1) About Daniel leavingIt is disappointing to see Daniel step...

1) About Daniel leaving

It is disappointing to see Daniel step down. Quite surprisingly, the SP damage has been limited so far.

I have always seen Zantrene the drug as essentially de-risked, and IMHO much of the risk is management/execution, so his departure hits hard.

DT is an important reason I have been invested in RAC for over 3 years. He ticks many of my boxes: skin in the game, investor mindset, excellent communicator with shareholders. His scientist background is unique and valuable. The only negative side of DT is perhaps that he does not have extended experience with drug development and commercialization (and I will write about the CMO/CSO issue later in this post).

Some may say Daniel is unconventional in his ways, but AFAIC this has been for the better. He is not sugar-coating it and is down to the point.

2) The Chairman question

Daniel remains RAC largest shareholder. I hope he will not stay on the sidelines moving forward.

No offense to John Cullity, but I have always seen Daniel Tillett as our de-facto Chairman. He is defending shareholders interests. I would argue he is better positioned in this role and drug development should be left to carefully selected drug development experts.

So, if the opportunity presents itself I would certainly support DT as chairman. I’d be curious to know what all shareholders, including DT himself, think about that.

3) The interim CMO problem

Talking of drug development experts, it baffles me why RAC has not been able to secure a non-interim CMO. If Zantrene is really that promising, then IMO we should have big guns lining up for the role.

The interim CSO is likely to be a repeat of the ongoing interim CMO situation. How is BOD going to fix it? Those are the two most important executive roles in the company!

4) Directors must have accountability

BOD interests need to better align to shareholders’ interests.

So far, Daniel has been the only exec with skin in the game. I want to see RAC management, present and future put their money where their mouth is. Free options handovers are nice and all, but seriously they need to put at the very minimum 100K of their own money into RAC, each. Many of us here are invested in multiples of that amount.

Also, many here are speculating that BOD is prioritizing Cardio-protection as opposed to FTO. I am partial to that, but the truth is current BOD are incentivized to prefer cardio as the lowest hanging fruit because success means their oppies are on the money. With FTO things might take longer and be more uncertain. Is this the best decision for shareholders’ interests? Perhaps, but I am not so sure.

AFAIC, management will need to show results quickly. Investors’ patience is running thin and with DT away there will be little to no room for mishaps.

Sentiment changed to HOLD.