So I read that, and honestly, if it's supposed to make a...

So I read that, and honestly, if it's supposed to make a compelling case for the NASDAQ move, I wasn't convinced.

It probably reads OK to people who don't know the company, but it really doesn't say what the benefit would be. "Will it raise capital" asks the article and if so how much?"

Wrong question, people: the question is "what for?"

Let me put on my Eddy De Bono Black Hat and play devil's advocate, and maybe ask the sort of questions that someone might ask if they're not just writing a puff piece.

The company sells itself- and prides itself- on being self funding. Given that the revenue is likely to increase substantially within the next two years, is any sort of raise really necessary? I know Prostact will be expensive but surely the company can cover that.

It is not clear to me that the factors limiting to the speed of implementing the therapeutics program are simply a matter of access to capital. There look to be limits in the availability of expertise and of test subjects. These can maybe be ameliorated by going to multiple sites (which they'll be doing with Prostact) but there are risks and potential inefficiencies that go with that.

If they raise because it gives them further opportunities that's one thing. If they raise because "it will make the current program go faster" then I'm not convinced.

Given that the company has had no trouble dealing with the big cheeses (Lilly) and doing deals on smaller companies (or buying them outright) do they need to go to the US to make deals? And surely it wouldn't be needed for better clinical/ scientific access, that seems to be going just fine.

If the company is looking to get bought out (though hopefully at a higher price than the examples given in the article) does being in the US really matter? It's not like foreign companies have difficulties buying Australian.

Look, maybe going to the NASDAQ is a good idea, but maybe it's a testament to the quality(?) of Australian mainstream financial journalism that I'm now much more negatively disposed to the idea than before.