Why IMU is a multi multi bagger, page-11602

so a single man has raised 3/4 of a billion dollars, oversees 5 biotech companies, and sold a single drug for half a billion dollars.... and that's a bad thing?

Who's is a good thing for? So far, and its been well over a decade, there's no Phase 3 trial in sight let alone an actual treatment for cancer. If its a good thing, let me know when you want to hand over 3/4 of a billion dollars and I'll hand you back 1/2 a billion.

oh and the poor retail investors, the share price only rose 3000% or so from 2c to 60c in just over a year.

Its been explained before, but trading gains are not attributable to the company. The company takes in money via capital raises and hands back money via one of four methods - dividends, capital returns, share buybacks, takeover. When investors make gains from trading, they do so from other investors. So for every investor that bought at 2c and sold at 60c, there are a bunch of investors that bought at 60c and are now staring at 13c. Its not Hopper's fault that an investor bought at 60c and sold at 13c, otherwise we'd be adding a couple of billion to his gain / loss balance sheet. Similarly, he gets no credit for trading gains made by individual investors.

Early investors in a Ponzi scheme make money. The problem is that the money they make comes from other investors, not the person running the scheme. I'm not saying Hopper runs a Ponzi scheme, but its a fact that he and his associates have made 10s if not 100s of millions while the net balance sheet is negative $250m. This means that in aggregate, retail investors have lost more than $250m.

No idea.

Really? Let me do the heavy lifting for you ...

If you want to poke a hole in my analysis, you should be pointing out that the Hopper companies still have money in the bank. This should be deducted from the $250m in calculating his net balance sheet. But its still not going to change the relevant facts:

1. If you start with the -'ve $250m, add the money still in the bank of his companies, subtract the money he and his associated have take out, you will end in a net negative position. So in over a decade, he's not provided a positive return to retail investors taken in aggregate.

2. No drug he's been involved in has been commercialised or even commenced a Phase 3 trial.