Actually, now you have me after closing, my real SUD sentiment is this.
I have been watching this slow moving train wreck since Peter Jooste was in short pants. I'm honestly super excited at the potential of SUD's oral mucusal delivery technology and how, when applied to the myriad of brilliant, effective and cheap generic drugs, it could re-create/re-invigorate these massive existing markets with very little effort and make masses of money.
But I'm skeptical too - if they have a super dooper delivery tech, do other players and how does it really compare? If the tech's so good, where's the publication record in leading journals? If the reformulation and delivery is so effective at drug delivery, where's the pre-clinical, animal, tox, clinical data? For more than one indication/product?
But If I'm not right and everything's in the bag, why is it that the commercial partnerships they do already have are so long in the tooth they give Grandma Poss, Roland Rat and Jacinda Adern a run for the 'I've got the biggest teeth on the global stage' award? If all these issues I have suggested were just perception, then why are Dr Reddy or Sandoz (or Pfizer for that matter) not knocking the door down and seriously partnering?
So why the low (and declining) sp? Could it be that the technology is just not that good, or that the evidence they do have is just not that convincing? Or, if these technical issues aren't real, could it be that the company is being poorly managed?
I don't know these answers, and frankly, neither do any of the posters on this site except for the stooges and patsies (there's always a stooge in small-cap bio threads). On that basis, I cannot currently see how an investment in SUD is anything more than a Flemington flutter on Ladies Day - and I don't care for the ponies.
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)