The way that investors make outsized returns is to be successful contrarians. Wall Street is not always right; it's right most of the time, but not always.
In this case, there is a clear disconnect between the EMA acceptance of the MAA and its subsequent approval stats and the high level of short interest in AVXL. I am keeping my eyes on the EMA, and not the hedge funds. The EMA gets to make this decision, and I don't believe, as you apparently do, that after due consideration the EMA foolishly chose to invest its time and resources into reviewing what is on its face a hopelessly doomed MAA. We know from their history that the EMA staff are much better than that.
There is a disconnect between the practice of other AD applicants running two large and comparatively lengthy Phase 3 trials and Anavex running just one smaller and shorter trial. Of course, the reason for spending all the resources needed for multiple large trials is not for its own sake, but instead to achieve statistical proofs of efficacy and demonstrate an appropriate level of safety. These were barely achieved (arguably) in the mab trials, but surpassed by Anavex in its single smaller and briefer trial. That is a signal of drug candidate strength, not weakness.
Or perhaps it's also because there is a general disbelief that this tiny biotech with its out of left field MOA can possibly succeed where all the big names have failed to produce a widely applicable, safe and easily administered AD drug. Perhaps those large investors and their advisors just preclude the thought that they have been so profoundly wrong about the science for so long and reject the thought that they will be proven wrong. This is a variation of the "not invented here" fallacy that usually occurs in commercial research labs, and it is a natural behavioral flaw among many scientists. In fact, after the amyloid approach has played out with minimal returns, a reasonable analyst should instead look toward other theories with an open mind.
There's a disconnect between the recent scientific research and the stock price that favors Anavex investors and is being ignored by Wall Street. This research is surely being considered by CHMP.
And, of course, there is a disconnect between CHMP's incentives and Wall Street's economic investments in mab technologies. This matters greatly in terms of predicting the odds of an EMA approval.
I am always encouraged by hearing the fallback argument of people on the other side who cite supporting economic behavior of others for the proposition that they must be right -- while ignoring the obvious reasons why they can all be wrong. It would be more convincing if they argued the science instead, but of course that argument wouldn't go as well for them.
Market Data 
Markets 
