I agree, the company has given us practically no g
Post# of 15624
(Total Views: 436)
Posted On: 02/21/2019 7:04:06 PM
I agree, the company has given us practically no guidance, but a reverse split isn't the answer to massive dilution by the company to fund what they're planning to do. In terms of future revenue, if they fully intend to take each product to approval before it's sold commercially, we'd be lucky to have a product on the market by 2025. Even if we go to market after successfully doing a Phase 2, it will be 2021 or later before that could occur.
When you say the company updated the trials, yes Hirsch's letter does address it in passing, but what can you say about the trial, only that it's planned to take place at some time in the next year. If these trials were put into the clinical trials database we'd know where they're being done, we'd know who can qualify to be in them, what month they're anticipated to start and end, and what the protocol would be for patients willing to volunteer. I believe that such information would give the company far greater credibility, and the result would be substantially higher prices.
If the company was working to achieve say a $1 price with where they are today, then a small reverse split which allowed them to raise funds with millions of shares, rather than hundreds of millions, would be reasonable. I fully believe the company will need to raise hundreds of millions or more before the first approved drug reaches the market. I don't agree with reducing the O/S to under a million shares, only to have them issue tens or hundreds of millions of shares.
They need to build value in the stock as it exists today, then an R/S that takes the O/S to perhaps 50 million shares would be acceptable. With what was proposed, current investors would end up holding less than 1% of the company after the dilution they'll need to fund full clinical trials.
The one time the company put a trial in Clinical Trials the value of the stock was up, it came down when they failed to update the information there and dramatically slipped the dates without explanation of what was happening. Investors who're well informed will except the delays, but the stock has been punished for lack of information about what was happening.
Gary
When you say the company updated the trials, yes Hirsch's letter does address it in passing, but what can you say about the trial, only that it's planned to take place at some time in the next year. If these trials were put into the clinical trials database we'd know where they're being done, we'd know who can qualify to be in them, what month they're anticipated to start and end, and what the protocol would be for patients willing to volunteer. I believe that such information would give the company far greater credibility, and the result would be substantially higher prices.
If the company was working to achieve say a $1 price with where they are today, then a small reverse split which allowed them to raise funds with millions of shares, rather than hundreds of millions, would be reasonable. I fully believe the company will need to raise hundreds of millions or more before the first approved drug reaches the market. I don't agree with reducing the O/S to under a million shares, only to have them issue tens or hundreds of millions of shares.
They need to build value in the stock as it exists today, then an R/S that takes the O/S to perhaps 50 million shares would be acceptable. With what was proposed, current investors would end up holding less than 1% of the company after the dilution they'll need to fund full clinical trials.
The one time the company put a trial in Clinical Trials the value of the stock was up, it came down when they failed to update the information there and dramatically slipped the dates without explanation of what was happening. Investors who're well informed will except the delays, but the stock has been punished for lack of information about what was happening.
Gary
(0)
(0)