(Total Views: 547)
Posted On: 02/20/2019 8:47:11 PM
Post# of 15624
I frankly believe that even a 1 for 10 is more than is warranted based on the current shares outstanding. With roughly 150 million shares outstanding the company still has the authority to expand to 500 million shares. If they reduced the current O/S to 50 million, I.E. a 1 for 3, they still could dilute current owners to only owning 10% of the company if they fully diluted. While I don't like the R/S at all, using the number the company has thrown out in their draft would result in existing shareholders owning less than 1% of the company in very little time as they dilute to 100 million shares, or more.
I believe the company needs to grow the share price to well over $1, then if they asked for a small reverse split to achieve the Nasdaq I could support it. If they reduce the O/S to under a few million shares, even if they achieved $4 I doubt if they'd sustain it, and within six months I believe we'd be back up to nearly 100 million shares.
I think the company needs to go back to the drawing board, provide far more information to investors to support and grow the share price, and after achieving some success, ask us to support a small reverse split. If I were running the company, the first thing I'd do is put every clinical trial I was planning for this year into the clinical trials database. The next thing I'd do is schedule a webcast with the next quarterly release and open it up to questions from Analysts. I would also bring the website up to date and at least in general update their efforts to achieve patent approval. If in fact they are defending their patient filings and believe they'll be successful with the majority of them the company is dramatically under priced. On the other hand if few patents will be granted, it is currently properly valued. If in fact we do the clinical trials for drugs that we don't have patent rights to, the value of those drugs would be questionable.
Phase 1 Trials don't cost that much to run, and if they're designed to show efficacy, doing so before patent coverage is assured may be a reasonable investment. Phase 2 Trials and beyond start costing far more, and while they're needed to prove we have something worthwhile, if we don't have patent approval, their value is in serious question.
Gary
I believe the company needs to grow the share price to well over $1, then if they asked for a small reverse split to achieve the Nasdaq I could support it. If they reduce the O/S to under a few million shares, even if they achieved $4 I doubt if they'd sustain it, and within six months I believe we'd be back up to nearly 100 million shares.
I think the company needs to go back to the drawing board, provide far more information to investors to support and grow the share price, and after achieving some success, ask us to support a small reverse split. If I were running the company, the first thing I'd do is put every clinical trial I was planning for this year into the clinical trials database. The next thing I'd do is schedule a webcast with the next quarterly release and open it up to questions from Analysts. I would also bring the website up to date and at least in general update their efforts to achieve patent approval. If in fact they are defending their patient filings and believe they'll be successful with the majority of them the company is dramatically under priced. On the other hand if few patents will be granted, it is currently properly valued. If in fact we do the clinical trials for drugs that we don't have patent rights to, the value of those drugs would be questionable.
Phase 1 Trials don't cost that much to run, and if they're designed to show efficacy, doing so before patent coverage is assured may be a reasonable investment. Phase 2 Trials and beyond start costing far more, and while they're needed to prove we have something worthwhile, if we don't have patent approval, their value is in serious question.
Gary
(0)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
