InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 13
Posts 865
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 02/17/2017

Re: Suvorov post# 35547

Friday, 02/08/2019 4:17:08 PM

Friday, February 08, 2019 4:17:08 PM

Post# of 232961
It may be 1000% percent correct, but it still does nothing other than shout "it's hard!", "it's expensive!", etc. Nobody seems willing to put analysis to how expensive or difficult it actually is, nor why other companies are seemingly capable of it but it's impossible here. And again, the idea would be to cut planned, non-essential expenditures (continue to advance combo BLA and 510k, suspend everything else save maybe the TNBC trial) and redirect capital we've already raised or could raise with current A/S towards building a small team geared towards generating revenue - however minimal compared to standing estimates of market penetration - and then use that revenue to support further R&D and infrastructure growth. If this is so impossible, how does any company ever succeed at it?

And I'll repeat once more, this is not ideal, but might be necessary for negotiating leverage unless we want to hand a majority of revenue to a BP partner simply for existing and taking no financial risk along the way. If folks think that a viable path forward isn't necessary leverage for negotiations, then this whole conversation is moot anyway.

I'm likely out of pocket now for most of the weekend, but I can't wait to come back and read all of the well-reasoned responses I get. For the record... that was sarcasm, but I would honestly love to read a well-reasoned response to the question.
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent CYDY News