The current price of CYDY obeys to only one-word e

The current price of CYDY obeys to only one-word exposure: most companies have a large percentage of ownership coming for institutional investors. Granted, there will be a very limited amount of institutions willing to invest in a small company with a product addressing a specialized condition (combo for treatment-experienced HIV patients).

Most of these have rules regarding listing and minimum stock price making it difficult to invest in CYDY. What is left are retail investors (us), who have pumped $206.9 million into CYDY in the hope that the company would get approval, initially for Combo, and latter for Mono HIV.

The price does not go up because there is no exposure to new investors (retail or corporate) willing to bet on the company and buy shares.

The question is why? I will pose that the reason is we are in the wrong place (exchange) and we have been unable to advertise ourselves effectively to the “big masses” (this assumes that we have a compelling story to tell). Frequent NP efforts in investor’s conferences, audio interviews (Next Super Stock, Proactive, WallStreetReporter, CEO Roadshow, SNN Network) and so on, are, by any means, commendable and serve to communicate to a limited amount of potential investors (and us as well) with limited funds.

However, is not enough.

We need to talk to the funds. By “talking” I mean, either we show them that we are for real (that is, let FDA talk for us saying the we do have a drug) and/or reach them to show their bio-scientists/mamagers that there is big commercial potential in Leronlimab. I am sure a large percentage of some of the BOD’s time is spent doing precisely that. The lack of success would indicate that, either nobody wants Lero in the market (patent’s harvesting), they don’t believe in our science, they are stupid or what we believe is not true.

All of the above comments are for HIV only as we don’t have a history in Oncology to speak of.

Here comes Oncology. This dwarfs everything. If Lero works in any of the indications that are being targeted the name-of-the-game is changed completely (we might as well forget HIV all together in spite of the large potential market).

Without “naming” numbers only the rumor if a credible potential therapeutic benefit in any cancer condition will launch a small company like ours to the stratosphere. It hasn’t happened because we don’t have data (yet) and we don’t have, yes, exposure.

This long, wavy (and maybe nonsensical) post to say that I would not mind NP saying that we are now an Oncology company and HIV has gone to a second tier (or has been thrown into the bin). Hence the commercialization deal pause. Fair enough, but, the thing is, we are running out of oxygen and will not be able to go forward much longer without proper funding.

I suggest we harvest the lowest-hanging fruit and make a deal (lowest-hanging in our current financial condition means the quickest one). Maybe NASH and/or mTNBC fits this bill. In the case of mTNBC human data will (or could) come fast-and-furious in few weeks. It here is a sliver of therapeutic benefit I would think there will be a rush of companies or funds with money dropping out of their pants knocking at the door. Unles, of course, they are stupid. In which case we need exposure.

Where on earth is LifeSci ???

Looking forward to Tuesday to learn what are we now and where are we going.