... because "remember, September isn't over yet."

... because "remember, September isn't over yet." And "funding is secured through the end of the year." And we should start injecting cancer patients "any day now".

Some of these things were probably NP's fault. Others were at least somewhat out of the company's hands. It doesn't matter. The baseline assumption for most is that publically-stated, self-imposed deadlines will be blown past with impunity. It's December 17th, and we don't even know if the FDA has opined on dosage. A BLA filing prior to 2020 would be a very pleasant surprise.

As to why they should theoretically PR it first and steal their own thunder... because that's how responsibly managed companies communicate significant events. Exposure - or lack thereof - is a key issue for the company. They should be doing everything possible to increase that exposure... like PR'ing major events and only then having a CC. I'd prefer that institutional investors and market watchers be given a reason to dial in to the CC and ask salient questions of management.

All of that said, I have no expectations that management would approach messaging properly at this point. Experience tells me that this is not a strong suit for the company, and I question their responsiveness to the various IR firms they've hired over the years since nothing seems to materially change in the approach, messaging, or outcomes with respect to exposure and the courting of institutional investors.