Share
657 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 1137
clock Created with Sketch.
08/06/23
16:15
Share
Originally posted by theoc:
↑
".....the terms on which the TH was requested led me (and I think lots of others) to expect that was what was about to land:....... you can't just sit on material info. Similarly, a TH can only last for 2 days,.........................you're at the mercy of the lab........." Hi Densy, fair summary and in isolation all valid points. Sorry to be a dog with a bone (sorry, did I mention dog). Suggest the flaw in your summary is that none of this should have been a surprise to Management and when it was they at least attempt to walk their way through it rather than just go to the bunker. PAA is not a little Pty Ltd co where you can pretty much do what you will, nor some (long forgotten) gentlemans club where things can be discussed over a Port and cigar, or even a private Ltd where you just have to keep the key funder happy. PAA is in fact a public Co - listed on the ASX. As such there are rules to abide with and shareholder expectations to abide by. Even the PAA website clearly states of " The primary responsibility of the PharmAust Board is to represent and advance Shareholders’ interests and to protect the interests of all stakeholders " As such suggest these sorts of "mishaps" in communications should at best be a rarity and that there should be a plan in place that when they do happen (as they will) there is a procedure for corrective action taken to assure the market (some folk even use the term investors) that it is a hickup that management is working through. This is just management 1-0-1. You correctly identify even the TH request created an expectation that was not met. Not in a PS announcement but a full blown 2 day only TH where the market is most likely to take note that something substantial is on the go. That the relevant news could not be tabled is really not my point. OK disappointing, but hey people, this is what caused it and this is what the expectation going forward is. Not just a lame excuse (we have not even received that level of comms) but assurance that the game is still in play and management is in control (some strangely refer to it as transparency) This latest "unfortunate disappointment" is not the first but it should surely be the last for quite some time - where and with whom does the responsibility reside and what procedural corrective action to ensure the BoD lives up to expectations of representing and advancing shareholder interests. How about a short sharp market update to explain things (and while we are at it a timely excuse to correct the already discussed "typo" in the upcoming vote for director share purchase resolution ). Yep, I know we are all meant to be tippy-toeing around because we are at a sensitive moment in the development and market recognition of the science. Let me suggest, anyone who is looking at PAA as either becoming a shareholder or a key stakeholder is already doing their homework and most likely well aware of the way things are tracking. At the current 7.5 cent level there should be a long queue wanting to be part of this largely de-risked science. Those in the scientific sector who know the relevance PAA's MPL has to its not so distant cousin Rapamycin must surely have a watching brief (possibly hoping PAA manages to blow itself up so they can pick over the bones). My primary concern is if management is not able or willing to bring an acceptable "A' game to the overall progress of the day to day business (not just the science) then how will they truly convince Mr Market of their ability to suddenly optimise the intrinsic value of the science. Someone once said to me the advantage of a small business is that it generally has small problems. My frustration is that PAA has already climbed over all the boulders but manages to trip on the pebbles. This issue of communications is a critical aspect of the business but is actually not a huge problem to rectify for someone skilled in procedures and communications. In a small business such as PAA it does come down to the role of the CEO. Lets hope that as noted by NZT despite the lack of public advertising a CEO with those skills will soon be appointed, leaving Roger to get on with the science and negotiations we all so keenly look forward to being tabled.
Expand
Hi OC, re "...the flaw in your summary is that none of this should have been a surprise to Management ..." I wasn't suggesting that any of this was a suprise - I don't think there was a surprise. I think the extent of the announcement - PK data - was always known. It was the pebble-tripping terms on which the TH was requested that raised expectations for more than was ultimately included in the news released to market that caused the issues. Yep - more poor comms. But nothing more than that (coz that's sufficient!) Cheers Densy