2025 Q4 -tulosraportti
Vain PDF
40 päivää sitten
Tarjoustasot
Oslo Børs
Määrä
Osto
-
Myynti
Määrä
-
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | - | - | - |
Huomioi, että vaikka osakkeisiin säästäminen on pitkällä aikavälillä tuottanut hyvin, tulevasta tuotosta ei ole takeita. On olemassa riski, että et saa sijoittamiasi varoja takaisin.
Välittäjätilasto
Dataa ei löytynyt
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: FactSet, Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti 31.8. |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti 15.4. | ||
2025 Q2 -tulosraportti 28.8.2025 | ||
2024 Q4 -tulosraportti 10.4.2025 | ||
2024 Q2 -tulosraportti 29.8.2024 | ||
2023 Q4 -tulosraportti 25.4.2024 |
Asiakkaat katsoivat myös
Foorumi
Liity keskusteluun Nordnet Socialissa
Kirjaudu
·3 min sittenI'm considering throwing 2000kr k the stock as I've been following it for a while now and can see it has had some downturns. Do you think it's a good place to buy, and what expectations do people have for the company?
·2 t sittenThis will be my last AI post for a long time, I promise. But I just have to share this because it gave me a small revelation. After reading a lot in recent days, it honestly got a bit muddled with all the acquisition arguments – Lilly, CAR-T, AAV, who is buying what and why. Therefore, I asked Claude to clear it up and explain it simply. If the interpretation is correct, I think it is truly clarifying, and then it can surely be so for others. If it's wrong, I would like to hear about it. I am here to learn (and hopefully contribute something occasionally). SUMMARY FROM CLAUDE (AI): Circio – one platform, two acquisition arguments It's easy to get confused when discussing Circio, because two different arguments for acquisition are mixed up. Here is a simple clarification. circVec can be used in two completely different ways: Track 1 – Improve existing AAV gene therapy AAV is already approved and in use against hereditary diseases. Large companies like Novartis, Roche, and Pfizer already have AAV programs. The problem is that AAV requires dangerously high doses and has serious side effects. circVec solves this. Same AAV envelope, but a much better letter inside – 40-50 times more effective and 10-20 times lower dose. None of the major acquisitions in the last year apply to this track. The white space is still open. Track 2 – In vivo CAR-T Here, the patient's own immune cells are programmed inside the body to fight cancer and autoimmune diseases – without the complex and expensive process that current treatments require. This is the track Orna, Capstan, and Orbital were acquired for. Over 16 billion dollar spent in 13 months. Why CAR-T dominates the discussion – and what I think about it It is understandable that CAR-T acquisitions dominate the narrative around Circio. Over 16 billion dollar spent in 13 months is not to be ignored, and the CEO is conscious of positioning the company in that context. That's where the largest single transactions have occurred and where media coverage is strongest. But I think many draw a somewhat too direct line from “Orna was acquired for CAR-T” to “Circio will be acquired for the same reason.” It's not necessarily wrong – Circio works with CAR-T and can absolutely be acquired for that track. But the CAR-T market is already crowded. Most major players have positioned themselves. And Circio's own CAR-T program is still early in development. The AAV track, on the other hand, is where no one has yet bought in with circRNA. The white space is open. The data is stronger. The milestones are closer. And the buyers – the large AAV companies – have existing programs they want to improve right now. So even though CAR-T is the sexy narrative, I believe AAV is the most realistic starting point for an acquisition. And if there's also a bidding round where the CAR-T argument attracts more interested parties – then normal pricing models cease to apply.·2 t sittenContinuation; A clarification about Lilly: Lilly has already acquired circRNA via LNP through Orna and in vivo CAR-T via Kelonia. What is missing in their stack is circRNA via AAV. But Circio's CAR-T approach is technically different from Orna's, so Lilly may well be interested in Circio for both tracks. It's not either/or. The big pharma collaboration Circio already has: It is worth noting that Circio already has an active collaboration with a large pharmaceutical company – and this applies to the AAV track. Specifically, it is a CNS program where big pharma funds and drives the study. That a major player is already paying to test circVec in the brain is a strong validation of the AAV track in particular. Where do I think the most important triggers come from? The AAV track dominates the catalysts in the coming year. That's where Circio has its strongest data. 40x in heart and 50x in eye documented and presented at ASGCT in front of the world's leading gene and cell therapy community. That's where the concrete milestones come. Disease model data in heart and eye in the second half of 2026. CNS update from the big pharma collaboration in the second half of 2026. Primate data from eye in the first half of 2027. That's where the candidate nomination comes early 2027 – the natural time for a buyer to assess the value of the platform with full information. And the buyers are already identified. Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, BioMarin and AstraZeneca all have AAV programs they want to make better. They don't need to build anything new. They just need a better letter. The CAR-T track is a real additional argument, but is earlier in development and in a market that is already quite busy. Two different arguments. Two different buyer categories. One platform. And most of the triggers in the next year point towards AAV.
·2 t sitten · Muokattu(Disclamer: a lot of AI generated text follows) A big 👌 to everyone who has posted a lot of good info and links today! I am impressed by what one manages to find that can be significant for the Circio case! We are entering a very exciting week and period with warrant redemption with regard to the share price and therefore important news. I put a lot of the info from the forum thread into AI and asked it to summarize the probability and possibly what news might come in the period ahead based on the fact that we are in the warrants period. Long text so it is divided into several replies.·2 t sittenI am now responding super critically, soberly, and without hype. I stick to what I can do: analysis, probability, history, information flow, and scenario‑assessment. I cannot give investment advice or tell you what to do with your money, but I can give you the most precise assessment of information probability and news flow in CRNA in the coming days. This is a pure analysis, not a buy/sell recommendation. --- ⭐ 1. How likely is it that CRNA will issue more stock exchange announcements this week? Based on: • history in biotech • CRNA's communication style • what is actually in the pipeline • what is strategically rational during a redemption period • what is happening around ASGCT and Circular RNA Summit 📌 My assessment: High probability (60–75%) for at least one new announcement before June 9 This is not because “the company wants to pump the stock price”, but because: 1. They have already released two announcements in 24 hours – Patent – Webcast This is timing, not coincidence. 2. They are in a global conference week – Global Forum (presentation published today) – Circular & Self‑Amplifying RNA Summit (May 26–28) – Webcast May 28 3. They have several open information streams that are not closed – NeoRegen in vivo‑studies (1 year since last update) – Acuitas‑collaboration (not updated since 2026‑Q1) – Top‑5 pharma feasibility study (not disclosed who) – Several PCT‑patents “in progress” – CAR‑T in vivo‑program (not updated since 2025) 4. Biotech‑companies use redemption periods strategically – not to manipulate the stock price – but because that's when the market pays most attention – and because capital injection requires visibility --- ⭐ 2. What kind of news is most likely? I rank them by probability, based on history and what is actually “mature” for communication.
·2 t sittenWHEN THE PIGS AND MONKEYS TALK: THAT'S WHEN THE REAL GAME BEGINS. 🐖🐒🧬 Many in the biotech world make the classic mistake: They think strong data in large animals means "sell the news". They have completely misunderstood the platform model. Here's why strong results in pigs (oink oink) and monkeys don't mean selling – it means scaling up: 1 Mice are just the beginning: The data on mouse eyes is raw, but Big Pharma doesn't buy licenses based on mice. They want to see circVec deliver in large, complex organisms that resemble us. 2 The ultimate risk removal: Strong data from pigs and primates is the final proof that the "software" works in practice. The second that data hits, the risk is shaved off, and the platform's value skyrockets. 📉💥 3 The trigger for big deals: These are exactly the data the global giants are waiting for. This is where the big licensing agreements, the fat up-front payments, and future royalties are signed. Selling when the large animal data delivers is like selling off a software company right before they roll out the software to the entire world market. When the pigs and monkeys deliver the goods, you don't sit on the fence. You sit calmly in the boat and watch the value of the infrastructure unfold. We know what we own. ♟️🧱🍷
1 t sitten · Muokattu1 t sitten · MuokattuYet again… you are selling this stock as BIOTECH! 🤣🫦🤷🏻♀️😈 Many therapies that work in mice fail later. This first note is critically important! So investors and pharma partners generally assign more credibility to strong large-animal results. Strong primate or pig data can materially improve partnership discussions. 🤷🏻♀️ Even strong monkey or pig data does NOT “remove” the risk. Biotech failure rates remain extremely high because: * human biology is still different, * toxicity can emerge later, * immune reactions may appear, * manufacturing may fail, * regulators may demand more studies, * commercial viability may disappoint. Many biotech companies had: * excellent animal data, * strong science, * hype, …and still collapsed later. Large animal data reduces risk. It does not eliminate risk!1 t sitten · Muokattu1 t sitten · Muokattu🤣🤣🤣 I understand the platform model you are trying to communicate. But like you said yourself — it still needs validation.🧠🙅🏽♂️🫵🏽 Binary, linear, circular… you can use all the shapes you want — Circio will not be an exception to the realities of biotech development.😈💘 Strong large-animal data can absolutely strengthen the investment case and improve credibility. But it does not automatically guarantee partnerships, licensing deals, or commercial success.👀 Big Pharma will not simply generate the validation data for you out of goodwill. In most cases, they will likely require convincing and reproducible data before committing serious resources, unless a partnership is already established early.✍🏼 That is exactly why validation matters so much. The platform story may be exciting, but the market will still look for proof that the technology is scalable, safe, reproducible, and commercially relevant. 🤷🏻♀️🫦 The platform model can reduce some development burden later on — but it does not remove the need to de-risk the science first.💋🤑🤑🤑🗣️- ·3 t sittenCIRCIO IS NOT A BIOTECH COMPANY. THEY ARE A SOFTWARE-COMPANY. 🧬💻 If you listened carefully to the BioStock presentation, Erik said it outright. This changes EVERYTHING for how one should value this case: 1 They sell the shovels during a gold rush: Instead of digging for the gold themselves (which costs billions and takes 10 years in clinic), Circio sells the shovels to everyone else who digs. 🛠️💰 2 "Plug-and-play" for Big Pharma: The whole point of the circVec platform is to make others' pipelines better. Big Pharma has already spent billions on their medicines – Circio just upgrades their "software" so the medicine lasts longer and works better. 3 Pure WIN-WIN: Circio will not go all the way in clinic themselves on everything. The goal is to get partners to take the medicines into clinical studies. The partners take the enormous financial risk – Circio collects license fees and royalties. 📈🤝 This is not a binary "win or lose" product. This is infrastructure. It is a pure software business model, just in biological form. We know what we own. ♟️🧱🍷2 t sitten2 t sittenFor your readers, Define BIOTECH- vs. BIOSTOCK? 😅 “BIOSOFTWARE” - Companies? Moreover, it is not uncommon for partners — usually large pharmaceutical companies — to develop the medicines and carry out the clinical studies themselves. They already have the “machinery”, infrastructure, regulatory experience, and capital to do so. Clinical development is extremely expensive. 💰🫵🏽 This is not groundbreaking — it is actually a very common business model in biotech. 🤷🏻♀️🤓
Yllä olevat kommentit ovat peräisin Nordnetin sosiaalisen verkoston Nordnet Socialin käyttäjiltä, eikä niitä ole muokattu eikä Nordnet ole tarkastanut niitä etukäteen. Ne eivät tarkoita, että Nordnet tarjoaisi sijoitusneuvoja tai sijoitussuosituksia. Nordnet ei ota vastuuta kommenteista.
Uutiset
Tämän sivun uutiset ja/tai sijoitussuositukset tai otteet niistä sekä niihin liittyvät linkit ovat mainitun tahon tuottamia ja toimittamia. Nordnet ei ole osallistunut materiaalin laatimiseen, eikä ole tarkistanut sen sisältöä tai tehnyt sisältöön muutoksia. Lue lisää sijoitussuosituksista.
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti
Vain PDF
40 päivää sitten
Uutiset
Tämän sivun uutiset ja/tai sijoitussuositukset tai otteet niistä sekä niihin liittyvät linkit ovat mainitun tahon tuottamia ja toimittamia. Nordnet ei ole osallistunut materiaalin laatimiseen, eikä ole tarkistanut sen sisältöä tai tehnyt sisältöön muutoksia. Lue lisää sijoitussuosituksista.
Foorumi
Liity keskusteluun Nordnet Socialissa
Kirjaudu
- ·3 min sittenI'm considering throwing 2000kr k the stock as I've been following it for a while now and can see it has had some downturns. Do you think it's a good place to buy, and what expectations do people have for the company?
- ·2 t sittenThis will be my last AI post for a long time, I promise. But I just have to share this because it gave me a small revelation. After reading a lot in recent days, it honestly got a bit muddled with all the acquisition arguments – Lilly, CAR-T, AAV, who is buying what and why. Therefore, I asked Claude to clear it up and explain it simply. If the interpretation is correct, I think it is truly clarifying, and then it can surely be so for others. If it's wrong, I would like to hear about it. I am here to learn (and hopefully contribute something occasionally). SUMMARY FROM CLAUDE (AI): Circio – one platform, two acquisition arguments It's easy to get confused when discussing Circio, because two different arguments for acquisition are mixed up. Here is a simple clarification. circVec can be used in two completely different ways: Track 1 – Improve existing AAV gene therapy AAV is already approved and in use against hereditary diseases. Large companies like Novartis, Roche, and Pfizer already have AAV programs. The problem is that AAV requires dangerously high doses and has serious side effects. circVec solves this. Same AAV envelope, but a much better letter inside – 40-50 times more effective and 10-20 times lower dose. None of the major acquisitions in the last year apply to this track. The white space is still open. Track 2 – In vivo CAR-T Here, the patient's own immune cells are programmed inside the body to fight cancer and autoimmune diseases – without the complex and expensive process that current treatments require. This is the track Orna, Capstan, and Orbital were acquired for. Over 16 billion dollar spent in 13 months. Why CAR-T dominates the discussion – and what I think about it It is understandable that CAR-T acquisitions dominate the narrative around Circio. Over 16 billion dollar spent in 13 months is not to be ignored, and the CEO is conscious of positioning the company in that context. That's where the largest single transactions have occurred and where media coverage is strongest. But I think many draw a somewhat too direct line from “Orna was acquired for CAR-T” to “Circio will be acquired for the same reason.” It's not necessarily wrong – Circio works with CAR-T and can absolutely be acquired for that track. But the CAR-T market is already crowded. Most major players have positioned themselves. And Circio's own CAR-T program is still early in development. The AAV track, on the other hand, is where no one has yet bought in with circRNA. The white space is open. The data is stronger. The milestones are closer. And the buyers – the large AAV companies – have existing programs they want to improve right now. So even though CAR-T is the sexy narrative, I believe AAV is the most realistic starting point for an acquisition. And if there's also a bidding round where the CAR-T argument attracts more interested parties – then normal pricing models cease to apply.·2 t sittenContinuation; A clarification about Lilly: Lilly has already acquired circRNA via LNP through Orna and in vivo CAR-T via Kelonia. What is missing in their stack is circRNA via AAV. But Circio's CAR-T approach is technically different from Orna's, so Lilly may well be interested in Circio for both tracks. It's not either/or. The big pharma collaboration Circio already has: It is worth noting that Circio already has an active collaboration with a large pharmaceutical company – and this applies to the AAV track. Specifically, it is a CNS program where big pharma funds and drives the study. That a major player is already paying to test circVec in the brain is a strong validation of the AAV track in particular. Where do I think the most important triggers come from? The AAV track dominates the catalysts in the coming year. That's where Circio has its strongest data. 40x in heart and 50x in eye documented and presented at ASGCT in front of the world's leading gene and cell therapy community. That's where the concrete milestones come. Disease model data in heart and eye in the second half of 2026. CNS update from the big pharma collaboration in the second half of 2026. Primate data from eye in the first half of 2027. That's where the candidate nomination comes early 2027 – the natural time for a buyer to assess the value of the platform with full information. And the buyers are already identified. Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, BioMarin and AstraZeneca all have AAV programs they want to make better. They don't need to build anything new. They just need a better letter. The CAR-T track is a real additional argument, but is earlier in development and in a market that is already quite busy. Two different arguments. Two different buyer categories. One platform. And most of the triggers in the next year point towards AAV.
- ·2 t sitten · Muokattu(Disclamer: a lot of AI generated text follows) A big 👌 to everyone who has posted a lot of good info and links today! I am impressed by what one manages to find that can be significant for the Circio case! We are entering a very exciting week and period with warrant redemption with regard to the share price and therefore important news. I put a lot of the info from the forum thread into AI and asked it to summarize the probability and possibly what news might come in the period ahead based on the fact that we are in the warrants period. Long text so it is divided into several replies.·2 t sittenI am now responding super critically, soberly, and without hype. I stick to what I can do: analysis, probability, history, information flow, and scenario‑assessment. I cannot give investment advice or tell you what to do with your money, but I can give you the most precise assessment of information probability and news flow in CRNA in the coming days. This is a pure analysis, not a buy/sell recommendation. --- ⭐ 1. How likely is it that CRNA will issue more stock exchange announcements this week? Based on: • history in biotech • CRNA's communication style • what is actually in the pipeline • what is strategically rational during a redemption period • what is happening around ASGCT and Circular RNA Summit 📌 My assessment: High probability (60–75%) for at least one new announcement before June 9 This is not because “the company wants to pump the stock price”, but because: 1. They have already released two announcements in 24 hours – Patent – Webcast This is timing, not coincidence. 2. They are in a global conference week – Global Forum (presentation published today) – Circular & Self‑Amplifying RNA Summit (May 26–28) – Webcast May 28 3. They have several open information streams that are not closed – NeoRegen in vivo‑studies (1 year since last update) – Acuitas‑collaboration (not updated since 2026‑Q1) – Top‑5 pharma feasibility study (not disclosed who) – Several PCT‑patents “in progress” – CAR‑T in vivo‑program (not updated since 2025) 4. Biotech‑companies use redemption periods strategically – not to manipulate the stock price – but because that's when the market pays most attention – and because capital injection requires visibility --- ⭐ 2. What kind of news is most likely? I rank them by probability, based on history and what is actually “mature” for communication.
- ·2 t sittenWHEN THE PIGS AND MONKEYS TALK: THAT'S WHEN THE REAL GAME BEGINS. 🐖🐒🧬 Many in the biotech world make the classic mistake: They think strong data in large animals means "sell the news". They have completely misunderstood the platform model. Here's why strong results in pigs (oink oink) and monkeys don't mean selling – it means scaling up: 1 Mice are just the beginning: The data on mouse eyes is raw, but Big Pharma doesn't buy licenses based on mice. They want to see circVec deliver in large, complex organisms that resemble us. 2 The ultimate risk removal: Strong data from pigs and primates is the final proof that the "software" works in practice. The second that data hits, the risk is shaved off, and the platform's value skyrockets. 📉💥 3 The trigger for big deals: These are exactly the data the global giants are waiting for. This is where the big licensing agreements, the fat up-front payments, and future royalties are signed. Selling when the large animal data delivers is like selling off a software company right before they roll out the software to the entire world market. When the pigs and monkeys deliver the goods, you don't sit on the fence. You sit calmly in the boat and watch the value of the infrastructure unfold. We know what we own. ♟️🧱🍷1 t sitten · Muokattu1 t sitten · MuokattuYet again… you are selling this stock as BIOTECH! 🤣🫦🤷🏻♀️😈 Many therapies that work in mice fail later. This first note is critically important! So investors and pharma partners generally assign more credibility to strong large-animal results. Strong primate or pig data can materially improve partnership discussions. 🤷🏻♀️ Even strong monkey or pig data does NOT “remove” the risk. Biotech failure rates remain extremely high because: * human biology is still different, * toxicity can emerge later, * immune reactions may appear, * manufacturing may fail, * regulators may demand more studies, * commercial viability may disappoint. Many biotech companies had: * excellent animal data, * strong science, * hype, …and still collapsed later. Large animal data reduces risk. It does not eliminate risk!1 t sitten · Muokattu1 t sitten · Muokattu🤣🤣🤣 I understand the platform model you are trying to communicate. But like you said yourself — it still needs validation.🧠🙅🏽♂️🫵🏽 Binary, linear, circular… you can use all the shapes you want — Circio will not be an exception to the realities of biotech development.😈💘 Strong large-animal data can absolutely strengthen the investment case and improve credibility. But it does not automatically guarantee partnerships, licensing deals, or commercial success.👀 Big Pharma will not simply generate the validation data for you out of goodwill. In most cases, they will likely require convincing and reproducible data before committing serious resources, unless a partnership is already established early.✍🏼 That is exactly why validation matters so much. The platform story may be exciting, but the market will still look for proof that the technology is scalable, safe, reproducible, and commercially relevant. 🤷🏻♀️🫦 The platform model can reduce some development burden later on — but it does not remove the need to de-risk the science first.💋🤑🤑🤑🗣️
- ·3 t sittenCIRCIO IS NOT A BIOTECH COMPANY. THEY ARE A SOFTWARE-COMPANY. 🧬💻 If you listened carefully to the BioStock presentation, Erik said it outright. This changes EVERYTHING for how one should value this case: 1 They sell the shovels during a gold rush: Instead of digging for the gold themselves (which costs billions and takes 10 years in clinic), Circio sells the shovels to everyone else who digs. 🛠️💰 2 "Plug-and-play" for Big Pharma: The whole point of the circVec platform is to make others' pipelines better. Big Pharma has already spent billions on their medicines – Circio just upgrades their "software" so the medicine lasts longer and works better. 3 Pure WIN-WIN: Circio will not go all the way in clinic themselves on everything. The goal is to get partners to take the medicines into clinical studies. The partners take the enormous financial risk – Circio collects license fees and royalties. 📈🤝 This is not a binary "win or lose" product. This is infrastructure. It is a pure software business model, just in biological form. We know what we own. ♟️🧱🍷2 t sitten2 t sittenFor your readers, Define BIOTECH- vs. BIOSTOCK? 😅 “BIOSOFTWARE” - Companies? Moreover, it is not uncommon for partners — usually large pharmaceutical companies — to develop the medicines and carry out the clinical studies themselves. They already have the “machinery”, infrastructure, regulatory experience, and capital to do so. Clinical development is extremely expensive. 💰🫵🏽 This is not groundbreaking — it is actually a very common business model in biotech. 🤷🏻♀️🤓
Yllä olevat kommentit ovat peräisin Nordnetin sosiaalisen verkoston Nordnet Socialin käyttäjiltä, eikä niitä ole muokattu eikä Nordnet ole tarkastanut niitä etukäteen. Ne eivät tarkoita, että Nordnet tarjoaisi sijoitusneuvoja tai sijoitussuosituksia. Nordnet ei ota vastuuta kommenteista.
Tarjoustasot
Oslo Børs
Määrä
Osto
-
Myynti
Määrä
-
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | - | - | - |
Huomioi, että vaikka osakkeisiin säästäminen on pitkällä aikavälillä tuottanut hyvin, tulevasta tuotosta ei ole takeita. On olemassa riski, että et saa sijoittamiasi varoja takaisin.
Välittäjätilasto
Dataa ei löytynyt
Asiakkaat katsoivat myös
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: FactSet, Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti 31.8. |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti 15.4. | ||
2025 Q2 -tulosraportti 28.8.2025 | ||
2024 Q4 -tulosraportti 10.4.2025 | ||
2024 Q2 -tulosraportti 29.8.2024 | ||
2023 Q4 -tulosraportti 25.4.2024 |
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti
Vain PDF
40 päivää sitten
Uutiset
Tämän sivun uutiset ja/tai sijoitussuositukset tai otteet niistä sekä niihin liittyvät linkit ovat mainitun tahon tuottamia ja toimittamia. Nordnet ei ole osallistunut materiaalin laatimiseen, eikä ole tarkistanut sen sisältöä tai tehnyt sisältöön muutoksia. Lue lisää sijoitussuosituksista.
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: FactSet, Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti 31.8. |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti 15.4. | ||
2025 Q2 -tulosraportti 28.8.2025 | ||
2024 Q4 -tulosraportti 10.4.2025 | ||
2024 Q2 -tulosraportti 29.8.2024 | ||
2023 Q4 -tulosraportti 25.4.2024 |
Foorumi
Liity keskusteluun Nordnet Socialissa
Kirjaudu
- ·3 min sittenI'm considering throwing 2000kr k the stock as I've been following it for a while now and can see it has had some downturns. Do you think it's a good place to buy, and what expectations do people have for the company?
- ·2 t sittenThis will be my last AI post for a long time, I promise. But I just have to share this because it gave me a small revelation. After reading a lot in recent days, it honestly got a bit muddled with all the acquisition arguments – Lilly, CAR-T, AAV, who is buying what and why. Therefore, I asked Claude to clear it up and explain it simply. If the interpretation is correct, I think it is truly clarifying, and then it can surely be so for others. If it's wrong, I would like to hear about it. I am here to learn (and hopefully contribute something occasionally). SUMMARY FROM CLAUDE (AI): Circio – one platform, two acquisition arguments It's easy to get confused when discussing Circio, because two different arguments for acquisition are mixed up. Here is a simple clarification. circVec can be used in two completely different ways: Track 1 – Improve existing AAV gene therapy AAV is already approved and in use against hereditary diseases. Large companies like Novartis, Roche, and Pfizer already have AAV programs. The problem is that AAV requires dangerously high doses and has serious side effects. circVec solves this. Same AAV envelope, but a much better letter inside – 40-50 times more effective and 10-20 times lower dose. None of the major acquisitions in the last year apply to this track. The white space is still open. Track 2 – In vivo CAR-T Here, the patient's own immune cells are programmed inside the body to fight cancer and autoimmune diseases – without the complex and expensive process that current treatments require. This is the track Orna, Capstan, and Orbital were acquired for. Over 16 billion dollar spent in 13 months. Why CAR-T dominates the discussion – and what I think about it It is understandable that CAR-T acquisitions dominate the narrative around Circio. Over 16 billion dollar spent in 13 months is not to be ignored, and the CEO is conscious of positioning the company in that context. That's where the largest single transactions have occurred and where media coverage is strongest. But I think many draw a somewhat too direct line from “Orna was acquired for CAR-T” to “Circio will be acquired for the same reason.” It's not necessarily wrong – Circio works with CAR-T and can absolutely be acquired for that track. But the CAR-T market is already crowded. Most major players have positioned themselves. And Circio's own CAR-T program is still early in development. The AAV track, on the other hand, is where no one has yet bought in with circRNA. The white space is open. The data is stronger. The milestones are closer. And the buyers – the large AAV companies – have existing programs they want to improve right now. So even though CAR-T is the sexy narrative, I believe AAV is the most realistic starting point for an acquisition. And if there's also a bidding round where the CAR-T argument attracts more interested parties – then normal pricing models cease to apply.·2 t sittenContinuation; A clarification about Lilly: Lilly has already acquired circRNA via LNP through Orna and in vivo CAR-T via Kelonia. What is missing in their stack is circRNA via AAV. But Circio's CAR-T approach is technically different from Orna's, so Lilly may well be interested in Circio for both tracks. It's not either/or. The big pharma collaboration Circio already has: It is worth noting that Circio already has an active collaboration with a large pharmaceutical company – and this applies to the AAV track. Specifically, it is a CNS program where big pharma funds and drives the study. That a major player is already paying to test circVec in the brain is a strong validation of the AAV track in particular. Where do I think the most important triggers come from? The AAV track dominates the catalysts in the coming year. That's where Circio has its strongest data. 40x in heart and 50x in eye documented and presented at ASGCT in front of the world's leading gene and cell therapy community. That's where the concrete milestones come. Disease model data in heart and eye in the second half of 2026. CNS update from the big pharma collaboration in the second half of 2026. Primate data from eye in the first half of 2027. That's where the candidate nomination comes early 2027 – the natural time for a buyer to assess the value of the platform with full information. And the buyers are already identified. Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, BioMarin and AstraZeneca all have AAV programs they want to make better. They don't need to build anything new. They just need a better letter. The CAR-T track is a real additional argument, but is earlier in development and in a market that is already quite busy. Two different arguments. Two different buyer categories. One platform. And most of the triggers in the next year point towards AAV.
- ·2 t sitten · Muokattu(Disclamer: a lot of AI generated text follows) A big 👌 to everyone who has posted a lot of good info and links today! I am impressed by what one manages to find that can be significant for the Circio case! We are entering a very exciting week and period with warrant redemption with regard to the share price and therefore important news. I put a lot of the info from the forum thread into AI and asked it to summarize the probability and possibly what news might come in the period ahead based on the fact that we are in the warrants period. Long text so it is divided into several replies.·2 t sittenI am now responding super critically, soberly, and without hype. I stick to what I can do: analysis, probability, history, information flow, and scenario‑assessment. I cannot give investment advice or tell you what to do with your money, but I can give you the most precise assessment of information probability and news flow in CRNA in the coming days. This is a pure analysis, not a buy/sell recommendation. --- ⭐ 1. How likely is it that CRNA will issue more stock exchange announcements this week? Based on: • history in biotech • CRNA's communication style • what is actually in the pipeline • what is strategically rational during a redemption period • what is happening around ASGCT and Circular RNA Summit 📌 My assessment: High probability (60–75%) for at least one new announcement before June 9 This is not because “the company wants to pump the stock price”, but because: 1. They have already released two announcements in 24 hours – Patent – Webcast This is timing, not coincidence. 2. They are in a global conference week – Global Forum (presentation published today) – Circular & Self‑Amplifying RNA Summit (May 26–28) – Webcast May 28 3. They have several open information streams that are not closed – NeoRegen in vivo‑studies (1 year since last update) – Acuitas‑collaboration (not updated since 2026‑Q1) – Top‑5 pharma feasibility study (not disclosed who) – Several PCT‑patents “in progress” – CAR‑T in vivo‑program (not updated since 2025) 4. Biotech‑companies use redemption periods strategically – not to manipulate the stock price – but because that's when the market pays most attention – and because capital injection requires visibility --- ⭐ 2. What kind of news is most likely? I rank them by probability, based on history and what is actually “mature” for communication.
- ·2 t sittenWHEN THE PIGS AND MONKEYS TALK: THAT'S WHEN THE REAL GAME BEGINS. 🐖🐒🧬 Many in the biotech world make the classic mistake: They think strong data in large animals means "sell the news". They have completely misunderstood the platform model. Here's why strong results in pigs (oink oink) and monkeys don't mean selling – it means scaling up: 1 Mice are just the beginning: The data on mouse eyes is raw, but Big Pharma doesn't buy licenses based on mice. They want to see circVec deliver in large, complex organisms that resemble us. 2 The ultimate risk removal: Strong data from pigs and primates is the final proof that the "software" works in practice. The second that data hits, the risk is shaved off, and the platform's value skyrockets. 📉💥 3 The trigger for big deals: These are exactly the data the global giants are waiting for. This is where the big licensing agreements, the fat up-front payments, and future royalties are signed. Selling when the large animal data delivers is like selling off a software company right before they roll out the software to the entire world market. When the pigs and monkeys deliver the goods, you don't sit on the fence. You sit calmly in the boat and watch the value of the infrastructure unfold. We know what we own. ♟️🧱🍷1 t sitten · Muokattu1 t sitten · MuokattuYet again… you are selling this stock as BIOTECH! 🤣🫦🤷🏻♀️😈 Many therapies that work in mice fail later. This first note is critically important! So investors and pharma partners generally assign more credibility to strong large-animal results. Strong primate or pig data can materially improve partnership discussions. 🤷🏻♀️ Even strong monkey or pig data does NOT “remove” the risk. Biotech failure rates remain extremely high because: * human biology is still different, * toxicity can emerge later, * immune reactions may appear, * manufacturing may fail, * regulators may demand more studies, * commercial viability may disappoint. Many biotech companies had: * excellent animal data, * strong science, * hype, …and still collapsed later. Large animal data reduces risk. It does not eliminate risk!1 t sitten · Muokattu1 t sitten · Muokattu🤣🤣🤣 I understand the platform model you are trying to communicate. But like you said yourself — it still needs validation.🧠🙅🏽♂️🫵🏽 Binary, linear, circular… you can use all the shapes you want — Circio will not be an exception to the realities of biotech development.😈💘 Strong large-animal data can absolutely strengthen the investment case and improve credibility. But it does not automatically guarantee partnerships, licensing deals, or commercial success.👀 Big Pharma will not simply generate the validation data for you out of goodwill. In most cases, they will likely require convincing and reproducible data before committing serious resources, unless a partnership is already established early.✍🏼 That is exactly why validation matters so much. The platform story may be exciting, but the market will still look for proof that the technology is scalable, safe, reproducible, and commercially relevant. 🤷🏻♀️🫦 The platform model can reduce some development burden later on — but it does not remove the need to de-risk the science first.💋🤑🤑🤑🗣️
- ·3 t sittenCIRCIO IS NOT A BIOTECH COMPANY. THEY ARE A SOFTWARE-COMPANY. 🧬💻 If you listened carefully to the BioStock presentation, Erik said it outright. This changes EVERYTHING for how one should value this case: 1 They sell the shovels during a gold rush: Instead of digging for the gold themselves (which costs billions and takes 10 years in clinic), Circio sells the shovels to everyone else who digs. 🛠️💰 2 "Plug-and-play" for Big Pharma: The whole point of the circVec platform is to make others' pipelines better. Big Pharma has already spent billions on their medicines – Circio just upgrades their "software" so the medicine lasts longer and works better. 3 Pure WIN-WIN: Circio will not go all the way in clinic themselves on everything. The goal is to get partners to take the medicines into clinical studies. The partners take the enormous financial risk – Circio collects license fees and royalties. 📈🤝 This is not a binary "win or lose" product. This is infrastructure. It is a pure software business model, just in biological form. We know what we own. ♟️🧱🍷2 t sitten2 t sittenFor your readers, Define BIOTECH- vs. BIOSTOCK? 😅 “BIOSOFTWARE” - Companies? Moreover, it is not uncommon for partners — usually large pharmaceutical companies — to develop the medicines and carry out the clinical studies themselves. They already have the “machinery”, infrastructure, regulatory experience, and capital to do so. Clinical development is extremely expensive. 💰🫵🏽 This is not groundbreaking — it is actually a very common business model in biotech. 🤷🏻♀️🤓
Yllä olevat kommentit ovat peräisin Nordnetin sosiaalisen verkoston Nordnet Socialin käyttäjiltä, eikä niitä ole muokattu eikä Nordnet ole tarkastanut niitä etukäteen. Ne eivät tarkoita, että Nordnet tarjoaisi sijoitusneuvoja tai sijoitussuosituksia. Nordnet ei ota vastuuta kommenteista.
Tarjoustasot
Oslo Børs
Määrä
Osto
-
Myynti
Määrä
-
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | - | - | - |
Huomioi, että vaikka osakkeisiin säästäminen on pitkällä aikavälillä tuottanut hyvin, tulevasta tuotosta ei ole takeita. On olemassa riski, että et saa sijoittamiasi varoja takaisin.
Välittäjätilasto
Dataa ei löytynyt