A board should be able to see what remains uncertain

A research company asks its board to commit resources before it knows the answer. That uncertainty is central to the work, rather than a defect that finance can eliminate by requesting a more confident forecast. I want directors to understand what management proposes to learn, which expertise supports the plan and what obligations the expenditure creates. The financial account should make those questions easier to ask. It should not imply that a funded programme is scientifically sound merely because its costs have been approved.

I have presented to Velmara's board since becoming CFO in May 2018. I do not hold a director appointment or an independent committee position. My responsibility is management's financial preparation: the estimates, scenarios, commitments and recommendations that accompany the scientific account. Qualified research, medical and regulatory leaders retain their respective responsibilities. The board's oversight benefits from those perspectives being available together, including disagreement where a decision requires more than one kind of judgement.

Portfolio choices need an account of stopping as well as proceeding. After a programme did not meet its predefined development criterion, the board considered a scientific recommendation against the proposed expansion. Finance compared USD16 million of next-year expansion with USD2.6 million of closeout and transition. The historical USD31 million explained the scale of effort already invested but did not establish a case for another commitment. Participant follow-up, records and people consequences remained visible. Directors could accept the evidence without mistaking closure for the disappearance of every responsibility.

Funding decisions also need a credible sequence. A balance of USD92 million at June 2026 did not tell the board whether all intended research was financed. An eighteen-month base case used USD78 million and a downside used USD96 million. The difference came from operating and receipt assumptions that management could explain. Some shareholders preferred to wait for a later readout before raising equity. We compared that opportunity with the exposure created by waiting, rather than treat dilution as the only cost in the decision. The later round improved funding capacity without resolving the scientific uncertainty.

I expect the account to distinguish commitments already made from proposals that remain adjustable. A supplier order may bind the company before the relevant study activity begins, while an apparent budget reduction may leave cancellation and closeout costs. Legal and operating colleagues help explain those terms. Finance should not tell directors that a programme is flexible merely because expenditure has not yet appeared in the ledger. The board needs enough visibility to understand which future decisions are still available and what changing direction would require.

Conditional partnership value belongs in that same discussion. An agreement with USD12 million upfront and up to USD48 million later can be strategically important without placing USD60 million at management's disposal. The board should see the conditions, timing and responsibilities alongside the commercial opportunity. Accounting revenue is another assessment, not a synonym for either the headline or the receipt. Keeping these descriptions separate allows directors to challenge the funding plan without asking the negotiating team to deny the value of the agreement it has achieved.

Reliable estimates support these choices. A USD3.8 million omission from an initial research-services estimate showed why invoices alone were an incomplete view of activity. Correcting the account was necessary even though it made the period look less favourable. I want an audit discussion to examine how operating evidence reaches finance and how later information tests the earlier estimate. It should distinguish a reporting correction from an unauthorised change in the research plan. Both may require attention, but they should not be conflated merely because they affect the same number.

For an external board, I would bring these habits with an explicit willingness to learn the enterprise and its governance arrangements. I would not claim scientific competence from financial seniority or use an oversight role to direct operating teams informally. Relationships with investors, suppliers and collaborators would need review before appointment, as would the twenty annual days I initially propose. The contribution I want to make is a clearer collective judgement about what the organisation can fund and what it must remain responsible for when the evidence changes its plans.