Greg -- What's to post?? I find myself (ugh!) in an unlikely agreement with RPG, et al, in so far as it's now a waiting game. Patience is about all we can have... However, to stir up some ugly reminders, I can offer the following:
We still have no President, nor any hint that one is even being considered. Naturally, while appointing one with whom the investment community is familiar and can take comfort in could do wonders for our share price, that's not likely to happen. I suspect that since ACEL management is not particularly interested in improving shareholder value (even the supporters have got to ask themselves "why" by now!) and therefore feels that since they've come this far in the end game without one, there's not much that a new one could bring to the table at this point; hence, we will muddle along.
We still have no prospective marketing or distribution licensees. Again, though this would do wonders for shareholder value, management seems determined to avoid committing to a strategic direction in this vein. Naturally, to be this close to having a saleable product with no announced plans or intentions for its manufacture, marketing or distribution strikes me as incredibly naive from a business standpoint, but then what do I know, right?! However, I suspect that the investment community probably sides with my judgement and lack of faith in this respect; hence our continuing lack of institutional support, resulting in thin volume and declining share price.
We still have the same old management team running ACEL; Tina at the helm and Gail manning the sails. After nearly a year with the revised Board of Directors in place, no significant changes have occurred in the business direction for ACEL. Therefore, I believe that all the investment community can conclude is that nothing has changed at ACEL and the new Directors are just along for the ride in the long shot that Onconase eventually pans out; hence, no volume, no commitment, no shareholder value.
We still have no corporate communications. As much as I liked Donna personally, for whatever reason(s), she did not prove to be markedly effective in her position while at ACEL. In fairness, I suspect that it was not her fault, but that of the 'muzzle' she wore at the direction of Tina and Gail. The vaunted marketing programs under development by, first, Stephen Carter, then, McCormick Communications, have gone absolutely no where. Even thought each of these had more than half a year to develop a strategy and prepare material before we found ourselves in the midst of the largest "cancer cure" frenzy I can remember, we opted to sit it out on the sidelines, lamenting that we weren't going to "gin up something quick and dirty just to ride on the coattails of [recent] publicity". Forgetting for a moment that we should have had ample material prepared by now, and should not have to 'gin up' anything, I say "Why Not?" You have to start selling Alfacell Corp [to Institutional Investors] and Onconase sometime, and I just don't see anything remotely wrong with riding a tidal wave that fortuitously happens along in your direction; hence, we remain largely unknown.
We still will have to raise substantial funds to carry forward the NDA filing, its prosecution, and to underwrite the financial requirements necessary to shift from a biotech r&d company to a pharmaceutical company. I'm somewhat surprised that no one's asked, yet, where this money is going to come from!!! If you think trapping a few frogs and spinning their eggs down in a blender to fund some clinical trials was expensive, wait till you get a look at the price tag for manufacturing Onconase in commercial quantities to meet indicated and off-label demand plus MDR applications, not to mention the cost of marketing, distribution, continuation of the oncology trials for other indications, and expansion of the r&d effort to better exploit the potential of the base rnase technology itself.
So, there you go. A reasonably thoughtful post on the status quo.
From a business perspective, I strongly believe that ACEL management must take the necessary steps to escalate the stock price into the $10-14/share range well before the NDA filing takes place in order to pre-position the company to better negotiate the licensing arrangements and strategic partnerships that will have to come, WITHOUT giving away the farm in the process. We can have no strength or credibility while we continue to wallow at 47K shares average daily volume with a stock price that seems comfortable at $2.5/share.
Shareholders need to start demanding some change. We went through this same exercise last year, and thanks to the indecision of some major shareholders and brokers, and the defection of others, we find ourselves in this current sorry state of affairs. I hope those of you who fall into these two groups are sufficiently proud of yourselves. Not only have you cost yourselves and fellow shareholders significant monetary gains, you have also perpetuated a situation that continues to delay availability of Onconase for those people who need it most. At a minimum, shareholders and the Directors need to demand that:
-- An executive placement firm be employed to locate outside candidates for President of ACEL.
-- the Alfacell management develop and disseminate a DETAILED strategic plan to shareholders that answers questions concerning (i) how the company will answer the financial burden of shifting from a r&d company to a pharmaceutical company, (ii) plans to support the commercial manufacture, marketing and distribution of Onconase, (iii) plans to expand the future r&d business segment for other oncologic indications, anti-viral applications, and rnase technology development; all prior to distribution of the next officers election ballot this fall.
-- ACEL management develop and implement as soon as practicable, a marketing plan that at a minimum provides clear and concise information on the status, potential and relative proven efficacy of Onconase in oncologic applications, anti-viral applications, its adjunct role in overcoming MDR, and in the potential of rnase technology as a whole; and, that this information be directed to the appropriate science and technology editors at all of the major U.S. news organizations, practicing oncologists, oncology department heads at all U.S. cancer treatment hospitals and centers, and biotech analysts at all major brokerages in the investment community.
-- the ACEL BOD initiate a Board investigation and review of major business decisions in the area of strategic planning, finance and marketing, as well as management practices employed by current ACEL management, and provide shareholders with a summary accompanied by recommendations for any remedial actions deemed necessary.
-- the ACEL BOD require ACEL management team to initiate (ASAP) substantive discussions with responsible parties to investigate potential licensing and strategic partnership opportunities, and that they direct management to present a summarization of each opportunity in the area of corporate finance, pharmaceutical manufacturing, marketing and distribution, for discussion prior to, and debate at, the next annual shareholders meeting.
Well, that ought to be enough to engender some follow on discussions on this thread for a little while, anyway. If you agree, fine. If you don't, that's fine too! But PLEASE don't send me any private emails chiding me for one thing or another unless you also have 25 years or more of successful business expertise that includes public companies, startups and turnarounds, with at least some substantial P&L responsibility along the way. Regards. --John |
