Thanks to all contributors, and especially the last few reasoned...

Thanks to all contributors, and especially the last few reasoned posts from @TonyWAIW

Jon Pilcher and team have a statutory requirement to maximise shareholder value. IMO however, this does not necessarily mean waiting for all 4 trials to read out.

With regards to mergers, acquisitions and takeover offers, he must consider risk/reward scenarios with regards to the potential for a trial or multiple trial failures in the next 3 readouts.

It would be a dereliction of duties for him to blindingly assume that the next 3 readouts will all be stunning successes. History is littered with unexpected results from human clinical trials.

My point is, would shareholders prefer to accept a $50 -$60 takeover offer after the next (hopefully) positive readout, or see the stock pull back to $30 - $35 later this year if last 2 trials are unexpected failures.

It’s all about balance and risk/reward for Jon and team, and not trying to eek out every cent of blue sky before selling. I trust JP to make the right call.

GLTAH