Junior biotech (and other technology) stocks should be funded as...

Junior biotech (and other technology) stocks should be funded as follows:
- management generates positive news
- good news leads to share price appreciation
- management take advantage of times of strong share price to raise significant funds to fund their R&D/product pipeline for the next few years

The incompetent fools who rang this company for so long (all of whom were dismissed in late 2007 for incompetence) had a slightly different view on funding:
- never have any good news
- never raise anywhere remotely near enough capital for the tasks at hand
- the amount of capital raised should be inversely proportional to the share price

Virax has had 17 capital raisings in 13 years, which is surely a record, not just for an Australian company, but quite possibly, for any company listed anywhere in the world.

You say that John Morrison said that Virax has raised enough capital for 12 months. Meanwhile:
- three of their four products are suspended (and have been since 2005) due to lack of funds, and even in a best case scenario, will remain suspended for quite some time
- the company lacks the cash to fund a Phase 11b trial in South Africa (assuming the Phase 11a trial is successful)
- Virax's balance sheet has negative shareholder's equity

And if that's not enough, the directors are taking their fees in the form of shares rather than cash due to the companies acute capital shortage.

All in all, I consider my view on Virax to be extremely balanced.