2025 Q4 -tulosraportti
Vain PDF
34 päivää sitten
Tarjoustasot
Oslo Børs
Määrä
Osto
-
Myynti
Määrä
-
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 340 | - | - | ||
| 500 | - | - | ||
| 16 347 | - | - | ||
| 449 | - | - | ||
| 51 | - | - |
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
·1 t sittenWhat you're writing is actually a much more sophisticated analysis than what one usually sees in small biotech debates. You shift the discussion away from "do they have revenues this year?" and over to what actually determines the outcome for platform companies within RNA: 1) biological validation, 2) IP defensibility, 3) partner dependency, 4) commercial integration capability. And yes — the strongest bear thesis against Circio is not that they are preclinical. It's that they can end up as "scientifically admired but commercially stranded". It's a real scenario in biotech history: * strong science, * great data, * good posters at conferences, * but no clear path to broad industrial adoption. Therefore, the delivery layer (delivery) and integration with existing RNA/LNP infrastructure are so critical. At the same time, several things make the case more interesting than standard Norwegian "lottery biotech": * circRNA is already a global focus area. * Large players buy optionality early. * Platform pricing in RNA often happens before late-stage clinical trials if the technology is considered a possible "enabling infrastructure". You also point out something many retail investors overlook: Big Pharma doesn't necessarily buy "finished medicines". They buy: * control over future standards, * IP positioning, * production advantages, * toxicity improvements, * dose efficiency, * competition blocking. That's why names like Eli Lilly and Merck often make early deals in platform technology long before full clinical maturity. But the bears still have one strong argument that cannot be dismissed: If circVec is "only" moderately better than existing solutions — not dramatically better — the market might choose pragmatism over revolution. In practice, that means: * existing mRNA/LNP-stack is already enormously invested in, * regulatory pathways are established, * production chains are built, * partner networks are cemented. Then the improvement must be significant enough to justify switching costs. That's why your keywords are actually correct: * architecture, * moat, * asymmetry, * de-risking. Not "today's candle". Where I would be a bit more cautious than many bulls, is around formulations like: "We know what we own." In preclinical biotech, one never really knows. One estimates probabilities. What is legitimate to say, is: * if the data continues to replicate, * if IP holds, * if partner interest materializes, * if the delivery problem becomes manageable, * if in vivo data actually translates, …then today's valuation might prove to have been extremely low relative to the option value. But each "if" is still a real risk point. That's why the case fascinates people: not because it's safe, but because the outcome is potentially binary in a way that can create enormous differences between current value and future industrial value.
·1 t sittenwill tattoo a rocket if it goes over 14 tomorrow 🚀 if it hits 15 it will be a tramp stamp with “bennyz” in cursive writing
·1 t sitten · MuokattuThere are some nasty comments here and there, some also get very personal. We must remember that no one forces us to read all the posts. People share analyses, thoughts, and optimism because they are engaged — not because they are trying to be "messiah". Objective discussion is good, but constantly condescending comments contribute little themselves. It's fine to be critical without ridiculing people who actually spend time on substantive posts. Engagement and analyses are worth more than eternal whining about others' enthusiasm. The difference is that some actually contribute with analyses, reflections, and content, while others just show up to complain about people's enthusiasm. No one has said that one must "praise" anything at all, but it's quite ironic to talk about hysteria when you yourself spend time writing long whining posts about others' posts. That people are positive, impatient, or believe things might loosen up soon, is completely normal for a stock many follow closely. It doesn't make them "messiah". It just shows that they are engaged. And if one has been involved since 2024, one should perhaps also be mature enough to tolerate others expressing optimism without having to resort to personal attacks and condescending comments every time. Objective criticism is good. Constant mockery of people who actually contribute content is just tiresome to read.
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
34 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
- ·1 t sittenWhat you're writing is actually a much more sophisticated analysis than what one usually sees in small biotech debates. You shift the discussion away from "do they have revenues this year?" and over to what actually determines the outcome for platform companies within RNA: 1) biological validation, 2) IP defensibility, 3) partner dependency, 4) commercial integration capability. And yes — the strongest bear thesis against Circio is not that they are preclinical. It's that they can end up as "scientifically admired but commercially stranded". It's a real scenario in biotech history: * strong science, * great data, * good posters at conferences, * but no clear path to broad industrial adoption. Therefore, the delivery layer (delivery) and integration with existing RNA/LNP infrastructure are so critical. At the same time, several things make the case more interesting than standard Norwegian "lottery biotech": * circRNA is already a global focus area. * Large players buy optionality early. * Platform pricing in RNA often happens before late-stage clinical trials if the technology is considered a possible "enabling infrastructure". You also point out something many retail investors overlook: Big Pharma doesn't necessarily buy "finished medicines". They buy: * control over future standards, * IP positioning, * production advantages, * toxicity improvements, * dose efficiency, * competition blocking. That's why names like Eli Lilly and Merck often make early deals in platform technology long before full clinical maturity. But the bears still have one strong argument that cannot be dismissed: If circVec is "only" moderately better than existing solutions — not dramatically better — the market might choose pragmatism over revolution. In practice, that means: * existing mRNA/LNP-stack is already enormously invested in, * regulatory pathways are established, * production chains are built, * partner networks are cemented. Then the improvement must be significant enough to justify switching costs. That's why your keywords are actually correct: * architecture, * moat, * asymmetry, * de-risking. Not "today's candle". Where I would be a bit more cautious than many bulls, is around formulations like: "We know what we own." In preclinical biotech, one never really knows. One estimates probabilities. What is legitimate to say, is: * if the data continues to replicate, * if IP holds, * if partner interest materializes, * if the delivery problem becomes manageable, * if in vivo data actually translates, …then today's valuation might prove to have been extremely low relative to the option value. But each "if" is still a real risk point. That's why the case fascinates people: not because it's safe, but because the outcome is potentially binary in a way that can create enormous differences between current value and future industrial value.
- ·1 t sittenwill tattoo a rocket if it goes over 14 tomorrow 🚀 if it hits 15 it will be a tramp stamp with “bennyz” in cursive writing
- ·1 t sitten · MuokattuThere are some nasty comments here and there, some also get very personal. We must remember that no one forces us to read all the posts. People share analyses, thoughts, and optimism because they are engaged — not because they are trying to be "messiah". Objective discussion is good, but constantly condescending comments contribute little themselves. It's fine to be critical without ridiculing people who actually spend time on substantive posts. Engagement and analyses are worth more than eternal whining about others' enthusiasm. The difference is that some actually contribute with analyses, reflections, and content, while others just show up to complain about people's enthusiasm. No one has said that one must "praise" anything at all, but it's quite ironic to talk about hysteria when you yourself spend time writing long whining posts about others' posts. That people are positive, impatient, or believe things might loosen up soon, is completely normal for a stock many follow closely. It doesn't make them "messiah". It just shows that they are engaged. And if one has been involved since 2024, one should perhaps also be mature enough to tolerate others expressing optimism without having to resort to personal attacks and condescending comments every time. Objective criticism is good. Constant mockery of people who actually contribute content is just tiresome to read.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 340 | - | - | ||
| 500 | - | - | ||
| 16 347 | - | - | ||
| 449 | - | - | ||
| 51 | - | - |
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
34 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
- ·1 t sittenWhat you're writing is actually a much more sophisticated analysis than what one usually sees in small biotech debates. You shift the discussion away from "do they have revenues this year?" and over to what actually determines the outcome for platform companies within RNA: 1) biological validation, 2) IP defensibility, 3) partner dependency, 4) commercial integration capability. And yes — the strongest bear thesis against Circio is not that they are preclinical. It's that they can end up as "scientifically admired but commercially stranded". It's a real scenario in biotech history: * strong science, * great data, * good posters at conferences, * but no clear path to broad industrial adoption. Therefore, the delivery layer (delivery) and integration with existing RNA/LNP infrastructure are so critical. At the same time, several things make the case more interesting than standard Norwegian "lottery biotech": * circRNA is already a global focus area. * Large players buy optionality early. * Platform pricing in RNA often happens before late-stage clinical trials if the technology is considered a possible "enabling infrastructure". You also point out something many retail investors overlook: Big Pharma doesn't necessarily buy "finished medicines". They buy: * control over future standards, * IP positioning, * production advantages, * toxicity improvements, * dose efficiency, * competition blocking. That's why names like Eli Lilly and Merck often make early deals in platform technology long before full clinical maturity. But the bears still have one strong argument that cannot be dismissed: If circVec is "only" moderately better than existing solutions — not dramatically better — the market might choose pragmatism over revolution. In practice, that means: * existing mRNA/LNP-stack is already enormously invested in, * regulatory pathways are established, * production chains are built, * partner networks are cemented. Then the improvement must be significant enough to justify switching costs. That's why your keywords are actually correct: * architecture, * moat, * asymmetry, * de-risking. Not "today's candle". Where I would be a bit more cautious than many bulls, is around formulations like: "We know what we own." In preclinical biotech, one never really knows. One estimates probabilities. What is legitimate to say, is: * if the data continues to replicate, * if IP holds, * if partner interest materializes, * if the delivery problem becomes manageable, * if in vivo data actually translates, …then today's valuation might prove to have been extremely low relative to the option value. But each "if" is still a real risk point. That's why the case fascinates people: not because it's safe, but because the outcome is potentially binary in a way that can create enormous differences between current value and future industrial value.
- ·1 t sittenwill tattoo a rocket if it goes over 14 tomorrow 🚀 if it hits 15 it will be a tramp stamp with “bennyz” in cursive writing
- ·1 t sitten · MuokattuThere are some nasty comments here and there, some also get very personal. We must remember that no one forces us to read all the posts. People share analyses, thoughts, and optimism because they are engaged — not because they are trying to be "messiah". Objective discussion is good, but constantly condescending comments contribute little themselves. It's fine to be critical without ridiculing people who actually spend time on substantive posts. Engagement and analyses are worth more than eternal whining about others' enthusiasm. The difference is that some actually contribute with analyses, reflections, and content, while others just show up to complain about people's enthusiasm. No one has said that one must "praise" anything at all, but it's quite ironic to talk about hysteria when you yourself spend time writing long whining posts about others' posts. That people are positive, impatient, or believe things might loosen up soon, is completely normal for a stock many follow closely. It doesn't make them "messiah". It just shows that they are engaged. And if one has been involved since 2024, one should perhaps also be mature enough to tolerate others expressing optimism without having to resort to personal attacks and condescending comments every time. Objective criticism is good. Constant mockery of people who actually contribute content is just tiresome to read.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 340 | - | - | ||
| 500 | - | - | ||
| 16 347 | - | - | ||
| 449 | - | - | ||
| 51 | - | - |
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