What is “remarkable” to me is the fact that all the “naive” retail investors are being warned about several issues: Lincoln Park and deceptive management tactics among them. As noted previously, Lincoln Park is not a new source of funding at all (been involved since approximately 2012). In fact, they [Lincoln] have been used extraordinarily skillfully by the same supposedly “deceitful” management that we all continue to hear about.
When I first bought shares in 2007/2008, I believe the o/s count for LWLG was around 35 million. Now, 16 years later, it’s around 115 million. Thus, shareholders have endured about eighty million shares of dilution at very favorable terms (relatively speaking), compared to “death spiral” like financing that many/most OTC companies are forced to accept. And yet, this is one of the main issues “naive“ investors are suppose to “suddenly” be concerned about. Any management team that can navigate 16 years of operation doing R and D as a pre-revenue company (tech, bio-tech, etc) and average only 5 million shares of dilution per year ought to be applauded - not maligned. In the face of this normal/needed dilution, I have never (ever) seen a pre-revenue company manage to maintain its price for a decade as LWLG did - in fact, that’s one factor which helped convince me to keep holding (as it strongly signaled, as it still does currently, the underlying belief by the investor community of eventual success).
Sure, private equity or venture money would, or might have been preferred, but, make no mistake, those entities would have been getting a “discounted” stake as well. So, why myopically and obsessively focus on what didn’t happen - painting an inherently negative picture - and ignore what LWLG’s management achieved (especially as the years progressed), negotiating - by any OTC stock standard - very favorable pricing terms with Lincoln (often very close to the current market price at the time).
Attempting to spin Lincoln Park as another “warning signal” for investors - yet another piece of LWLG’s plot to “string them along” - is possibly as weak a part of the argument as any of the highlighted “warning issues.” Ironically, and essentially in complete contradiction to the nefarious implications alluded to and implied by these warnings, the exceptional adept and savvy actions that management invoked - all of which benefitted shareholders handsomely - is yet another absolute testimony to their dedication and commitment.
In spite of what “alternative” views have been stated on this subject, the above presents a very different, but fair, realistic, and balanced perspective - one that investors might want to consider. I know others have shared similar thoughts and ideas on this subject in the past.
Best,
Tod
AI
