The hard reality is, that anyone studying the history of emerging biotechs, will find all sorts of reasons to be discouraged from the standpoint of an investment.
Often, the overwhelming negative is financing, but the hard reality is that issue is the nature of this investment 'beast'.
It far too often just goes with the territory and 'forces' one to look deeper for compelling reasons to invest in a particular company.
Often, the initial encouragement comes from exciting Phase 1 results, (such as in KERX) and/or individuals of merit or partnerships.
While there's no jv venture at this point, early clinical results and scientist of singular merit, are present in the case of Ocata.
So this then begs the question, is that sufficient reasons to invest in a particular biotech, in this case Ocata?
The answer, to me, is yes and no, depending on the investors values and investing guidelines in even initially venturing into the risky world of biotech investing.
Clearly, many will argue Ocata's early clinical success and new scientific approaches clearly say 'yes' to investing and ignore the always present issue of financing, which historically, somehow seems to materialize in phase 2 as interim emerging data starts to flash a 'green' light to partners, investors and mutual fund managers.
Conversely, a bad Phase 2, often becomes a serious impediment, as was the case with Geron, but not a death sentence, given other company initiatives and patents, etc.
If Ocata is indeed building a 'revolutionary better mouse trap' for the practice of regenerative medicine, their day of recognition will arrive and, as history of biotechs shows, can be explosive to the share price at a more stable defining moment in it's development, that provides a new level of investment comfort/promise and excitement to those institutional ones with big bucks. If Ocata gets to that point, then it could very well be one of 'off to the races' with partnerships and financing.
Emerging biotechs go through a torturous journey and Ocata has had far more than it's share, but biotech investing is clearly a different 'beast' and must, imo, be assessed in that way, whether positive or negative.
AI
