Research, page-2764

Corrected some typo !

Your statement, "I bought back in at recent prices because the risk-to-reward ratio came back to an acceptable level for my long-term thesis," makes it clear that you only value the company based on its current price. So, by your logic, everyone who bought in at higher prices must be foolish, and just because you bought back in when the price fell to your perceived valuation (& hence risk reward in your favour), the company is now in good hands?

This suggests you don’t truly consider a long-term horizon and are likely to exit again when the stock spikes, only to buy back in when it falls.

Meanwhile, many investors here discuss the need for stable management that can prevent the kind of extreme price fluctuations we’ve seen, including the 73% drop under the current CEO ($1.695 to 45c) since inception.

Regarding your nine points, let me address them:

1. A U.S.-based CEO might be important, but just because someone travels to the U.S. on a company expense account (presumably on company expense) with family doesn't make them the best candidate in the industry. It takes years to understand how the U.S. market operates.

2. Do you know how the company was valued at the time of listing, how stocks were allocated to the founders, and how many free options they've earned while the share price has dropped 73% since inception?

4 & 5. When a mentor holds a significant stake in the company, they can influence the CEO. But if they’re merely an advisor to a CEO who holds the majority, it’s more likely to be a case of "This is how I want to do it," with the mentor simply agreeing. The announcement of the ATM facility made it clear that neither the CEO nor the board had any idea how the market would react, and if they did, they would have avoided it.

6. Managing day-to-day operations is expected—nothing special unless he secures a $100 million grant to fund the company for another five years without needing a capital raise.

7. Give me $140 million, and I could acquire a company with a proven sales record and an established presence in the U.S. market.

3. Not worth discussing.

None of these points, in my opinion, are extraordinary. Biotech companies often spend years just to get reimbursement codes approved. Even though this company has achieved that, they’re still not delivering significant sales. If they were, they would have disclosed their sales figures within two months of getting the code approved.(in last results).

As I mentioned earlier, the CEO could remain on the board and continue with research, but the CEO role needs to be filled by someone with more industry experience. Alternatively, sell the company to a giant like Philips or Siemens, who have the capital not only to fund future research but also to retain most of the staff.

There’s no absolute right or wrong in this discussion, so just let us know when you decide to exit, so everyone knows the stock has reached its peak!