Ann: $13.0 million Institutional Placement, page-306

Just some food for thought, i have no side in the arguments going on, i find most of it futile, but that's life.

When considering how much money we or any company has left in funds that will only last around 12 months always calculate in that the cost of 2 quarters, the asx requires financial health to stay listed.
In the absence of adequate finances CR are required, and from a desperate position, always to be avoided.
So, when discussing that we or anyone has say 15 months of funds left, in one sense 2 quarters of burn has to be reserved, therefore calculations regarding budget and spend and financial longevity have to be adjusted, to be realistic and cautious.
15 months of funds can sometimes be realistically adjusted to 9 months.

Perspective is an interesting thing.
I think it was Brett Ebony that had a good handle on perspective when he suggested the share price might be being stimulated for a potential CR.
Our average, when just casting a rough eye over the chart of PER for the last couple of months, much of it was in the vicinity of 8 cents (not exact, in general).
A CR at this price with some discount, and discount is often standard on large quick raises, would have been likely between 5.5 and 7 cents.
Like some sort of magic as regularly happens on the ASX some random punters or some unnamed sponsors, start backing off in sells and increasing buys and then we have a share price surge, or increase.
Then from a vwap we have a discounted CR, and in this case it was 8 cents.
This is common with PER and also common on the ASX.
It was very similar with the previous CR with PER.
And that one although also heavily criticised raised substantial money at a higher rate, for PER, and R&D company that over time, need s to raise a lot of money, 100s of millions potentially.
Depending on perspective, the previous raise was clever, and successful, but potentially misunderstood.
Money was needed, and they got it, at a higher price than otherwise.
In this raise, it could be argued more was raised at a higher rate than otherwise may have been, if those unknown sponsors didnt ride in and enthusiastically buy up.
As i mentioned some here were aware this was likely the case, and Brett put it forward and it could have been discussed more, it was born in historical moves of ASX companies previously, it warranted further discussion to share the perspective, making more holders prepared for the possibility.

Regarding a CEO being ambiguous about the potential fro near term CR.
I can imagine it would be a difficult position,
In general there are 3 responses, YES, NO, MAYBE.
Each of those 3 responses has consequences and can also effect market moves and attitudes,
YES can have an immediate response on shareprice, NO is definitive, and MAYBE is just that, maybe.
From accounts, the CEO gave the maybe at at least one States open house.
What would you say, if you are unsure of when and where?

Perspective,
We are a Biotech Research and Development company with no commercial product or service.
That is we have no income.
For me there is one indicator for financial success, FDA, TGA or EU approval to market.
There have been 1 or 2 people over the last few years demanding the presence, of, believe it or not, dividends,
LOL.
Perspective, where did these people perceive we were going to pull money from to pay us all money???
Regardless, they have asked why it wasnt happening.
This is a company that has had a few false starts at getting product to market, we have been around for over 20 years, i can vouch for that, and we have no product.
The shareprice goes up and down when hope comes via ASX company news announcements.
But ups and downs are who we are with our history.
This is why our shareprice is where it is.
This is us in our area of the market, and when some people demand our CEOs, over the years, make our shareprice a lot higher, what do people think the CEO is going to do, go and and tap dance, do some magic, spruik the company???
Our CEOs have spruiked the company.
Sometimes you can spruik and it stimulates for awhile but often drops back.
Look at Hopper and Yatomie Clarke.
Both Biotech R&D, both try very very very hard in spruiking, both have some effect temporarily but in the end there is great chance it can all drift back, and does.
Spruiking does not build long term share price appreciation, commercial successes do, and when you have zero, dont expect much.
You can, and its a matter of perspective, but i would suggest much disappointment, and for many this perception that creates disappointment turns people to anger, and then much anger and argument, which to be honest is often just born in differing perspectives.

For me, i dont care too much what the current share price is doing, i'm not trading, i'm invested, i dont worry too much about CRs, or the dilution, to be honest, my focus is all about the results of the 2b trial.
There is nothing more important, everything else for me is noise, thats my perspective.

If people dont see it how i do, thats cool, i have no argument, i'm just putting it out there that not everyone is outraged at all these noises.
There is an event worth focus that is approaching that if successful which potentially reinforce that all this noise, is just that, and will fade out like all noise does.
Opinons, discussions and perspectives are very interesting and often educational, incessant arguing and raging and being self righteous is pretty bloody boring, and not inviting for rational people to be around.

Good luck to all over the next 8 weeks or so.
Good results is the thing of most importance.