For 2+ years I've believed (and said) that the "science side" of the house is rock solid; however the management side--which is ultimately and completely responsible for projecting and managing EVERYTHING that the underlying science is (and isn't)--is grossly lacking.
Moreover, I've NEVER understood how several of the execs can own such a comparatively small portion of the OS (at least in their names), just check the filings--I own more than several of the principals--while Tim owns hundreds of millions, now into billions of shares: what specifically is the dynamic at play here? Is Tim essentially Daddy Warbucks and calls the shots period? Are the scientists--without whom this "business" is even more worthless than it has become under Tim--hostage to his vision and voice (either figuratively or literally)?
If the NM docs got suckered in like the rest of us, I can't imagine that they are happy or will take any of this lying down. Then again, how could they rationally and realistically invest to such an extent professionally without knowing Tim's business plan, IN DETAIL, for increasing market cap (the only meaningful measure of shareholder value) organically, aggressively, and steadily?
Furthermore, who but the stupidest dropout from project management school would engage in such public actions as touting the arrival of "marketing gurus" like Mells (and the blonde-haired lady who was apparently Dr. Gershman's social media wizard--I forget her name)--all of which suggests readiness to launch in a high-profile, public way--without having FIRST built the DEMAND to support such statements (and staff roles)? Where is the contingent thinking? Where is the keen awareness of game theory and REAL strategic thinking and planning? Where is the project manager who functions as a cunning and capable AWAC entity, scanning the terrain and continually reconciling the detailed strategy with the operational execution at extremely minute and compressed intervals?
Finally (for now), for as far back as I can recall, they have spoken of "commercializing" their patents rather than selling them. With that in mind, and in the context of public announcements about Mells, the "contract with Russia," etc., many invested much on the supposition that $CELZ-- having risen from the .002 range to where it was when I discovered it around .015 (when folks like Gershman and Said were posting on social media about CaverStem's effectiveness)--was on the early leg of an organic "lift-off." That was obviously NOWHERE near realistically supported by what was going on "behind the curtain."
So back to commercialization: from the moment they created a self-standing entity (CaverStem International--over which Gershman presides) I imagined that they might eventually sell that segment of the business. If THAT is what they mean(t) by "commercialization," I suppose that is an acceptable functional application of that word (as opposed to setting up the business and managing it going forward: it's clear that they do not have the ability to do that in anything even approaching a smooth and reasonably logical and predictable way).
