Research, page-2763

I felt it behooved me to respond to that diatribe with cogent points that should address the misapprehensions upon which the arguments were based.
Hopefully it is substantial enough.

As part of my research into 4D Medical, I have been to see AF speak and spoken directly with him. I have read and watched all the investor information from the company and done due diligence on the technology itself including going through related patents and papers. I work in the Medical Device development industry and have a experience with the underlying technologies used in the scanner 4D have developed. This has allowed me some insight into the application benefit and development implications.

In terms of rational investing, I bought in the first major dip after listing and sold when it spiked because I was pragmatic about the maturity of the company.. I bought back in at recent prices because the risk to reward ratio came back to an acceptable level for my long term thesis.


Both founder led and non-founder led listed companies have fallen by the wayside - that is true.
However, my point was that a higher proportion of successful companies led by a founder based on the linked data supplied in the post.
To put it another way for clarity, founder leadership was not causal for success, but there was a higher proportion of founders leading the subset of companies that achieved success.

The CEO was not doing the market a favour by listing. Simply put, the company would not have got to listing without AF using his own money and risking personal financial security to build on the very promising technology he developed.

The decision to list 4d Medical by AF and other cornerstone investors is a road well traveled in this country. The fact remains that AF bootstrapped 4D Medical until the technology was mature enough to show promise to a broader investment community.
To my knowledge he has not sold any of his holdings although he has had dilution from a capital raising (again very normal for this stage of company).

The fact that ASX investors provide capital for further development of the Company as risk is reduced is quite normal. It is also customary to pay the CEO a salary with incentives at this stage too. No favours there either.

So, let's look at the suitability of AF as CEO (without emotion) based on what information is available.

1. CEO is (all-in" financially and logistically. (The family moved to US to be close to key market)
2. CEO and his family have significant holding and "skin in the game".
3. CEO has embedded 4D Medical into the discussions on non-invasive lung screening for the US veterans with strong contacts in the government and veteran community including a major advocate consulting to the company. (AF was an AUS reservist which helps his credibility there.) This is a big opportunity as we all are aware.
4. CEO has Sam Hupert of PME as his mentor and can call on his extensive strategic experience as a very successful medical technology company CEO .
5. CEO has the support of a very experienced board with significant international experience in the application space.
6. The CEO has obtained significant AU Government funding support for development including for the 4D scanner development.
7. CEO has overseen the acquisition of Imbio to increase cash flow while leveraging both companies' technology to increase market opportunity and reach.

These facts would seem reasonable arguments that AF as CEO has a good record so far and is motivated to maximize the success of the company.

Of course this is my own personal view and others should do their own due diligence in a rational and careful manor. I am not giving any advice and will leave it at that.

GLTAH

p.s. I don' know what gave Ubertrader the idea I might compare myself to Buffet. It is very antithetical as anyone who knows me would confirm.