PAA 2022 , Human Trials , Covid , MND , Oncology , HVTL-1, K9 Phase III, page-624

"..........We have one product ready to trial on a lot of on unmet needs rather than one product and one need. ............"

Hi QQ. Many thanks your response. This is pretty much why I used RAP as an example of potential scenario. Their technology has many parallels to PAA's MPL in that it can (and already has completed field testing) be applied to various respiratory diseases. In fact my understanding is they have already cut some partnering deals for 12-18 month commercial trials so could be argued they are ahead of PAA in that respect.

"............... MPL is not a one shot proposition............"
Totally agree that MPL is not a one shot proposition but suggest PAA is. Ultimately the value is not in the product but the company.

The clue would seem to be within the recent quarterly statement. point 8.6.2 where asked has the entity taken steps to raise further cash etc the response was along the lines the company has entered into a R&D Dev Lic agreement with Pfizer for $3 mil upfront plus $1 mil milestone.
Such an agreement would have taken some time to complete and one can imagine while Pfizer (being a big org) was deciding the clock for Rap continued. "IF" (just as a scenario) Pfizer came back to say they probably could not proceed with the deal it could have left the BoD with little option but to accept a Pfizer buy deal or advise the exchange they did not have the required minimum (2 quarters) cash to continue. Check mate.
This is the type of scenario I am suggesting PAA may be exposed to.

"..........Many of us in the Top 40 are imo rusted on, battle scarred, and determined, and I think mgt are too........."
Absolutely no argument with that concept however in my experience the one thing that gets in the road of that logic is life. Who knows what may happen to any one of the top 40 that forces their hand - floods, fire, divorce or any other external event. Again, my point is the objective exposure to any such scenario is what is important. I certainly do not mean to be negative but in the same way simply ask - do most of us carry and pay for any form of insurance, car, health, home, loss of income ? - doesnt mean we are being negative, just prudent ! these days I simply would not buy a house in a flood prone area if I was not willing to accept the potential consequences. Totally get we cannot avoid all risk but equally accept the concept of sensible risk mitigation !

"..............Many of us in the Top 40 are imo rusted on, battle scarred, and determined, and I think mgt are too............."

Understand your point but would ask you consider that over at RAP that the BoD havs recommended the Pfizer offer be accepted. No matter the potential of the technology that offer has now set the value of that business. Any new offer, no matter the level, uses that originally accepted value as the benchmark. That is simply negotiating 1.0.1. In times past a developing / start-up business could argue a fair value be calculated using some form of forward discount method but even then only from the position of not having its back to the wall.

The very best insurance PAA could buy is market insurance - the cost is reliably informing the market of progress.
Unless I am mistaken or not reading correctly (and certainly willing to accept that may be the case) where was the notice prior to the recent quarterly that "Dogs successfully recruited for canine trials in NZ". Given previous related announcements surely this warranted more than a byline in the quarterly !

My intention here is not to be negative or flippant. Unlike my self-professed limited ability to grasp the science driving the business, I am confident on being on pretty solid ground when it comes to strategy and business optimization - it is at the end of the day the well trodden arena that has allowed me to become a punter. I cant help but observe and comment on the Achilles heel facing this opportunity - one that can relatively simply be at least mitigated.