Yes, I do think how a person presents himself is a form of communication. Jobs looked like a Silicon Valley guy. Missing looks like a lounge lizard. I once sold a small cap because the CEO could not pronounce "subsiderary". You can invest in the drug if you can find a way, but I can only invest in the people who are behind it.
Not answering emails from shareholders. I wrote to them when the PR came out and asked them to confirm that 12-week data would not be given in Athens. I wasn't seeking inside information so much as reminding IR that people wanted an answer to that question BEFORE the meeting. I did not even get the courtesy of a "No comment" reply.
I'm an old fuddy-duddy, which means I really, really want an AD treatment to work, but I also want a CEO who can find a barber and a necktie. Would you buy a used car from the guy whose picture is on the CEO's Message page of the AVXL website? Maybe it was disco night...
I was long and strong, now sort-of-long and meh. The IR at this company is astoundingly bad. I wrote to them at 7:00 a.m. to ask whether the 12-week data will NOT be discussed. Silence, of course. (I was not expecting private disclosure; I wanted to prompt public disclosure.)
It may sound petty, but when I go to the AVXL website, I see a CEO who needs a haircut and a necktie. If he can't even LOOK like the CEO of a public company, how can we expect him to ACT like the CEO of a public company. I would have a lot more shares if this company could get the F out of its own way.
I bought a bunch of $5 March calls last week to go along with a modest shareholding. I wanted to play the run-up and/or benefit from a stellar news release. This morning, I sold the shares pre-market. I'm still holding the calls.
I was disappointed by the PR's silence on 12-week data, because the math says it should be available, and, if it isn't, some mention of when it would be coming should have been in the PR. The market's tepid response clearly reflects the doubts raised by the vagueness of the PR.
The dose-dependent stuff at 5 weeks described in the PR is the "detailed dose-response analysis of data from the ongoing Phase 2a Alzheimer’s trial." Why on earth would they put the 5-week data in the PR but not the 17-week data, unless it isn't fully analyzed?
IR has not been this company's long suit. But the mild pre-market uptick suggests only modest excitement over this PR.