"I do however think the company has done a poor job of...

"I do however think the company has done a poor job of explaining the justification for listing on NASDAQ."

@Kakala,

Not just that, but having seen the details of the IPO terms, I think the company has been:

1. badly advised,
2. the capital raising is poorly structured,
3. the fees payable to the investment bankers are excessive and
4. the interests of the underwriters are strictly non-aligned with those of the company.

The last point, in particular, has been a key determinant of the disappointing pricing of the IPO. And the problem is, whether people want to see it or not, it has adversely affected the company's cost of equity.

To my way of thinking, this Nasdaq IPO exercise raises more questions than it provides answers.

I seldom talk about what shares may or may not do after capital market events, but one thing that warrants mentioning - and to which no one has drawn much attention at all - is that before MSB went into a trading halt, there was some significant expectation that had been built up in the mind of the market that the company would not need to issue additional equity yet again, but instead that an imminent partnering deal would provide a meaningful source of funding.

I think you had made some reference to this in an earlier post.

It stands to reason that this new information needed to be factored into MSB's share price on reinstatement of its trading, and this would have informed the IPO price (as it will indeed do to MSB's ASX share price when the stock resumes trading).