Good article, though it sets-up a ridiculous debate. I guess people think this way, so it's reasonable to clarify, maybe, but I think the article actually sets up the idea, straw man like, to knock it down.
They are in the same sector. Of course anything good for one helps the other. Of course they could ultimately compete in some ways, but it is early still, and of course, if one gets ahead faster, either could ultimately be a target for purchase by the other, if the DOJ would allow it.
The notions are backward and simplistic here. Are eBay and Amazon competitors? How about Google and Apple? Were they always competitors?
The entire set-up for this discussion is just a bit underdeveloped or amateurish. However, for those who think in this fashion, I suppose it is enlightening.
The one way that GERN and ACTC competed for me, was for my investment dollars. I was looking for the biggest bang for buck, short AND long-term. I decided ACTC was the better shot for me, economically and I liked the company quite a bit more also, though I am very impressed with GERN. GERN however, was more of an industry darling, and therefore, it had quite a bit more industry focus, attention and some adulation. That was great for GERN, but not for me as someone looking for an undervalued opportunity to knock the ball out of the park and reshape a paradigm. Of course, that meant that ACTC was a higher risk investment, or so the market thought, than GERN. The market has been discounting any investment with a lot of risk, in my opinion, since the financial crisis.
All just my opinion on my own investment. This is not advice. No one should listen to anonymous posters online, like me. Before investing in any security, speak with a licensed financial advisor about your portfolio and allocation. This is posted just for discussion, entertainment and dialogue purposes. I already own a substantial stake in ACTC. So I am far from objective.
This first sentence of the article is incorrect, ACT is HQ'd in Massachusetts. I don't know who wrote this, but I wouldn't put too much creedence on what they have to say.
"Two companies, Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) and Geron, both HQ’d here in California, have FDA-approved early stage clinical trials in the works."
The "Company Headquarters" is indeed in California, Santa Monica to be exact. (See below, from their website). The Massachusetts branch is listed as a "Facility".
If you had bothered to check the website before making baseless and false negative comments, you would have known that the info in the article is correct about the address and also about the good things they say about ACTC.
Is it possible you have an ulterior motive in trying to discredit the article?
Advanced Cell Technology, Inc.
P.O. Box 1700
Santa Monica, CA 90406
Tel: (310) 576 0611
33 Locke Dr.
Marlborough, MA 01752
Tel: (508) 756-1212
agree laugh....no doubt you are the most informed on this board in the stem cell arena...well maybe a couple more know as much or more than you...but you have contributed factual positive data to this board...I only wish more stock boards had holder like you on it. ACTC is my last investment for awhile...It should be a huge gain for all...I do think bpax and snss and maybe kerx are also big winners in time. good luck to you.
NONE SENSE !!!!! ARTICLE!!!!!
ACTC dominates the field of stem cell therapy specially if it concerns any eye disorder or disease, that is a fact!!!
GERN IS JUST THE SPINE INJURY!!!
ACTC is a billion dollar business. ( weeks of clinical trial, real time update)
GERN not even close( several years of clinical trials)
While I am long ACT they are not dominating the stem cell sector nor are they a billion dollar business yet. However, they are on the verge of both...especially if we can get compassionate use in Europe and/or the U.S in late 2012/early 2013. As mentioned in the article Geron was first in, but ACT will be first out and is targeting a significant larger market cap.
Pumping is just as bad as bashing...both are artificaly and baseless.