A very thought provoking post by JDStox over on Stockhouse yesterday regarding biOasis expectations vs. results.

--------------------------------------------------

It is right and proper, digitel, to compare the column of expectations against the column of results. We all must do it. And if the results don't meet expectations then we have some questions to ask, choices to consider and decisions to make. Here are just a few of the questions:

Were the company's expectations realistic at the time of their articulation?

Did we understand the expectations?

Were our expectations realistic?

Why were the expectations not met?

Did the company understand the pharmas' cultures sufficiently to create realistic expectations?

As investors, do we understand corporate culture sufficiently to understand what the barriers are to licensing Transcend to them?

How many of the pharmas just wanted to take a look at Transcend's performance but had no idea how they might use it?

How many of the underlying drugs failed in the Transcend studies, obviating the possibility of doing a licensing deal?

How many studies were done correctly and successfully but the opportunity that was created was never taken to the highest corporate levels? (A study can be done correctly but unsuccessfully. An example would be when Transcend delivered the drug, but the drug failed.)

Did the pharmas execute studies correctly? How many errors did the pharmas make with respect to fusion protein structure, dosing, delivery, animal models, analysis and reporting, to name a few possibilities (or probabilities or actual incidents.).

Did the pharmas undertake the studies in good faith? Did they ever intend to consider a licensing agreement or did they just want to learn something about their own drug for free?

Did (does, should) biOasis have sufficient Quality Assurance Systems (such as ISO9000 QAS policies, procedures and audits) in place to adequately monitor the pharmas' studies at each and every step?

Should biOasis have dedicated oversight personnel on staff for this purpose?

Should we even deal with pharmas that will not allow us to monitor the studies?

Is it even possible to adequately monitor studies at the pharmas' labs?

Whether we correctly understood the expectations or not, have we investigated the real reasons why they were not met, or are we just going to throw public and private accusations at the company and its executives and board members? 

If we are not prepared to do the due diligence that is required to fully understand the expectations and the results, good or bad, should we even be invested in a stock like this, one that we're not even trying to understand?

Have we all read and understood the blue sky and forward-looking statement clauses in MD&As and press releases? What do they say about expectations? 

Do you know, or even care to know, whether the underlying Transcend technologies have failed or underperformed in any way?

If the Transcend peptide has performed as hoped, how does that affect the probability that biOasis will sign licensing deals, regardless of expectations/results comparisons?

If you're not going to do your own due diligence, then whose views about the company should you trust, those from a poster like digitel who alternately presents have-baked versions of both sides of every question, who has nothing to lose by being selective in his arguments, and for whom lies have no consequence? Or should you believe the company that has everything to lose, both legally and financially, if it knowingly states and spreads lies?

How close to signing deals was biOasis before Mark Day was hired?

Can Mark Day or any CEO actually influence the closing of a licensing deal? Or in the end, must Mark Day wait for pharmas to make their own pipeline decisions, just as Rob Hutchison has had to wait? 

How does Mark Day's experience with technology evaluation, clinical trials, and deal negotiation enhance the probability and timing of new deals and the earliest possible completion of clinical trials?

I understand, digitel, that your mindless comparisons of expectations and results represent only the bashing half of your robotic copy/paste posts. We all understand that the other half of your posts, the pumping ones where you endlessly copy and paste the extraordinarily well-spoken words of Mark Day, are meant to assist your selling after you've bought your fill.

I understand why you don't assess the future prospects of biOasis. You're a trader and traders are not long on a stock, so the future is beyond your consideration. And without a knowledge base, you probably can't even comprehend the future.

But the rest of you here had best start thinking about the future, and whether the expectations/results comparisons are all that you need to inform you about the decision that you must make every day - should you sell, buy or stay.

jdstox