2026 Q2 -tulosraportti
UUTTA
2 päivää sitten
‧51 min
Tarjoustasot
Määrä
Osto
-
Myynti
Määrä
-
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 091 | - | - | ||
| 4 000 | - | - | ||
| 1 000 | - | - | ||
| 333 | - | - | ||
| 26 | - | - |
Huomioi, että vaikka osakkeisiin säästäminen on pitkällä aikavälillä tuottanut hyvin, tulevasta tuotosta ei ole takeita. On olemassa riski, että et saa sijoittamiasi varoja takaisin.
Rahastot ja ETF:t, joilla on osaketta
Mikään rahasto ei ilmoita osaketta kymmenen suurimman omistuksensa joukossa.
Asiakkaat katsoivat myös
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
Sijoittajakalenteri ei ole saatavilla | |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti 1.9. | ||
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti 15.4. | ||
2025 Q2 -tulosraportti 28.8.2025 | ||
2024 Q4 -tulosraportti 10.4.2025 | ||
2024 Q2 -tulosraportti 29.8.2024 |
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
·10 min sittenWHO IS THE SECRET TOP-5 PHARMA PARTNER? 🧠🧬 Nobody knows. But we can do DD. What we actually know: → A top-5 global pharma → CNS / neuroscience → AAV gene therapy → The partner fully funds the project → In-vitro completed → Candidates selected → Now further in vivo So who fits the profile? My personal ranking: 🥇 NOVARTIS 🥈 ROCHE / GENENTECH 🥉 ELI LILLY → Johnson & Johnson → AbbVie And Novartis stands out. They have a heavy neuroscience focus, several decades of AAV/gene therapy expertise, Zolgensma, CNS gene-delivery in pipeline — and describe Gene Therapy + xRNA themselves as central advanced platforms within neuroscience. It's almost a tailor-made strategic match with circVec. Think about the problem: Big Pharma has the payload. They have the AAV. They have the disease. But if expression/dose is the limitation? That's where circVec comes in. 🎯 And Circio has just shown up to 60x expression advantage in CNS in vivo. Does this mean the partner is Novartis? No. This is only my own DD and probability assessment. Roche, Lilly or another top-pharma could just as well be on the other side of the NDA. But one thing we don't need to guess about: One of the world's largest pharma organizations has already seen circVec in vitro — and chose to take the technology further in vivo with their own money. The name is secret. The signal is not. ♟️🧬
·34 min sitten · MuokattuWhy did the loan-to-value ratio suddenly become 20% here? I don't remember it being that before. Doesn't that also mean that the brokerage firm sees that the risk has decreased after the latest report circio shared?
- ·1 t sittenOK. LET'S TALK ABOUT HOW THE CIRCIO CASE CAN GO TO HELL. 🧬⚠️ I am extremely bullish on Circio. But if you can't explain how your investment can fail, you haven't done DD. You've fallen in love with the stock. So here's the bear case: 1. Expression is still not efficacy. 200x sounds absurd. But no patient needs "200x". They need a treatment that actually works at a lower dose. The most important data point going forward is therefore not 300x or 500x. It is: Lower dose → same/better therapeutic effect. 🎯 That still needs to be proven. 2. Everything is still preclinical. Mice are not humans. circVec has never been tested in a human. NHP, tox, biodistribution, immunogenicity and finally clinical data can still reveal problems no one sees today. It's biotech. 3. 200x is not 200x yet. Gen 5 builds on strong improvements in separate parts of the system. Now Circio must show that the gains can actually be combined and deliver as expected in vivo. 4. 23 collaborations are not 23 deals. Research interest is good. But pharma doesn't pay bills with "interest". The real test is when someone says: We want this technology. Here's the money. 💰 Top-5 pharma can be exactly that validation. They can also choose to move on without circVec. Both outcomes exist. 5. IP is critical. Fantastic technology is far less valuable if competitors can easily build around the patents. If circVec becomes a platform others want to use, the strength and breadth of the IP will be absolutely crucial. 6. The competition doesn't stand still. Gene therapy, RNA, delivery and in-vivo cell therapy are moving extremely fast. Circio doesn't just need to be good. They must still be relevant when the market is ready. ⸻ So why do I take the risk? Because this is the other side of the asymmetry. After the latest report, Circio stands stronger than ever. The capital is in place. Runway until 2030. The data has continued to build the platform thesis. But the most difficult proofs remain. And that's precisely why the upside still exists. If efficacy, NHP, partnerships and eventually clinical data were already proven, we wouldn't have gotten today's entry ticket either. There is no free extreme return. Risk is the price you pay for being early. If you're wrong, the downside can be brutal. If you're right about technology like this before it's fully de-risked, this is precisely where truly extreme returns can be created. In many ways, we are paid to bear the uncertainty while the market waits for the answers. It's not an argument to ignore risk. That's the whole reason the opportunity exists. ♟️ Bullish doesn't mean blind. We know what we own — and we should know exactly what can destroy it too. 🍷
I am also bullish on the case! This is genuinely solid analysis and deserves recognition: you do exactly what distinguishes serious investors from hyped forum posters — namely, actively looking for what could destroy your own thesis instead of just collecting confirming arguments. The distinction between expression and efficacy (point 1) is the most important technical point in the entire case and shows that you actually understand the biology, not just the numbers. Furthermore, your distinction between "23 collaborations" and "23 agreements" shows a keen sense for the difference between interest and commercially validated demand, which is precisely the kind of sober thinking missing in most hype threads about the same company. The conclusion about asymmetry and that uncertainty is the price for early upside is well-formulated and honest that this is a risk position, not a guaranteed profit. Overall, this is a model for what bear-case analysis should look like in a bullish thread — concrete, specific, and free from motivated reasoning. Worth adding, not as criticism but as a complement: it would further strengthen the analysis to quantify how large a position this should be given the asymmetry you describe, rather than just stating that the upside exists — otherwise, even a good risk analysis risks being used to justify too large a position.
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.
Välittäjätilasto
Dataa ei löytynyt
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti
UUTTA
2 päivää sitten
‧51 min
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
- ·10 min sittenWHO IS THE SECRET TOP-5 PHARMA PARTNER? 🧠🧬 Nobody knows. But we can do DD. What we actually know: → A top-5 global pharma → CNS / neuroscience → AAV gene therapy → The partner fully funds the project → In-vitro completed → Candidates selected → Now further in vivo So who fits the profile? My personal ranking: 🥇 NOVARTIS 🥈 ROCHE / GENENTECH 🥉 ELI LILLY → Johnson & Johnson → AbbVie And Novartis stands out. They have a heavy neuroscience focus, several decades of AAV/gene therapy expertise, Zolgensma, CNS gene-delivery in pipeline — and describe Gene Therapy + xRNA themselves as central advanced platforms within neuroscience. It's almost a tailor-made strategic match with circVec. Think about the problem: Big Pharma has the payload. They have the AAV. They have the disease. But if expression/dose is the limitation? That's where circVec comes in. 🎯 And Circio has just shown up to 60x expression advantage in CNS in vivo. Does this mean the partner is Novartis? No. This is only my own DD and probability assessment. Roche, Lilly or another top-pharma could just as well be on the other side of the NDA. But one thing we don't need to guess about: One of the world's largest pharma organizations has already seen circVec in vitro — and chose to take the technology further in vivo with their own money. The name is secret. The signal is not. ♟️🧬
- ·34 min sitten · MuokattuWhy did the loan-to-value ratio suddenly become 20% here? I don't remember it being that before. Doesn't that also mean that the brokerage firm sees that the risk has decreased after the latest report circio shared?
- ·1 t sittenOK. LET'S TALK ABOUT HOW THE CIRCIO CASE CAN GO TO HELL. 🧬⚠️ I am extremely bullish on Circio. But if you can't explain how your investment can fail, you haven't done DD. You've fallen in love with the stock. So here's the bear case: 1. Expression is still not efficacy. 200x sounds absurd. But no patient needs "200x". They need a treatment that actually works at a lower dose. The most important data point going forward is therefore not 300x or 500x. It is: Lower dose → same/better therapeutic effect. 🎯 That still needs to be proven. 2. Everything is still preclinical. Mice are not humans. circVec has never been tested in a human. NHP, tox, biodistribution, immunogenicity and finally clinical data can still reveal problems no one sees today. It's biotech. 3. 200x is not 200x yet. Gen 5 builds on strong improvements in separate parts of the system. Now Circio must show that the gains can actually be combined and deliver as expected in vivo. 4. 23 collaborations are not 23 deals. Research interest is good. But pharma doesn't pay bills with "interest". The real test is when someone says: We want this technology. Here's the money. 💰 Top-5 pharma can be exactly that validation. They can also choose to move on without circVec. Both outcomes exist. 5. IP is critical. Fantastic technology is far less valuable if competitors can easily build around the patents. If circVec becomes a platform others want to use, the strength and breadth of the IP will be absolutely crucial. 6. The competition doesn't stand still. Gene therapy, RNA, delivery and in-vivo cell therapy are moving extremely fast. Circio doesn't just need to be good. They must still be relevant when the market is ready. ⸻ So why do I take the risk? Because this is the other side of the asymmetry. After the latest report, Circio stands stronger than ever. The capital is in place. Runway until 2030. The data has continued to build the platform thesis. But the most difficult proofs remain. And that's precisely why the upside still exists. If efficacy, NHP, partnerships and eventually clinical data were already proven, we wouldn't have gotten today's entry ticket either. There is no free extreme return. Risk is the price you pay for being early. If you're wrong, the downside can be brutal. If you're right about technology like this before it's fully de-risked, this is precisely where truly extreme returns can be created. In many ways, we are paid to bear the uncertainty while the market waits for the answers. It's not an argument to ignore risk. That's the whole reason the opportunity exists. ♟️ Bullish doesn't mean blind. We know what we own — and we should know exactly what can destroy it too. 🍷I am also bullish on the case! This is genuinely solid analysis and deserves recognition: you do exactly what distinguishes serious investors from hyped forum posters — namely, actively looking for what could destroy your own thesis instead of just collecting confirming arguments. The distinction between expression and efficacy (point 1) is the most important technical point in the entire case and shows that you actually understand the biology, not just the numbers. Furthermore, your distinction between "23 collaborations" and "23 agreements" shows a keen sense for the difference between interest and commercially validated demand, which is precisely the kind of sober thinking missing in most hype threads about the same company. The conclusion about asymmetry and that uncertainty is the price for early upside is well-formulated and honest that this is a risk position, not a guaranteed profit. Overall, this is a model for what bear-case analysis should look like in a bullish thread — concrete, specific, and free from motivated reasoning. Worth adding, not as criticism but as a complement: it would further strengthen the analysis to quantify how large a position this should be given the asymmetry you describe, rather than just stating that the upside exists — otherwise, even a good risk analysis risks being used to justify too large a position.
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
Määrä
Osto
-
Myynti
Määrä
-
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 091 | - | - | ||
| 4 000 | - | - | ||
| 1 000 | - | - | ||
| 333 | - | - | ||
| 26 | - | - |
Huomioi, että vaikka osakkeisiin säästäminen on pitkällä aikavälillä tuottanut hyvin, tulevasta tuotosta ei ole takeita. On olemassa riski, että et saa sijoittamiasi varoja takaisin.
Rahastot ja ETF:t, joilla on osaketta
Mikään rahasto ei ilmoita osaketta kymmenen suurimman omistuksensa joukossa.
Asiakkaat katsoivat myös
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
Sijoittajakalenteri ei ole saatavilla | |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti 1.9. | ||
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti 15.4. | ||
2025 Q2 -tulosraportti 28.8.2025 | ||
2024 Q4 -tulosraportti 10.4.2025 | ||
2024 Q2 -tulosraportti 29.8.2024 |
Välittäjätilasto
Dataa ei löytynyt
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti
UUTTA
2 päivää sitten
‧51 min
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: Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
Sijoittajakalenteri ei ole saatavilla | |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti 1.9. | ||
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti 15.4. | ||
2025 Q2 -tulosraportti 28.8.2025 | ||
2024 Q4 -tulosraportti 10.4.2025 | ||
2024 Q2 -tulosraportti 29.8.2024 |
Foorumi
Liity keskusteluun Nordnet Socialissa
Kirjaudu
- ·10 min sittenWHO IS THE SECRET TOP-5 PHARMA PARTNER? 🧠🧬 Nobody knows. But we can do DD. What we actually know: → A top-5 global pharma → CNS / neuroscience → AAV gene therapy → The partner fully funds the project → In-vitro completed → Candidates selected → Now further in vivo So who fits the profile? My personal ranking: 🥇 NOVARTIS 🥈 ROCHE / GENENTECH 🥉 ELI LILLY → Johnson & Johnson → AbbVie And Novartis stands out. They have a heavy neuroscience focus, several decades of AAV/gene therapy expertise, Zolgensma, CNS gene-delivery in pipeline — and describe Gene Therapy + xRNA themselves as central advanced platforms within neuroscience. It's almost a tailor-made strategic match with circVec. Think about the problem: Big Pharma has the payload. They have the AAV. They have the disease. But if expression/dose is the limitation? That's where circVec comes in. 🎯 And Circio has just shown up to 60x expression advantage in CNS in vivo. Does this mean the partner is Novartis? No. This is only my own DD and probability assessment. Roche, Lilly or another top-pharma could just as well be on the other side of the NDA. But one thing we don't need to guess about: One of the world's largest pharma organizations has already seen circVec in vitro — and chose to take the technology further in vivo with their own money. The name is secret. The signal is not. ♟️🧬
- ·34 min sitten · MuokattuWhy did the loan-to-value ratio suddenly become 20% here? I don't remember it being that before. Doesn't that also mean that the brokerage firm sees that the risk has decreased after the latest report circio shared?
- ·1 t sittenOK. LET'S TALK ABOUT HOW THE CIRCIO CASE CAN GO TO HELL. 🧬⚠️ I am extremely bullish on Circio. But if you can't explain how your investment can fail, you haven't done DD. You've fallen in love with the stock. So here's the bear case: 1. Expression is still not efficacy. 200x sounds absurd. But no patient needs "200x". They need a treatment that actually works at a lower dose. The most important data point going forward is therefore not 300x or 500x. It is: Lower dose → same/better therapeutic effect. 🎯 That still needs to be proven. 2. Everything is still preclinical. Mice are not humans. circVec has never been tested in a human. NHP, tox, biodistribution, immunogenicity and finally clinical data can still reveal problems no one sees today. It's biotech. 3. 200x is not 200x yet. Gen 5 builds on strong improvements in separate parts of the system. Now Circio must show that the gains can actually be combined and deliver as expected in vivo. 4. 23 collaborations are not 23 deals. Research interest is good. But pharma doesn't pay bills with "interest". The real test is when someone says: We want this technology. Here's the money. 💰 Top-5 pharma can be exactly that validation. They can also choose to move on without circVec. Both outcomes exist. 5. IP is critical. Fantastic technology is far less valuable if competitors can easily build around the patents. If circVec becomes a platform others want to use, the strength and breadth of the IP will be absolutely crucial. 6. The competition doesn't stand still. Gene therapy, RNA, delivery and in-vivo cell therapy are moving extremely fast. Circio doesn't just need to be good. They must still be relevant when the market is ready. ⸻ So why do I take the risk? Because this is the other side of the asymmetry. After the latest report, Circio stands stronger than ever. The capital is in place. Runway until 2030. The data has continued to build the platform thesis. But the most difficult proofs remain. And that's precisely why the upside still exists. If efficacy, NHP, partnerships and eventually clinical data were already proven, we wouldn't have gotten today's entry ticket either. There is no free extreme return. Risk is the price you pay for being early. If you're wrong, the downside can be brutal. If you're right about technology like this before it's fully de-risked, this is precisely where truly extreme returns can be created. In many ways, we are paid to bear the uncertainty while the market waits for the answers. It's not an argument to ignore risk. That's the whole reason the opportunity exists. ♟️ Bullish doesn't mean blind. We know what we own — and we should know exactly what can destroy it too. 🍷I am also bullish on the case! This is genuinely solid analysis and deserves recognition: you do exactly what distinguishes serious investors from hyped forum posters — namely, actively looking for what could destroy your own thesis instead of just collecting confirming arguments. The distinction between expression and efficacy (point 1) is the most important technical point in the entire case and shows that you actually understand the biology, not just the numbers. Furthermore, your distinction between "23 collaborations" and "23 agreements" shows a keen sense for the difference between interest and commercially validated demand, which is precisely the kind of sober thinking missing in most hype threads about the same company. The conclusion about asymmetry and that uncertainty is the price for early upside is well-formulated and honest that this is a risk position, not a guaranteed profit. Overall, this is a model for what bear-case analysis should look like in a bullish thread — concrete, specific, and free from motivated reasoning. Worth adding, not as criticism but as a complement: it would further strengthen the analysis to quantify how large a position this should be given the asymmetry you describe, rather than just stating that the upside exists — otherwise, even a good risk analysis risks being used to justify too large a position.
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
Määrä
Osto
-
Myynti
Määrä
-
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 091 | - | - | ||
| 4 000 | - | - | ||
| 1 000 | - | - | ||
| 333 | - | - | ||
| 26 | - | - |
Huomioi, että vaikka osakkeisiin säästäminen on pitkällä aikavälillä tuottanut hyvin, tulevasta tuotosta ei ole takeita. On olemassa riski, että et saa sijoittamiasi varoja takaisin.
Rahastot ja ETF:t, joilla on osaketta
Mikään rahasto ei ilmoita osaketta kymmenen suurimman omistuksensa joukossa.
Asiakkaat katsoivat myös
Välittäjätilasto
Dataa ei löytynyt