And, to top it off, you're not even up 15% from your reverse split.
I suggest you do your "own" due diligence and "know what you own..."
How did you guys do today?
Were you up 15% like we were over here? (Answer: No, INO isn't even up 15% for the ENTIRE year--check it out, waste-case.)
If you're LONG, and by that I mean wanting to hold through 2016, you're fine with INO.
If you want the same kind of PPS results that INO produced in 2013, however, you'll need to look somewhere else. ONCS is uniquely positioned to provide those same kinds of returns in 2015, however.
Now, tell me, how do you disagree with the above? I'm open to learn something that you can educate me about the two companies, as I own both. But I own much more ONCS for the short-term. After all, isn't it about maximizing one's return? Hopefully you look at your own portfolio that way...
Who cares what the market cap is when you make over 100% on ONCS and only about 10% with INO during the past calendar year.
Dude, do you know how to invest?
Now that's funny.
What has the ROI been for INO in 2014? And since the R/S. What is it going to be in 2015? Will it "dwarf" 2014? Be honest with yourself.
Look at what ONCS' ROI has been for the year. And what it will be during the next 6 weeks. Now that's what I call dwarfing!
It is very basic.
What is your "time value of money?" What is the ROI? What is the "opportunity cost" of staying invested in INO when other biotechs will offer a MUCH better ROR in the short-term?
For all INO investors, consider your "time horizon." Longer-term, INO should be great. In the short-term, not so much.
Hit hit a "big one" already today, with more good PR to come from it.
Up 15% today alone.
INO has NOT been up 15% from the beginning of the year OR from the pre-R/S price. (If you don't believe me, look it up.)
Not only have we been left out of the red zone, but our "offense" was thrown for a "safety" with the loss of the Roche Deal. Not good, Dr. Kim.
It all depends whether the response rate ends up at 80%. (Let's assume that it does.)
Regardless, it depends on what kind of licensing agreements they can ink. (What is ONCS' cut of that 50% improved response rate?)
Conservatively, I'd use $1B/yr gross sales by 2019 and work back from there.
You really mean no PR for you, right?
You're worthless man, get a life. Although you do provide some comic relief with your predictability... LOL.
Now, now... don't get even more insecure with your responses.
It's clear you have low self-esteem. ONCS has a solution for that. Buy some and see.
And for good reason.
Just look at the facts and stop reading the mindless posts of the bashers. Their vocabulary is so limited that they're stuck on "repeat," saying the same stupid things over, and over, and over again. Just like a broken record. They are useless.
ONCS and Merck are not. ONCS and Merck will rule the cancer treatment world. Soon.
You can't help dumb and dumber...
All of these fake aliases who can't even spell their own name or place in the world.
Derelicts, and a lower form of human existence, if you can call it that.
Forarmy1, Bernie, and now this Twiz imposter character. LMAO!