It has come to my attention that a long-term shareholder/trader of GLIA is not necessarily comfortable with the ethics of management. He/she is just shaky, given the past history of biotech.... he/she has no specific complaints.
Brief intro to why I am comfortable.......
As many of you know, I may ride garbage for a quick buck if I get a chance, but I never actively research a company, for a prolonged period, unless I am comfortable with the ethics of management.
I have spoken to Rod Dausch on one occasion. He took sufficient time to bring me up to date with respect to all public disclosures. There was open discussion of the hurdles, real and perceived, that would be presented at the advisory committee meeting. He was not sugar coating the issues. The report of that discussion is somewhere archived in the old "quick cash" thread. If you read it (a link is given in this thread, I believe), you will get a feel for GLIA ethics.
I have seen clarification of public disclosures that have been posted to the Yahoo thread after shareholders have contacted the company. I am comfortable that those clarifications have been sound guidance and restricted to information that was readily available to any interested party.
Moreover, I was a shareholder in Collaborative Research. Oesterling was initially V.P. R&D and moved later to CEO. CR was an attempt, initially, to commercialize the new (!) science of "REFLIPs". A good concept born in the early (1984?), naive days of biotech, the business plan failed. However, the company walked a great line, IMO..... I never felt as though management didn't give its best efforts.
You can tell something about management from their efforts to limit dilution, to grow the business for the interests of all shareholders, and from the salary that they command while doing such. IMO, Oesterling and Peter Johnson are cut from the same mold.
All of that said, you can put the finest of ethics behind a garbage business plan and go nowhere. Do your own homework, as my crystal ball is still in the shop. |
