written by reader Discussion page for Arch Therapeutics (ARTH)

By Lynn Clark, Stock Gumshoe, November 6, 2017

This page is for discussion of Arch Therapeutics (ARTH).

This is a discussion topic or guest posting submitted by a Stock Gumshoe reader. The content has not been edited or reviewed by Stock Gumshoe, and any opinions expressed are those of the author alone.



This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 19, 2018 7:14 pm

Love Cleveland financial info. Awesome to see you again!

👍 389
June 19, 2018 7:49 pm

Cleveland – Welcome back my friend.

👍 468
June 20, 2018 10:07 am


New Theme:

“Dr. KSS program to make Stock Gumshoe great again: Arbitrarily kick people out of Biopubkss”

From this forum:
“I can tell you from my perspective as someone whose PhD was in clotting biochemistry, I am sure AC5 will work in humans.”

A variation on JohnM’s great statement:

“It’s a shame that the man whose PHD was in clotting biochemistry and who found $ARTH as an investment and vetted the technology won’t benefit from what might be the biggest winner he ever recommended.”

ARTH Market Cap today $66.319
Capital raised by ARTH since its inception $ 32.594 million

Cleveland Ratio 2.03 (66.319 / 32.594)

FOR EVERY DOLLAR RAISED BY $ARTH ($1.00) it is worth $ 2.13  (for $CLRB for every $ 1.00 raised it is worth $ .18 today)

I will be going into the Cleveland Ratio. Note that I did a very poor job of teaching Dr. KSS so I have to improve.


Understand that they spent approximately $ 50 million of grant money before becoming public.

CWBR Market cap  today $ 198 million

Capital raised by CWBR since its inception $ 34.2 million

Cleveland Ratio 5.56 (198 / 34.2)

For every dollar raised by CWBR ($1.00) it is worth $ 5.56—- WOW

CWBR is just getting started.

Add a Topic
Add a Topic
Add a Topic
👍 6067
June 20, 2018 10:42 am
Reply to  Cleveland

My impression is that many folks are focused on the expense side of the equation: If $ARTH (or any clinical-stage biotech) spends money, it will bring the ratio down. Lengthy trials cost boatloads of money. Therefore, the Cleveland ratio is meaningless for companies involved in complicated research.

This confuses (what I think is) your point.

What your ratio does is compare money spent to how the market values those expenditures and efforts. In that way it is very clever.

Here is an analogy. My neighbor (who is a total jerk and preoccupied on his image, but I digress) buys a $75,000 car (actually, he just leases so he can upgrade every three years and massage his ego, but for the moment let’s assume he buys the Mercedes this one time). I spend $75,000 on a painting. Three years later, my neighbor’s car is worth $50,000, while my paining is appraised for $100,000. Who spent their money wisely?

His Cleveland Ratio is 0.67, while mine is 1.33.

We spent the same amount of money. Neither one of us have funds left–he has a (devaluing) car, while I have an (appreciating) painting, but the market values my purchase higher.

That, I believe, is your point, and it is an interesting one.

My only comment to that is that often it takes years for results from clinical trials, so the Cleveland Ratio for some of these companies may wallow at less than 1.00 for years until experiencing a sudden spike. So to me, it would have most meaning as measured after a cusp event, such as Phase Two results.

How’d I do?

Add a Topic
👍 2302
June 23, 2018 8:10 am
Reply to  savethemanatee

STM I am working on several projects and will get back to this. My computer screens focus on this now. Thanks.

👍 6067