" and the (informed) public has assumed it was more to do with the bear raid than anything the company said or did"
The public can assume what it wants, but IR cannot SAY to a caller that it was about the bear raid unless it says it PUBLICLY, which it has not done. That's the violation. (The test is easy: if the info is material, as folks here think it is, and IR is the source, it needs to be public. That they revealed the subpoena is irrelevant to their saying they know what it's about. They said "recent price action" or such in the PR, and now they say "bear raid" in private? That's not allowed.
"See, I use this MB as a means for honest discussion."
With whom? I use this site to find out why the stock is moving. Cheerleaders will tell you why it's up, and bashers will tell you why it's down. Otherwise, the board is pretty much useless.
I occasionally try to post some reflective points, but there is rarely if ever a productive discussion. Just some thumbs up and down, depending on whether the "voter" is pro or con the stock.
As regards AVXL, the real battle is between those who think the science is good and those who think the management is bad. My guess is that they are both right: I have half as much of this stock as I would have if CM's pic on the website didn't look like something out of "Boogie Nights."
"Week 12" is the twelfth week of Part B, 12 weeks after the five weeks of Part A. So add five weeks to your guess. Then some time to process the data. I'm thinking Mid-Fed, probably around the time for the 10Q.
" Anything else is stock promotion, not a good reflection on management."
Not really. If management says "We're about to invest YOUR money in P3, can't we ask why they are willing to take that risk? Can't we really ask whether there were hints of efficacy in P2? Surely, if none of the metrics changed in P2, the risk of going to P3 would be greater, and we would want to know that. Obviously, hints of efficacy affect the stock price, because they suggest the level of risk being taken. They don't PROVE anything, but risk is by definition action taken with respect to things unproven. The efficacy results are as persuasive as they are, but no less than that. They should be disclosed in raw form for investors to react to.
Calling results "stunning," "exciting," etc., is stock promotion. Calling them "encouraging," as in "giving us the courage to move forward," is merely full disclosure of as much information as is available regarding the risks about to be taken.
Depths? I paid a buck for my shares. I'm up eight-fold. That's not "depths." But then, I'm not trading. I'm investing. So I don't care what the price does in the short term unless it leads to being bought out, including going private, at too low a price. Otherwise, they'll slow/stop/cure AD or they won't, and the stock price will move accordingly. I'm still expecting them to report tomorrow what they said in the original abstract. But, in the immortal words of Dennis MIller, that's just my opinion; I may be wrong.
On the other hand, IR at AVXL is clearly a fustercluck, and the PPS reflects it. Bogus titles and abstracts, accidentally or intentionally leaked, a CEO who presents himself as Eurotrash, IR reps who lie to shareholders. It's probably a good thing that the company has only four employees, because there is no evidence that any of them can do anything right. They own some IP, they seem to have credible scientists vetting it, and they may be able to sell it for a good price if it proves out. Evidence released so far is encouraging on the safety and efficacy of the drug, and the stock is up dramatically.
The current drop may not look so bad if one does the Fibonacci 38% thing against the dramatic run-up, but I don't do Fibonacci, so I don't know about that. All I know is that I'm up big, playing with the house's money, and disappointed in how the company presents itself. But "depths"? Not yet anyway.