RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:New Filing today Nice to see you back!
I dont think your "Equally sorry story" on cash generation is fair...You dont flirt with bankrupcy when you generate cash with no debt! The damage to the Compagny resulting from the issuance of debt is near catastrophic...
With regards to Nash one has to wonder what would have happened if funds had been allocated to something similar to a phase 2 b rather than going into oncology with no expertise... and now with no financial resources
The best case in Phase 1 b in oncology is sufficient positive data to get a Large Pharma/Bio to undertake a Phase 2 trial ....
qwerty22 wrote: Problem is you can tell an equally sorry story on cash generation. For all the news Scarlett brings about Egrifta, some of it generated by the company, it doesn't look like they've convinced the clinical community that it's anything more than it was initially understood to be. The numbers on the drug suggest the drug profile hasn't changed all that much. So they bounce along with more or less similar Qs. Wino probably had it yesterday in saying controlling costs are their best options.
palinc2000 wrote: Going into debt in the first place was and is the most stupidest move a small biotech can make!!
The second stupidest move they made was to repay the first debt by debt under the pretense of 'non dilutive financing"" just to please large shareholders believing that the lottery ticket bought 4 years before would be a winning ticket.... Not only did it prove to be very dilutive and a lot more dilutive than it could have been and turned out to be almost 100% destructive..
The focus needs to be on cash generation and getting rid of Marathon...I think that this is their plan but time will tell
THobsv wrote: All of these comments are fair, they have lots of levers, they should hopefully have created reasonable adjusted EBITDA targets, etc. But we must remember this is a management team that raised equity at $1 to give them the cash they would have needed to satisfy the old cash requirements AFTER switching to an EBITDA target. They are not making smart or strategic decisions. We don't know what the targets are, anything is possible.
The most positive development to me, by far, is Soleus adding 9mm shares and tripling down on their investment. This is a tiny investment for them even after that add, but they could have just walked away. They also own a huge chunk of the company and can have more influence if they choose.
At this point we have to assume management will at best do minimal harm to the business, but shouldn't expect them to make any value add decisions and can't take anything for granted.