Dank; It is a pleasure to respond to well reasoned and sensible discussion. You make two good points about my previous post and I will explain why I have taken those positions.
The first, that "I see nothing on the near term horizon in terms of marketed products to give either a negative or positive spin to the companies prospects, and everything else is in Research." - the key here is near term horizon. Yes LANI looks interesting, yes there are other projects with good milestones - but they are research and this has a large associated risk. In order to get those milestones or the big $ they have to succeed and the probability of sucess (industry average) for a clinical candidate is 10-20% depending o the indication, for a preclinical candidate it is half that.
Additionally, even in the best case scenario we are years away from guaging whether this can be successful or not.
On your second point re: - "One last thing, I would be extremely dissapointed if this company ever paid a dividend - so don't hold your breath."
If a biotech company returns a dividend to shareholders the wider market reads that as a firm statement that they do not have a better use for those funds!!! That is tantamount to saying our research is not going to net us better than a 5% return (or whatever the current bank deposit rate is) so you shareholders might as well have it back. In my humble opinion, that is not the way to build a large, stable, robust, and internationally competitive biotech company. That is not the way GSK got to where it is and now they are in the position to pay a dividend.
I believe shareholders should expect a return through trading shares which are increasing in value rather than a dividend, but that's just my opinion.
Thanks for your comments. I have enjoyed the discussion.
disclaimer: These are my opinions, they may be spacejunk, they are certainly not advice.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?