Mazola I'm happy for you that you are satisfied with CEO performance and think the share price accurately reflects the value of the opportunity in RVX. I disagree.

I think most of us here fully understand the relationship between the stock price and failed trials.  However when the finances are in a perpetual state of disarray a picture is not painted for the market that speaks to a company that will rise from failed trials.  The market cap is then excessively adversely affected and financings are excessively expensive and dilutive. Very basic business IMO.

In the case of RVX, IMO the CEO has for many years done an absolutely horrific job of getting and keeping the financial house in order and has accomplished very little to no business development (other than very recently bringing in Eversana - which IMO is a smart move).  To me the company should have long ago been positioned to explore all opportunities for Apabetalone, not to mention other clinic ready compounds we've heard about but haven't seen, instead of just focussing on one extraordinarily long program which bleeds cash.  Shorter programs such as HIV, Sepsis and now PAH hold the potential to bring interest and investment to the company as well as broaden the opportunity base and improve the risk profile of the company at the same time. Thus far none of these opportunities have been successfully followed up on.

IMO these glaring failures in business execution are why a ph3 company with BTD and a potentially outstanding Covid therapy sits at a market cap multiples below what it would be worth if it were competently run and in obviously solid financial shape.  Don made a comment awhile back that biotechs are always looking for cash.  While this is true, the well run companies always have cash on the books and therefore do not have to accept financings that devalue the company.  This in turn attracts investors and supports the market price making future financings more reflective of the value inherent in the company.

As far as Zenith goes I think it could be argued either way at the time of the split. Was decreasing the opportunity base and increasing the risk profile of RVX a good trade for protecting the Zenith IP from an RVX business failure?  Don never came through on his repeated promises that RVX preferreds would be protected from dilution.

One of the advantages of a private company is that financings generally tend to be more reflective of the EV of the company and are not susceptible to the vagaries of the stock market. The trade off is greatly decreased liquidity for investors. The sale of Constellation set a very relevant bench mark for the value of a phase2 epigenetic cancer program but yet Zenith, with arguably more advanced science, is doing financings at about 13% of the bench mark. Are investors reaping the benefits of the advantages of being in a private company?  Will investors be getting an opportunity at fairly priced liquidity in the near term? Should the CEO be doing a better job or be replaced?  After almost 9 years, fair questions IMO.