Okay... here's my take on... stuff.
1) Where we're at with PfizerThe revised offer is now 14.6c. That's it. The data validation test failed to meet the specified levels. It doesn't matter what ResApp do with the data or the algorithm between now and the vote, there are no other catalysts for re-pricing.
There is little potential now for the independent expert to revise the fair value upwards.
2) Where we're at with the worldThere is only one way to see this: it's an absolute PR disaster of the first order. The Pfizer takeover has elevated ResApp into global prominence within the med-tech device, and the company has taken every possible opportunity to amplify the publicity. So this failure is playing out in the full glare of industry scrutiny. Far from establishing the credentials of acoustic diagnosis, this result has undone the painstaking work done over the last three years reestablishing its reputation after the terrible awful.
3) Where we're at with the Covid19 testUsing the three steps outlined by
@Red bar I would suggest that we're at step 1 rather than step 3. We have the data we need to re-train the algorithm to recognise the symptoms of Omicron. But you can't use the same data to prove the algorithm works as you used to train the algorithm. Now that we've used the new data to retrain the algorithm there will have to be yet another full double blind prospective trial to prove it.
4) Where we're at with the boardThere has been a thread of commentary all through this takeover process about whether the board and management are suitable to take the company forward. And of course this idea has only become stronger after today's announcement. It was a gamble to tie the price to the data validation trial, and that gamble hasn't paid out. I wouldn't go as far as saying the board was incompetent with this. The data was blinded so the company had absolutely no way to test the data before agreeing to the validation test. It's easy to sit back and carp, but every gamble you win is brilliant, daring and inspired while every gamble you lose is stupid, reckless and hopeless.
I think the question of whether the board should stay or go comes down to the wash up at the end of the takeover process. If the takeover succeeds then the whole question becomes academic. If it fails then we look at where the company sits compared to where it was before the takeover was announced. Before the takeover started we had momentum: new commercial partnerships, new pilot projects, new evaluations, and the first green buds of revenue. Since the takeover began the lack of news about developments unrelated to the takeover is concerning. The directors still have their continuous disclosure obligations so I don't for a moment believe that they are withholding news. So the lack of news must mean a lack of significant developments. Does this reflect a lack of business development action? I suspect it does.
The board appear to have wagered the company on an all-in gamble with the aim of either a successful takeover at a respectable price, or a failed takeover with enhanced global recognition and impeccable technical credentials for the core product. That gamble isn't looking so good at present.
And if the gamble fails, and the board and management have sacrificed the company's momentum in placing the bet, then one of the major arguments against board renewal - loss of momentum - has gone.
So while I'm not prepared just yet to start agitating for a new board, I suspect there will be many holders taking a good hard look at where our investment stands when this is all over.
