One of the fascinating things about the people who post about...

One of the fascinating things about the people who post about MSB negatively is you can't get them to nail down the risks they like to vaguely talk about. An example is madamswer but there are others.

Even with this broker analysis, the regulatory risk content is perfunctory and doesn't contain any real analysis about the probabilities of not succeeding in gaining FDA approval.

It doesn't talk about fast tracking, it doesn't talk about the FDA signalling a review at the half way mark for the current stage 3 clinical trials for overwhelming efficacy.

It doesn't mention how, in view of the fast tracking from Japan it is also expected for the US for the aGVHD product.

It doesn't mention that the model for clinical trials have been designed with a pharmaceutical drugs in mind. This contains a vast number of patients for clinical safety and efficacy, due to that model being much lower down on the treatment scale than stem cells which are at the highest level.

Being lower down, and pharmaceutical drugs only treating symptoms rather than causes, means there is a much higher risk of side effects in a variety of DNA responses.  This is why the large patient recruitment is needed but that is needed for a different model to what stem cells should require.

The FDA is cognisant of this and MSB, being the pioneer in the field, is setting the standard.  this is the reason for the half way review to allow fast tracking.

What is the likelihood of being able to meet the requirement of overwhelming efficacy? Based on past experience, you'd have to say it's very high indeed.

Whenever this is explained in discussion, the negative posters obfuscate with irrelevancies. They simply don't want that message getting out.  Even the analysts miss it. It's all too hard, apparently.

Same with the funding risks. Negative posters like madamswer were always talking darkly about this.

But look at the reality.

Funding risk: Although MSB has a high cash balance currently further bolstered by the US$58.8m net cash injection from the NASDAQ IPO, the company may need to raise additional capital IF its burn rate increases significantly or IF there are delays in partnering its spinal or Inflammatory franchise or pipeline for Japan or IF the Celgene deal does not materialise, before commercialization.

I have added the caps to the IFs.  That's because they're big IFs, not small ones. The analyst is not quantifying what makes these risks more or less likely. That's for sophisticated investors to work out. Retail investors have been slaughtered if they haven't stayed calm and done their own analysis.

Plus we can absorb small delays, the delays in partnering must be very significant indeed for us to run out of money.

He has the cart before the horse on this one.  Partnering will completely upend the risks for burn rates increasing significantly.  Plus Celgene has increased the number of applications they are negotiating on. Incredibly this was trumpeted as a bad thing by the negative posters in here.

There is and has been, a serious lack of proportion in any discussion on risks that MSB faces.  The discussion has been dominated by traders and hedging brokers who IMO tend to argue the opposite of their real thinking.

The discussion slams MSB management for the IPO SP result, but has zero consideration for the upside.

2016 is going to be a massive year for MSB, and the brave who held or bought on the down. IMO.