********* article, page-2

The comments on the length of time it takes to secure military contracts is of no surprise.  I'm happy to repost the old link I had about the process, the long slog and the ultimate returns if you win.

I note however the comment about NASDAQ listing. "A wider audience might take a different view".  

I know others have expressed optimism and enthusiasm for a NASDAQ listing but I am more cautious.  

• A bigger market isn't necessarily best for shares. Along with a bigger audience comes more scrutiny and more competition from other stocks. That can have its downsides as well
• Balanced decision making means you look at pros and cons, risks and risk/return and the extent to which you are able to eliminate or manage such risks.
• We might have made it to cash flow neutral - as all the signals suggest - but listing in the US sucks money back out. I'd hate to see our financial situation change because pushing the share price mattered more to the board than getting business performance solid.  I know we want a better, faster return but in truth sustainable business performance produces a more sustainable and less jittery shareprice
• I'd like to see commentary on how the US market treats speciality chemical companies.  Where would Alexium sit among those?  What is the share performance in that sector?  Would our business model be understood? And if so in what way - would it bring any sort of premium?  How are chemical companies at our stage of business development treated? How are we viewed in the market?  Does  brand name familiarity have any impact?
• If we think that the Australian market has been overly brutal to Alexium let's remind ourselves that the US market is not exactly renowned for its kindly behaviour.  Surely we should be asking whether Alexium has the characteristics that will help reduce the impact of such a market or whether we have additional work to do before listing.

I don't actually have an opinion on what is best at this stage. But I do believe that as shareholders we can and ought to expect some form of description of the positive reasons for a US listing.   I don't believe that it is enough to say small is bad - big is good.   That's actually using the negatives of our market as the rationale without providing any reasoning that shows those negatives won't affect us in the US.

Of course with my current orientation to believing that the board believes that as shareholders we are capable of intelligent thought and of absorbing complex information I look forward to more detailed descriptions from them of their reasoning on any US listing.  And now that I am of the mind that the board has an interest in making decisions based on a balanced persepective of what is best for the company I look forward to timing that is exquisite.   

Parsifal