I think the notion that; 'If they had the goods, a BP would have snapped up this company for a song a long, long time ago..' is more misleading than my response, that it is 'not for sale'.
And that was the remark to which I was responding.
That statement implies that BP are plain not interested.
And it also suggests that if they had wanted to acquire NWBO, they could have bought it at any time that they had wished, at a lowball price.
So that was what what I was responding to.
BP don't have compulsory purchase rights!
I was responding to a misleading assertion with a somewhat flippant response. My response wasn't meant to be taken as an eternal axiom of truth. My apologies if you felt I was misleading.
I was alluding to a more general strain of personally held opinion. Behind my remark, I certainly was intimating that LP, imo, has no intention of selling, certainly not at this juncture.
That, doesn't mean that there have not been previous offers of total buyout or some form of partnership.
I would be very surprised if there hadn't been.
But we will never find that out, because such overtures are always made with complete secrecy.
I believe the only thing that would have militated against past offers being made, would be if there was a concerted freeze-out by all of BP, with an attendant expectation that NWBO would ultimately fail, if it was starved of resources. To 'wither on the vine' as it were.
Well, as they recently stated, they're still here..
Do you think a buyout might be imminent?
I don't.
Ultimately, you have to ask the question; 'what is LP in it for?'
Is it to aggrandise herself to the most ginormous level possible.
Or is it to achieve bringing to fruition, what she believes, is perhaps the most promising anti-cancer treatment, such that it becomes a form of worldwide SOC?
Well, obviously those two aspirations need not be mutually exclusive. That would be very unusual.
The old adage of 'everything has a price' generally holds true. But in this case, I would suggest that there is a bigger element of the latter aspiration, than perhaps many think.
Investors, be they institutions or individuals generally have a singular agenda. To make money!
And they don't generally have a philanthropic ambition to make the world a better place, even if they say they do.
That would certainly apply to BP who always talk about a desire to bring much-needed treatments to patients. But solely with the intent of maximising profit.
And yes, this is a publically quoted company. And LP cannot run it entirely as a personal fiefdom. Though I rather suspect she rues that from time to time.
She is a bit of a control freak, to coin a rather unattractive expression. And she has and will surround herself with others who will support her, and defer to her ambition, which is not (I believe) primarily about making the biggest pot of personal fortune.
So, in this case, there may be and probably will continue to be, a dynamic tension between the interests of shareholders/investors (as they themselves perceive them), and the ambitions of the company, as personified by LP.
It's already there. As you can tell by much of this message board content. I really don't think she is as concerned about what may happen to the share price in the short term aftermath of ASCO, as many of the investors here clearly are! Unless such a consequence would impede her longer term mission.
I take it as read that LP will endeavour to indefinitely maintain as much effective personal control as she can.
Perhaps most here would say; she just can't do that, it's a public company, what about fiduciary duty, and so on and so on.
Personally, I like things the way they are. It's one of the things that appeals to me about being here. And fits with my occasionally contrarian stance on things.
None of the above should be taken to mean that I discount any possibility of some sort of deal in the medium term.
But I certainly don't think it would be a lock, stock and barrel buyout. I just don't see that happening. But, a partnership, maybe with a not for profit institution, if it is necessary to keep the ship afloat, would possibly be accepted, even if it means relinquishing maybe 20% of autonomy and future earning potential.
Though LP will always wish to retain 'sovereignty'.
What was your question again??
