Wow, I couldn't disagree with you any more than I do. You really think Alliance was created just because Dean can inexplicably make a share price go up? It's not because he has experience taking small companies with good tech ideas public? It's not because he has experience navigating the mine field of FDA applications? It's not because he has demonstrated success or business acumen? The way I see, Alliance is a product of Dean's track record of experience and success applicable to small tech start-ups, and all the more power to him for it.
I have never bought into the worry that people have about the timing of Alliance. The fact is, it is a very very minor time commitment. He is not running any of these companies, just providing some consultation services to help them navigate the obstacles small businesses face growing into their own. It is no different (indeed, probably even less of a big deal), than the thousands of CEOs out there who serve on multiple Boards, or the CEOs of companies whose job it is manage many other smaller companies (e.g., Warren Buffett).
To the contrary, I have always viewed the timing of the Alliance venture as a very good sign that we are at the end of the road in our FDA process. The fact is, there is nothing left for Dean to do on the FDA front right now. He submitted his application on April 5. After a couple of weeks, he and the FDA caught up by phone and email about a couple of minor issues. Those minor issues were addressed on the spot. Now we are in the silent / waiting period. Should he just be sitting around waiting for the fax to come in or another call from the FDA? If he was, I would be worried that he didn't think we had the Approval this time around. The fact that he joined up to offer a few hours a month of consultation services to a couple of start-ups tells me he believes we're done with the FDA.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
