IMU in the drivers seat...don't be fooled., page-54

Hi mate yes absolutely there may be something cooking in the background, which I suspect when the annual report was published was the case with a planned CR. The timing is suspect that he made that statement whilst discussions were being held in the background as $80m is not a small investment.

But here’s the problem with a CR “just because” which is all that’s been said so far. We aren’t in any Phase 3’s which tie up cash and we’re nowhere near commercialisation or licensed deals etc so if we had a long runway with no impediments 12 days ago why did they do this?

I like companies that focus on what they have, that play to their strengths, back their products and put everything into them, and on what we know we have some strong products in research and development.

I don’t like when companies start to “diversify” or seek other assets or acquisitions as an excuse to raise capital until they’ve got at least one product locked in a deal. It’s a bit like a small cap miner leasing new ground to explore before they’ve started drilling the “promised land”.

It implies we may not have what we thought we had and need to pursue something else. Just my opinion but if this was a targeted move to raise capital the reasons should be properly disclosed not just generic raising so soon after basically saying we don’t need to which any investors would reasonably assume when a company expresses the long runway analogy.

This takes me back to the mixed messages when the Merck agreement was off, the company was compelled to provide more information and the SP crashed as a direct result only to rise again once it was finally cleared up. I just think a better explanation is required here too.