I think we are dealing here with what I would call a “Founder...

I think we are dealing here with what I would call a “Founder Syndrome”.

The Board is managing a different company to that in which its shareholders hold equity. They are managing a previous company. One that no longer exists.

I am sure I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of RAP shareholders who bought into RAP on the basis that if they hold on for a year or so they will be able to double their money.

RAP shareholders bought in to HOLD.

Shareholders bought in because of the obvious massive future potential that such a development offered. They did so fully knowing of the risks and time-lines involved. They didn’t do so for a quick financial fix.

If there is any message that can be gleaned from the multitudes of posts that have been produced here on HC by RAP shareholders over the last couple of months it is surely that message.

One Board Member came from the Uni of Queensland’s commercial arm having been given the commission to commercialise the research results of one of its academic staff. Research funding by the university was inadequate for that purpose. The resulting company, and its founding manager, were not able to commercialie the research under those circumstances.

Another Board Member publically identifies themself as the founder of the subsequent listed company.

They are coming from different backgrounds but with the same purpose, to successfully commercialise that research globally and be able to look back on the results of what they have been involved in founding.

In going to the listed company option previous motivations and background of Board members became redundant and it is the motivations of its now financers, the shareholders, that must prevail and the company must be managed within that context.

The option of pursuing a previous personally defined objective of success, and viewing shareholders as simply providing research funds for that purpose in lieu of an inadequate supply through the academic sources, was surrendered with the decision to continue to manage but within a different company. A listed company.

One mistake can be forgiven. To make it twice. Well ……

There have been quite a few comments on these posts over the last couple of months about the suitability of the Board to control this company. The fact that the Board is so very clearly out of touch with, and perhaps even indifferent to, its shareholders is to me by far the most concerning aspect regarding their appropriateness for that task.

poorinvestor