Now, when the share price is in $5-6 area, I would like to discuss with you and member of this very active board the general question about CEOs of public companies.
To tell the truth, I don't think that Dr. Missling is a very bad CEO. I think he is trying to do his best - hiring a former FDA specialist, partnership with Partex Group for AI development of drugs - these are his positive achievements. That is a pity, as a result of unskillful presentations of results of phase 2b/3 trial of blarcamesine we came to this pitiful situation.
And now my general question. My impression is that CEOs of public companies think that they are owners of companies and will remain CEO forever and can do anything they want.
Can you or anybody else explain why there are incentives for them? Is their salary is not good enough incentive? Again, my impression is that they introduce incentives for themselves. Of course, formally, this is not a case but only formally.
The largest "public company" is our country. And Presidents have their salary and no incentives. Let's consider public universities. There is no incentives there as well.
Dr. Missling bought recently half a million of shares with $1.7 price. Was this an incentive? His salary is $700,000. In usual life, as a university professor he could earn $150 K - 200 K. Do you agree this is a big difference? Of course, I am wrong if Dr. Missling invented blarcamesine.
Next question is how long a CEO of any public company can have this position? And again, presidents or chancellors of public universities have their position no more than eight years.
There are several other questions, however, I think it will be too much to ask them just now.
Please don't reply with your famous "Complete Nonsense", just give your point of view.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
