Forgive me if I indulge in a tea-leaves venture.
Post# of 153897
(Total Views: 710)
Posted On: 07/01/2022 4:56:17 AM
Forgive me if I indulge in a tea-leaves venture.
Calstang wrote,
I think he did, actually. Clearly they read and chose the questions beforehand and wrote down responses. Kelly is a good speaker but no one remember tripartite questions and responds in quick perfect sentences without an umm to be found.
Kelly as we know is a holdover from the old regime, which wants to tell us more than the new restore-credibility-and-also-restore-credibility-and-did-I-mention-credibility folks. So why would he choose and answer carefully the question about GSK and Haleon? Even if he HAD to answer that question, which I don't think he did, he could have just said there's no reason for us to discuss other companies and their ventures or suitability. He did the opposite. He said in short that it would be a suitable partner.
Of course Respert pointed out that the CFO talked about dilution, and why mention dilution if we are about to get a partner? Respert is of course always right, but I'd respond by saying: 1) He didn't talk MUCH about dilution -- no exact number, no exact time; 2) Additional shares could be a backup plan; 3) it we could intend to add additional shares so as to be in a stronger position in negotiations with GSK (and anyone else).
So there you have it, plain as day, concrete as my wife's lips, and indisputable. Kelly wanted us to know that we are in fact talking to GSK, probably about NASH phase III (which has to be a doozy of a trial, not just 350 mg but 700 for certain halotypes, and expensive as hell).
Despite the extra time tacked onto the FDA hold, I felt good about the call. Recknor's assessment of Leron's potential MOA is breathtaking.
Calstang wrote,
Quote:
Kelly in the old days would at least state that they are in discussions relating to potential partnerships."
I think he did, actually. Clearly they read and chose the questions beforehand and wrote down responses. Kelly is a good speaker but no one remember tripartite questions and responds in quick perfect sentences without an umm to be found.
Kelly as we know is a holdover from the old regime, which wants to tell us more than the new restore-credibility-and-also-restore-credibility-and-did-I-mention-credibility folks. So why would he choose and answer carefully the question about GSK and Haleon? Even if he HAD to answer that question, which I don't think he did, he could have just said there's no reason for us to discuss other companies and their ventures or suitability. He did the opposite. He said in short that it would be a suitable partner.
Of course Respert pointed out that the CFO talked about dilution, and why mention dilution if we are about to get a partner? Respert is of course always right, but I'd respond by saying: 1) He didn't talk MUCH about dilution -- no exact number, no exact time; 2) Additional shares could be a backup plan; 3) it we could intend to add additional shares so as to be in a stronger position in negotiations with GSK (and anyone else).
So there you have it, plain as day, concrete as my wife's lips, and indisputable. Kelly wanted us to know that we are in fact talking to GSK, probably about NASH phase III (which has to be a doozy of a trial, not just 350 mg but 700 for certain halotypes, and expensive as hell).
Despite the extra time tacked onto the FDA hold, I felt good about the call. Recknor's assessment of Leron's potential MOA is breathtaking.
(16)
(0)