Ok, Scope. I’ll be as specific and forthright as possible. First, the place from where I’m coming: while at Ernst & Young (started at E&W prior to the merger) 90% of my time was spent working on IPOs. I know how to read (and draft) a Q and a K. I know what’s required, what’s permissible, and what’s not permissible. For 30 plus years after as a lawyer, I’ve represented nearly exclusively publicly traded companies in the Life Sciences snd Biotech space. I have spoken with every CEO at LWLG (except Lebby). I’ve spoken to JM. I’ve read every Q and K cover to cover. I know how to read notes to the financials. These are the things that matter to me. I know shit about the science, and that does impair my overall views somewhat. But I’ve never tried to opine on the science other than to speculate that the effusiveness from management doesn’t square with the company’s inability to sign deals.
The share price is the least meaningful metric in my view of the company. There are no past revenues or revenue projections, no meaningful physical assets, and the value of the patents is wildly speculative. My only thought on the PPS is that, because LWLG is in the Russell 2000, every index fund that tracks the Russell has to buy LWLG shares. With very limited float, my speculation is that this is what’s keeping LWLG in the 4s (but I could be wrong).
So, in sum, my views on the company management come from my experience, reading the Qs and Ks, speaking with management, and tracking management’s ability to deliver on its hype.
As far as I’m concerned, the science is sound, but has likely been oversold in its readiness for commercial “acceptance.”
Hope that helps.
