We will need to agree to disagree.
Perhaps my "word smithing" on what should have been presented was not on the mark. But the greater point is that in essence, with respect to the main dish on the menu, L, there was essentially a stay tuned message and what amounted to an apologia for why the SAP was still incomplete at the time of Industry Theatre. The update on L was a nothing burger and in my view there was certainly a better way to present with a little more meat. I also don't understand why some additional info such as the number of patients alive could not be disclosed as it was in the JTM. I just feel that in this respect, the update on L was a non-event and highly disappointing to the market and at least some investors such as myself. The share price acted accordingly sliding over 20% or so at one point. Indeed, the price whip-sawed part of the way back but we are still in for a rough ride.
Wrt Innes, I agree that he is not obnoxious and unpleasant to speak to as was LG. He does possess the qualities you have alluded to. However, it is my gut feeling that he has, at least thus far, had little influence in making any change in NWBO's clandestine culture of silence and obfuscation. If he were still in is old job, you can bet he would have clamored for "the number of patients alive" and a more specific guidance on the process. I believe that he does not have the sway or influence to alter in any meaningful way the obdurate mindset of LG and LP. He is essentially given a script and told to run with it. He may present a more likable and seemingly compliant IR spokesman vis-a-vis LG but to me he is an insulating layer between NWBO management and shareholders, and an expensive one at that. I am rather certain that if he were still at Oppy, he would have been as sorely disappointed in the presentation as you and I. Accordingly, thus far, I see very little value in what he has brought to the table thus far. He has had a very long association with NWBO and has known both LP and LG well way before he joined NWBO as an employee. He well understood the weaknesses and complained sometimes aggressively with management and made various suggestions. So it is not as if he is new to the job and NWBO. He wanted change for the better when he was outside NWBO. Perhaps that has not changed. But he is now part of the team and has to drink the same kool-aid as the others otherwise he could be on the outside and even lose his position. He needs to thread a thin line as a supposed shareholders advocate. I think DI had an opportunity to influence what happened at ASCO but was either in full agreement, disagreed but could not exert any influence or was not at all consulted despite his interest to do so. In sum, at least up to now, I see little value in his role other than a placeholder so that LG can do other things. Pretty expensive placeholder IMHO.
As to the contradiction you point out, there really isn't any. Likely, LP does not care CURRENTLY about where the share price is. She cares only about getting over the goal line. She believes that if results warrant, the market value will take care of itself. If the share price is at all time lows when top-line/approvals issue, the share price will not immediately reach a higher level than would be the case if the share price were higher at the time of those announcements. She believes that no matter where the share price is that EVENTUALLY it will settle at roughly the same level. In other words, the higher the share price the more quickly you reach the market value, all things being equal. So, no, there is no contradiction in what I have stated. As a shareholder, I do care about where the share price is CURRENTLY. I would like to reach market value sooner rather than EVENTUALLY as I assume most retail shareholders would agree. It may indeed be, as I have suggested, that LP has a longer term expectation than at least I and some number of shareholders have. No contradiction there either my friend.
As to your questioning whether I am a lawyer, the answer is yes. I was a trial lawyer many years ago but I subsequently went in a different corporate direction and had three businesses of my own. I am a member of the NYS bar. And yes, I have had a lot of experience with disclosure and regulatory requirements. My "word smithing" as you termed it was meant as an example within the context of a greater point and not as a finished product.
