Ann: Race continues Board renewal - appoints new Chair, page-80

"I would love to see any valuation calculation that delivers lower numbers that's not just an argument from consequence ie "it's too big, so it can't happen". "

I think this is a really important point that LongTony makes. It's fine to be cautious I suppose, but what is the range of options for RAC?

- The science fails. Goodbye to the big buyout dreams, but I'd still argue that the historical AML success and previous French approvals gives this a base that already supports $2 a share. Zantrene is essentially already derisked for AML, and valued somewhere around the current price.

- Alternatively, the science succeeds. In this case, it's hard to see a case where the final value is low - I can't see any valuation process that gives a low number here. The 'bad options' seem to be based around "shareholders are too dumb to realise/fight for true value" or "the management are incompetent or selfish".

In short, the biggest risks with RAC seem to relate to shareholder attitudes and management performance, not to the actual drug. I'm prepared to take those 'risks'.