Share
7,705 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 2797
clock Created with Sketch. 13/10/23
22:49
Share
Originally posted by Silverchair:
↑
Some good and some weird in that newsletter. Why on earth would they compare recent drops in the CUV shareprice with MSB or SPL? Mesoblast had an FDA rejection which even in the most bullish of markets would cause a massive drop while SPL had a solid drop in revenues and delivers decent losses as has MSB for many years. Neither company delivers impressive and growing profits as CUV does. I also watched the Wolgen interview series in England where he mentions the undervaluation, and why did neither he or the newsletter talk about shorting activity which is rife at Clinuvel? This raises many questions for me. Short selling makes up much of the daily volume with CUV trading and it is all designed to cause a fall in the share price of CUV and it is undoubtedly successful in doing this so why does the company refuse to talk about it but instead makes comparisons to loss making companies. Lets examine some solid evidence from ASIC of the short selling at Clinuvel for just over one month.CSL, COH, NAN and PME all enjoy vastly higher PEs than CUV (and these are the companies CUV should compare themselves to) . And higher valuations on the 'hope' of one day achieving are profit are much better with many, many loss making or development companies compared to CUV who have pretty much no valuation for any future indication or profit growth baked into the share price.
Expand
These companies have nothing in common apart from being (arbitrarily) classified as 'biotechs' by the ASX. They all have totally unrelated products, markets and business models. So making any p/e comparisons is totally pointless.
(20min delay)