RE:Thoughts on the PR construction You have a point.
A stand alone PR and CC for NASH would be merited. They (a) got the nod for Ph3 and (b) announced some wrinkles need ironing out. Somehow the RBC guy downplayed a) and focused on b). Maybe a CC emphasizing that a) was the real big news here would have helped as would a chance to ask questions about the wrinkles.
What did the 3 analysts say about the sales numbers in their reports? If they were more positive about that then maybe the company understand this is the analysts pre-occupation and include it for that reason. I do think it doesn't help to move the discussion over to the R&D though.
SPCEO1 wrote: Yesterday we hit the trifecta - three pieces of unambiguously good news which all enhanced the credibility of management as Palinc has pointed out. So, the focus should be on that good news and we should all be in a good mood as a result as Realitycheck4u admonsihed us to be.
But I do want to enter one criticism into the record.
There was one PR for three big events. Would three PR's in qucik succession have been a better strategy? If not, should not the one PR have led off with the NASH news instead of the far less significant revenue beat? I saw any number of headlines yesterday about TH that only included the news about revenues being at a record level. If you are trying to get your message out, you need to understand how the robots are going to communicate it and adjust accordingly.
OK - I am now going back to being happy.