Please, stop with the dilution harrangue. First, early stage biotechs go through multiple rounds of dilution, just like any start-up. ADXS needs capital or it will be worth zero. Second, if you want to hire high quality top level people it takes a million or so up front in stock grants. Kinda like signing a #1 draft pick. Standard practice. It's that or hire B players who will not max your investment for you. Biotech/ immunotherapy are HUGELY competitive labor markets. DOC is doing the right thing and will 5x+ your investment if he gets it right, and he's doing everything needed -- including raising capital (dilution) and hiring A players (dilution) and making partnership deals (income statement dilution).
Are these realities too hard to understand? If you have FACTS that clearly show Dan is over-paying for capital or over-paying for people, bring them forward. My experience in start-ups and exec comp says Dan's doing a great job. Execs are not cashing out, they are accumulating. That should tell you something.
Keep whining about dilution if you must, but it reflects a shallow understanding of the requirements to make a company like this successful.
If you're so worried about dilution, why not complain about the Amgen deal? That's dilution in another form (income statement rather than balance sheet)? If you know about these things, give us an analysis of how Dan did or did not make a good deal with Amgen. That's a transaction I don't have the experience to analyze or judge with conviction. Do you?
OK, that's the last time I'll get on this soapbox unless Dan does a raise that shows bad judgment or hires someone who looks to be a B player. Then we all should complain (and lighten our holdings). Start-ups CAN'T overpay for top-notch talent and should raise capital when valuation is at a local maxima. Just like Dan has done.
