I like your balanced take, @AnotherOneWon. Agree that activist investing can at times be counterproductive.
Coming back to the science, or the product, my recent research led me to the realisation of how good a pivot the company did by explicitly addressing its mission as being to tackle inflammation a couple of years ago. (Can’t remember exactly when the word “inflammation” started recurring in corporate communication but you can’t miss it now.) On reading the recent 4-part series on Fierce Biotech about the lay of the cellular land, reinforced in @phaedrus’ post, a lot of cellular companies or large pharmas with cellular businesses, have recently been pivoting away from cancer therapies to autoimmune diseases. With research in inflammation still in a nascent stage (you can google a cover essay the Sydney Morning Herald published in early 2022 in Good Weekend on what Australian scientists are doing in the field), I think it would be huge if Ryoncil were approved because the company’s platform will start gaining proper recognition as delivering on its mission of tackling inflammation.
Fingers crossed, that @nippy will be right that an approval will trigger capital alliances that are being worked on and just waiting to be inked. I think with that, analysts will finally come on board and institutional capital may well follow as well. I absolutely agree that the market understanding of the complex conditions that the company is trying to solve, is poor, as is its grasp of the solutions, given how tainted they have been by the stalling of the approval process. Hopefully, that, too, would change once Ryoncil were approved.
@ddwn, don’t forget, that one can also do a CR at a premium to avoid diluting existing shareholders, if the use of funds us sufficiently convincing. Not saying it would happen, but let’s not rule that out either.
(20min delay)