fbg, you say, "I know you are looking at things prospectively and the timing of your investment is certainly much better than mine, but one needs to look at the track record of the company's execution, inefficient use of funds and lack of shareholder value generated on capital already raised, which leads me to my belief that shareholders would likely be better off if the company is outright sold today instead of risking more dilution at a low stock price and more potential execution mis-steps toward commercialization."
I understand you invested earlier and will not achieve the same % returns later investors like myself (early 2015) will receive if the company is successful. But, to be perfectly blunt, your understanding of timing and expectations of returns from this kind of investment are naive. No one should make an investment in a Ph2 biotech and imagine they are not going to take significant dilution on the way to monetization.
I invested later than you and will tell you that I was at least 2 years too early myself (I thought the PhII cervical results were going to elicit a sooner significant partnership) but the biotech capital market fell apart in 2015-2016. I kick myself for not seeing that bubble build in late 2014, early 2015. That event negatively affected hundreds of pre-revenue biotechs, including ADXS. I stayed invested in ADXS after ~August 2015 for two reasons: (1) I believe in the science, and (2) I believed in DOC based on his moves to that point. I was not disappointed. IMHO (and I know we differ here) DOC was masterful navigating that capital market implosion in 2015-2016; cf. Amgen deal.
I still believe that with good science luck, benign capital markets, and attentive management, ADXS will be a big winner and even you -- despite your long, painful investing journey -- will do well. I understand how investing fatigue can overcome people -- it's happened to me.
You blame management for the failure of ADXS share price to appreciate, but IMHO that view is your need to find someone to blame. There's no one to blame. The biotech capital market imploded. ADXS got sucked down with it. Its science has been managed very, very well. Its capital, if not its spending, has been managed well. Sh&#t happens.
I've invested in hundreds of companies, run several as CEO, worked in Silicon Valley and from my experience with CEOs your imputations about DOC are almost certainly off-base, both to his "honesty" as well as to his effectiveness as a CEO. I'm not about to say he was perfect -- he obviously got over his skis on spending and the BOD took him out. He started to take more risk than they were comfortable with. That's not malfeasance nor incompetence...it is a difference in strategy and risk tolerance. He may well have run the company into the ground had he continued...on the other hand he may have pulled a rabbit out of the hat. We'll never know.
However, you MUST understand that in investing it's ONLY the future that counts. Bemoaning what went wrong when that analysis provides no insight into the future is a waste of analytical and emotional energy. In all friendship and good intention, I urge you to let go of Dan. Stay focused on the indicators for future ADXS success.
Personally, I believe this investment is at an EXTREMELY risky juncture because we have no clue how good Lombardo is or what he's going to make happen. He's got little track record I can discern in which to have confidence. I'm as close to letting ADXS go as I ever have been because I don't like the fact that the BOD is not looking for a killer-good CEO and Lombardo does NOT impress me, so far.
