I'm invested in AMBS, both in my Roth IRA and in custodial accounts for my kids. Like everyone else, the last weeks and months of price action have been tough to swallow. It's also difficult to stomach the polarized (and personal) nature of many of the comments here.
Here are some questions as I take a step back on AMBS. I'd love to see someone with more information provide some answers for a sticky post.
1. Financing: I hear terms like "toxic" thrown around. But, in plain English, what are the pros and cons of this financing? Clearly AMBS thinks the pros outweigh the cons. And what is the overall financing breakdown for AMBS? And will uplisting solve the problem of "toxic" financing -- or at least "dilute" it (if I can use that term)?
2. Shares and dilution: What are the pros and cons of "dilution" for AMBS? What have they gotten for the extra shares? What are the arguments for and against a reverse split (or even a forward split if it comes to that)?
3. Investment horizon: It would be great for posters to explain whether they're short-term traders, long-term investors, or both. Obviously that makes a difference.
4. Pipeline: We're all invested because of this. What's changed -- for good or ill -- in the past few months with the pipeline? How has the competitive landscape changed?
5. CEO: There are some here who aren't big fans of Gerald, to put it mildly. What are the pros and cons of replacing him? Would it make a difference if there's no revenue guidance?
6. Spinoffs and revenue: Do any spinoffs make sense? What benefits would we expect to get, including revenue? Would the revenue we get help address the "toxic" financing problem?
7. Uplist: What could AMBS do to uplist into strength? Would a spinoff do it? More positive clinical trial results?
There are lots more questions, but average investors are struggling to cut out the noise, personal attacks and probably unspoken agendas to hear different opinions on these questions. Calling someone a "basher," "pumper," etc. doesn't really shed any light.
It's true that it all comes down to a few questions:
* It's not enough to have good science, but can AMBS get the good science funded in such a way that it doesn't put downward pricing pressure on the stock? And can they be first to market?
* Can AMBS uplist without shortchanging long-term shareholders? How would that happen?
* Does AMBS' pipeline have at least one winner in the next 5 years? (As I think we all agree, we don't need multiple winners, though that would be nice.)
Anyway, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. Let's see if we can channel the energy in positive ways to educate each other.
Here are some questions as I take a step back on AMBS. I'd love to see someone with more information provide some answers for a sticky post.
1. Financing: I hear terms like "toxic" thrown around. But, in plain English, what are the pros and cons of this financing? Clearly AMBS thinks the pros outweigh the cons. And what is the overall financing breakdown for AMBS? And will uplisting solve the problem of "toxic" financing -- or at least "dilute" it (if I can use that term)?
2. Shares and dilution: What are the pros and cons of "dilution" for AMBS? What have they gotten for the extra shares? What are the arguments for and against a reverse split (or even a forward split if it comes to that)?
3. Investment horizon: It would be great for posters to explain whether they're short-term traders, long-term investors, or both. Obviously that makes a difference.
4. Pipeline: We're all invested because of this. What's changed -- for good or ill -- in the past few months with the pipeline? How has the competitive landscape changed?
5. CEO: There are some here who aren't big fans of Gerald, to put it mildly. What are the pros and cons of replacing him? Would it make a difference if there's no revenue guidance?
6. Spinoffs and revenue: Do any spinoffs make sense? What benefits would we expect to get, including revenue? Would the revenue we get help address the "toxic" financing problem?
7. Uplist: What could AMBS do to uplist into strength? Would a spinoff do it? More positive clinical trial results?
There are lots more questions, but average investors are struggling to cut out the noise, personal attacks and probably unspoken agendas to hear different opinions on these questions. Calling someone a "basher," "pumper," etc. doesn't really shed any light.
It's true that it all comes down to a few questions:
* It's not enough to have good science, but can AMBS get the good science funded in such a way that it doesn't put downward pricing pressure on the stock? And can they be first to market?
* Can AMBS uplist without shortchanging long-term shareholders? How would that happen?
* Does AMBS' pipeline have at least one winner in the next 5 years? (As I think we all agree, we don't need multiple winners, though that would be nice.)
Anyway, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. Let's see if we can channel the energy in positive ways to educate each other.
