You are not/less concerned with the uncertainty. Over the years, dates have been missed, a halt for a reason they said would be revealed after resolution, many many other strange things both external and internal that delayed this trial. If you are satisfied the slide from December 2017 is exactly what it was created to be, why did they not confirm or deny it? Do you know if there have been efficacy IAs performed? There were supposed to be two. Are you sure the slide wouldn't be conceded as just a simple unintended mistake (aka: not correct) at some later time?
You may like the cheap shares, but you should not like the uncertainty and lack of clarity and unexplained delays. Now you are told, well, there really is no event count for completing the trial, it's just when it gets to a certain rate, but listen, what rate? He is saying slower rate means you should be even more careful in unblinding. Well guess what, rates slow in immunotherapy trials. LP says we won't go until the last OS event....what kind of non-useful statement is that? It simply keeps the price down. Now imagine they are sitting on knowledge they have already succeeded with PFS -- the primary endpoint. They are accumulating shares, another share accumulation will happen when LP's loan comes due in Aug 2018. People like yourself, continue to accumulate despite the added uncertainty you have as an outsider. Your risk tolerance is high, particularly when they are no longer committing to an end to the trial.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
