Houndz If the trial fails then there's no point bashing the...

Houndz

If the trial fails then there's no point bashing the board - it won't have failed because of anything they've done. It'll be just one of the many drug trials that didn't meet its target. Sad, but it happens more often than we'd like.

For small biotechs waiting for their breakthrough moment I doubt there's much that the board can do every fortnight. Not a great deal of cash to play with, not a great deal of staff to manage, not a great deal of product to shift; it really is treading water until they land a significant result.

I take your comments about exposure to big pharma and Costa's experience, but I'm not sure how much it matters. You seem to be implying that a great deal isn't possible without someone who's had experience in a large pharma; does this mean that the large salaries are essentially a retainer so that they can cut a deal if the drug comes through? I'm not saying that this sort of arrangement is unique to ACL, it's just that given the large number of failures in small biotech there seems a sizable pool of people who will be paid a great deal yet never have to prove their worth to the companies (shareholders) that pay them.

Out of interest, do you believe the board has justified its remuneration to date or do you believe that payments are more a reflection of what they're expected to achieve if the trial is successful and they are called on to deliver? I've a feeling that a lot of execs (ACL and otherwise) have salaries that reflect the company's potential rather than any week-on-week achievements on their part. In the event of a failure, do you think that we can look back and say that the board has delivered good bang-for-buck regardless of the drug's success?

Thorny issue, I know, but in the absence of an announcement it passes the time.

Cheers - a hopeful pessimist.