InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

Whosetosay

02/18/16 11:36 AM

#71469 RE: flexinvester #71467

Just remember that this was trading in 2013 over $20 with worse fundamentals. "They" (insiders and institutions) know something and follow the big, smart money. IMHO



Your opinion, IMO, is not defensible. It's completely wrong. The fundamentals in 2013, just before the crash, were magnitudes better.

Global and U.S, sales of Pona were increasing strongly, (now flat, pod capture rate and potential pop halved), Pona had a much broader label (not now), Pona was looking at a $1B opportunity in frontline CML (now mired in last line), '113 was a triple threat including EGFR (not now), '113 was going to be 2nd to market, now 5th, fewer shares out, almost no debt then (now $400MM). The balance sheet has been ravaged and almost every possible asset has been sold off or collateralized.

Considering only the fundamentals of revenues from Pona sales (not revenue from sale of partnership rights (non-performing), and the sale of performing assets that spiked some revenue quarters, and removing the 2015 2nd quarter charge for $7.8MM of HB severance, we have lost more money every quarter since the crash and every year since 2012.

Again, the pps doesn't lie.

Exactly what 'fundamentals' are you talking about?