InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 63
Posts 10793
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 11/10/2014

Re: jaime9_2000 post# 21996

Thursday, 04/18/2019 4:48:23 PM

Thursday, April 18, 2019 4:48:23 PM

Post# of 44784
Yes but the raising cash was NOT to say they didn't have sufficient cash
to go forward for a quarter or two. I call that INSURANCE for periods longer than that.
The financials are left to you and I to determine when if any they will have a need. The burn rate was pretty clear they'd need some for the outlying quarter or 6 months. That's not mis-representation in my mind.

Further, a company needn't announce well in advance of the intentions to issue shares. We need to be vigilant and examine the financials to conclude that.

ARS pivotal trial- Yes they had "sufficient funding" for it through mostly grants.. But that's not all they're doing. They have multiple trials/studies going on in multiple diseases each of which burns cash . It should be clear that ARS is only 1 part of the cost pie.
And I see no change from their statement that the ARS pivotal trial won't be completed in the 2nd half of '19.

My conclusion- They did "sufficient cash for the next quarter or two" and the issuance of shares was insurance for future quarters.
The onus is on us to determine whether they're cash strained or not. Based on our reading of the financial statements and the cash burn.
Some here said they would be diluting after they analyzed the financials. They were right... but not for the reasons given. PSTI was not in a cash bind nor are they now.
While I understand your view I don't believe we were misled .