@SilverchairShorters are only bad for longs when they’re right....

@Silverchair

Shorters are only bad for longs when they’re right. As I proved elsewhere, contrary to popular opinion shorters are simply dumb gamblers betting on bad odds, and are very often wrong. Last year shorters lost $100s of billions of dollars (net of any profits made) betting against solid companies like Nvidia, Novo Nordisk etc. They’ve been right so far (only in terms of share price), but they’re playing a dangerous game continuing to be short Clinuvel with the stronger than ever fundamentals and low share price. If the buy back kicks into gear, and a few institutional investors like what they saw in the recent results, then the high shorter % could be quite beneficial for us due to the low liquidity (thanks to how tightly held this is by existing shareholders). The only move they can make next is to buy back the securities, shares sold short can’t be sold again. A forced repurchase of over 6% of shares outstanding by shorters, in addition to buying pressure from the company (via the buy back), and investors wanting a great company at a bargain, could be quite the driver of a mega rerate. Considering the low shares outstanding, CUV would still look cheap at $50, and potentially even at $100 (we have to keep in mind that within the time it takes to get to $100 we will likely have additional data/info further supporting a higher valuation).

The EPP business on its own is worth a whole lot more than the entire current valuation of Clinuvel. Yet the EPP business is absolutely tiny in comparison to the pipeline assets, several of which are very close to becoming cashflow generative, and should be fully funded by existing cash flows (not dilutive capital raising). The market has its valuation of Clinuvel completely wrong IMO, and such a discrepancy between the market price and the fair value cannot remain forever.