What these guys are trying to do, inject themselves into a well...

What these guys are trying to do, inject themselves into a well established marketspace against major players by differentiating, is very, very hard to do and it takes lots and lots of money to do it. Perhaps the model they chose had made this even harder given contract to production lead times but it really was the only way that I can see to go about it.

The short interest in UNIS reflects the difficulty and scepticism that likely success will occur. Perhaps in hindsight the hard long road should have been foreseeable by all who are invested in here.

Well said, jsbuser. That pretty much sums it up, for me anyway.

I certainly lacked hindsight as foresight. Lesson learned. I also incorrectly believed the old furphy that the Naz forward-prices value. Clearly it does in some cases - think Regeneron with Eylea. RGEN was founded in 1988. Eylea did not receive FDA approval until 2011. A twenty-three year struggle for success. In 2000, the SP was US$10.00. Last year it hit nearly $600. While much of that is attributable to the success of Eylea, it also reflects their pipeline.

While I don't want to wait another fifteen years for vindication, there is no reason to believe the market won't start to forward value Unilife once commercial production becomes more visible, reliable and ongoing, on the back of FDA approvals across the entire platform. One truly decent commercial supply agreement for an FDA-approved device with a big name player will do the trick.

In this respect I believe short interest works the same way as long interest in the sense that it still - stubbornly - reflects a high degree of scepticism about the likelihood of Unilife's success. Up until now, the short interest has been so large and influential it became a self-fulfilling prophecy. This - literally - is what they bank on.

The more influential the short 'theses' become - I use the word with reservedly with a high degree of my own scepticism - the more disproportionate the effect they have on sentiment and SP. As the SP continues its decline in the face of the onslaught, so the short theses appear to be ever-more accurate and reliable, if not truthful. So the SP continues to crumble.

But as RGEN proved, all it takes is one spectacular success and the tables are turned. What was once a valid short thesis suddenly lacks credibility. Not for all stocks that are shorted big time, but certainly for some. Think Tesla.

So, a change of fortune. A pivot. For Unilife that pivot is AMGEN.

With the emergence of Amgen on the register, the apparent scepticism that has surrounded the likelihood of Unilife's ultimate success - hence demise - immediately becomes less credible. How can you continue alleging Unilife is worthless and on the verge of bankruptcy when companies like Amgen come to the table as shareholders to ensure, not just ongoing financial viability, but also long-term commercial success?

You can't.

Credibility - or lack thereof - works both ways.

This is the situation we now find ourselves in. Yes, there is still much hard work to be done. Yes, it will take yet more time. And yes, the SP will continue to fluctuate reflecting a degree of uncertainty.

But the fact of Amgen partnering Unilife - and don't say it won't happen because it will, IMO - means any ongoing uncertainty will increasingly become focussed not on the imminent demise of Unilife, but on just how big and successful the company can, and ultimately will become.

Which, with any luck and a little good fortune - God knows we need it - means the light at the end of the tunnel is no longer an oncoming train.

IMO