The basic difference (and 'basic' here is an understatement) is the circumstances.
Statements are always made and most positive ones (especially in Biotech) prove absurdly wrong. See my post from several days ago about Wall Street's keen eye on identifying value. Many times negative ones are made for the opposite purpose - exerting pressure to gain from a loss of value or catalyze transfer of assets under duress.
Where 10 years ago, as an example, Peregrine could not have done much with this product since the supporting science as well as synergistic products and methods did not exist, today is a different story. Oncology has been reinvented since then, and the effort underway across industry is unlike one they ever had. So - nothing is the same and past performance, positive or negative, does not guarantee repeat of results.
Issue with Biotech is that it follows no known curve of behavior nor displays repetitive track or profile. To keep comparing it to other industries is to completely miss the mark. Variables are infinite and the science is developing faster than the decisions made in the space. That's why companies can meander for 20 years, disappear and cost tens of billions to investors, or rise from the dead after an apparent decade slumber and bring untold riches to those left as believers. No other industry has this type of investment profile behavior and that's ok. One just needs to understand what they're invested in - and the image becomes more acceptable.
I will stand with you in 24 months if nothing comes out of this product and company by then. And I put it in writing without concern. They are in a stage sufficiently advanced that is much more likely to succeed than fail. The timing is also as such - going 24 months out without a major shift is either a failed product or one surpassed by a better mouse trap.
Fully expect big things to come within 12 months - but I'm giving it 24 to deal with unforeseen industry related developments and shifts.
Best,
MH
