RE:Scientific success vs. commercialization
Sailboatdream wrote: A question remains unanswered... why has Sernova not achieved peer valuation?
Many of us are also confusing scientific / clinical success with commercial success. The science is fundamental. But there needs to be a better job translating this into commercial success and shareholder valuation. Without further dilution.
no clear answer on why peer valuation not achieved. And no clear path to achieve it.
everything else is noise.
Answer : In my opinion Bioteck companies are driven by results. It takes a lot of capital to get through clinical trials and regulatory approval. Siligon has Lilly believing in them and are willing to put money and their name to it , Viacycte has J & J investing $110 million into them, Sernova has nobody .... we are told of a few pharma collaborations with major names but none have publicall6 come forward or have committed to a partnership with funding . Until you get that you will not get peer evaluation .
You think with clinical results like they have been having from Chicago , pharma companies would be tripping over themselves to do deals with Sva.... instead we get a horrible financing deal . Management has always said pharma companies won't do deals without a strong balance sheet . Now we have that .....
I agree there has to some sort of commercial succsss without any more dilution ..... why have we not seen it ? There are so many more questions than answers and shareholders will not wait too much longer to get answers before they demand change . I think we are at that point now and I doubt there is little that management can do to change that. Days of lip service are gone.