I agree with the lady that suggested to you that the prolonged silence could mean a deal is in the final stages. I wouldn’t go as far as to say “final stages” as there is really no way to knowing that, however, in my experience (and despite my previous notions and current belief that at least some commentary is warranted - at least in terms of posturing) I agree that the prolonged silence from BIT is more likely than less likely an indicator of positive things happening behind the scenes.
Here’s why they shouldn’t say anything.
1. Nothing superfluous needs to/or should really be said when you are on an adequate trajectory to achieve a stated objective or outcome. Especially if you are involved in very serious and very complex commercial negotiations. Commentary in this environment that is not explicit and/or categorically propels the narrative of BIT forward in their stated agenda and/or that does not directly report the achieving of a desired outcome has a very high risk of being far more likely than less likely received as commentary that is diminishing BIT in value while offering no reliable benefits.
Here’s why they probably can’t say anything.
2. If BIT are in fact in negotiations with a commercial parter (and/or even still involved in pre-negotiation conversations with prospective partners) - You can be 100% certain that these conversations are subject to confidentiality / non-disclosure agreements. The agreements are signed before any real dialogue will commence and they remain in place and in effect until they either expire or end by a mutual agreement (usually a resulting commercial agreement) in which triggers the dissolution of the contract.
It is noteworthy to add that it would be far less likely than more likely in this particular situation for confidentiality / non-disclosure agreements to include an expiry date. It is common for these types of agreements to be silent when it comes to duration, meaning no expiration at all.
What this means is that BIT are also bound to confidentiality / non-disclosure indefinitely and therefor simply can not make comments on anything in relation to negations - at any stage of their lifecycle, right from the initial invitation to treat - if any are in fact taking place or have been proposed.
What does this mean?
3. Here is the most important piece of information - If what I said above is true (and I’d gamble on it at the right stakes) then the only possible way for BIT to comment on any conversations, negations, potential partnerships etc (or possibly even BIT-225 at all for the time being) - is to actually announce a commercial agreement in conjunction with their new partner.
Anything and everything else in relation to conversations, negotiations and potential partnerships BIT has had with or is having with any and all other parties will be remain subject to confidentiality and non-disclosure and we’ll simply never know.
Insights and indicators that support BIT may currently be in negotiations. -The points are in the context of accepting my above statements as being reasonable.
4. MM’s last statements on record in relation to commercialisation and partnerships is that it is a high priority and BIT is active in seeking partnerships. While this information does not let us know for sure that something is happening - technically it does. If you say you’re active in knocking on doors you had to have at least knocked on one door. For MM to have made these statements and then allow months to pass with out any further comment is far more likely to be a result of confidentiality and non-disclosure barriers rather than inactivity or having nothing to report.
5. In addition to the above comment. MM and BIT have been silent in relationship to the companies SP. Now, while the 40c+ high was certainly not a reliable figure and also even though the current 8c is still much better than the SP’s historic value, surely the fall in between the say 25c to the now 8c merited at least a statement from BIT.
I know it’s not necessarily typical for companies to make statements in relation to their SP, however, BIT made zero comments during this period outside of their legal reporting obligations and also took no actions to engage, converse or reassure investors (whom if they held shares through-out the entire period mentioned, lost up to 2/3rds of their investments value). The only important information that his been made available since last year is the businesses static position. There have been no new comments on BIT-225 in any capacity.
I believe it is reasonable to consider BIT’s silence on this as more evidence that BIT is currently bound to not disclose particular information rather then it would be to believe that BIT is acting deliberately to provide no updates and commentary while unrestrained from doing so in a significant period of the businesses over all history.
6. Stephen Lorcaini. He did not become involved with BIT by accident. His timing through the door was not a coincidence. To my knowledge he is not on the record (any record) personally expressing his interest in/or motivations for collaborating with BIT and or how his journey to the BIT board room originated. To my knowledge he is also not on the record as having made any statements in relation to BIT-225 or HBV nor have there been explicit comments made in relation to his functions or purpose as an individual involved with BIT - other than it is reported he will join the team and sit in on board meetings and he has got a bad ass CV that makes young lab techs blush.
In my professional experience and humble opinion, I believe Stephens introduction and welcome to BIT has been disproportionately low (and almost insignificant) when considering his “high profile” and professional history. If you, like me, think it is reasonable to hold the expectation that his involvement is likely to have arisen as the result of the phase 2 trial outcomes/data and in addition his value to BIT is there new focus on achieving commercialisation objectives - You would think that BIT and or Stephen would have made more statements or at least an explicit statement on this. Yet they have not. There is no reasonable reason to have understated the significance of Stephen joining the team as well as not explain entirely let omit what the bloody hell he is there for. Especially when it is somewhat obvious....
I believe this to be further evidence of BIT currently being in active negotiations. It is reasonable (if not probable) to suspect that Stephen’s involved with BIT commenced long before his official welcome. It was likely BIT whom sought Stephen out and presented their Phase 2 trial data to him in an effort to both attract him to be involvement in BIT and then leverage his involvement into commercial outcomes. Stephen has come in too late in the piece for his scientific mind to have been the motivation, and although BITs HBV program is exciting - it simply just does not have enough pull to have been a significant draw card to attract Stephen - at least I wouldn’t think so.
Now, if my thoughts on Stephen’s involvement are true (even half true), guess what. He was probably the 1st person to sign a confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement with BIT - and now that he is there, that agreement would most certainly have been superseded by any or all new contracts in place that would likely now existing as a result of the many, many, many, people Stephen may have engaged (commercial or otherwise) on behalf of BIT. The only reason why Stephen would “sit in” on board meeting while not being a director of the business is because he and his function and purpose is critical to the direction of the business. There is simply not other explanation in my mind... if he does it for fun, well.... i reckon he’s nuts. My theory explains his understated welcome, lack of commentary, mystery of function and purpose and merit for sitting in with the board. If you have a better idea,I’m all ears.
7. Last point. Here’s all the reasons why a company would be silent for months after making their most significant announcement ever... Also while their market cap peaked at a couple of hundred mill and then slowly but consistently was declining to be less than a 1/4 of that... and while many, many, many share holders may be starring at red numbers in their port folio... and when they are still reportedly working on analysing data from the trial and would report on this things.... as well as submit data to peer reviewed journals.... and after they said they were out and about seeking commercial opportunities and partnerships as a priority... and all while the longer they remain silent the greater pressure being exerted on them for commentary is grow......
None. They either simply can not comment, and my explanation offers a reasonable explanation. Or have nothing to say - for which there is not strong indicators that support this other than they have yet to comment, only.
I think BIT have a lot to say. Maybe I’m right, Probably not.
What I do know for sure!
All I know is my partner is currently in Germany and I have wayyyyyyy to much time on my hands. Speculating the human choices behind the science head lines is far more worthwhile in IMO. I can’t be bothered pretending I am scientist like some particular people here do, anyway. We all know who.
(20min delay)