Dear Don, I researched CYP some time ago and decided not to invest in it, but to buy PARS instead. CYP has "bought" revenues from acquiring small drugs on the market or those in advanced trials, but is still far from covering its cash burn (its sales for all of last year were $3.5 million and it ran in the red around $5 million). PARS, by contrast, has already brought its own drugs to market and will probably cover its cash burn this year.
Read this link for more info, but be careful in the reading: the recommendation for CYP is coming from an investment bank that either has or hopes to have a relationship with CYP.
biz.yahoo.com
The fellow on Yahoo who made the post that concerns you owns CYP and PARS. I am not a medical expert, though I have learned an awful lot about brain trauma lately! Fjallbacka on Yahoo is an MD, however, and I have learned to trust his conclusions. He owns just PARS -- not CYP -- as do I. We both think our phase trials were better designed than those done by CYP for Ceresine.
As for today's action -- remember to gauge it in context of the general market. PARS runs a very close relationship with the Russell 2000 and we have been ahead of it for several days. Every now and then it has to retrace/retrench. But I look at the volume traded and wonder how come we didn't go lower. Obviously people are still buying. On the other hand, today would have made an interesting day to cover shorts -- all one has to do is offer to buy in size beneath the current quote and the MMs are only too happy to walk the shares down to meet your bid. H-m-m-m. Bet that's what happened.....so I look at the volume/price movement as savvy buying today, not selling in volume. Otherwise we'd have ended up below $2. |
