Doc, your point about having a more polished CEO and PR strategy taking money and due to limited resources sourced significantly through financial toxicity, the company channeled these limited resources to bring the company to a successful regulatory goal is exactly the point I am trying to make. Engaging a PR firm now makes little sense: Limited resources. The company already has a biz development guy, IR advocate and spokesman. And to boot, he is a silver tongued lawyer. The company, at this point, cannot afford both an SVP AND an expensive PR firm. As, if and when they cross the regulatory goal line and achieve a higher value, then engaging a PR firm may make sense. And....management's PR firm choices in the past exhibited poor judgement. What makes anyone think that this choice is any better? Right now, bottom line, a PR firm is very premature. They need to change their underlying management style which has given grist to the naysayers' attack upon "inept" management. It is not only the naysayers who advance this view but also thoughtful longs that have forgiven management many times and now, frustrated, have become fed up. A PR firm won't fix this underlying issue. Management has to do it without the insulating layer of a beltway consultant.
And what are we to make wrt advance rewards to management and employees for yet to be realised results? Cant they wait? Or are the results interminably delayed because the data is immature, or that they have failed the primary and secondary endpoints and so their only option is to continue the trial in hopes of a long tail grand slam because they are afraid of sinister big P forces behind the workings of the FDA affecting approval decisions? Further toxic dilutions then await and shareholders would then not be well disposed to agree to these advanced rewards; so better to do so now, at the 4/27 SM, while the getting is good and the publication carrot still dangling in the wind. And the grants are sizeable especially with no results but just unfulfilled promising conclusions.
Doc, with all due respect, I think we have given management the great benefit of the doubt. It is now time for transparency. For example, has management received a clean bill of health as a result of the 90 day investigation that has now been veiled for not 90 but 900 days? Why can't we know what was behind the hold? It's been lifted right? The FDA has not embargoed NWBO from saying anything about it? Or, when will we see the results of the spring refresh? I could go on and on but the silence and lack of transparency has gone on too long. Hiring a PR firm will not fix the underlying perception of management as lacking in credibility and reliability. Management has created its own perception and, importantly, it is not attractive to Wall Street. Lack of positive news due to uncertainties with the indeterminate length of the trial and Linda's stay tuned mantra will continue to weigh on the pps. Finally, as, if and when there is positive news, the pps will recoup itself and again rise to current levels. A five bagger from a nickel is not a very attractive investment story to say the least. It's time for management to change its style and begin communicating--and not through message boards. Instead of being an apologist for management and giving them the impression that all is hunky dory in paradise, which is a disfavour to all shareholders, it's time for a wake up call. Otherwise supporters and investors won't stay tuned for long and will undoubtedly change to another channel. JMHO.
AI
