Perspective needed, page-10

Assuming all resolutions are passed (which they almost always are) the dilution is 30% of the pre-placement register - not 12%.

Call it the market; call it the nature of the Australian VC scene - whatever it may be. The soundest strategy going forward is to buy life science companies that are fully funded. Regardless of how good the science might or might not be, it ends up being a sideshow to the corporate dealings that see retail investors relegated to bridging financiers, with almost no chance of making a decent profit and certainly not a profit commensurate with the level of risk being taken.

One only needs to look at the share performance of some of the ASX life/device science stocks that have important trials running but which are fully funded and the stark contrast to stocks like IVX, IMU, PYC, PAB, which are basically cannon fodder for Australian brokers to extract mgmt fees and sell the large overhang of discount shares they receive (not before writing nice research reports on the company).

Thankfully I exited IVX with a solitary pip of profit and a couple months of opportunity cost; but it will be the last life science stock I hold that is not fully or almost fully-funded to trial completion. It's frustrating and a shame because you want to support the Australian bio scene, which has a lot of innovative and passionate people working behind the scenes. But when retail investors are the ones that have to cop it sweet in the tail, it's hardly a sustainable foundation. What confidence can retail investors possibly have in holding these unfunded tiddlers for the long term and not just taking profits when the chance arrives and moving on.