Jake, Ronin needs to affirm how their plan for PPHM technology doesn't just serve to transfer value to the benefit of third parties who gain if they get tech rights on the cheap or gain if they suppress the technology from ever making it to market. The history of this company through events like the third party mislabeling of trial doses that compromised trial results and "unlucky" control arms that outperform standard of care has me convinced that suppression of trial progress has been practiced. The timing of Ronin entry (PPHM on verge of financial independence through Avid sales) has me scrutinizing what Ronin is offering that is not already in motion (Ronin's answers so far are less compensation to BODs and stop funding research).
As a long investor, I don't want PPHM to completely stop funding research, but I do want research to fund within net earnings from Avid sales rather than from more dilution. Avid sales are not yet enough to deliver this balance, but that can change soon if parties don't act to intervene in growth of Avid sales.
All that aside, anonymous message boards do not involve disclosure of which posters are long, short or not invested in the stock, which is as they are intended and designed. My point yesterday about there being maybe a thousand retail long investors who are targeted for changing their views to align with Ronin, I believe, is about the right count. I also observe that the track record of posters gives a hint as to whether they are amongst the targeted thousand or those attempting persuasion.
Good luck to all with their PPHM investment, as I sense this ongoing, major shake out is just getting underway. I also sense that there would not be any parties bothering with this sort of BOD take over activity if PPHM did not have value that competing interests wish to see change hands. Logic behind turning PPHM into just Avid by curtailing PPHM research raises red flags for me.
A key question: is the curent PPHM BODs the problem for achieving best interests of long investors or have they been an advocate for long investor interests in a business environment that is seeking to transfer PPHM value to others or suppress it, altogether?
Within this question, I presume that the best interests of PPHM the company, the employees and those benefitting from PPHM and Avid patient and customer services align with the interests of long investors. I observe that Ronin is attempting the argument that the current BOD is the problem without making the case that they are not in the camp for transferring PPHM value to the hands of others. Of course, Ronin might be able to do that, but so far, Ronin has chosen to just make the case that the current BODs are the problem.
Some on this message board have noted affilliations that suggest Ronin has cross ties to more recent PPHM set backs, but I observe that case has not been made, either. Giving Ronin the benefit of the doubt there makes sense, as long as Ronin makes the case for what their leadership would do to preserve PPHM value, whatever that is or can become, so it doesn't transfer to third parties without first delivering fair sharing with long investors and the company. The current Mantra of "not the current Board" in and of itself does nothing for me to make me want to align my vote with Ronin.
We should not lose sight that the momentum of status quo has PPHM retaining the rights of PPHM technology, unencumbered with debt and that the company is tracked to be self sufficient as Avid sales grow. That serves my near term interpretation of being long investor friendly, just as the historic dilution path PPHM has been on to preserve the no debt status is only long investor friendly if that has been needed to retain PPHM tech rights while "setbacks" are worked through to recovery.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
