Franshei, you said that there is no lack of "good news" from CYTX, but that it does not help the SP. That is because it's not game-changing news, and after the many setbacks that CYTX s/h's have sufferred through over many years, we need game-changing news (such as a significant cash partnership) to move the SP!
>>>There is no lack of "good" news from CYTX. But, the PPS hardly moves.<<<
Biannual dilution for nearly 10 years and still we don't know if it is enough !
Multiple trial screw-ups... Cardiac, OA, Breast recon. that was a total waste
A once bloated management where VP's for everyone seemed to be the practice
Years of failed predictions
Biggest partner immediately had to renegotiate his deal then fails to execute its terms
I could go on but the "good" news has been limited at best and the PPS has moved but steadily in a downward direction !
Cytori has become nothing but a place where a couple of fat cat phonies can park their cars, and take meetings with investment bankers in order to suck more money out of "investors" waiting to be duped by the hope of a big pay day.
Big question is if and when we get a cash infusion from a global partner to finance the global stroke trial and/or an expansion of the Healios partnership. If we get either the stock moves higher. Otherwise it is simply a waiting game and the overall market will be more consequential to ATHX stock price than anything else.
It depends on if and when they get new partnership money. They have about a year of cash (including short term investments). I suspect that a partnership will come with upfront cash before they need to do a share offering. The stroke data they have, especially at one year, is outstanding and the stroke market is so huge that I suspect that they should have more than one party interested in partnering. Having an SPA with the FDA is also a HUGE plus for a potential partnership. ...but there are never any guarantees.
The following user(s) said Thank You: rodney.strongg
one question about the production method and cost of MSC.
Do you can compare the production concept from ATHX vs. CYP.AX. I read that the Cynata approach is based on iPSC and should be infinite to produce MSC. How often must athx take new cells from a donor ? Could there really a immense cost advantage?
Thanks for a hint (also links to read it by my self are welcome :-))
I am familiar with Cynata and their technology. I actually had a call with the CEO and Chief Medical Officer a few months ago to try and get an understanding. One thing about Cymerus is that it is genetically modified and that creates risks but if it works the manufacturing scalability is a huge advantage over allogeneic MSC companies where scalability is an issue. Athersys is unlike MSC companies as its MAPCs are a distinct cell population. Athersys can get MILLIONS of doses from a single donor and that is one of the important foundations to its business model. Mesoblast doesn't have that advantage as its cells have limitations on expandability. Read the attached paper to learn more about the scalability of MAPCs:
The following user(s) said Thank You: Old Young Fox
I read the .pdf. Heavy stuff, i dont understand the fine diffrencies. But as you stated ATHX has the MAPCs and they are much more scalable then the MSC. Fujifilm will take a 10% stake in cynata. Perhaps they have also a good Platform with their approach.
If we can circle this back to CYTX...they have wasted so much time and of course tens of millions of dollars to allow the competition and obviously preferred route by BP, to continue to make strides to a off the shelf world.
They still have a very long road but evidence suggest it may only be a matter of time that the tech marches right past CYTX. Of course, I have considered CYTX will only be a niche player for some time now anyway.
You better find some more cash Marc !