Re: Portland Business Journal Article on Nader
Post# of 153875
(Total Views: 722)
Posted On: 09/18/2020 10:24:34 AM
Re: Portland Business Journal Article on Nader
This has always been the issue:
Institutional investors invest first and foremost based on the team.
(It is interesting to see the difference of opinion from msg board posters on the team. I would guess that if we were to do a poll, those with executive level experience with larger corporations would have a starkly different take than those coming from non-business backgrounds).
"He also said that Goldman Sachs Partners Fund, Bain Capital and Ziff Capital Partners chose not to invest in CytoDyn because of Pourhassan."
I am highly confident that this statement is accurate.
However, in phara, the drug/science is king. So, can an amazing drug overcome management? I have a large, long-term bet, that the answer is "yes". But it has caused a lot of angst over the years.
And I have witnessed the repercussions of the team. More turnover of relationships than I have witnessed in my career. Lowest level funding (Paulson & illiad). No institutional investors. Constant discounted micro capital raises (no, these are not good to protect from dilution as NP frequently states). Sweetheart preferred stock raises. Huge insider stock option grants and repricings.
The result is major dilution, high volatility, and no political support or partnering connections.
I, and many others, have lobbied for NP to raise institutional money for many years. But that has not occurred.
Our best path forward now is to vote NO on the comp plan, and vote the operating team off the BOD, try to get more independent public company execs on the BOD, and uplist. In other words, good corporate governance. That will give the company a chance to maximize the potential of LL, which has done substantially better re: science than any of us long-term investors could have imagined.
This has always been the issue:
Institutional investors invest first and foremost based on the team.
(It is interesting to see the difference of opinion from msg board posters on the team. I would guess that if we were to do a poll, those with executive level experience with larger corporations would have a starkly different take than those coming from non-business backgrounds).
"He also said that Goldman Sachs Partners Fund, Bain Capital and Ziff Capital Partners chose not to invest in CytoDyn because of Pourhassan."
I am highly confident that this statement is accurate.
However, in phara, the drug/science is king. So, can an amazing drug overcome management? I have a large, long-term bet, that the answer is "yes". But it has caused a lot of angst over the years.
And I have witnessed the repercussions of the team. More turnover of relationships than I have witnessed in my career. Lowest level funding (Paulson & illiad). No institutional investors. Constant discounted micro capital raises (no, these are not good to protect from dilution as NP frequently states). Sweetheart preferred stock raises. Huge insider stock option grants and repricings.
The result is major dilution, high volatility, and no political support or partnering connections.
I, and many others, have lobbied for NP to raise institutional money for many years. But that has not occurred.
Our best path forward now is to vote NO on the comp plan, and vote the operating team off the BOD, try to get more independent public company execs on the BOD, and uplist. In other words, good corporate governance. That will give the company a chance to maximize the potential of LL, which has done substantially better re: science than any of us long-term investors could have imagined.
(11)
(1)