Running discussion on SP, page-103

Backlisting was pretty popular a few years back. I suggest that it is the nature of this listing path and the general companies that it attracts that is more relevant.

A number of small Israeli startups took advantage of it because its a less costly path than the venture capital route.

However, I suggest that there were:
1. those that signed on because they couldn't get funding any other way and
2. there are those that could have had plenty of private backers but signed on because they refused to give away the bulk of their company to people who would add nothing in terms of likelihood of success.

I put WBT in the latter category and they've stated as much. They are here because it was a safer way to move forward.

The second thing is we are talking about very small tech and bio firms here, and the success rate in general is usually pretty ordinary. Many "great ideas" simply deserve to die or the road is too complex and torturous for the funds garnered. A lot run on the prospect of nothing going wrong and are funded that way and well, stuff happens.

Also, you can focus on one particular group to make a case, and confirmation bias kicks in. You then ignore the myriad of non-Israeli backlisted companies that also fail. So show the evidence that failure rate of Israeli firms using the same approach is any higher. Perhaps anything running that gauntlet has a good chance of failing.

Now to WBT. Just because its Israeli doesnt directly drop it in the must fail bucket. Nationality I contend is not a predictor of success here. What we have is evidence of working product, signs of a solid plan for execution, good business partnerships with world class companies (Skywater, Leti etc), solid management with deep relevant industry experience that has been added to with equally skilled people SINCE listing, well-funded with solid backing through several cap raises.

Probably worth drilling into other failed companies, Israeli and other, to see if the dynamic is actually the same.