RE:RE:Chilled cheeseMaybe they are not aligned, but would they really have the pull to influence business decisions? They invested money, but I don't believe they were also given a seat at the table to tell Sernova what to do. Perhaps, Sernova can ask for their advice, but I don't think they can outright sway decisions.
Even if $4.5 mil is not enough, we still have extra cash to inject into the project. Sernova would have a good idea of what it costs to develop the technology based on the last 10 years of experience. If we can finally see some preclinical results or take the coating technology to the clinic, then we have an opportunity to dig a new moat for competitors to try and erase. Things have to continue moving steadily for us to maintain the lead. But you know what they say, slow and steady wins the race.
Yes we agree the valuation should go up as risks are removed. I think we also agree (I hope) that as these risks are removed, and the pockets are deepened, the companies growth should be somewhat parabolic. As the company grows in size so too should the number of parallel projects - what took 10 years to develop, should not take 10 years now. If the company grows in a straight oblique line, then I think our share price will dissapoint frequently. But if Sernova can focus on growing along a parabolic line, then things share price wise will be different.
But yes, our thesis' really do depend on securing a collaboration with money included. I believe this to be the only way we can propel the company forward. Positive clinical trial results would great share price wise, but a collaboration is what is needed company-wise. The thyroid debacle certainly was a dissapointment for retail investors, there is no denying that, but it certainly was not negative or concerning news. It's quite clear Sernova is not interested pumping the share price. I prefer this personally, they need to focus on the science and business side of things, not making retail investors smile.
In regards to the big pharma thinking like retail investors, thing, I have not rethought my stance. What I mean to say, is that big pharma is like reatil investors in the sense that they want to make an investment in a company, to then see that investment grow. The big difference is that a large pharmaceutical company will be doing much more sophisticated due dilligence before investing than any retail investor would have access to. But the concept is the same, they want to invest money, and then see that investment grow. The nice thing about Big Pharma, is that they aren't day traders or swing traders, they are long holds and they are largely unbiased by emotions. We just need to hope that their models project the company the same way we do. The biggest question mark is time. But Sernova does have an ace up their sleeves regarding potential fast track designations. They mentioned recently that they would like to use fast tracking in a strategic manner which is why they haven't attempted to fast track the current trial.
Anyway, the probe has a mind of its own, if it sees holes to poke, its gonna poke em.