RVX Board Thoughts Mar 18 2022 – Wishful Thinking
posted on
Mar 18, 2022 01:37PM
It was helpful to me to see the shareholder update in the Mar 10th, 2022 Life Sciences Investor Forum (p4). It’s an impressive list and we are all caught in the same spot having our investments eroded over many years. My investments are small in comparison so I can get out if I choose. The bigger investors can’t get out without the share price plummeting.
Back 20 years ago when I was working with a promising startup company building a strategic plan a young, very bright Western MBA who had about 7 years of experience in venture capital at the time told me that the most significant problem that happens with start ups is that they either fail to ask for or fail to achieve sufficient financing in the early stages in order to keep advancing their products/services without having to continuously panic and be distracted by the continuous need for new funds. Remarkably RVX has managed to stay alive but it is a constant state of disarray due to ineffective financing. For example, perhaps the decision to not do the futility analysis in BOM and the previous trial were the result of insufficient funds, hence losing 4 to 5 years in apabetalone’s march to being an approved drug.
In the past when I have been critical of management other posters reminded me that Don is not working in a vacuum. He reports to the Board of Directors. So why is a company with FDA BTD in this fragile financial state and why isn’t the board doing their job?
It doesn’t take long to examine the 5 person BOD and come to the conclusion that it has structural and resource deficits.
It is fine to have accountants but their skill will be required more when RVX becomes a revenue generating company.
What this company needs is biotech financial gurus to occupy the majority of board seats.
My recommendation to RVX is as follows;
Given that the BOD is supposed to represent the interests of shareholders this structure should improve accountability, reporting and integrity.
This, of course is wishful thinking but it sure would move the business ahead a lightning speed.
On a separate observation the Asian interest in ownership (Hepa = 34.6, ORI = 6.6., CTS China = 4.2, Efung Shenzhen = 1.2) is large at 46.6% share ownership. We know that ORI and Hepaliknk work together but beyond that I don’t know if there is any significance.
Does anyone know what the CTS China Fund V Partnership is?
I just tried to review the Mar 10th presentation again and can’t get in so just a couple of points from recall.
Best of luck to all. I’m hoping good times are coming. Happy spring.
Toinv