lagrammy's stencilled urgings to purchase CGEN do the company and existing shareholders a disservice.
His stock one-liners suggest manipulative trash.
There are excellent reasons to hold CGEN. The company has indicated, the recent Bayer deal is the first of many.
CGEN is a v.small company whose future success will not depend on scaling up but on pursuing its honed leading science and a paradigmatic change in the way in which new drugs are discovered. CGEN's overheads are negligible. Its potential earnings are there to see for anyone who has bothered to take interest in the recent deal. The speed with which CGEN established its US subsidiary and the speed with which it closed its deal with Bayer point to a company blessed with the best scientists, one that is now superbly structured and focused on the market's needs.
Immune checkpoint regulators is a vast field. But CGEN's quiver is packed with other arrows - e.g a new peptide for possible treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (CGEN 25009).
This is only the start.
I've invested in CGEN for over 8 years. During that time CGEN increased its jigsaw puzzle of patented peptides, then focused its attention on key market needs. Voila: deal one. A remarkable deal. Good for Bayer. Good for CGEN.
IMO the Achilles heel of CGEN has always been its PR.
With better PR (and I mean public relations, not hype) the share price would be at $12 now, not $8.5.
But despite the PR it will top $12 within a year Why would it not? Skeptics and shorters have been roundly disproven. The recent conference call confirmed more deals within 12-18 months (could be sooner. The so-called expert analysts predict $12 within the year. If, as I think, (and who cares what I think, ask Bayer) CGEN has changed the way in drugs are discovered, then we are looking at $20- $50 per share price... so long as CGEN is not bought out before then.
But your buy or hold reasoning is quite flawed. The technicals are failing and the fundamentals do not support current valuation. You mention. the Achilles heel of CGEN has always been its PR. That is nothing compared to the fact that this went up much too quickly.
IMO, for this portion of Compugen’s history, the most important things are 1) the science—including the decisions about what particular paths to follow (e.g., the opening of the mAb lab in San Francisco), and 2) the trust that develops between Big Pharma and management that the science is real and replicable. (Remember, only 10% (!) of the early drug development studies coming out of academia is replicable.) Anat has been just the right person to lead both. And she has done a brilliant job.
I have said before that one of the most important missions I had in visiting the company a number of years ago was to determine how trustworthy and straightforward management was. If I had not met Anat, I would not have taken the stake I have in the company.
Perhaps years down the road it will be time for a “personality” to take over. As some of you know, narcissists often rise to the top of companies (and countries!). This, IMO, is best explained by “self-deception theory,” i.e., if you can fool yourself into believing that you are “great,” you have a much better chance of fooling others. And yes, often business deals are made as a result. But right now deals are being made because of hard science and tangible trust--and certainly, for the good of science, medicine, and yes, current investors, that is just the way it should be.
Just my humble opinion, what do you guys want. She has done a terrific job. Great decisions, that is what I want for a CEO. MG takes care of the enthusiasm part. It appears the scientists like her. Deals and science will drive the stock.
Personally I could not be happier right now the way Anat and MG have run the company that includes its exposure to investors.