I strongly support the ASX's intent behind Continuous Disclosure rules, but recognise there is much scope for individual interpretation of the need to disclose. Yet IMO, for most companies, most of the time, there are limited practical implications to board interpretation on disclosures (aside from willful beaches of disclosure rules, obviously).
However, the impact of such interpretations are magnified in Biotech - in a highly speculative investment class - due to the significant revaluations that occur as value inflection points are met.
IMO it is common practice for Bio boards to use ASX disclosures as an avenue for general newsflow, to keep the Co. name front-of-mind and to lightly kick along the SP. I believe these disclosures are mostly positively intended, to the overall benefit of most shareholders and are generally delivered in an above-board sort of way.
But disclosing on key activities (clinical, regulatory in particular) can have significant, widespread consequences, primarily on SP (directly affecting capital raising ability) but also on Business Development activities, co. reputation - to name but a few.
IMO the decision to disclose (drip feed) clinical data or regulatory outcomes under the guise of 'milestones', prior to completion, is at best meaningless (non-contextual) and at worst blatant manipulation of sentiment.
Recent examples (SRX) show that even the most appropriate/best intended disclosures, poorly handled, can have a devastating effect on credibility and reputation, to say nothing of SP.
My advice to shareholders is to be extremely wary of the value and meaning in any of the disclosures mentioned here.
My advice to boards is to 1) carefully assess the consequences of these disclosures in particular will have on your business (which we love - btw) and; 2) don't believe you know all there is about how to disclose such information - seek professional advice on how to best communicate your message.
NEU Price at posting:
8.9¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Not Held
(20min delay)