Bit of a repost here but no updates or anything else except a flagging and daily manipulated share price so what the heck. One of the very first things the new Clinuvel chair needs to do is organise a couple of lunch meetings with the Chair of CSL Dr Brian McNamee, and the Chair of Polynovo David Williams - both of these esteemed leaders know that the share price is the scorecard. This will add immensely more to the company than a Michelin catered soiree in Monaco ever will - looks like those 'sophisticated' investors never appeared on any scale but I am sure they had a good party at us shareholders expense (two years running). Professor Rosenfeld will become a very good chair as he is forthright, no-nonsense and clear and as he grows into the role further traits will come to the fore. I wish he had taken over this role some years ago so he already had a few years in the job under his belt, I am definitely hoping he puts shareholder interests much higher up the priority list in the boardroom.
Clinuvel never mentions the short sellers but this will be an enormous weight going forward until it is addressed - ASIC data shows what is happening with fake liquidity so it is an undeniable fact. As I wrote recently; 'Basically it has come to the point where I believe many shareholders don't care to differentiate any longer between company performance and share price performance. This is what short sellers want, and seemingly what the company is willing to accept, as any arguments they make about price performance are simply frail or totally miss the point. They just received a massive first strike at the AGM and are on track for a 2nd as short sellers will be hoping/striving for. The company by simply doing the same old stuff like comparing performance to MSB (which had a FDA rejection and would have tanked in any environment) and ignoring the short sellers will get the same old results. Ignoring shorting has not worked at any period for the last 5 years and the only way to respond to that and protect shareholder interests is by performing a substantial share buyback - which would still only use a tiny percentage of cash on hand and would give everlasting benefits to the company financials and EPS.'
A review of many years of posts on various websites will show that people who now offer various levels of criticism of CUV were once the most ardent supporters but this has changed over time for quite a few reasons, I will list a couple below in no particular order. * No share buyback to protect shareholder interests despite being a low volume stock and manipulated every single day by short sellers with micro trading and fake liquidity. Arguments against are weak IMO when exec. remuneration, soirees, cash on hand, profits all point to a very healthy company so why would a buyback be the only no-go area for payors? * Elimination from ASX 200, shares trading near 5 year lows. * I think CEO remuneration going forward should ONLY be tied to share price performance, the cash balance share grant was a strange one IMO and one of the very few targets achieved. * Still no 6th indication, NICE approval or legal challenge, China, paediatric approval pending another trial, what is status of EPP approval in Norway, Spain, Denmark et al * Was a topical sun protection product actually launched or not. * Is Clinuvel striving to be a household name as stated by 1st Jan 2026, mentions of the 'holy grail' have dried up. * Closest possible comparison company to CUV in loss making Disc medicine is never mentioned yet they have a market cap 3 times greater despite no profits and being many years away from approval into their target market of EPP which may never happen for Disc. What are they doing so much better than CUV to attract investor interest? IMO headhunt their investor relations team and pay them double if you must. * Governance is once again on the agenda yet they had one of the very best corp. governance people in the world on the board and he left after a very short time and will be hard to replace. So it will be interesting to see if it's governance or the lite version they are seeking. * Could go on, others probably will, personally would much prefer listing positives over negatives but must always examine both sides of the story. Investment thesis still good with risk/reward outlook fantastic but dominant short selling trading is weighing this down and also acts as deterrent for many investors. The share price, helped by the shorters who are never mentioned, is allowed to dictate the narrative to an amazing extent.
The board just needs to ask the question if it is in shareholder interests that over the last several years that more than 2 Million fake liquidity short positions have been created in CUV and all of them with the intention to drive the share price lower? CUV was also driven from the ASX200 and was this in shareholder or the company interests? Shorters will try to never allow CUV back into the ASX200 while they are manipulating the price. The shorters have never gone away for a single day and I doubt they will unless they are driven away like PME and COH have done by running share buybacks. COH has a P/E about 65 and PME nearly triple that at over 180. CUV lagging at around 22 despite excellent profits and margins.
Just do a share buyback for $20 - $30 Million, I think they said at the AGM they would if the price got too low so obviously it CAN be done. It will increase EPS for evermore, increase the price, offer protection against daily manipulation, upon gaining entry into the ASX200 it will bring in fundies purchasing something like half to one million shares (it takes lot of soirees and investor meetings to garner that type of investment) and it will make many of those long term investors some of the biggest supporters for the company once again where I believe many shareholders don't care to differentiate any longer between company performance and share price performance. IMO its a clear buyback opportunity when most analyst targets are mid $20s just on EPP and the analyst who took blockbuster Vitiligo into account has a PT about $50.
(20min delay)