Corporalagarn, how about a camp 4? My sense is that the proxy swing vote needed for Ronin's Board candidates to be elected is still undecided. Introduction of the poison pill rescission talk at this timing is an indicator, just as I view the PP as a red herring issue.
Camp 4. Investor is amongst a group of long investors who have held or accumulated PPHM shares for years, across the period of several reported "unfortunate" events in trials, on through a recent point where announced delays in Avid sales are pushing out the estimated period for PPHM self funding of its research. This long investor group collectively represents enough shares to determine the outcome of a proxy fight for changing the PPHM Board of Directors majority.
These "Camp 4" long investors recognize that the BOD change would result in a new PPHM business plan that would halt PPHM proprietary technology development in order to optimize Avid development (this is what Ronin and SW have written). The long investors recognize that Avid sales potential is good (as has been affirmed by Ronin and the analyst) just as they recognize that delivery of the Avid sales growth should deliver the analyst's price target, regardless of who is controlling the BOD. The Camp 4 long investors recognize they ultimately have a proxy vote choice of: retaining PPHM tech development while seeking Avid growth vs. redirecting full potency of Avid earnings resource to optimize Avid growth. The former will likely take more time for delivery of a pps rise than the latter, since applying more resource to Avid ought to speed things up.
At this juncture, I am wondering if Avid is resource investment constrained, such that PPHM needs to place all the Avid revenue back into Avid development or do the recently announced cost containment measures give Avid the resource balance it needs?
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
