I think thats a fair assessment, ie timings are late and they cant disclose prematurely.
In the quarterly, I read two or three things, as previously discussed;
- 'Primarily' and 'site monitoring'
- Prospective comments 'will be central' ...around preparation of results for BP & solution to meet unmet need
I appreciate its not a signed take over agreement ;), but bearing in mind the inability to disclose results prematurely, if you had a reasonable idea of results be that interim, intial, annecdotal, prelim, whatever.. AND you knew they were bad why would you suggest a positive prospective view ? Even if it were a genric line, its unnecessary right? Youd remove it, surely ? Assuming any amount of time was put into it, and if they were 'stressing' about outcome, presumably they would put time into detail
Secondly, if you had seen bad results and you were not wanting to flag them why hightlight your potential knowledge of them by saying 'primarily'.
To me it reads 'good', but cant say so.
The coming weeks Irritates... why talk in terms of weeks and update in terms of months ? Why not say CRO has guided 'end of Feb', etc?
Per previous discussion, pls also see 'by order of the board' pg3
, but bearing in mind the inability to disclose results prematurely, if you had a reasonable idea of results be that interim, intial, annecdotal, prelim, whatever.. AND you knew they were bad why would you suggest a positive prospective view ? Even if it were a genric line, its unnecessary right? Youd remove it, surely ? Assuming any amount of time was put into it, and if they were 'stressing' about outcome, presumably they would put time into detail
