Ann: Appendix 4C - quarterly, page-75

I’m responding to this and the previous post. Of course hotcopper isn’t a love in. But that also means I can post a perspective that is different to
yours. I believe you may have misunderstood my commentary about the past.

I don’t think the problem in the past was management’s communication not being there. The problem, in my view, lay in the baseline report from December 2015, the market releases about contracts, the institutional reports that supported the business and matched what we were being told in communication. Of course eventually it became necessary to question the gaps but it was also entirely reasonable to believe that a board announcement to the market was truthful in all respects even if positioning things. That’s a legal requirement.

People did look at the reports and ask questions and so of course that raised the issue of gaps. As you say though that game can’t go on forever. There was a price to pay

There were other problems of which you appear to be unaware. This has much to do with the change in board. The last two years have been interesting in many respects and maybe a really good case study for the governance institute.

As you say they are not in a start up phase but then I wasn’t saying they were. However in truth they are clearly still in the commercialisation phase and in my view the progress through the commercialisation process was disrupted by the shenanigans of the past. I had been relooking at the research on commercialisation in the chemicals sector recently and in actual fact even if you take into account the “sshow” as someone put it, Alexium is still, though only just, within the range. Do you have any solid research to back your thoughts about where Alexium is in this cycle? I’d love to see it.

I also disagree with your proposition that Alexium is “mature”. I’m not sure the criteria you are applying to label it this but I’d have thought that given where it is on the business development cycle it is probably a stretch to call it mature. In fact I think it doesn’t fit many of the definitions of mature with which I am
familiar. Which definition do you use?

I’m also curious to know more about what you mean with the comment “a lot of companies have tried the products”. What does that mean? That feels like a horoscope reading to me - like when vendors tell me that their psychometric tools seem real good and people report that they get insights from them”. Alexium has not published a list of who has tried their products and who they have sold them to or who they deleted from their client base because sales were unprofitable. So if you have that data maybe you will share it.

I think people are fully aware that the more recent financials are highly unattractive. However some people have chosen to believe the new team. Those people have the absolute right to do that. Just as you have the right to your interpretation. As I say time will tell who was right.

As a final comment no one minds a non holder have a different view actually. What they mind is one liner commentary or commentary that doesn’t help with analysis. The financials are so self evident that is not what people want to understand.

If you can provide detail and research I think people would happy. In fact I’d say they’d welcome it.

In general though we are currently simply left with an interpretation and opinion from every poster. Isn’t that what this is all about?

P