Wino115 wrote: It does seem that way. I wouldn't disagree. Ever since the slower-to-develop Trogarzo market knocked this back a ton, any one investing has had to see if there is a more solid future. They were clearly faced with a dilemma too and likely saw Trog was developing slower than thought and strategically had to figure out where to go next to keep building. It's not that Trog isn't building the company up --it's paying for all the sales staff, providing some decent revenue (likely not a lot of profit yet), etc.. They definitely got lucky Grinspoon kept at it and saw other uses for Egrifta. And I give them credit for oncology acquisition.
I didn't think a lot of those catalysts were what I would call Value-enhancing HARD catalysts. Many were soft that affirmed they were along the path, but I never thought they'd move the stock a whole lot. So publishing in Lancet --great validation of the trial but not anything to create value, just move it down the pike closer to value. I definitely thought for a bit that SV, if it led to higher takeup, would provide a value-enhancement of a tiny bit. But the pandemic stopped that and who knows if it would have done so otherwise. New analysts would help, but I can't fault them for not covering it when the actual news they need to see there is a path for Nash or oncology isn't even there yet. The analysts are sort of a soft catalyst in that they will only begin to confirm what at that point would have been announced. I'd love to see more coverage just to get the volume and market cap moving upwards.
But the only real HARD catalysts on some of those lists were getting the OK to proceed with a Phase 3 in Nash and getting the oncology to Phase 1. Even those won't be fully realized until some results slip out. They will definitely help and provide a means to comp them versus others and to at least build out what a future revenue line would look like in those two huge areas and then probability-weight it if you think it's high likelihood, normal or low likelihood. My hope would be those two events will begin the process of building up that lower boundary valauation that has never seemed to hold. It still just bounces between $2-3 a share. I'd like to see it do what it began to do in Aug/Sep -- just a nice slow build, better vol every day, slightly higher pricing every day, and just build up as, hopefullly, newslow keeps developing to support the future valuation. So there are a few of the HARD ones still to come, and a few soft ones. But a few of those have come and gone like you say and haven't provided any support to another level at all. They are necessary building blocks, but this thing needs a lot more than that. If and when they hit those hard ones, that will be the test to see if they understand how to translate that develeopment into new areas into shareholder value -- what we deserately need to see and I hope they're up to it. The market will be voting every day on whether they are up to the task or not.
StableGenius97 wrote: Step 1 Catalyst list posted on Message board for the year
Step 2 Catalyst A comes to fruiting
Step 3 Company creats horrible presentation and fails to capitalize
Step 4 No enthusiam is created stock price falls
Step 5 SPCEO calls analysts dumb and says we need new coverage which never happens
Step 6 stock price falls some more and the company moves on to the "next big thing"
Step 7 wow a new catalyst thats even bigger than the last one lets try this again
Step 8 repeat step 2 - 7