Hi PDC, I think I briefly discussed what you mentioned. I...

Hi PDC,
I think I briefly discussed what you mentioned.
I addressed that some, moreso exceptions, can have an ascending share price if certain aspects are met such as a hot trend or a fad, these things can stimulate external demand, and if it's a big fad or trend it may last longer than some, but as I say, these are generally exceptions and not the rule.
And generally, they reverse eventually.
IMU is a typical example, it went up to approx $0.60 and a good long rise, and then came back, eventually to about $0.10
There was a lot of speculation, buying groups got on board, the area they were in was hot etc etc.
But the market values sales and or potential, and eventually they had no sales obviously, and the potential lost much of its thrust, in part due to the overall market assessing that it was overvalued, the potential was speculative, although grounded in science.
Stable value can only come from sales, not from speculation.
Speculation invites spikes, or peaks.
PTX, is another example.
Both companies doing good work, but the market dictates prices in companies without revenue, and market sentiments change and market opportunities change therefore prices change.
If you look at Tesla, although not biotech, their share price was all over the place pre-solid product sales because it was highly speculative.

People when they are disappointed their share price isn't going where they want often blame the company when in the majority of situations the 'blame' should be directed at the market, world events, sector rotations and cycles, sector sentiments, competitors stealing the limelight, credit costs and availability and so on.

I will also point out, as an example, what Akki has mentioned, which should be obvious but often isn't, he has two bundles of ANP, one is an investment where I assume he is waiting for an outcome on the R&D to bring a successful product, hopefully, to market. That is an investment in R&D.
Then he also has his trading parcels, which are to take advantage of what he would consider profitable share price movements, more short term. This is trading.

Investing and trading in a company with commercial sales and profit can often merge with each other, with time the primary factor, but in R&D investing will often be for the long haul. If someone is speculating on an R&D company doing price improvements before having any product for sale that will fall much closer to trading, rather than investing. Speculative trading.

So I think when you say "'Investors' get returns from R&D companies all the time" needs to be considered with more clarity.
I think traders make money from R&D biotechs every day, but this is the same situation that annoys other traders, and inconveniences many investors, the situation of speculative buying, because without a product, that's what it is, speculative, and then the successful traders sell and take their profits, driving the price down, leaving other less successful or slower responding traders still in a stock they had no intention on 'investing' in at a price that may have left then underwater to some degree. Then these people are unhappy when they can't easily get out at a profit or even or without a loss, and complain that their 'investment' is going nowhere, when really it was a trade or trades gone wrong.
The complexities and variations here can be many.
Traders make money nearly every single day, but only a minority, the stats were back in the day decades ago that 90-95% of day traders would fail, much like the statistic that 90-95% of Biotech R&D will fail.
Put these two stats together in a formula and you can see the potential for extraordinarily negative outcomes.
I guess this is why advisors have always suggested 'investing' in balanced portfolios with apportioned percentages from the most stable and most profitable down to the most speculative. And for some, the most speculative makeup, if at all, is about 1-5% of total portfolio value.

You said "This is not recognised by divvy or capital returns but by the appreciation in sp price. As they plan and execute and test, successfully then there should be, even belatedly, recognition of the achievements or the speculation of near achievements in the sp."
I agree, that can happen, in some stocks the appreciation can last long enough for many, traders, to get in and out, but usually depreciation follows appreciation.
Of course, some R&D or some R&D Biotech will be more condensed, the timeframes are much quicker, trials are quicker, and development went well or is quicker.
ANP is in a slow pace, due to circumstances, trials, side trials eg extra safety, the research has been somewhat tedious, but that is the way of much medicine, funding, market sentiment, and more, we are not blessed with quick and easy research verification or quick trials and we have quite stringent regulatory hurdles and so on, and then we still have to hope to outpace competitors.
So above, you say "even belatedly", well I agree, and if things go well investors will be rewarded, belatedly, I suppose it boils down to timeframes and perceptions.
Some people enter shares thinking they will make money in days months or weeks, and some people enter shares thinking they will make money in years.
Research and development stocks without a product and, in the biotech area, are, most likely going to take years for an Investor to be rewarded, if at all.
Belated, is a relative term.
Anyone without this timeframe could end up disappointed.

(And yes, Hotcopper is buggy today, it was difficult to type, I think advertisements refreshing may be involved.)