DSCO
December 15, 2010
– Comments (15)
I think it might again be a good time to buy a few DSCO shares. See this post by zzlangerhans.
-----------
GBMB update
...
DSCO - Discovery Labs at 0.17 is simply the best risk/benefit ratio I can recall seeing since I began analyzing these companies four years ago. Most biotechs with a market cap under 50M are dubious or outright scam outfits with highly speculative pipelines or drug candidates that have failed late stage trials. However, there seems to be little argument regarding the efficacy or utility of Discovery's liquid surfactant Surfaxin. What has taken the share price deep into all-time lows is the repeated failure of the company to get Surfaxin approved by the FDA over the last five years. Time and again the share price has risen only to be slapped down after the FDA issued Complete Response after Complete Response, citing complicated issues related to manufacturing and controls. Meanwhile, the rest of the pipeline has struggled and the company has diluted again and again to balloon the share count to 200 million. In short, the stock deserves to be ailing. But the company unquestionably has the cash to submit Surfaxin for approval once again in Q1 2011 and await yet another FDA response, likely in Q3. Despite the exhaustion and capitulation that has brought the share price so low, there is a high likelihood that the share price will rise dramatically as investors start to wonder if maybe, just maybe, the company got it right this time. After swearing off buying more shares at 50000, I doubled down yet again at 0.2 only to see another gap down on word of Nasdaq delisting. Is all the bad news in before we get to the catalyst? I'm probably the wrong person to ask, down $12000 and counting. And when I say that the risk/benefit ratio looks very good, that doesn't mean that the risk isn't very high. In this deep water you might find some beautiful trinkets, but be prepared for a bad case of the bends.
...
-----------
I currently have 49000 DSCO shares in my portfolio (see comment #75 here).