Excellent post Tred. I'm becoming more convinced by the day that since early 2017 the Company has largely gone radio silent for the very reasons you outlined.
My OPINION is that the trajectory of positive results and cognitive improvement (relative to dose) MAY HAVE CAUSED the Company to assess if/whether releasing said results too early could cause premature NOISE and possible takeover bids at severe discounts while they are trying to instead focus their efforts on sensitive FDA trial discussions and FT/BT/AA designation applications.
Again just my speculation but the hiring of Dr Fadiran, a 24 year FDA veteran, in May 2017 (to help them handle the "considerable number of regulatory filings that Anavex has planned") seems to me to be a TELL that they know they're onto something big here, and they see a path forward to move the ball way down the field ON THEIR OWN.
Another TELL being their push for shareholder votes recently on the poison pill and shareholder rights initiatives this year.
And this desire to lay low seems to tie in with pulling the 15 month abstract (which had a positive results title) back in March and with opting to not present at AAIC in July. We all saw the 15 month abstract; it was quite positive; so why pull it unless it ties in with this entire premise of digging in and entrenching.
Yes they've presented at Jefferies, but they used the December 2016 12-month data and charts I believe, not the newest results. Why do that unless you'd rather keep your best cards close to your vest?
They've given out JUST ENOUGH in the way of clues and crumbs to those interested enough to find them during 2017, seemingly to avoid having long term investors flee or give up hope.
The insider purchases recently being another sign from the CEO that things are on track and that he is CONFIDENT.
Admittedly the Anavex story will likely be a binary event. Either their compound has strong efficacy or it does not. For those of us paying attention at home, they've already told us their definitive conclusions: it restores cellular homeostasis and it provides dose dependent cognitive improvement. That's what they are telling us recently point blank; without hedging or qualifying their statements.
If there's another drug company (which is moving away from the tau protein/tangles reduction approach) that is making similar strong claims then I've not heard of them.
Basically my opinion is that they have been advised to tread as carefully and as quietly as possible through the minefield before them. They'll receive little to no help along the way; only roadblocks from those that have huge financial interests in the status quo.
They're wisely plodding along as low key as possible with (what may of us here believe to be) a closely guarded winning hand.
Their only incentive right now is to share their hand with the regulators and FDA scientists; no need to sell out early and promote results to the world prematurely. Get to approval; move as far down the field as possible with as many indications as they can.
If the compound does what THEY SAY IT DOES, then maybe they don't want BP involved anytime soon.
Start generating sales and perhaps grow organically with distribution/sales partners.
Apologies for the long post. AIMHO. All must do their own DD.
