However, the Chairman's blog delayed the pricing and partnership information.... AGAIN! Also delayed the new testing data.... AGAIN.
Not happy with that Chairman's blog personally, but then again I don't care as the shares I own are a core holding waiting for the long long term catalysts. Lympro information was just going to be a confirmation that I'm in the right place at the right time.
Anyhoo... j.stalk is obviously very short term and trying to make trades. Whatever... back to more interesting stocks til the July news.
I read it and it seemed positive but definitely could not make sense of the data delaying. If the data is good, and you want to up list your stock, wouldn't it be in the company's / shareholders' best interest to release it ASAP?
Two things specifically concern me about GC's latest blog and Lympro: (1) the contemplated withholding of LP002 clinical data until the Concussion Awareness Summit, for the purported reason of focusing on LP001 retrospective data (which is already known) in conjunction with the AAIC in Copenhagen does not make much sense, first because AMBS has already had accepted a poster session at AAIC on the recent clinical data (if already accepted why state that the data might be withheld until later?); and second, the rational being that waiting until the Concussion Awareness Summit will enhance market interest is puzzling to say the least. AAIC would be the best venue for both sets of data (which is why AMBS presumably originally proposed the AAIC poster sessions highlighting both sets of data. (2) There should have been a stronger, clearer case made for a revised strategy for commercializing Lympro other than stating "we are currently working through the intricacies of what such an agreement would entail," which is not only an obvious and rather meaningless statement, but also is essentially what has been said before in other PRs and at conference presentations. I have some other nits to pick with some other parts of the blog dealing with Eltoprazine and MANF, but these are less significant than the disappointing updates on Lympro.
I think he does explain his reasoning for waiting with the other set of data. He doesn't want to overwhelm people with too much data in Copenhagen so they can focus more on the first set of data and "thoroughly digest" it. Perhaps you are right about the data not being totally ready yet as another reason, but I believe he is considering getting two separate catalysts out of this and creating a scenario where both sets of data get sufficient attention to detail. Just a thought...good discussion tonight.
I am wracking my brain to see a benefit to showing PII at C4CT. My only point is LP01 does not have final data yet. The specificity data we got is old. They never released the new stuff from this year. If the final information is rock solid and very concrete, and it drives up interest in attending the C4CT summit, great. The problem is that LP01 is going to need to be REALLY GOOD for the decision to split the two presentations up to make sense. I also don't like that he says he was unsure whether he would or would not do both. Do it or don't. Testing the waters in such a public way is a bit ham handed.
Yes, you actually hit the nail on the head for two things that JUMPED out at me when reading it.
I wasn't going to go into the detail you did though, because RiskReturn and the sheeple might jump me in the parking lot.... and then I'd have to start shooting people. Messy business, lots of paperwork afterwards.
I fully support your post. Those are red flags or at least flags to not under any circumstances chase this up.