I don't think uplisting is coming before EUA. (Not sure if I posted this idea before, but it may have been in a private message response to someone as well. )
Mr. Mulholland, in the CC, mentions keeping to the plan. The fact they have not raised enough capital to cover the positive shareholder equity to me means they are waiting for revenue. As I think about it, I like that plan better. At first I thought lets get this baby up on a nasdaq listing before EUA so it takes off, and then takes off again after EUA. That might be short term thinking.
If we wait for EUA, then we figure
1. Revenue will be at our door step.
2. Because of EUA/rev Institutional investors will drive the price up BEFORE institutional investors not afforded the luxury of owning OTC stocks.
3. We uplist and now institutional investors can jump in after we perhaps hit double digits already which catapults the shareprice higher...then..
4. We announce BTD where institutional investors know that BTD usually has smaller pharmas courted by larger pharmas(I'm not saying CYDY accepts, but I believe BTD perks up big pharmas ears...especially if its cancer...because the timeline to approval is usually shorter and may only be a label expansion for cydy at that time)
5. Then...Oh look BLA filing...another revenue stream...institutions buy more.
6. Oh look NASH interlm results...more big pharma courting if the human trials turn out to be as good as the animal ones.
So I really do feel CYDY will let the negative shareholder equity be taken care of "organically" by revenue, which in the long run gives us a better foundation for uplisting than a capital raise.
I could be wrong, but I do like the idea of not uplisting until we have money because big institution analysts love balance sheets...especially ones with positive free cash flow and large potential revenue.
My opinion only, worth what you paid for it.
Mr. Mulholland, in the CC, mentions keeping to the plan. The fact they have not raised enough capital to cover the positive shareholder equity to me means they are waiting for revenue. As I think about it, I like that plan better. At first I thought lets get this baby up on a nasdaq listing before EUA so it takes off, and then takes off again after EUA. That might be short term thinking.
If we wait for EUA, then we figure
1. Revenue will be at our door step.
2. Because of EUA/rev Institutional investors will drive the price up BEFORE institutional investors not afforded the luxury of owning OTC stocks.
3. We uplist and now institutional investors can jump in after we perhaps hit double digits already which catapults the shareprice higher...then..
4. We announce BTD where institutional investors know that BTD usually has smaller pharmas courted by larger pharmas(I'm not saying CYDY accepts, but I believe BTD perks up big pharmas ears...especially if its cancer...because the timeline to approval is usually shorter and may only be a label expansion for cydy at that time)
5. Then...Oh look BLA filing...another revenue stream...institutions buy more.
6. Oh look NASH interlm results...more big pharma courting if the human trials turn out to be as good as the animal ones.
So I really do feel CYDY will let the negative shareholder equity be taken care of "organically" by revenue, which in the long run gives us a better foundation for uplisting than a capital raise.
I could be wrong, but I do like the idea of not uplisting until we have money because big institution analysts love balance sheets...especially ones with positive free cash flow and large potential revenue.
My opinion only, worth what you paid for it.
9
