When the company is successful (that is the share price has gone...

When the company is successful (that is the share price has gone 10x,) you are a multi billion market cap, then by definition there has been huge insto support that has delivered that outcome. So in the end Insto buy-in absoluetely has driven SP performance and witnesses intrinsic value creation. Perhaps one can argue that amongst yet to be sucessful small caps, the role of insto vs retail is not a determining factor. This is just stating the obvious it seems. But again you have said that biophama love insto support (Merchant). So not sure what to make of your comment. Some of the generalisations about instituational investorts dont gel at all with my experice of 20 years as an institutional equity investor. "Its a big bad world and only i cant protect you..", doenst feel good to me either and nor does a recently past senior executive trying to separate himslef from the current strategic repositioning shareprice action. Originally, there was imminent value delivery mooted due to the benefits of all prior trials with a drug that was less cardio toxic.Then we ended up adding a pillar on resaerching new non bisantrene agents. That instead of progressing 220. Scatter gun/vanity project. Now we are focussed back on cardio-protection. Am i surmising correctly that old management gave trial timelines knowing that the key element to delivering that (formulation of 220) was unresolved internally? How were those timelines presented when management was not yet internally aligned on development of 220 as you are suggesting? That would have been a good time to change ones sentiment to: none. Or is this all just trying to distance onself from the decsion that you could do it without 220? That woud be an acceptable error of judgement thats one should own.