I absolutely agree with you that it could be a case of great...

I absolutely agree with you that it could be a case of great idea but not a great business. Also it is pretty much impossible to argue that the bulk of medical developments have resulted in a net loss to the investors. I don't think either of your points can be argued, they are pretty much facts that go lockstep with each other. Someone comes up with a cracking idea, turns it into a business, just doesn't work... all falls over and no profits returned. Happens everyday across all industries.

EMV has a register that is largely unmoved and hasn't really changed in the percentage ownership, that seems fairly obvious. No major investment firms are on the register, again that's a fact that is hard to argue against. All of those things are true.

However none of that really applies to anything much either. If you bought in an ESIC round and had an entry of 8c or so and currently face ZERO capital gains tax on sale then why sell now? The T20 has plenty of those people in it hence the stagnant nature of their holdings. That isn't a reason to buy or sell however it is a fact that they haven't really changed... facts don't always then equate to anything other than a stating of the obvious.

No major investor groups or instos have bought in... how do they do that? the liquidity is terrible and as there has been no major capital raise in a few years where do the shares come from for the institutional buyer who may be mandated to only invest $5m minimum at a time? Read the investment mandates of funds and get an idea HOW they can buy not just WHAT they can buy. As a fund manager it would be difficult to tie up money into an illiquid, non-revenue, pre-commercial business via an on-market purchase. I actually don't know any fundie that has that mandate. That's not an absolute fact as I don't know all fund managers nor know of all investment mandates out there, so quite a different observation from the lack of movement in the makeup of the T20, thats a more easily discerned fact. Your point about 1,000s of possible investment companies able to buy EMV shares could be completely true and I could be absolutely wrong, dunno?

So if institutions don't have a mandate that allows them to invest then who can? People... I guess EMV is kind of like a listed business that could probably be a series A unlisted venture? If this was unlisted then you'd see the angel type investors still hanging on, as you currently do with the T20, but you would also see firms like Stoic VC etc who make medical VC investments at a post seed level which is where EMV is. EMV has much more than a MVP (minimum Value Proposition) to start an investment round, they now have a business that employs people and has devices in hospitals doing trials so that would attract a series A level of investment which would normally be cheque sizes of $1-5m from funds that are specifically setup to invest in UNLISTED pre-revenue, non commercial medical companies. Many of those funds are in fact offshoots of a family office that is managed by someone who also has a specific mandate.

Institutions largely cannot invest in EMV. Family offices would either already be in or again...excluded by way of investment mandate. HNW (over $5m investible) are probably all that is left to take a spot own the T20 as EMV currently stands. Unless you were a Dr/Medical professional involved in stroke or neurology how else could you understand if EMV is a genuine disrupter in medical tech? There are over 4,000 families and individuals in Australia with investible capital of greater than $35m USD (UHNW/ultra high net worth) maybe some of the retail investors in EMV can wear a $1m hit to their portfolio and are happy with the risk? Unless you are dealing with an institutional trading desk like UBS or Credit Suisse etc then you're retail level as far as investment banking goes (regardless of section 708 investment criteria) however you could have portfolio of $50m so a total wipeout on EMV would be a tax offset? Lots of fund managers have LESS to invest than lots of the investors in their funds.. maybe its better to see some of the people on the register than the funds that have tipped money into?

all of your points are valid; great idea that may not make it as a business, unmoved T20, no real investment names involved etc. However none of those are reasons to invest or not invest, they are just valid observations. Medical investment involves a loooooong stretch of not much at all until it either tips over into commercial level or falls over. Given that EMV hasn't finished trials its a bit hard to criticise their business model because..... there isn't one and it cannot be tested until there is a commercially viable device that has met all the regulatory hurdles which involve the trials that EMV is currently conducting in order to gain regulatory approvals in order to create a device for commercial sale which will then result in a business model that can be critiqued..

dunno mate... no one knows the future so everything involves risk. You could be dead right or dead wrong? dunno....no idea? at least you're raising some possible negative outcomes that other posters are demonstrating an opposing view to also consider, that's always a good thing I think.
good luck mate, I like "rolling" options contracts on Thursdays so I'll think of you tomorrow with my BHP calls.