I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on the second point DS....but in Biotech, there is nothing US centric about it. I have long done business in Asia, Europe, and the US in Biotech and Pharma, and if the director or leader of R&D efforts are not there, in the lab, discussing results and next steps face to face, it will not be successful, and this especially true for a platform or in house pipeline dependent company. There is no "cracking the whip" as you suggested, or "working from home" , its about leading the efforts of the staff and taking the responsibility for success or failure on your shoulders as an executive, not mailing in it from home or something and putting on the pressure on your staff to figure it out. You certainly should care, and as a major shareholder, I can't imagine not knowing. I think this is actually a major contributing reason for the real lack of progress of PYC over the years, I mean they are 10 years in with the same basic science leaders and don't even have a pre-clinical asset. This is why they continued to get ripped by various commentators. Again, no reason to re-hash the past, and I think everyone is trying to stay focused on the future.....but having the same executives, same staff, same ideas...and expecting a different result?? Yes more money, another 2-3 years....solid financial footing.....all great...but not a very good track record....I for one would love to see a shake-up of this company, new CSO, new chairman....and actually a while back thought Hockings would push for that or more change, but didn't happen. But who knows, now with Hockings, and even DS, maybe a one year leash for these guys??
As a major investor DS, do you feel that they reach out to you at all? I know you don't receive any information privileged or non-public, but just wondering if they are receptive to any input you have? Or do you prefer to stay at arms length from such matters, as a general practice of investing?
Expand
(20min delay)