Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc (IPIX)

[loanranger]

"However some inst own that stock, it is planned to go in Russell 3000 and/or small cap biotech index - that is better exposure."

Institutional holdings are relatively small (just 6% per Nasdaq.com), but those holders are holding because they want to, not because they have to. And therein lies an important distinction between the companies that people are trying to compare.
The current inst holders in AVX_ presumably hold shares because their charters allow them to based on the Nasdaq listing.

BUT their reverse split and uplisting (in Oct) didn't provide the full kick that it normally provides because it occurred after the opportunity to enter the Russell 2000 had passed (it changes every year...based on market cap on the last Friday in May...and they probably [not calculated yet]**** fell short this year based on the drop in share price and its market cap impact). A new entry in the Russell 2000 usually gets a significant boost in share price because of the REQUIREMENT of some of the largest index funds to hold the shares of all the companies in that index. That hasn't happened for them. (Sometimes buyers get in ahead of an anticipated inclusion, so that kick can happen ahead of the actual reconstitution date..this years' changes go into effect after the 6/24 close).

CTIX, on the other hand, absolutely would have had an adequate market cap as of the end of last May to enter the Russell 2000 and would have seen the significant benefit that virtually always accompanies the forced buying by index funds. Obviously we can't know for sure, but I would argue that some of that benefit would have lingered, even in the face of Mako, etc. Not only are the index funds forced to buy, but they CAN'T SELL as long as the company stays on the index, which is reconstituted just once a year.

The above should be kept in mind whenever this comparison is drawn. All institutional buying benefits the share price and not all of it is voluntary. Passing up on the opportunity to list on Nasdaq when that could have been done (an earlier appointment of independent directors and application filing would have gotten it done) and missing out on the Russell 2000 entry was and continues to be expensive to CTIX in the form of additional shares being put to Aspire, because of the depressed share price, and to shareholders for the same reason.

So the full benefit of a Nasdaq listing has been missed yet again and won't come around again until May of 2017, at which time I hope I'm not reviving this post.
None of the above addresses the issue of the status of the respective drug development projects of the companies, but it seems to me that the fact that it has been stated here that "CTIX has never had a failed trial" only adds support to the potential benefits missed by the listing failure...it doesn't argue against them, in any way. Waiting for the science to provide the necessary impetus to the price could have been avoided and it still can be. Unfortunately we are now at the "better luck next year" stage when it comes to the significant known benefits of a Russell 2000 entry.



****UPDATE: Whoops! The additions list to the Russell 3000 (the Russell 2000 is the bottom 2000 companies in that index) was JUST posted last night and AVX_ IS ON IT.
The bottom market cap was $133M (last year it was $177M). AVX_ had a market cap (based on last reported o/s of 35.7M and close on 5/27 of $4.46) of $159M. CTIX had a market cap of $190M (123M x $1.55) at 5/27. So CTIX would have made it in spite of Mako, etc....if they were on Nasdaq (or NYSE MKT for that matter).


"My biggest regret was announcing the pending NASDAQ uplisting which in my opinion attracted shorting, hoping we will do a reverse stock split."
IMO the announcement wasn't the problem, it was the failure to execute on a timely basis that was the problem.