@Jov88AIMHO and not advice at all,Agreed in general. While I...

@Jov88
AIMHO and not advice at all,

Agreed in general. While I think this CR is atrocious, and the pattern of atrocious CR warrants very close consideration, the maths around spp is as you have laid out.

My own rationale for considering the spp is leverage via the options. Consider two scenarios: IMU successful or unsuccessful.

In the unsuccessful scenario probably not the best idea to invest?

Assuming a successful scenario, my view is it is reasonable to assume the OEs will be easily in the money in the next 3 years, due to IMU being pre revenue now so success might plausibly produce large market capital gain. If so, I can sell the OEs on market for a better total return than purchase on market now without options, and no extra capital outlayed to convert options.

So you either assess IMU could be successful or unsuccessful and go from there.

My personal view, and definitely not advice, is that the science has produced stellar results to date and shows great promise, but the chair, and by extension the board, have presented the biggest risks to IMU so far. My reason for this is failure to sell HV, the repeated crs through shonky avenues and massive dilution, and the unwarranted remunerations to the board so that they are shielded to an extent from the dilution. This creates a divide between board/instos and SH - two classes of SHs.

What the sumproduct is I am yet to decide, but i can't see much evidence for the chair having nonboard/retailSHs best interests in mind.

DYOR and GLTA.