand on this issue) and mechanical (there are several warrant reset provisions for fundraising common stock share prices below $1.12 and other price levels) reasons is important to them. Thus, doing an "at market" conversion ratio, or a ratio utilizing a common share price below $1.12 and/or issuing warrants with exercise prices (when the exercise price of a warrant on a share of PVCTP is translated into a common stock exercise price) below $1.12 would be contrary to management's current position on fund raising, go against recent historical actions and have a significant impact on the overal capital structure of the company.
Thought: In the month of September, Knight Capital (NITE) appears to have been responsible for less than 25% of traded shares. If, as has been speculated on PVCT stock chat rooms and elsewhere, Dr. Adams' shares are transacted through NITE, more than 75% of selling (and buying) was by folks and entities other than Dr. Adams. I am not focusing on the amount of shares, since there is thoughtful commentary that volume statistics for over-the-counter stocks are much higher than commonly reported (perhaps by as much as half), but rather the relative proportion of transactions.
Thought: I previously expressed my thoughts about the "IPO" to management. In communicating my view on its pros and cons, Peter clearly indicated to me he would take a thoughtful approach to a PVCTP "IPO" (if the company were to use it). I take him at his word until and unless his word, in my view, is not worth taking any more.
Non-Thought: Maxim Rep #6 said (paraphrasing) his earlier comments on the call regarding an "at market conversion ratio" as a definitive deal term was hypothetical and he did not know what the conversion ratio was or would be until it was told to him. I said (paraphrasing) I appreciated these latter comments. He must be new to the financial services industry and the Maxim retail desk.
Non-Thought: This same rep said (paraphrasing) Peter told him the conversion ratio was "at market." When pushed on the veracity of such a claim, he said (paraphrasing) Peter implied it to him. When asked for an e-mail of this be sent to me, none arrived. When he offered to set-up a call first this in the morning with the capital markets/investment banker point person on the deal and I said (paraphrasing) "Please do," no call thus far has materialized.
Non-Thought: According to Maxim, the PVCTP "IPO" appears to have been pushed off to the week of October 15.
Non-Thought: Maxim Rep #4 empathized with me as a common stock shareholder by saying (paraphrasing) he too felt saddened or aggrieved that "others" were suggesting selling the common stock to buy the preferred stock. An important aspect of customer service indeed is to empathize with a prospective client.
Thought: According to several sources, Maxim has secured the necessary 300+ prospective "IPO" buyers for the security to be listed on the NASDAQ. This item is important because, aside from establishing the appropriate deal terms for the PVCTP vehicle, the confirmation enables Peter to know whether Provectus can indeed use this financing approach if the board and management chooses to do so.
Thought: You will recall management has not raised money through common stock or warrant issuances below $1.12 for some time (I should get around to listing such information in a subsequent post in a few days). Raising money at or above this level for philosophical (they have drawn their own line in the sand on this issue) and mechanical (there are several warrant reset provisions for fundraising common stock share prices below $1.12 and other price levels) reasons is important to them. Thus, doing an "at market" conversion ratio, or a ratio utilizing a common share price below $1.12 and/or issuing warrants with exercise prices (when the exercise price of a warrant on a share of PVCTP is translated into a common stock exercise price) below $1.12 would be contrary to management's current position on fund raising, go against recent historical actions and have a significant impact on the overal capital structure of the company.
Thought: In the month of September, Knight Capital (NITE) appears to have been responsible for less than 25% of traded shares. If, as has been speculated on PVCT stock chat rooms and elsewhere, Dr. Adams' shares are transacted through NITE, more than 75% of selling (and buying) was by folks and entities other than Dr. Adams. I am not focusing on the amount of shares, since there is thoughtful commentary that volume statistics for over-the-counter stocks are much higher than commonly reported (perhaps by as much as half), but rather the relative proportion of transactions.
Thought: I previously expressed my thoughts about the "IPO" to management. In communicating my view on its pros and cons, Peter clearly indicated to me he would take a thoughtful approach to a PVCTP "IPO" (if the company were to use it). I take him at his word until and unless his word, in my view, is not worth taking any more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)