Aiming, my post to gfp was really about the valuation arithmetic; I mentioned the “slam dunk” stuff only in passing to illustrate how much of a turn-off that kind of talk can be to serious investors with a lot of money at stake. How many times did you hear the thing stated about PARS?
Now, back to Jim H. To put it bluntly, I am astonished that you would question his motives. Did you listen to Jim’s questions at the annual meeting? If so, how can you not like the guy?
Jim’s argument to management couldn’t be simpler; he is saying, “Hey! I’m the one who is risking my money here --stop taking so much of the company’s valuation pie for yourself and leave some for me!” This is exactly the way I would expect someone with a boatload of money invested in the company to feel. In fact, if Jim did not feel this way, that’s when I would question his motives.
You say you are surprised that Jim does not seem to care much about the science of Ampakines. Well, the short answer is he cares more about his large investment. Jim presumably sees Ampakines as a means to an end, and that’s how it should be when investing. Falling in love with the science is generally a bad thing, as it will cloud objectivity. Once again, PARS stands out as a shining example.
Back to valuation for a moment: in a nutshell, Jim’s beef with management is that the lofty share price that Jim once thought would be attainable no longer is on account of the much greater fully-diluted share count. You can forget about Neuro’s $12 target: that’s simply not gonna happen. My guess is that, if everything proceeds without a hitch, you might be able to see $4 by year end and perhaps $5 by mid 2006. And those numbers are probably much, much less than what Jim originally hoped for.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
