Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for holding. Welcome to Dyadic International’s December 31, 2016 Financial Results Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. My name is Tom and I will be your conference coordinator today. As a reminder, please note that this call is being recorded. At this time I would like to introduce your host for today's call, Tom Dubinski, Dyadic's Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Please go ahead sir.

Thank you, Tom. Good afternoon and thank you for joining today's conference call to discuss Dyadic's results for the year ended December 31, 2016, which were reported in the press release issued earlier today. The press release and Dyadic's annual report had been posted to both the Dyadic and the OTC Markets websites. I'm joined today by Dyadic's President and Chief Executive Officer, Mark Emalfarb, and Dr. Ronen Tchelet, VP of Research & Business Development. On today's call Mark will cover operating highlights, further details on our corporate strategy and business development, and comment on the settlement of our last professional liability lawsuit against former law firm Greenberg Traurig. Dr. Tchelet will discuss some of our research programs as well as progress to date in some of these programs, and I will close with a review of our financial results in more detail. We will then provide you with an opportunity to ask questions. Each caller will be allowed one question and one follow-up question in order to provide all callers an opportunity to participate. If time permits, the operator will allow additional questions from those who have already spoken. Before we begin, we would like to remind you that certain commentary made in this conference call may be forward-looking statements, which involve risks and uncertainties that could cause Dyadic's actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. Dyadic expressly disclaims any intent or obligation to update any forward-looking statements except as required by law. I will now turn the call over to our President and CEO, Mark Emalfarb.

Thank you, Tom. Good evening everyone. I believe we've accomplished a great deal since we successfully transitioned our industrial enzyme business to Dupont in April 2016. In less than a year we have developed meaningful interest in the C1 technology from half of the top ten global biopharmaceutical companies and a great many more across the bioscience sector. We've executed confidentiality agreements and in certain cases we've entered into material transfer agreements allowing C1 to be more widely tested in a research setting and under certain control standards. In December 2016 the company started an initial small research program with one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies to demonstrate the potential of the C1 technology to produce glycosylated therapeutic protein. This research project is being carried out and conducted at VTT, Finland which we had previously announced in the third quarter of 2016. In the first quarter of 2017 we received an upfront payment of $125,000 for this research project with a future payment in the same amount upon completion. Collaboration proof of concept projects help defray some of our research expenses as we continue to develop and demonstrate the potential of our C1 technology for use in developing and manufacturing biologics. We are hopeful that through the results of this project along with the data being generated from our internal research programs, we will be able to develop a more meaningful relationship with this pharmaceutical company as well as others. Additionally we anticipate entering into one more third party funded research programs collaborations with at least one other top ten pharmaceutical company in the second quarter. We are receiving favorable responses from our targeted business development efforts with tier 1 and tier 2 biopharma companies who are interested in evaluating how C1 may help them speed up the development,…

Thank you, Mark. During the many years of developing the C1 technology Dyadic scientists achieved two main breakthroughs. The first: developing a high yield low viscosity production capability with C1 strains; and the second, developing what we call the C1 white strain that can express and produce high levels of proteins from genes derived from different organisms with high purity. We believe that by continuing our ongoing research effort, we may achieve additional scientific and commercially relevant breakthroughs with C1 which we anticipate will be a leap forward in gene expression technology that has the potential to change the way in which both animal health and human biotech and pharmaceutical companies bring their biologic vaccines and drug to market faster in greater volume at lower cost and with newer beneficial properties. As we announced on September 7, and as Mark discussed earlier, we have entered into a research and development agreement with one of the most skilled filamentous fungal research institute to further engineer our proprietary C1 fungus strains for use in helping in development and production of biopharmaceutical products. The goal of the collaboration is to develop a highly productive C1 strain and fermentation processes accompanying cooperating associated molecular tools to produce a number of targeted therapeutic proteins for Dyadic as well as those specified by third party biotech and pharmaceutical companies. In addition we intend to initiate the glyco engineering of C1 strains using advanced molecular tools that will allow for the production of proteins that will resemble the human glyco structure. This approach is aiming to create the right platform that can be applied to diverse biopharmaceutical product types such as biosimilars that include protein for which specific glycol structures are not needed for their mode of action, and two, proteins including monoclonal antibodies that are agonists…

Thank you, Ronen. At December 31, 2016 cash, cash equivalents and investment grade securities including interest receivable at December 31, 2016 was approximately $50.5 million, compared to $68.6 million at December 31, 2015. Cash and cash equivalents do not include the $7.4 million of cash held in escrow in connection with the DuPont transaction which we anticipate will be released on July 1, 2017 or the payment of the mid seven-figure settlement of the lawsuit which is expected to be received at the beginning of Q2 2017. Cash used in the year ended December 31, 2016 of approximately $61.7 million primarily reflects stock repurchases net of stock issuances of approximately $13.1 million, purchase of investment grade securities at face value net of repayments and maturities of approximately $42.6 million and cash used in operating activities of approximately $6 million which includes cash used in operations of $4.7 million payment of DuPont related transaction costs, of $2 million premium and interest paid on investment grade securities, 700,000 -- litigation costs of $700,000 offset by cash received from the litigation settlement of $2.1 million. Net loss from continuing operations for the year ended was approximately $3.6 million or $0.10 per basic and diluted share compared to a net loss of $1.5 million or $0.04 per basic and diluted share for the same period a year ago. Research and development revenue from continuing operations for the year ended December 31, 2016 increased to approximately $593,000 compared to $316,000 for the year ended 2015. The revenue increase principally reflects the conclusion of our R&D agreement with Sanofi Pasteur. For the year ended December 31, 2016 the company recorded a $437,000 loss provision for contracts in connection with two collaboration agreements where anticipated contract costs are expected to exceed anticipated contract revenues. The reported loss…

[Operator Instructions] And we'll take our first question from Barry Kitt with Pinnacle Fund.

Hello, Mark and Tom and Ronen, and rest of the team, I'm in an airport lounge and so I'm not going to be very efficient here. But Tom, could you kind of walk through these numbers with me, and make sure I get it right. So you had five zero spot 5 million in cash at the end of the year. And at 7.4 million from the DuPont July 1, 2017 payment coming about 57.9. I think what I see in the press release here, is you bought 3.7 million shares at $1.55 in the first quarter of this year; is that right?

Yes.

Okay, so that's 5.735 million, so 57.9 million minus 5.735 million from buying back those shares should leave you at about $52.165 million not counting the settlement from the lawsuit and not counting whatever burn you had at the first quarter, does that make sense?

Yes.

And how many shares did you say were outstanding? I thought I heard a different number from Mark than what I saw in the press release, maybe I just heard it wrong.

28.7 million.

That's right. Okay, so 52.165 divided by 28.7 is $1.82 a share; does that sound right so far?

That's before burn and before the litigation receipt.

So I assume -- sorry, without knowing I'm going to assume it's a little higher now including the first quarter burn and including the settlement but so $1.82 a share, stocks at $1.36, so that's $0.46 difference times 28.7 million shares, that's about a negative $13.2 million enterprise value, does that math sound right?

Yes.

And we'll take our next question from Walter Schenker with MAZ Partners.

Actually Barry could have been a set up for my question which is given the difference between the cash value and the stock this call did not address a continued share buyback which would clearly be extremely accretive since the spread between the share price and the cash value per share, again accepting the view that a mid seven figure settlement should be equal to your burn in the first quarter or more hopefully, so you didn't burn a mid seven figure amount in one quarter. Therefore why are we not seeing an announcement or could Mark if his view about it since we can continue to accrete material value by continuing to buy back stock especially at the current level. Thank you.

It's a good question, Walter and that's something that the board is considering on on implementing but we're also taking a breath and taking a look and evaluating our business plans, our research plan and as Tom pointed out what his expectations are for the cash to be at the end of the year. So we're evaluating that and we continue to evaluate that. But at the moment we do not have another plan in place and we may or may not in the future. We recognize the difference in share price and the negative value between the share price and the cash in the bank and we're continuing to monitor that but we don't expect the share price to stay where it is for a long.

And we’ll take your next question from Steven Rockville [ph].

Hi guys. Mark, maybe you can talk about -- you got the results from the Sanofi study, can you say anything about it? Can you share that with us?

Well we had the results from the Sanofi study, we were getting back -- we received a payment as I think we mentioned €306,000, we got the data to date is very encouraging, we're sharing the data under confidentiality with specific parties in the industry. We are planning on filing patents so we can't make that public until we do so and we're expanding on that data trying to get broader coverage so that we can get a broader patent or at least have a broader patent application going in. And unfortunately we love to be able to share the data and show people what we believe is very exciting and encouraging, at least preliminary data but until we file patents and protect the IP it's more important we do that than to enlighten our shareholders.

And is DuPont doing any studies at all with respect to the biotech part of C1?

Well they're obviously doing work on behalf of Dyadic which we're funding, so obviously their eyeballs are on top of what we're doing, that's positive and a negative and I don't know what they're doing internally, they don't share with us what they're doing for their own account. It is there or elsewhere. I can't answer that question, you’d have to ask DuPont that question in their conference call.

And what about the NIH, have you applied for any grants?

We have not applied for any grants at NIH but we actually have hired a consulting firm to evaluate where to apply not only potentially in NIH but a variety of other governments in the US as well as Europe and we're evaluating if when and how to do that. So our laser focus is on biopharma and our laser focus is on getting other people to help pay for our advancements in biopharma so that we can reduce or eliminate the burn.

We will take our next question from Robert Hoffman, Princeton OPportunity Management.

Tom, I just want to walk through, I'll piggyback on some of the other discussions so, on the way I see it, pro forma you got a $1.82 per share and then you said that at the end of 2017 I think that's what you said -- at the end of 2017 you think you'd have a $1.68 to $1.72. Now if my math is correct, that's a burn -- a net burn of about call it $4 million, so that's -- so that it would be then net of whatever you got from your mid seven figure settlement. So in other words, if you're burning 4 but you're getting three or I don't know what you're getting in, that was kind of another question I'm not sure why we can't get that number today versus having to wait till the second quarter call. But can you just kind of walk through what the scheduled burn is for 2017?

Yes, sure I want to correct a couple numbers. The first number we left 2016 at $1.79, not a $1.82 and my projections there --

Well, no, wait, wait, you left 2016 at $1.79 but then you bought shares -- so pro forma you ended were at $1.82, not counting first quarter burn.

Correct. The first quarter burn -- for the year we can talk about the calendarization of the burn, it's fairly level loaded but they'll be small because of the legal costs in connection with the litigation, it will be a little heavier burn in the first quarter. But for the most part the burn is pretty consistent throughout the year and it is higher than $4 million. And it will offset the benefits of the litigation settlement and that's factored into my $1.68 and $1.72 range.

And also Rob, you’re not taking into account in that as I mentioned that we are potentially going to invest $1 million of the cash and we also are going to be funding some additional research over 24 months of another $1 million, so that's another half a million per year for three fourths of the year this year. So that we can accelerate our programs and try to get data sooner to figure out a way to get the value out of this technology, where we have an overhead burn we want to speed things up a little bit where it makes sense.

I just want to clarify that and that's -- so the $1 million of investment is in Tom's projections of where we stand cash wise -- as well as the burn from paying those guys whatever it is that turns out to be half a million or so somewhere thereabouts, right?

Yes.

So in those projections -- while we're on that subject tell me what’s the difference between paying them and the equity investment, what could that equity be worth and how much of their business do you own?

Well, first of all we don't own anything, this is just something that we're in negotiations with and saying that that's something we've think we're going to do and we're in deep late stages negotiation with and that may or may not actually effectuate into that investment but we plan on at the moment doing. That's why we’re disclosing it. What that investment could be worth who knows, the skit is the limit or zero. But the fact of the matter is the $1 million investment is going to go to R&D targeted specifically to advancing C1, so we're sort of getting the equity as a kicker.

You mean that the equity investment that you're giving over a million dollars is going to go towards C1 research.

Yes.

So in other words you're getting all of that cash sort of speak of going into C1 research?

Yes, to advancing the platform, to improving the fermentation process optimization and specifically trying to identify one or more targets in animal health and biopharmaceutical products and then the equity piece is just sort of a kicker so to speak but we don't know what it's going to be worth and when it's going to be able to be valued.

Where does one find experienced C1 scientists?

I'd rather not say but you can speculate that they've obviously worked on C1 in the past and other license agreements or business relationships.

And are they -- did you say where they're located? Or can you --

No, we did not and we’re not going to it. But at some point we will.

We'll take our next question from Efren Fields [ph] with Accolade Capital.

Hi, I was just reviewing the 10-K briefly and it looks like the board paid itself close to a million dollars last year which I found to be originally high given the company size and the terrible performance of the company's stock price. So hopefully the board who is listening to this call and I would strongly encourage them to either aggressively buy back stock personally or I think that they should resign from the company and I really think that the company can find board members who will be able to do a better job of looking out to the company's shareholders at a much lower price than a million dollars a year. And that's all I have to say. Thank you.

Efren, I don't think the board paid themselves a million a year last year. So I think your numbers are off, number one. Number two, I can tell you that most board members are completely active much more involved, put enormous amount of time and effort into, the financial statements of litigation, the business development, so I don't know where you're getting the million dollar number, obviously a lot of the numbers you’re seeing here include non-cash stock option Black Scholes, so --

Mark, just because it’s non-cash doesn't mean it's not an expense for the shareholders.

I think you're off base and I don't get any cash as a board member and I'm just -- just think you're off base and believe me 25% of this money is mine, as you know as a shareholder and between me and the Kitt trust, so I can assure you that I watch over it but I can't get your comments to heart, the board obviously will hear this conversation and they will take it to heart as well.

And we'll take our next question from Richard Fried [ph].

Mark, two things. We're looking at $1.68 to $1.72 year end 2017 cash value. I am making the assumption that that does not include any potential revenue not previously stated in terms of contracts or collaborative research ventures. So potentially that number could be higher in some form or another.

That's absolutely correct. There are some projected revenues in there for, we expect as we mentioned or I mentioned that we expect to enter into a Q2 agreement with another top ten pharma company but no major number like major license agreement or a huge research funding is in there and obviously we're chasing those and we have an enormous amount of effort. And we have a lot of interest, so it depends how the data comes in and when the data comes in and of course the world is starting to find out that the biosimilars market is getting more competitive. And as some people think that's not attractive, for Dyadic it’s very attractive because we're not a sell me to technology, we are a change the game technology. So in fact if we can demonstrate the technology can deliver on its promise or even a fraction of its promise we hope some pharmaceutical company will take us out and we will all be happy and that's the goal.

And can I follow that up with, when in discussing reinstituting the stock buyback program your closing comment was that you don't expect the stock to be at this price much longer. As an investor, if that were the case, I am hard pressed to understand why one would reinstitute the stock buyback program immediately?

Number one, we don't anticipate payment or buy stock of any significance at this level. So last year we implemented the stock buyback program and gave a year for people that have been in the stock to get out of stock and create liquidity. And right now one of the things that we've had a problem with over the last decade because of the problems we had to overcome is dealing with a weak balance sheet and when we go into negotiation with big pharma we want to have a strong balance sheet and the value of that to us and never having to go back to Wall Street for a penny is a lot better than a 15% or 20% small amount of shares we can buy back right now. So our message is we have plenty of cash, we're going to keep a strong balance sheet, we're in discussions with a variety of companies and there's a lot of opportunities and we're going to exploit those at the fullest and we’re going to do it from a position of strength and weakness and we never want to go back to Wall Street.

I understand that and I don't disagree with that philosophy but you also said that you would evaluate the company going forward sometime towards the end of 2018. So if re-instituting a stock buyback is to a $5 million or $10 million amount doesn't seem like it would influence on your ultimate cash that you're expressing to people you’re negotiating with.

I think at the moment we’re taking a grasp -- we have plenty of opportunities, nobody has heard from us since last November, people have to assess where we are, what they want to do about it in terms of their own portfolios. And we will take a fresh look at it with new eyes as a new company focused on strictly bio pharmaceuticals, we are beating the doors down in every different place we can get to. We're creating a lot of interest and if we win we're going to win anyways, so we win other 5% or 10% or 3% is not going to matter but right now we're going to keep the cash where it is in the moment and we'll think about it as we continue on and we look at it every time we have a board meeting and in between, the board members that everyone is not so actively -- active are completely aware of everything at every given moment on a weekly basis.

We will take our next question from Richard Deutsch with National Securities.

Yes thank you for taking my call. Some of the questioners have asked exactly the kind of questions I was looking at. So I'll jump to the point that I appreciate your giving us a cash per share projection based on your expected investments and cash flow through the end of the year and we all hope Mark after all the many years you've invested here that C1 finally does hit it somewhere along the line. But after all these years of not getting there what kind of assurances can you give us that there are limits that the board and you are looking at in terms of preserving that cash per share at a certain point in 2018 where we can count on even a lack of any progress still giving us a shell company with a significant amount of cash that can support the share price?

Rick, I will say a few things. First and foremost I think getting a $75 million deal with DuPont when the shares were $0.80, $0.90 a share and at an oil price of $35, the C1 did deliver on the industrial biotech sector relative to the market conditions at the time and I think it was a phenomenal deal for our shareholders. Second of all, as I mentioned it was 2018, early 2019 or sooner and I can tell you that this board and myself has no intention of wasting money and diluting shareholders interest because number one we are all shareholders. As you know I am the largest shareholder by magnitude times anyone else and I will be doing everything possible to make sure that the money we spend is advancing the technology to create value but in some point in that timeframe or sooner we'll come to a point where we're going to figure out how we all can get our cash out of this enterprise.

Well that's what I wanted to hear is, that there were limits in both time and money that could protect us from the loss of this cash that you did build up in the last couple of years. Thank you very much.

We do have a follow up question from Robert Hoffman with Princeton Opportunity Management.

Actually first is a request, is it possible for you guys to post Dr. Tchelet’s script -- it was very challenging to hear him because I'm sure he's off-site and he had a lot of information there and hard to write it down quickly. So if we could get that that would be really helpful. And the second, I will reiterate what others have said, I mean I look at it differently if we truly are sitting here at the end of this year with a $1.68 to $1.72 in cash what that will really mean is that we have gotten zero coming in and that should hopefully tell us something about the interest that is out there, which then leads me to my final real question which is, in the last conference call you talked about a deal that was paperwork had basically all been signed and you were waiting for the other party to sign. Can you tell us -- is this the small deal that we just -- that you just talked about and did the deal change or did that one flow through? You could just update us on that.

That's the deal we talked about, it didn't change, obviously they're putting their toes in the water. They're having us take a look at expressing three different antibodies and from that hopefully they will decide based on good data that we hope to achieve that they will put more money in, and or take a license and or some other alternative structure. And we are in discussion with many many many large pharma -- I think five of the top ten pharmaceutical companies to be honest with you we’re either under CDA and including CDAs and in some cases, NDAs and as I said we expect in Q2 to enter into another one of these research and development deals with somebody else that are going to put in some money and their toes in water to get a peek at what goes on. And I want to remind you that when DuPont did that, DuPont saw the results and they stepped up and wrote a $75 million check. Now C1 was more advanced in industrial biotech but people in the pharmaceutical industry have vision and we're just trying to steer the ship and help direct them into the right mindset that they realize that with time and money this is the platform of the future. And if we can do that we'll all be happy and if we can't do that we'll all cash out at some point and not burn a bunch of money.

I appreciate that and obviously for those of us who've been shareholders for a long period of time, as you know I have been. That's why we're on this call and why we’re shareholders not because we want to get a cash discount sort of thing. So we definitely are looking forward to that. One final question, Mark, when you mentioned that the settlement with Greenberg Traurig you did the settlement because some of the -- I don't know the legal term, we're taking --

Let me give you a little clarity so that everybody can get some clarity on this issue. So basically we went after several hundred million dollars in lost opportunity and we had a damage model of lost market cap, I will start with that one first, the court threw that out saying that Florida law you had to be totally destroyed to have a lost market cap damage model and to them totally destroyed mean you had to file bankruptcy. So because Barry Kitt, myself and others put in $10 million to keep this place alive, basically the court threw it out versus, if we would have filed a bankruptcy when I got back we could have followed that model. Now we obviously don’t believe that totally destroyed means zero in bankruptcy that $5.20 a share, $5.30 share, $0.20 is totally destroyed but the judge and Greenberg argued otherwise and unless we wanted to appeal it and get into a big battle and spend a lot more time and money that went out the window and that happened sort of in the middle of the trial. The next thing that happened is that we had a biotech analyst present results that she believed taking one opportunity of a biopharma, one for biofuel and one for capital access that we were denied because of all of this, that we were chasing $700 million in lost opportunities, and unfortunately again the damage models in this country are based on lost profits, not on lost opportunities, we told the judge and the court argued the fact that we believe lost profits and lost business opportunities of which are basically to us lost profits because of course bringing in license deals revenue that we didn't get would have brought in profits, they held it…

No, I appreciate that that's helpful because those of us didn't attend all, what we could get was a periodic newspaper article but for you to be liable for their costs that must mean that there was a settlement offer prior to the case starting?

That’s not -- it doesn’t mean that. It means that the offer was lower let's say than obviously their legal fees by magnitude. Anyways the bottom line is we're not happy, we feel that we were taken advantage of, we feel that the court should have looked at the modern world for biotech, high tech companies, R&D companies and lost business opportunities, you need to be able to have damages and be treated properly in a court not just lost profits because of course biotech companies and high tech companies spend years in R&D and make no profits. So it's a flawed legal system and we got caught in the net. And let's hope that somehow the changes for future companies so they are not off caught in the net and we can be at least the catalyst for change but in the meantime it's behind us, we're focused on making C1 make drugs quicker better and cheaper and if we can do that we will all be happy and if we can’t do that, we will all cash out and then move on.

We’ll go next to Skip Goshe with Clooney Road [ph].

So here's the net results, I mean there was a lot of good questions that were asked. And so the way that I see this is that you are saying that by the end of 2017 your cash share price is going to be between $1.68 and $1.72 after your cash burn by the end of 2017. So that's what you're going to have in cash, that's given nothing for the technology, that's given nothing for, if you take this through a couple of hurdles or one hurdle with another pharmaceutical company or multi pharmaceutical companies, that’s given nothing for that. And so if you take that into another year and you burn another six million to put you down another $0.10 or $0.15 a share, so the worst case scenario at the end of like you said in 2018 you're down to a dollar whatever sixty a share or fifty five a share in cash, and that's given nothing for anything else as everything else is bombed out, that's the worst case scenario and then you sell the company for that -- so as far as handicapping it, that's the way I see it. I'm not asking the whack, monthly whack but that’s based on you’ve given us $1.68 to $1.72 a share by the end of 2017 it's pretty easy to handicap. So I guess the point is -- of my phone call is to say first of all that you bought back hell of a lot of shares on route to -- I never thought that you guys in a year would buy 19 million shares.

Not 19 million shares, 12 million and some shares, $19 million.

$19 million or 12.4 million shares at $1.54 a share, I never thought that would happen at the time because your cash value was above that, your cash value was always last year pretty much 1.80, 1.85 or whatever, and so you bought it -- the point is that you bought it at a huge discount. And what Barry said and Barry didn’t say but he basically said, Okay, so you got whatever $1.85 a share after February 15, assuming you got whatever you got for the lawsuit nobody knows which you got but you're stating it's mid seven figures. So you're probably around $1.85 a share after your burn as of February 15 and that -- you also correlated, you said you’re going down after your burn rate you’re already [indiscernible] you will be seeing $1.68, $1.72 at the end of 2017. So the point is what -- your share price right now is probably $1.85 a share, somewhere, just in cash and that's given like I said nothing to anything else, and it’s trading at $1.33, so the net result is at least here you buy you’re making $0.50 a share, I don’t see -- and the strong with this selling, you want to be strong and -- but there is a point -- the first question I have here there's a point if you can make $0.50 on every share you buy and at the end of the year after your burn and you're still making $0.30 or $0.40 it's a no brainer, that’s a no brainer. Now the question is legally can you buy if you wanted to go buy tomorrow, from your company you buy. Can you buy a million shares tomorrow if you wanted to? I don't know, I like to know that answer.

Well by the way if somebody wants to come to us as a block shareholder, privately negotiated we would certainly entertain that.

Can you do it legally is my question?

Yes we can. We can.

How long can you do that for?

I think we can do it for as long as we like but that's not a share buyback program. That’s an individual transaction where that individual has to realize that we have insight knowledge, you don't have, I have to sign documents recognizing that point but if somebody wants to get out and we feel like spending the cash at the right price we will certainly entertain that and evaluate that. But I'd like to address the bigger issue is this is not about cash. Everyone wants to talk about cash. If we thought C1 had no value we’d just shut it down today but we obviously think that we can create value and significant value, we wouldn't be doing this. We’re not looking to do this to do at the end of 2018 beginning in 2019 somewhere in the middle 2018 to sell this for a 10% or 20% return on our money. We're doing this because we think by taking to find research objectives and goals that have been vetted by Dr Bose, by Ronen, by potential collaborators, by scientists that are in the know that we can demonstrate that if C1 can be brought along in the proper way and it might not even in 2018 be all the way there doesn't have to be, it's kind of like you're building a skyscraper and when you put in the foundation you have a certain value. Now when you know when you finish the skyscraper -- when you put up the walls and the windows it's worth more to somebody than it is just as a foundation and then when you build all your offices and lease it out it has even greater value. So as soon as we feel like we’re at inflection point that we're not going to get exponential value or it’s a failure that we think we've got a problem, we're going to obviously address that issue very quickly because of course that’s responsible thing to do and of course I own, between me and the Kitt about 25% of this, so I'm watching your money like it's my money because it’s both of our money but more importantly it's not about the cash, it's about the technology. And if we didn’t believe in the technology we wouldn't be here any longer because it’s been a long battle and quite frankly I don't need to be here unless they can create great value, it makes no sense.

So I like that analogy that you said that is well put, understanding it from a perspective of something that’s concrete, so what you’re saying is you got all your zoning approved, you got your building permit, you got your slab port, and you are ready to put up a skyscraper in the middle of a good market and all of a sudden you abandon the project you're not going to get that much far. If you finish the project you're going to get a pretty good reward, is basically the analogy that you gave me. And I understand that and I get that. That's all I wanted to know. Thanks.

We’ll go next to Barry Kitt, Pinnacle Fund. I'm sorry Robert Hofmann, Princeton Opportunity Management.

There were more quick questions on the experienced C1 scientists. When this arrangement kicks in or if it kicks in, are they working a hundred percent on C1?

That answer is no, not in the research groups, DuPont -- the groups we started in September are specifically only working on C1 but specific scientists within their business unit or --

I am talking about the guys -- you’re putting a million dollars of equity in.

No, they're not only working on C1, no. But I think to your point there's a variety of people in the world that have the skill set that we need and it’s a very limited universe and we zeroed in on the people that we believe can move the ball down the court and do it faster with greater probabilities. And to be honest with you not having our own lab in Holland and having forty people to get busy and just having a certain amount of people to focus in, including the people in Holland, including the people as a research lab and including the new people they are all going to be doing things that we believe will create value or we won’t be doing them at that location for long and there's other reasons we may or may not stay in some of these places that have nothing to do with the science or the scientists but dealing with IP or other issues it will work -- we're always considering. So we're very flexible, we’re like a speedboat in the ocean, not in oil tanker and we're staring at speedboat to get to the Bahamas the fastest possible but without capsizing.

We will take your next question Barry Kitt, Pinnacle Fund.

Can you hear me first of all? I'm in a closet of an airline club because it’s noisy, to make sure you can hear me. Okay, a few of the things first of all, I understand it's time to take a breath and ten years of legal efforts are now gone and behind us and now we can focus on C1. So first let me just say on the buyback, one quick thing on the buyback. So you need to have a buyback in place because if there is a macro shock or a terrorist event or something crazy like that happens, it costs you nothing to have a buyback in place, if you want to buy stock don't buy stock we put in place, I mean that's responsible thing to do, you don't know what might happen, some fund gets put in a business and you’re selling stock at $1.10, I mean it's just crazy not to have in place, it costs you nothing. That’s first. Second of all, definition of crazy and doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome, the stock is it way under cash all last year all this year and so you're expecting it to do better because maybe you might have some great thing to announce and finally somebody pays attention but the problem is nobody is paying attention. You're not -- yet what you need to do is you need to reverse split your stock, we need to uplift the stock so that you can hopefully then talk a different kind of analyst or on an analyst of any kind somebody who's briefing to write research in the company which will help get more eyeballs to look at the stock because then you'll be visible and then possibly people might pay attention that this company exists which will help you get more business, help you get more people that's more pharmas that might want to do business with you. So we'll see if I have anything else.

Let me address your first question on the share buyback program. If we put a program in place to take advantage of the functionality of our stock price and we put a very low price on what we're willing to pay, it's not going to do much because we can't put a number on it with a wide range because then we're paying more money than we really would like to pay. Okay, so we can't just go out and throw out a number and put in a low number and as a let's say to take advantage if you put in $1.30, $1.10 whatever you want to throw in to take advantage of your range. In the past what we did last year is we gave a range as a lot of people to get a reasonable exit, that's what they wanted to do. And so we thought about that but we don't want to take advantage of people but we can't just decide that date to buy or no buy, we put a program in place, we're not in control of it any longer. So we’d have to put such a low number in, we feel that it's really probably not the right thing to do but we’d try and it won't be effective but yes if the world falls apart and somebody don't, feel free to grab it and that’s fine but that's not what people really want. But we’ll consider that.

Mark, I don't know where your counsel is stemming from but that makes no sense at all. You put a buyback in place, you won’t have to have a range, do you know how many companies have buybacks in place and decide not to buy any stock at all? You need to talk to your counsel and just get a different counsel, someone selling you have to create -- put a price ahead of time as to where you’re going to buy stock or that is incorrect. So let’s debate that point right, let’s go into the next point.

Your next point is to have us uplift reverse stock, have six million shares of stock at the most in a free float because that's what it would be today if we had to do a three to one which is what we would have to do at a minimum, to get to the minimum NASDAQ price range which we would meet.

Hang on, that would be almost ten million shares if you did a one to three.

No, because it's the --

28.7 million shares --

But you’d have to take my shares 25% of them out --

Yes, 10% beneficial when it comes out, Barry.

No, that’s okay. If it’s 6 million shares on a float, who cares, we will get eyeballs, we will get research. I'll get you research, I'll find you somebody who are right but nobody are right now.

You know that the board is listening to this call or they will be and they'll be advised and we've had these discussions and believe me this has been a debate back and forth and thought about in detail by the board. And what we said is we didn't say we're not going to do it, we said we'd like to actually have something to talk to analysts about which would be data and or business deals and or license deals and science to advance. So we said somewhere in the second half of the year we would look at doing that based on where the science got to and what data we had and what deals for example if we signed a deal in second quarter with another big pharma company would be helpful, because now there would be two people sort of in the door.

Barry, it’s all about the science. Once we have a proof of concept we won’t even be having this conversation because the shares will reflect a value -- value placed on the technology because we have data to support it, it’s not -we're beyond the proof of concept mode.

I understand that. Let me ask you this, you spoke about the Sanofi data as something you're going to file patents on which would insinuate that there must have been something good there through the filed patent on, so let's assume that's the case. You're going to file a patent on that, how long will that take, when would that process be completed?

We're waiting for data to make it broader, so to give you an example, we have other antigens that people are going to be looking at immunogenicity -- and seeing immunogenicity is better, the same, worse, and so once we get that data we'll have a) a better look and somewhere I would say in the next three to four months we hope to get some of that data and be able to share that data in a patent application that allows us to make it broader than just specifically one anti, one vaccine.

So while I was going to go with that, assuming there is value, assuming you file the patent, then you will have something to show analysts and the Street because you will be able to talk about whatever that information is you've got from Sanofi?

And that would be the second half of the year and -- by the way that’s not the only -- we hope to have better, higher yield expression, even though we've done a good job with, for example, as Ronen pointed out, Lucentis we need to improve the yield and productivity of that so that we can show a monumental difference. The pharmaceutical companies, as they're not going to switch from a CHO cell production system they've used for thirty years from marginal improvements. We are going to have to move the needle, C1 has the potential to move the needle. We need more data, we just got started, we haven’t been even doing this for a year and we haven't even had our full attention on it for a year but we're very happy with where we are and we're very content but we're pushing and they pedal to the medal every day.

Yes. I've known you for thirty years or more and I understand how you work, I know you're working hard but there was a $13.2 million enterprise value right now and based on the midpoint of your $1.68 to $1.72 in cash at the end of this year you're a negative $9.75 million enterprise value based on the cash you have and the expectations you have for this year assuming nothing major good happens, and that's just crazy for us to be in this situation after this length of time. So again I would ask the board to do the reverse split uplift at some point throughout this year and let's not have another year go by and not do that because it's easy not to for some reason.

And we take your advice to heart and we absolutely talked about -- at the last board meeting we talked about it three times in between board meetings and I'm sure they are all listening at some point either on the phone now or will be listening to this call or reading it. End of Q&A

And at this time there are no further questions in the queue. Mr Emalfarb, I will turn the call back over to you for closing remarks.

I don't know what else I could close with. Let me find my script here at the end on the last page. Anyways we're very excited about the potential research and development opportunities in the pipeline. We believe 2017 will be one of our most important years for the advancement of C1 technology and Dyadic to grow in the pharmaceutical sector. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank our very hardworking employees and consultants and our dedicated board of directors, our research partners and our shareholders most of all for their support and thank you all for having taken the time to participate on today's conference call.

And this concludes today's program. You may now all disconnect.