I don't believe you'll see the funding they've done since January 1st in the data they're presenting, but I believe that they'll speak about it in the manuscript. I'm generally far more interested in what's in writing in such reports than in what's shown in the tables they present.
This company doesn't have a revenue stream, at least not yet. I know that the likes of Reuter's will write negative reviews of the company if they fail to meet consensus estimates of their losses for the quarter, or the year, but frankly these are immaterial. What matters is products advancing toward the market, or even toward the clinic.
I frankly don't know which Analyst's are following OWCP, and frankly, I despise Analysts who base their recommendations on earnings when a company has no earnings. I.E. what they're saying is, I'm down on the company because they lost more than I thought they would, or for that matter they made more than I thought they would. I've seen downgrades from both scenarios.
When an Analysts forecast that a company trading for say $10 will be $15 in a year, but the company makes it happen in 6 months, I like the Analyst who looks at the reason and determines if their is reason to raise the target. I hate the Analyst who downgrades the company, generally from buy to hold, because it made my target, so it's potential for the remaining period of the rating is diminished.
Analysts IMHO should be far more interested in what companies are doing than in what shows in the quarterly audit. As long as the company is still viable economically, what difference does it really make if the estimate of their cash flow for the quarter in question is higher, or lower than anticipated as long as their is good reason for what they're spending.
Gary
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
