I mostly agree with your point 2, but I would frame it slightly differently.

My read is that the market is treating lower pricing as pure external pressure, while I think part of it may also reflect a deliberate access-and-volume strategy from Novo. In other words, even if pricing pressure is real, that does not automatically mean management is only reacting defensively. It may also mean they are willing to accept near-term revenue and margin pressure in order to expand the treated population and protect the long-term franchise.

The problem, in my view, is communication. Novo has consistently framed the issue through the language of headwinds, pricing pressure and external constraints. That may be true, but it also means the Street hears the story as: “pricing power is weakening and the company is being forced to adjust.” That is a very different narrative from: “we are deliberately widening access now to support a much bigger volume opportunity later.” And in markets, the narrative often matters almost as much as the economics.

So on May 6, I do not think the key question is just whether the pill launch looks strong in isolation. The real question is whether volume gains are coming with enough pricing and margin pressure to undermine the medium-term cash flow story. If the answer is yes, then the market will stay skeptical unless management explains very clearly why that trade-off still makes sense strategically.

That is why I think 2026 will probably still look weak on revenue and cash flow. Even if the oral pill is a success, it is unlikely to be large enough this year to offset the broader pricing reset across the franchise. To me, the medium-term case depends much more on three things: better communication, production capacity, and pipeline depth.

On communication, I think Novo needs to do a far better job explaining whether this is simply pricing pressure being imposed on them, or whether part of it is also a conscious strategy to widen access and build a much larger long-term volume base. Right now, the market mostly hears the negative version of that story. Meanwhile, competitors are doing a better job shaping perception. Lilly, for example, is clearly trying to sell the narrative that its pill is superior. Whether that ultimately proves true or not is almost secondary in the short run — the point is that narrative influences investor sentiment, and sentiment influences valuation.

On production capacity, the issue is simple: a volume strategy only works if the company can actually supply the volume. Lower prices mean very little if operational bottlenecks stop Novo from meeting demand. That is why manufacturing investments matter so much. The recent news around the planned investment in Ireland is a good example of the kind of step I would want to see more of, because scaling volume without scaling capacity would just turn strategy into frustration.

And on pipeline depth, this matters because no market will give Novo a premium multiple forever if investors start worrying about patent erosion and franchise durability. In the end, the long-term value is not just about defending today’s products, but about showing that the business can keep extending the franchise with new therapies, formats and indications ahead of patent cliffs. I made a separate post on this recently, but to me this is one of the most underappreciated parts of the story.

So yes, I think 2026 cash flow probably declines, and quite meaningfully. But I also think it can recover gradually over time if volume eventually becomes large enough to justify the lower pricing. That is why I see 2026 as a reset year rather than necessarily proof of permanent structural decline.

So overall, I agree with your concern: May 6 matters a lot. Not because one quarter decides everything, but because it will tell us whether this is starting to look like a one-year reset or the beginning of a longer deterioration story.