so why are they putting a vote to stockholders? robin smith has a great point that the stock has been run into the ground the past three years. other companies making zero money, and without the intellectual property of this company have been faring far better. i can see why some stockholders blame management. at a MINIMUM, this stock should be at least a buck -- not in the pennies.
perhaps. that looks good on paper. but there's a reason the stock plummeted.
how does the science affect the other potential products with the strategic alliances? that's the big question. right now -- unless this clinical hold is the FDA being overly cautious -- it looks like the best best for stockholders is an acquisition by a partner that sees value in the other parts.
another big question is whether the recent financing will be scuttled. anyone who can give any updates or insight, please do.
thanks for the smart take. i'll hold. ALNY was considered dead in the water around 2011. a lot of big companies (i think pfizer was one) cut partnerships with them. it was around $6 or $7 back then. i sold. took a significant loss. fast forward five years later. now the company's in the $60s after the tech belatedly achieved strides. at one point it was $100. it has a bright future. i'm not saying the same will happen to DNAI. however, i learned that sometimes it takes patience. and i can wait three years if necessary for this stock to turn around enough for me to break even..
this isn't a question for the shorts. what's the company's long-term future? is it worth holding the stock for another two years? or is there totally no hope, and is it better to write off the loss? at least, cash is not a problem. but i'm wondering if it'll be one of these companies left for dead that undergoes some surprising developments in the next few years. i've sold a couple biotechs before, and then seen the company double or triple five years later. ALNY is the best example. left for dead, and now it's a beast. still kicking myself.