According to AMPE's Q3 10-q it had $20 million in cash and was spending ~$2.5 million/quarter. Logically, $20 million - 5 quarters (i.e. end of 2013) spending $2.5 million/quarter = $ 7.5 million. The company, in an 8-K, has also said it has committed to spend $12.8 million on CROs this year (2013) for Optina and Ampion.
Simple math shows that AMPE will almost certainly run out of money by the end of 2013, and will need to raise money. AMPE announced on 7/12/12 that it was selling 4.6 million shares at $3.25. AMPE closed on 7/11/12 at $4.28. 4.28 down to 3.25 is a bid drop....
The math is what it is for now. I agree that should they continue with their plans then at some point in time this year they will have to raise funds. However one should also consider that math does not give us any hint if they will find some other means to get some money - like finding a partner (never say never) or if they will focus on one (Optina or Ampion) rather than both. Anything is possible in the realm of business. Point is, the changes in priorities by management process can take care of the math problem to some extent and give them some breathing space. Question is will they deliver - both in terms of data and revenue in their very first attempt on the first drug that they present to the FDA. If they succeed, the market wont give a damn to any math, else the will be doomed.
Pretty high stakes here for everyone - investors, the company and of course the patients.
Did you ever think that following the "transfer" of the development process to third party providers for clinical trials, the expense structure of the company may be different? That now that they no longer have internal pre-clinical development expenses, their burn rate may change? Maybe they just screwed up and didn't realize that $12.8M would be coming out when they made their cash flow predictions? Maybe they are just lying?
I don't know. But I do know that chances are they have a better understanding of their burn rate going forward than you do. Or maybe we are all just getting screwed over, and you managed to have caught them in their lies.
I guess we all just need to bet... one way or the other. I would venture that moving product to third party clinical development on a contract basis would tend to reduce internal product development costs. But what do I know.
If they are unable to get an upfront payment for being able to license Zertane to a third party Pharma, then they can rasie funds through some sort of debt financing as opposed to a stock offering that dilutes shareholders.