Yes just keep glaring past reality. Keep being fine with it. Just because it's about management, ignore it. Saw it on other boards so it's just a fad, trend, whatever you want to call it. Relevant questions, comments directed to you, just ignore, it's just how boards work.
Who cares that our board members have collected an average of half a million shares for what. Or that some of them have things listed on their "resumes" that are extremely questionable, if not fictitious. How can one be a director on a company before it is a company? Just the norm o guess right.
They are supposed to act on behalf of SHAREHOLDERS, not management. And when some have questionable resumes, how or why do you think they are going to live up to the reason they are there. Yes when a new company is formed, many are just token appointments. Like most of the long timers here were. But as a company progresses, they change. Not ours though.
Just because you want to try and justify the vast amount of information out there that's shows an inept management and board by chalking it up to being the norm for biotech, others do not. I have yet to see a single post with any factual information in the defence of management or board. Heck even without factual evidence, I have seen none. You're questioning management, call them names.
If Zami had managed to take Elbit to become a powerhouse of the textile industry or whatever it is they do, I could possibly see a value. All the companies on his resume are two bit companies when he was there, and after.
But let's just bring in others with the same pedigree unfortunately. Let's have the head of HR, come in with experience only from Elbit. She must know good biotech employees when she sees them. Elbit groomed her for that.
Or a year or two as a Teva as a R&D analytical researcher, a couple years at Pluriestm for Lior Raviv. (My bad in the previous post on him...thanks MC). That's good enough to become VP for me.
Most other companies have announcements of big hires they have brought in over the years. Industry veterans with tons of experience. We get Lior, or even worse, a co-ceo for Kaki. Or announcements of preeclampsia steering committee that has done jack. Are we even still in that game?
Most if not all here, believe in the technology. Some have wavered in the belief of the technology, as our price has remained the same for a decade. Other companies without the technology we own, have doubled, tripled, and so on. So there is a legitimate reason to start questioning the technology.
We all know your belief in the road show and it's good for them. What is the purpose of going to a manifacturing show, when it's not for sale? Or the same show year after year, same people, same everything. Waste of time. But contrary to your belief, it is expensive and takes time out of everyone's lives involved, that would be better suited doing actual work.
I already made a point on milestones and how they are more than double the original estimate on preclinical trials. That's normal right. That's fine right. You didn't want to answer it last time. Care to now? Just the norm I know. Don't believe it? But that's all you will say.
So please let me see your argument that management is good. Yes they are progressing at a snails pace. Yes we have seen zero bad data as of yet. Not really good arguments imo.
Or an even better question for you. Why would you NOT want a management team and board with a ton of experience? Other companies made the change, and have been greatly rewarded. We have not and remain stagnant year after year. Kind of defeats the purpose of investing.
Sainthood. LMBO. Because they can have a civil point of view and actually try to answer questions, without resorting to name calling. You want to shrug off legitimate questions about the above mentioned by calling posters names, don't think it will come without deserved criticism.
Anxiously await your response. Hopefully it will remain for me to see.
