fbg0316, it certainly sounds like DOC was overly optimistic about the likely timeline for ADXS to get to a $6B valuation (before my time -- I got into ADXS early in 2015). It is unfortunate that an investor would rely on such a statement as even then a reasonable understanding of immunotherapy time-lines would lead one to look askance at such a prediction knowing ADXS's history (weak) and technology (promising, but unproven and out-of-the-mainstream).
Be that as it may, it is surely naive at this time to use that assertion by DOC as some indicator than ADXS is not being managed effectively. It judging progress by ADXS, one not only needs to take into account the science challenges and FDA hurdles, one must consider the investing landscape has changed dramatically since 2013. 2013-2015 was a huge biotech bubble where valuations got way out of line. Even ADXS spiked to ~$30/ sh. That bubble has burst with the typical overshoot to the downside.
If you were investing in internet stocks between 1995 and 2001 (I was), you know what I'm talking about. Then, it took at least 5 years after 2001 for that market to sort itself out and for real winners to become valued in line with reasonable expectations. The same thing is happening in biotech at this moment. We are in the equivalent of 2003 of the internet bubble sort-out, which means we may have 2-3 more years to go on that score. It will take short money quite a while yet to leave this sector for more fertile grounds.
Next, the competitive landscape has gotten much, much more crowded than it was in 2013. Any biotech in immunotherapy is absolutely subjected to much more critical evaluation as to its prospects. As I've pointed out, ADXS is way out of the mainstream in terms of its science, thus does not get the kind of attention that can help drive pps. Dan's compensation, even if it were egregious, has NOTHING to do with pps. Raising capital at good prices well ahead of when it is needed is a POSITIVE, not a negative. Reasonable dilution (which is what we've had) is to be EXPECTED and embraced, not railed against.
I think ADXS could be a huge winner, that's why I'm heavily invested in it. But, let's focus on what really matters to our judgment as to whether this company is worth staying invested in. We should be focusing on what trials ADXS is considering (choice here is critical), whether ADXS meets timelines for trial starts/ information results releases, how it continues to acquire funding, and what partnerships it develops with what terms and conditions. And, of course, we should be making thoughtful judgments about the quality of trial results: are they really strong or just purported to be strong? Careful of spin here, every company spins its results except those that are clearly thumbs down.
Those last 3 sentences are where people on this board should be putting their DD time and effort and with regard to which they should be sharing their thinking. When you do that, and you do, you're adding value to the discussion. When you carp about Dan's compensation and capital raises you are missing the mark, IMHO. Let's move on!
