RE:RE:Am I Out Of Line Here?"what responsiblity do you put on the senior managment teams of highly educated people in the multiple chairs created to drive us forward, and to end up such a failure??,,do they not carry 100% of the burden of responsibility for our failure to launch anything of true value...missed milestones,,,,cheap deals,,,zero interest from large investing sources..."
Shareholders own the company and it takes money to make money in business. In biotech it generally takes a lot of money to make money. The gold standard is generally at least two years of cash, no debt, and a plan that puts the company in charge of its own story. Imagine a different world where shareholders directed management to do what was necessary for the business instead of trying to pinch pennies to avoid dilution. After Mark Day failed to raise the US$10 million/+ necessary to move the business forward and control BTI's own story, imagine if shareholders directed Mark Day to get the US$10 million on BTI's balance sheet at all costs. Bite the bullet. Take the big hit. Imagine if shareholders instead of trying to get Rathjen to swear off dilution got her to do what's right and get US$10 million/+ on the balance sheet to control BTI's own story. Imagine if instead of spending the last decade in a state of permanent financial emergecy pinching pennies to avoid dilution and living a hand-to-mouth existence off tiny financings and increased debt(a don't for biotech), there was US$10 million/+ cash to back a plan forward. Would the market have been as afriad to invest in BTI? Imagine if potential partners over the last decade had been able to look at BTI's balance sheet and see a company that was financially strong with a viable busines plan that was moving forward. Would potential partners have had more confidence in investing alongside BTI? Where would BTI be now? Where would partners be now? Imagine if BTI had invested in its own plan over the last decade and had non-human primate data and human trial data now. By not encouraging BTI's management to do what's right by the business long ago and raise the neccesary money at all costs did shareholders encourage management to live in a permanent state of financial emergency, take on increasing debt, not get in control of BTI's own story for a decade, and eventually hit a big bad bear market in biotech with few options? Did the dilution and wasted time become that much worse by not doing what was needed long ago? Sometimes it can take a crisis for people to finally do the right thing for their health. Only now BTI seems to be trying to do what's right for the business and it hurts. On a positive note xB3 may finally have the cash, resources, scale, opportunity set and plan to push forward that it has always needed. Biodexa is a great reset. Patients are cheering.
On one side the the border there was Denali and on the other side of the border there was BTI with potentially superior technology. The trajectory of both companies could not be more different over the last 7 years. Did a Canadian shareholder base retard BTI's development over the last decade by not doing what's right for a biotech business?
Does Canadian BTI with British Midatech now have a chance to take the learnings of Denali and build a plan forward to leap-frog American Denali on the global stage?