Why do you think that your original rationale is wrong? How much do you want to pay (market cap) for research that has no present, tangible route to product?
I like GERN. I like the science. The market cap is $110 million. Why would you buy this company for a project that is, if rational, ten years from clinic when you can buy companies that are selling at or near book with near-term prospects, advanced projects, and market caps that are significantly lower?
This is what happens to biotech. Some hype comes along (again, I think that it's a significant accomplishment) and one company gets all out of whack. When it dives, people damn the sector. That's BS.
If it gaps (up) at the open tomorrow, most that know the sector would short rather than buy. However, those individuals also wouldn't risk shorting, given the publicity associated with the news.
I'm trying to temper any reaction to this news, as I believe that it's good for the sector. If it does gap open tomorrow and you all profit mightily, cool.
Why was it necessary for the company to orchestrate this media blitz? Why a release for the Science manuscript and a separate release for the PNAS paper? What is the point of the hype?
I'm a transplantation geneticist. I look forward to the contribution of stem cells to the art. However, if one is interested in applied work rather than promotion of a major scientific achievement, look to a company that is working with the porcine stem cell.
Good luck all. Hope you all get rich tomorrow, and that the sector doesn't need to endure another ENMD. |
