I'm excited and happy to hear Missling say that. But I'm not generally in the habit of believing a big claim from a businessperson with the usual support for his claim missing or a bit flaky. What you're saying boils down to "just believing the guy." I haven't invested before in a biotech company, but I'd be very surprised if there aren't instances of biotech CEOs saying things like that and being wrong or overly optimistic. (You would have thought Magic Leap's VR headset was going to have conquered the world years ago if you just listened to its founder/CEO Rony Abovitz.)
Imagine you work in an investment company and your job is to find investments. Your boss asks why you're saying to invest a few million dollars in Anavex. You reply, "Because the CEO said their trial met the endpoints and the company is close to commercialization." He says, "But there really has been no data or analysis supporting one of the Primary Endpoints." He's a hard-ass and adds, "Why wouldn't they back up their claim with the kind of information other companies routinely provide with their TLR? How can he possibly present an OR and omit the number of patients who were above the threshold? How can they say they met an endpoint and offer stats that don't directly relate to the endpoint they themselves specified? Either they're hiding something or they're incompetent. You want me to invest in a company that demonstrates incompetence because you believe the CEO?" If your boss invests and it fails, you're going to have a much harder time explaining yourself than if the typical information were properly provided.
This is why I believe the share price is where it is: Institutional investors expect to see things that support the big claim, and the complete complement of those things isn't here. You and I might operate on this sort of trust, but it's not enough for an investor in a corporate setting.* And it's not that hard, I would think, to provide what's been missing.
I'm deeply invested, as I've said before, but if Anavex were to fail, I'd feel stupid in retrospect, wondering why I'd invested when there are some manifest omissions. I have a little boss inside my head, and he's not fully satisfied.
As for commercialization, that could well be for Rett Syndrome, which I expect is what's "most soon." I also think the company is worth a whole lot more than $8 if Rett were the only indication Anavex would treat in the next couple years; and even Investor, who's more skeptical than I am, thinks there's a high likelihood of AD approval after a PM P3; and I'm very much okay investing in a company that could have Rett soon and Alzheimer's in a few years. (Though I'd sure prefer if it goes skyward a lot sooner. :) )
*Why do you think the share price is so low? Corporations that invest aren't going to be scared by AF. They can do their own thinking. They can find Mayo's website. They can ask experts in pharmaceutical development. And Anavex is not so under-the-radar that they haven't heard the CEO say endpoints have been met on one of the potentially biggest blockbuster drugs ever. They haven't been provided a clear analysis and data set they can "take to the boss."
AI
