What's the difference if mgmt tries to do more themselves and to do this, they use the atm machine which results in massive dilution. Or they partner with someone with the resources to advance many balls faster but have to dilute via the partner route? Nothing. The only difference I see is that dilution via the atm machine benefits mgmt with their game of transferring ownership to themselves via options/incentives. And they have some control over share price by dumping atm shares to kill any rally. How many time has that happened? These guys are not dumb and there is a reason the bod is like it is. No oversight or transparency.
The question I wonder about is what is Thorpe and UTSW thinking when they see ground breaking technology being slow played because of lack of resources? (IST's are a good example of putting yourself at the mercy of someone else's priorities). The lacking is due to mgmt's motivations which don't seem to be aligned with shareholders. They can still sell ATM shares but at least get decent value for them. Granted the share price might get there at the end of the rainbow but the dilution would have been much smaller if the atm shares were sold at much higher prices.
One other thought. I see Seattle Genetics with a $1.6 bil market cap for a drug that's already been partnered and may reach 8,500 potential patients? If the market is valuing that correctly, what is bavi or cotara worth?
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
