Don't know. My average cost is about 3/4, and I thought that was the bottom. Looks, to me, like someone associated with the company wants things to look as bad as possible. I've been in this position once previously, and I swore "never again".
:-(
Short answer to your question..... yes. Disclaimer to short answer..... that's what I said last time (CIST). Best answer.... haven't a clue.
No reason that the fat lady should have sung.... the company could end up worth hundreds of millions, based just on the assets that it has in-hand. That would be a long, long way off and it would take a significant amount of luck at OSIP, Solvay, Harvard, and/or Axiom (and maybe SmithKline??). Burn is probably going to be approximated by interest income, so....... no, the fat lady isn't singing. The company is worth about $1.10, IMO.
My comments, for what they're worth, are at the Yahoo thread (but word there is that, with the delisting, the thread will go poof). I don't see why one option couldn't be to reverse engineer Axiom into the cash and microfluidics.
I'm just blowing a bunch of warm air, trying to make sure that there's no gathering stench.
Perhaps someone here can answer this question....... we know that OSIP acquired Solvay, the library, and some liabilities. We know that KDUS gets milestones and royalties from either (but sounded like not both) the first Solvay project or from the first OSIP project derived from the library. It sounded like the Bristol-Myers Squibb project is dead, as BMY returned everything. We know that OSIP is helping to tie up loose ends for the SmithKline Beecham project. However, do we know anything about future milestones and royalties from SmithKline? KDUS hit a milestone, and we know that SmithKline took a license from SIBI. We also know, from the two Nature Biotechnology manuscripts, that the assay works. So..... is the SmithKline collaboration intact from a milestone and royalty stand??
I feel that the company was intentionally "manured" to be out of compliance with listing requirements..... that the Board did a good job with the OSIP deal but was intentionally working against the small shareholder. Why? We'll see. |
