LOL - you can say what you want but you gunna get a response...

LOL - you can say what you want but you gunna get a response when you put an interpretation on what I say. I think your summary in that last post was pretty good - ie I think we should not expect anything more than a quarterly update plus price sensitive news. It is ironic that if they say too much they get ridiculed by Dr Chris and BioExec shows up to give them a kick but if they say too little then holders get bored and edgy.

I do agree that we are due for a shareholder update - I suggested in the past to RH that he offer a little more commentary in the quarterly than cash flows (I like the way ADO does it) but he can make up his own mind on what the correct comms should be taking all advice on board. I did speak with him late Jan and I sympathise with the timing/situation of the JPM conference - he attended this and then tried to take a week holiday on his return then the quarterly must be released by a certain date. Hopefully he has plans for an update in the next month. To be fair in the past 4.5 months there has been a written shareholder update, an AGM with presentation, an Annual Report, Shareholder briefings and 3 'other' updates that were of interest.

I guess I am overly respectful of management and Governance - I have worked for large companies and Senior Management have a tough gig in my opinion. I am also Chair of a not for profit organization and sometimes my life gets bogged down dealing with 'high maintenance' stakeholders with low priority issues. At these times I often feel for the other stakeholders because the agitators are distracting management and Board from getting on with the job.

If RH is faced with deciding whether to call me back or make progress within the company I always want him to put the latter first. I have the choice to buy or sell - not to influence the company direction - that is the Boards job.

BioExec pointed out that it will be very difficult or near impossible to get a valid data pack out by H2 this year so what I really hope is that they are further along this than any of us may expect having made that a priority.

Here is a little more from the 'Analyst notes' that may help feed our insatiable desire for information - I think it is just stuff that is in all their preso's at the end of last year or video presentations etc (again - to be clear this is not from the company but is briefing notes for investors made by someone outside PYC.) eg in the AGM slide you can see the 2016/7 timeline which would need something to happen within 12 months - again BioExec scooped nothing here in what he told us - the company had already said it - I think he had a valid point at me over expressing my expectations though - I guess the difference I see is that the stock can re-rate well before all his official IND steps are completed - if they sign a pre IND deal fully funded with $USD500m+ in milestones then it won't matter when the work is done the SP will be 10c+ I suspect.

Phylogica expects to be able to share this data pack, built on leading independent in-vivo models, within the next 12 months. Generating a compelling data pack to support Phylogica’s first commercial product is strategic priority number 1. Driving to this outcome has also informed four additional strategic design decisions made by the Company:
2) Phylogica needs to be sufficiently capitalised to be able to realise the development of its first commercial product and supporting data pack away from the pressures of a short term cash runway. This has already been achieved through the recent rights issue.
3) Phylogica will engage extensively at both the operational and strategic (Board) level with external experts on product design choices and delivery models to leverage knowledge from those who have been on this translational journey before. The company will focus on securing both the commercial and scientific acumen necessary to ensure success in delivering the strategic objectives.
4) Phylogica’s primary focus should be on the development of its internal program rather than external collaboration given the impact on the relative power balance in negotiating collaborations that the data pack is expected to achieve.
5) Phylogica should prioritise applications for high value grant funding given the propensity of the academic community to recognise high potential science before it reaches its commercial inflexion point. The expanded nature of the activity that Phylogica could undertake if it were successful in securing non-dilutive funding provides further support for this approach.