Originally posted by J.W.Pepper
not sure why you keep calling C.R.? end June cashflow - $25mill. in th bank, approx. $16mill outgoing over next 2 quarters, potential R&D Tax incentive of around $7mill. to come in Jan., leaves them with around $16mill. in the bank at the start of 2019, and loans are very manageable - Money looks o.k to me.
The reason that I continue to talk about the need for a capital raising is because they have negative net cash.
What this means is that they have more debt than cash.
They may well be able to lead the market to optimism, by quoting gross cash balance of $18m or whatever the actual number is - but they have borrowings of $20m that costs I think from memory 9% p.a. interest.
It is not cheap money.
The Board should not be happy diving deeper into debt - that is just the way boards are - conservative.
It is self evident that "exploration" companies in minerals, energy and biotech sould not operate on borrowed money and it is why most raise funds when the net cash gets below about $5m.
In a nutshell, it is a really dumb strategy to borrow for "exploration" when there is no reliable, recurrent income.
The money they get from Merck each year is basically to pay wages for a number of scientists - more or less contract research sort of an approach.
So, I do not regard that as real recurrent income - as I would get for a royalty or for product sales.
The near term may bring a tax refund to square the books and maybe get back into a net positive cash position, but it is a temporary fix.
The CEO has been trying to sell the oncology assets for more than six months - if not more like 12 months or more - with no evidence of progress.
All the while, the agitation trial will be draining funds.
I note that a few other posters seem disgruntled about CEO's remuneration - and with good reason in my opinion.
My last post was modded for making unsubstantiated comments - I trust that this post helps to clarify the basis of why I believe that a capital raising is needed in the near future.
I would be happy to hear why anyone believes that spending borrowed money on clinical trials or research makes commercial sense unless insolvency does not cause any fear for the board - or unless there is a very real near term possibility of an asset sale or milestone payment (in tehcase of a biotech).
There is insufficient information in the public domain to dismiss these concerns about cash - sorry if you do not see why.
