Since you brought my name up and attributed to me something I never said:
Your point is inane. The logic does not hold. Roger Stoll stating that it is his and the Company's job to execute and and thereby raise the stock price does not implicitly indicate that he is saying the current stock price reflects failures on his part. If you can cite specific flaws in past execution, go ahead. I have cited his failure to raise money in the good times, though I have no doubt that had he done so, several of the same people currently complaining would have screamed bloody murder.It is hard to make a coherent case for management's complicity in the FDA/artifact imbroglio.
Beyond that, some generic conclusion that the stock price is a direct measure of management competence is.....let's see if I can put this in a way that Aiming won't have to delete it....no, can't do it....really stupid. In the past I gave examples of companies whose stock prices fluctuated widely, and asked the rhetorical question--does this mean the management suddenly became competent (or incompetent, depending on the direction)?
The answer is pretty obvious.
There are risks ahead which also have nothing to do with execution. At the moment, four species' results indicate that the function/circuitry of the Pre-Botzinger Complex is conserved across species, and thus applies to humans. In other words, based on the science we have at present, it looks like it will work in humans. There is of course the risk that the circuitry is different in humans, and that the RD trial will fail. Your scapegoating logic would be that the resultant stock price would thus be Stoll's fault. I tend to think that it is science that dictates to people, not the other way around. Stoll could in fact execute everything under his control, and things could still go badly.
NeuroInvestment
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
