Ann: Increased Sales Lead to Record Monthly Product Shipments, page-140

Ok I've sweated over whether to post this because it came from a conversation I had with the Petra rep at the Sydney event, though roughly the same content has been posted by others in other posts over previous weeks.

On approaching the Petra rep his first response was to tell me I couldn't ask him any questions about the report. I had advised him that there were a good few matters in the report that didn't make sense in the light of previous communications. He wasn't particularly interested - raising his eyebrows in surprise.

Now while that appears to make sense given their disclosure statement it didn't seem particularly sensible given that the report was available through the Alexium website and so disjoints were there for all to see It felt like a matter of intellectual snobbery to me.

Secondly he advised me that he thought the NASDQ listing was a distraction and not particularly useful. I am sure he would deny he said this but I would be prepared to swear under oath that he did so. Interesting I thought given the content of the report. However it is also a view expressed by other institutions and reported on hotcopper.

I personally don't know what is best for the business. I think you can swing either way. I know many on hotcopper are keen to see a NASDAQ listing but in my view if there is any chink in the business it will be dealt with harshly, and Taurean has highlighted why.

A look at psvidia's history, launched with an IPO, and the SEC submission lodged by the company sonwtime later will tell you that this oft quoted example of success was rather less than that. We know there are chunks - the missed target shows that as does the Petra report. FYI the board composition is one of those chinks.

Moreover, while Nick has said he has a lot of experience on US listings and I know I have supported him in terms of his impact on the business I can tell you that in conversations I had with him his knowledge of ADRs was bizarrely lacking and less than I could understand from reading everything I could lay my hands on. That matches with the strange fanfare on the NASDAQ international designation which is nothing more than a marketing platform launched by NASDAQ. We couldn't list while the Susta case was ongoing - well we could have but it would have made things awfully public - but that was settled in January.

On top of this part of the reason we were told that the new communication policy was introduced was because "big boys" relied on facts and formal reports and they were over communicating to appease hotcopper people along with retail investors in general , all of whom were on the nose. I doubt Gavin has changed his view on any of us especially since the insta-ski - gate episode. I can imagine that there were plenty of people writing to either Nick or Gavin to complain about the silence.

Now while that might lead to a conclusion that this release was for institutions and Taurean mounts a cogent case for that we also know that they have never been able to stick to their communication policy (A quick look at the frequency of announcements this year and their timing will demonstrate this). Moreover Gavin had just come back from Hong Kong and if there had been information in that presentation that was new then it should have been released generally that week not a week later. Given its content however you'd have thought it might have been included in the presentation where it could potentially reassure or light up the audience - rather than held back for a week.

So no this still doesn't gel for me

Will I ever know? Maybe not. Is there something else happening? More than likely. Do I know what it is? No.

Anyway I guess you all think I've banged on enough about this. I'm starting to get a feeling for what it might be like to express a contrarian view. Sorry Blommer et al. It sure is interesting and probably a useful experience.



Parsifal