New RGS Presentation, page-4

Maybe "the market" does not like the fact that RGS has a board / mgt team that is not having much commercialisation experience in BioTech and that has promised and promised for too many yrs and all they have done is accumulated losses and paid themselves well until end of last year / now since 2007 when founded (!) ?

Maybe 6 months of "kicking a few goals" is not enough and the substance of their pipeline is still v early to actually yield value.. esp in a highly competitive global market ? (phase 1 phase 1 phase 1 > slide 6)

Why did they not unlock any value yet from the animal side which seems so much more progressed ?

And why do the others mentioned in the slides get higher upfront and milestone payments with partners that are health industry stalwarts already (Takeda and Mitsubishi would have had serious and knowledgeable DD teams looking into their partners IP and pipeline) as opposed to an old conglomerate that is just starting to try and make a name in health/biotech by just buying into many foreign firms but not having a local japanese or global track record in this field (but surely has old money / size..)...

Why is all the analysts mentioned / covering RGS not first grade and known to be paid for by the companies they cover rather than independant market analysts with a track record in health / biotech..?

Maybe it just needs more time to get back credibility since it dropped from 60 cents and then from around 35 cents down to 10/15 cents ..? Meaning there were days when the OPPORTUNITY PRESENTED was valued much higher but then it lacked what ? > execution ? > strategy coherence for real industry insiders ? or what led to this drop in value/credibility/trust ?

Well, at least it seems that this AGC deal has legs and they get their milestone payments > hence (the extent of) their losses should stop this year..? a reputation is quickly lost and a long and difficult thing to regain..
So many questions ....