The way I'm seeing a possible mistake, if it is a mistake, is that it could easily be missed as a needle in the haystack. Refinitiv is probably aggregating data from all publicly traded companies so they can provide trading platforms like Schwab all the information they need no matter the stock. So one potential misfire is only going to get fixed if their internal systems catch it, which seems unlikely as they probably have protocols in place that "check" what they publish before it goes out already. In other words, if it's a mistake their system doesn't read it that way so full steam ahead.
But if someone were to inquire directly with Refinitiv instead of Schwab I'm sure it still wouldn't be fixed immediately as they'll have more pressing concerns than fact checking a teeny "penny" stock as fast as they can. That's if they are even made aware. If it's wrong and they published it, they're thinking it's correct so why would they do anything? Schwab's statistics department saying they got it straight from their source and that it doesn't appear to be a glitch isn't the same as asking a Refinitiv employee to drill down and manually read the latest 10Q and all other supporting disclosures for accuracy and clarification.
All I'm saying is that if we're all very cautiously optimistic about it, or forget about it completely for now, we'll end up surprised or, at bare minimum, not disappointed. It reminds me of what I often hear from couples trying for years to have a baby. They finally give up and start the adoption process, or just flat out decide it wasn't in the cards, and then BOOM they get pregnant. Everyone keeps drilling down further and further and analyzing it from all angles and nobody can really know which way it will go with any certainty. Maybe we move on and then within days of giving it a rest we'll get our answer.
Here's another thing to discuss.
If it's a company acquiring a stake in Cytodyn, then they're interested in seeing this play out over the long term. But in what way?
If it's the Gates Foundation, it's because they want to see HIV cured, and they believe that investing dollars into Cytodyn means they can more quickly bring that cure to market. Or maybe they believe that without the funds to keep pushing aggressively ahead there's a risk that Cytodyn can't get LL over the finish line at all. Thus a philanthropic investment is needed to ensure cure happens as soon as possible with the best drugs available.
If it's a company like GSK or Merck, they're looking at LL and all of it's possibilities, looking to gain a foothold into that future. Buy a percentage of the company, throw a bunch of cash at Cytodyn to fund operations, license LL for one indication, and give yourself rights of first refusal should anyone else come sniffing around or should the company advance far enough for a buyout. This is how a platform drug begins it's journey from small biotech to giant pharma.
Interestingly, in the shareholder letter, Jay had this to say:
I believe our current strategy will result in significant value return to the Company and its shareholders and should give us the opportunity to do so on an abbreviated timeline. We are on good terms with the FDA, we have the funds required to pursue our key development objectives and we have the requisite expertise and associations to execute on our vision. Entering 2025, the Company is in control of its own destiny.
Could you interpret "control of its own destiny" to mean that they plan to push forward without the help of a big pharma company? If they get a stake from the BMGF that funds them to push forward in Mash on their own, would they choose to do that?
Would negotiations to solidify that kind of investment and partnership cause the company to pause all marketing and retract their submission to the TAG conference?
I don't know but I don't think so. I still think we're going to learn about a big pharma partnering for Mash with eyes on the larger prize, but I do keep going back to that December statement about controlling their own destiny. Could just be a purposefully positive turn of phrase to say that the company is in a good position entering 2025 without giving away any strategies. Could also be a hint that the roller coaster we've been on just came shooting out of a tunnel into a blind turn and found itself rounding the corner into a surprise loop-the-loop*.
*I looked this up as I wanted to type "loop de loop" and was curious as to what the proper way to write it was. I'm flabbergasted that it's loop-the-loop when loop de loop was right there in front of whoever coined it. In fact, it was probably the same genius who decided that "on line" meant standing in a line instead of "in line".
But if someone were to inquire directly with Refinitiv instead of Schwab I'm sure it still wouldn't be fixed immediately as they'll have more pressing concerns than fact checking a teeny "penny" stock as fast as they can. That's if they are even made aware. If it's wrong and they published it, they're thinking it's correct so why would they do anything? Schwab's statistics department saying they got it straight from their source and that it doesn't appear to be a glitch isn't the same as asking a Refinitiv employee to drill down and manually read the latest 10Q and all other supporting disclosures for accuracy and clarification.
All I'm saying is that if we're all very cautiously optimistic about it, or forget about it completely for now, we'll end up surprised or, at bare minimum, not disappointed. It reminds me of what I often hear from couples trying for years to have a baby. They finally give up and start the adoption process, or just flat out decide it wasn't in the cards, and then BOOM they get pregnant. Everyone keeps drilling down further and further and analyzing it from all angles and nobody can really know which way it will go with any certainty. Maybe we move on and then within days of giving it a rest we'll get our answer.
Here's another thing to discuss.
If it's a company acquiring a stake in Cytodyn, then they're interested in seeing this play out over the long term. But in what way?
If it's the Gates Foundation, it's because they want to see HIV cured, and they believe that investing dollars into Cytodyn means they can more quickly bring that cure to market. Or maybe they believe that without the funds to keep pushing aggressively ahead there's a risk that Cytodyn can't get LL over the finish line at all. Thus a philanthropic investment is needed to ensure cure happens as soon as possible with the best drugs available.
If it's a company like GSK or Merck, they're looking at LL and all of it's possibilities, looking to gain a foothold into that future. Buy a percentage of the company, throw a bunch of cash at Cytodyn to fund operations, license LL for one indication, and give yourself rights of first refusal should anyone else come sniffing around or should the company advance far enough for a buyout. This is how a platform drug begins it's journey from small biotech to giant pharma.
Interestingly, in the shareholder letter, Jay had this to say:
I believe our current strategy will result in significant value return to the Company and its shareholders and should give us the opportunity to do so on an abbreviated timeline. We are on good terms with the FDA, we have the funds required to pursue our key development objectives and we have the requisite expertise and associations to execute on our vision. Entering 2025, the Company is in control of its own destiny.
Could you interpret "control of its own destiny" to mean that they plan to push forward without the help of a big pharma company? If they get a stake from the BMGF that funds them to push forward in Mash on their own, would they choose to do that?
Would negotiations to solidify that kind of investment and partnership cause the company to pause all marketing and retract their submission to the TAG conference?
I don't know but I don't think so. I still think we're going to learn about a big pharma partnering for Mash with eyes on the larger prize, but I do keep going back to that December statement about controlling their own destiny. Could just be a purposefully positive turn of phrase to say that the company is in a good position entering 2025 without giving away any strategies. Could also be a hint that the roller coaster we've been on just came shooting out of a tunnel into a blind turn and found itself rounding the corner into a surprise loop-the-loop*.
*I looked this up as I wanted to type "loop de loop" and was curious as to what the proper way to write it was. I'm flabbergasted that it's loop-the-loop when loop de loop was right there in front of whoever coined it. In fact, it was probably the same genius who decided that "on line" meant standing in a line instead of "in line".
13
