Market-I think you are being a little unfair. Characterizing the company as bogus is exaggerated. The value of the science still represents significant possibilities. If you directed your remarks towards management, however, then you're making sense. These guys have no credibility. They have squandered tremendous opportunities by making all the wrong moves (or not enough of them--partnerships come to mind). It is shameful. How a potential revolutionary treatment via RD continues to die on the vine, unnoticed, screams of incompetence. How a company with a drug efficacious to a poorly treated, highly inevitable disease like AD continues to stall, does the same. Poor performance is an understatement. Ironically, their stock 'options' may be a reminder of their failures, not their success. That's minimal vindication for me, but vindication nonetheless.
I can't tell you much about PTN, except that they negotiated a significantly better financing, significantly better than their 52 week low (and more accurately, just below their 52 week high). That in itself creates an ocean between the two companies managements. Cor's all time best financing was probably on worse terms, and more poorly timed, then PTN's latest.
The management I once considered mediocre, has effectually been downgraded to poor (in many more ways than one, with the exception being their bank accounts). They are a disgrace, but that is how the odd-ball bounces.
There is definitely an important lesson here: exceptional academia does not equate to smart business minds. This would explain why people like Stoll are still on the payroll.
If you can't improvise, adapt, and overcome, how do you expect to execute with any success? It's a little late for all of us long termers, but at least we won't leave empty handed: should there be no return on our investment (principal included), we will always have the memorable times on this board, that is, until we all lose our minds through the inevitable cycle of life.
PEACE :)
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
