I apologise for the large font. I copied and pasted to avoid...

I apologise for the large font. I copied and pasted to avoid losing a post mid-way.

Appreciate your request for reply thoughts and also appreciate/agree with the points you made regarding in-depth comparison analysis being mostly an exercise in futility. I am reminded of the Buffet quote regarding Wall Street’s use of historic volatility as a measure of risk, “It’s better to be approximately right than precisely wrong”.

There are also probably hundreds of junior miners on the ASX who could pinpoint on a chart what stage they are with respect to FMG’s historic development and SP evolution, but how many will replicate FMG thereafter? Perhaps that’s a little unfair, as ANP only has to tick a couple of boxes to get approval similar to trofinetide.

BTW - if anyone has read a lengthy post from yours truly and finished thinking “That’s 5 minutes or more of my life I’ll never get back again”, please stop now and I apologise for the last 30 secs.

I’m wary that I’ve done HOURS of research on Neuren versus other HC members who have been following it for years. But here goes anyway.

Happy for others’ more informed opinion or corrections.

The more I try to assimilate the two companies, the more differences become apparent. In a general sense, they are similar in that they are both (or were) junior biotechs developing a drug or two for rare diseases that have no existing treatments (if we segment DMD into ambulant and non-ambulant). But differences imo are:

(a) NEU has two drugs in late-stage development (trofenitide approved and NNZ-2591 in P2 stage). ANP has one drug in late stage development (with other indication development shelved for now notwithstanding the possibility that Limb Girdle results could bring additional funding or a partner). NNZ-2591 has approximately half of the risked valuation of Neuren and ~80% of the unrisked valuation, according to research I’ve read, due to not needing a partner to commercialise.

(b) NEU’s now approved trofinetide for Rett Syndrome has been developed and commercialised on a partnership deal with Acadia, meaning NEU gets/has gotten milestone payments and a (lowish?) double digit royalty on future sales. ANP has as yet no partner, but the possibility of a greater share of the potential revenue pie.

(c) Correct me if I’m wrong but NEU create and develop their own drugs and have future new drugs potential in their valuation. ANP are developing ATL1102 and 1103 under license to Ionis, and arguably don’t have any future drugs in the pipeline (but the possibility of future applications of ATL1102 as a platform anti-inflammatory).

(d) NEU have a dual listing that is active on the NASDAQ OTC exchange.

If I’m taking a stab at the best likeness in terms of ANP now versus NEU before, I’d say NEU early Covid just after P3 trial for trofinetide began (and was stalled - not that we’re stalled) and Karst Peak snapped up 14% of NEU around a dollar (March 26, 2020). NEU had 100 mill shares in issue then so MC was $100 mill. That seems fair as about twice ANP’s MC currently and twice the drug count.

Of course the trap with comparing to historic charts is that people imo tend to use what happened next as a model of the future. Of course it’s just a possibility if you ignore all the other differences.

Interestingly, despite Rett Syndrome having no other treatments, NEU didn’t receive accelerated approval (AFAIK) for trofinetide, although they did apply for and get Fast Track status I believe.