"We don't need the added risk that mgmt may not succeed."
Not to be obvious, but the fact that we're even talking about a reverse split can only mean one thing; management has failed to get the job done when it comes to securing this company's financial future.
Jake, your comment about the risk of the science not working is the key point in all of this. That very fact, that it might not pan out, is the fundamental reason why management's first responsibility is making sure their finances are in order.
Personally, any plan for a reverse split has to come with structural changes to the company, starting with a new management team, and ending with a real and non-dilutive investment in this company. Preferably, both should be tied to together so that the shareholders finally have some assurance of management alignment with their interests.
Anything short of that and this company is certainly dead meat because of the one other issue with this company that's always bothered me, they don't own their technology, they've only licensed it.
(N.B. Cotara excepted, but that's not worth all that much anyway, it's a retread as far as I'm concerned.)
So long as they're not a financially sound organization there's simply no motivation for someone to come in and rescue them. Who knows, there might even be a poison pill equivalent in the licensing terms that would revert to UTSW after a change in ownership.
Regards,
moby
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
