I agree that your original post shouldn't have been deleted. But I disagree with your three points:
1) Yes, Berger has been with the company since 1991. I consider that another reason for him to go, not a rationale for keeping him in the corner office. Twenty four years into his reign and we're still three years from profitability. HB has made himself very wealthy at the expense of ARIA investors; as someone said he has excelled at creative shareholder wealth destruction.
2) ARIA science is more than Clackson, competent though he may be. As I noted in a previous post some of the best minds in the Boston biotech world have passed through ARIA, I doubt Clackson would take credit for being solely responsible for ARIA's molecules. (And BTW ARIA does not have a unique competitive advantage in "computational drug design", it's a common approach.)
3) 2da's comment about HB's not being invited to parties in Boston elicited your comment about 2a's not running in the same rarified social circles, I suspect this comment resulted in the deletion of your post. 2da meant that Harvey has lost credibility with the investment community. And I can tell you for a fact that in the Boston biotech community the reaction to Denner's reported move to replace Berger is a uniform "About time!"). If the stock movement over the past few days is any indication getting rid of Harvey will drive the share price up. I expect the share price to continue to improve as this little drama unfolds.
Berger is interested in running and building his fiefdom. His interests are not necessarily congruent with those of shareholders. Denner is not a fool, he won't leave money on the table. I'll take what he can get over the next year or two rather than wait for HB to take another quarter of a century to build the next Celgene.
AI
