(Total Views: 526)
Posted On: 02/15/2017 10:31:07 AM
Post# of 72446
I bought CTIX at .79 in 2011. It promptly dropped to .35 (and then worse, but I stopped watching when it did that). About a year later I noticed that it had started moving again, and started buying again.
Now, what did CTIX have 6 years ago when it was at .79? It had NO drugs in clinical trials. It was developing Prurisol and Kevetrin. It had not yet bought the Brilacidin intellectual property from the PolyMedix bankruptcy.
And yet, it was priced at only 20 cents less than the current price. What do we have now?
Prurisol, Kevetrin, and multiple formulations of Brilacidin for different diseases, all in clinical trials. All of these trials have been successful to date.
So when people claim that share price is low because of something the company is supposedly doing wrong, think about this. Let's say that CTIX was priced appropriately at .35 6 years ago, rather than the .79 I paid.
Do you think that having 50% more intellectual property (with the addition of Brilacidin), and half a dozen successful clinical trials continuing to progress would make the company worth a mere 3 times its price of 6 years ago? Or do you think that this shows that this is not efficient market pricing, and that the stock is worth far more? And, as a corollary, that there must be some other market force that is depressing the price, like a hedge fund that collaborates with negative, untrue articles to depress the stock price?
Now, what did CTIX have 6 years ago when it was at .79? It had NO drugs in clinical trials. It was developing Prurisol and Kevetrin. It had not yet bought the Brilacidin intellectual property from the PolyMedix bankruptcy.
And yet, it was priced at only 20 cents less than the current price. What do we have now?
Prurisol, Kevetrin, and multiple formulations of Brilacidin for different diseases, all in clinical trials. All of these trials have been successful to date.
So when people claim that share price is low because of something the company is supposedly doing wrong, think about this. Let's say that CTIX was priced appropriately at .35 6 years ago, rather than the .79 I paid.
Do you think that having 50% more intellectual property (with the addition of Brilacidin), and half a dozen successful clinical trials continuing to progress would make the company worth a mere 3 times its price of 6 years ago? Or do you think that this shows that this is not efficient market pricing, and that the stock is worth far more? And, as a corollary, that there must be some other market force that is depressing the price, like a hedge fund that collaborates with negative, untrue articles to depress the stock price?
(4)
(0)
