News Focus
News Focus
icon url

Hypi

06/11/16 10:16 AM

#266539 RE: chenzo11 #266533

I worked for two companies in high tech that have the same similar patterns at PPHM. Both are still in business and like PPHM had revenues in the $50M range.

It became apparent that the companies were run for the benefits of the BOD and Executive team to cash out big money thru salaries and/or stock. Neither ever made a real profit, but were able to keep things going by diluting shareholders thru secondaries and the infamous ATM.

They both always had promises of a new product or an existing product that would change their industry. Plenty of big name partnerships and proof of concepts along with trials that would supposedly lead to big sales. Both had offerings that generated revenue, but it was always sucked into R&D efforts and the pockets of the executive team. I joked once that one the of the companies broke Dimaggio's 56 game hitting streak because they hit 57 consecutive quarters without turning a profit.

Both these companies are still around and believe it or not have the same CEO with his little band of executives who are overpaid and rewarded with options every year. The only good news is that they both had low floats when it started, so they would sell shares when their options vested.

These companies have wallowed between $3-$5 some how and allowed the executives to get restricted shares at .01 and then dump later. Always interesting, but clearly never in favor of shareholders. They would get an investor(s) to buy shares at $3 and raise $10 million to keep the lights on and those investors would dump at the first chance when a pump was made in the stock.

PPHM executives may even be dumping their shares thru some back door vehicle for all we know, but probably can't because the price has continued to stagnate.

They need to turn profitable and leverage AVID for all its worth and get over their BAVI efforts. Let these trials continue at the expense of shareholders.
icon url

Protector

06/13/16 9:25 AM

#266636 RE: chenzo11 #266533

chenzo, your reply is out of context. I was referring to the provisions PPHM build into the SUNRISE protocol in case the control arm would outperform expectations and in case a new SOC would appear during the SUNRISE trial.

These have been explicitly mentioned and hence this applies:

And my theory is that you do not build a door on the hen-house to keep the fox out and then leave the door continuously open during the night.