RAC Investor Hub Q&A, page-4

Good idea DG. That reply is amusing given yesterdays Ann only 4 weeks later.

My enquiry 28/4/23

Hi Damian/Race team, I hope to seek some clarity (as does much of the market from what i can tell) on todays announcement of updates.

It appears there’s a few things on todays announcement that could have been utilised to update the market with material news, Im struggling to understand why these did not warrant a PS announcement on its own and feel its a missed opportunity, at a time where delays on recruitment and a lack of clinical progress is apparent.

1. The “unknown” study conducted and completed in the USA confirming Cardio protective effects being dose dependant. Ok the market wasn’t aware of this, but to not use independently as an opportunity to announce on its own, and provide findings, a week or so after triangles research? It’s essentially a 2nd validation, and in the USA. Can’t understand the logic here.

2. Both of the updates for Nikki’s work, which in prior announcements mentioned would be updated in H1, have now been completed.. and yet no announcement on the findings or data for this? RAC has always been known to be transparent, even on pre-clinical research. Really disappointing to see this hidden in a quarterly.

3. The updates on CCRCC and MM - while initially gave me a scare, when mentioning “not statistically significant” due to a small sample size and “failure” when speaking to the model itself. Im not alone in saying it sounds like the work is positive but the way it was worded and put to the market has come off as a negative. It reads like it doesn’t make sense ie, “Due to the high toxicity, the model failed to produce cardio toxic effects” if your not a scientist which 99% of the ASX is not, this is an oxymoron.

Overall, the announcement was not seen as a positive by many, i hope communication can be improved and opportunities to give confidence to the market where positive results are there, are taken in future. regards xxx