You asked me to read your posts in their entirety, which I did and have done.
For starters your assessment of management is devoid of any objective history. I sincerely hope your comments are not based upon previous company names and their titles. If one looks into Zami's prior and current performance running companies, he's lost $200 mm with PSTI and the previous endeavors yielded poor results. History indicates they are good at making money for themselves, though as they are highly compensated. Your comment "Companies aren't wildly different when talking about top level management so top level industry experience is most important." is confusing. We are in the biotechnology industry, and neither twin has any top level industry experience....which you say is most inportant, or not? Companies ARE "wildly different" ranging from private to public, small, medium, and large, commodity to specialty, speculative to traditional. If your comment was true....splain what changed at Yahoo? Leadership and the "vision" changed along with Marketing and overall direction. IMO it is irresponsible to shareholders to imply hiring a guy who has had multiple upper level positions at various companies makes him "OK" to lead. A disregard for bio-industry expertise as secondary to basic company management as hiring criteria got us where we are. I guess he can learn it as he goes? If I was to employ your logic, then Yaky would be the better candidate based upon his degree and the fact he worked alongside Zami in his past lives. Neither get my vote.
2)Most people with a vested interest in PPS appreciation can agree the bonus situation is questionable at best
3)Completely disagree on the next dilution is "easy enough" Quite a cavalier attitude with other people's money. The next "easy enough" dilution event has a higher probability of being followed by a reverse split than it does at occurring at $5 per share. In fact, the next dilution might prove very difficult. They are out of "positive" PR, and these "phase III" approvals are make or break, that is a fact as they have no more shots on goal.
4) Shows are worthless. We have guys making over $3 mm a year wasting OUR time there (you neglect to add in that cost of compensation and missed work time) I'll break it down for you. At $3.6 mm per annum, a person makes $67,000 per week. 4 lost days per show (2 travel days and 2 show days) X 12 shows is $643,000.....that is the highest paid of a group that goes to these. Simple math, eh?
5)No we are not a phase III company. While it is true we get accelerated marketing approval, PSTI still must go through appropriate proof of concept thereafter on efficacy and safety. Would I rather have us in fast track, of course, but this in and of itself has nothing to do with the product actually delivering. PSTI is no more than a phase I company and the PPS reflects that (and dropping) When are YOU buying more at these bargain prices?
Mouse trials are nothing more than crude starting points. You indicate "I am not surprised that we have been able to see such aligned results from mouse to human data so far.", as if this means anything? Any study that moves forward that used initial trials from mice in a lab would have shown a positive result, otherwise it doesn't move forward or get discussed. Further to your "I am not surprised moment", you sight humans share 92% DNA with mice, thus making them a good indicator of success for PSTI. This is exactly the opposite of the problem with using mice, sighted by researchers. They indicate mice are not nearly close enough in DNA to humans to draw any real conclusions, amongst other problematic differences. The truth is, only late stage clinicals are decent predictors of success. One thing mouse studies are good for is predicting more cash burn and more losses.
AI
