Martin said very clearly 8 months ago that the investing community would "soon" see the type of news it has been waiting for. I took "soon" to be within 6-9 months, so he really needs to deliver on that promise "very soon".
A more recent quote from Martin at the last CC:
"I’d like to comment, Anat. The statement was made that market is really frustrated by the lack of progress or achievements or whatever. I don’t recall exactly the wording that we chose, but the frustration since the Bayer agreement was signed. First, I understand the frustration. The frustration is because we haven’t announced any collaboration since that time.
If you look at the approximate two years since we signed the Bayer agreement, I would make the following statements. One, these two years have by far been the most significant years in the history of the company with respect to the achievements that we’ve made on the research side, on the development side, on almost any aspects of the science or the pipeline.
These two years, we have been absolutely phenomenal. Internally, we understand that that’s doesn’t help. It doesn’t deal with the frustration because we just talk about it in generalities. The other comments that I will make is that with respect to collaborations in general, I don’t mean just the signing.
I know that your collaboration strategy involves having people who know what they are doing in business development, involves having packages of material ready to be reviewed. It involves having good validation, information, et cetera. It involves a relationship with multiple companies in the industry and a respect of those companies -- the company’s potential collaborators has to build a respect and confidence in your capabilities, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Therefore, I would make a similar statement with respect to our collaboration activity. I would say that in the last two years, we have done more with respect to moving forward our collaboration activity than we did probably in all of the years up until that -- I wouldn’t say probably. We’ve done more since the Bayer agreement with respect to moving forward our collaboration activity than we did in the entire history of the company
Another quote from Martin from a recent CC hints at how close they are to a collaboration:
"However, it is important to note that, in general, reaching agreement on the basic terms and conditions insofar as they relate to this specific monoclonal antibody product or products of primary current interest to our potential partners, has not been a problem and therefore we are confident that these additional complexities will prove to only be a timing issue"
Another perspective is that the market values FPRX at 4 times the market cap as CGEN despite them being similar. So, CGEN is relatively undervalued.
If Raging Capital (RC) supports the merger, it will likely pass this time around since others (i.e. Gabelli fund) will also change to a YES vote to profit from the arb spread now that it is apparent there is no other interested buyer. RC may be buying more shares, not for votes (too late), but to profit from the arb spread and offset the loss they will take on those Puts. BTW, that was an amazing maneuver on the part of MLNX to push out the re-vote past RC's options expiration - it boxed in RC and punished them for their opposition as RC is likely losing $$ on those Put options.
I see FPRX as similar in many ways other than Market Cap. For example, similar amounts of immune checkpoint discoveries, similar advisory board, etc.. But, the Market places much more value on FPRX vs. CGEN. I hope CGEN will close the gap over the next year ("short-term"). Long-term, I look at PCYC as a model to strive for.