I don't see what you see.
So the debate has moved to "the ugly side of business vs science?" You don't think any company has talked with Titan about a partnership or buyout? And your argument is based on the pps as it stands today? If I misunderstood your position, I apologize.
Yep. I'm an upside vision person. I look for clarity of vision.
I think there have been discussions to partner or sell, and at the time, there was funding available to get us further down the road and the logic at that time was, "the closer we get to certification the more valuable SPORT becomes." Not implausible.
My view - or 10:
A) R&D is not an exact science. But ours has become a real product.
B) Business success is not a straight line.
C) Competition? It's out there, but where? If bringing another surgical robot to market were easy there would be more than 1 by now. We've heard from several other possible competitors. We also know how steep a climb it is to get as far as we have, and the significant amount of time it takes to get a patent application reviewed and approved. I suspect those competitive announcements were put into the public domain as mental obstacles to slow down budget commitments for SPORT. Why the announcements? No clue. Just opinion and the facts are TBD.
D) This robot is the key to a ++$20B market opportunity.
E) *** There are other medical device company CEO's that get paid BIG $$$ for performance. Medtronic has a 2016 $2.2B annual R&D budget. Where are they, or their competitors going to get $20B in new revenue in the next 5-10 years??? I think the $20B market estimate is very low, without any military medical estimates included. But it's an estimate and I like to err using conservative numbers.
F) M & A is king. R&D is more likely to create clarity for vision, and business intelligence that indicates what would be successful in the years to come. We have a product that allows SPORT to be part of that conversation TODAY. Not that said company's R&D budget will create "the" product that will generate the revenue growth. Which is why there is so much attention and emphasis on acquisitions. R&D is expensive with no guarantee of getting to the goal. It's cheaper to buy IP and a known product than create it from scratch. Mostly because time is expensive and unpredictable. Stuff can happen at any time in the future. (9/11 and the housing market collapse, to name a few)
G) IP is the definitive weapon of choice as a barrier to new market entry. That's not speculation. Our IP is unique, exists, designed by the experts that will use it.
H) Management contracts get renegotiated all the time. Move existing management over - new management takes over and rides out the old contracts. They don't have to spend more $ buying out the former contracts. How many contracts could there be in place? 3? 5?
I) There is a BoD and I suspect they've put the CEO on a clock. BIG $$$ kick started this change. But I don't know how good that is because I don't know what's transpired since SPORT was unveiled. Usually BIG $$$ has better information than I do. Hopefully.
J) There may be a new CoB this year. Who knows? Not me, and not anyone that's talking on this board.
You're invested. Why $.70/share buyout? I won't have an affect on the buyout if/when it's proposed to shareholders. I don't have enough votes. I just don't see such a low value when analyzing my conclusions. All IMO.
I hope all on this board reach a more peaceful state of mind - if only for a short time, until we're provided more information from which we can act.
Regards,
BK
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
