jfm1330 wrote: Levesque pushed the NASH narrative very hard and needed to subtly backpedal about it. I went from Thera will go alone in a large phase III, to a partner search, and now scaling back to a phase IIb/III.
NASH was all the rage when Levesque started two years ago and then all the results being reported by othe NASH companies blew all those companies reporting them and the investors investing in them up. So, market circumstances played a role in how that developed. Even so, you have got it pretty right. TH went for the grand slam home run with NASH, somehow got the FDA to agree to their IND, but then found that other potential partners were not willing to go as far as the FDA was. As a side note, it seems to me the latest interation with the phase III is not that much different than the previous one - what am I missing? The previous version allowed for an early halt to the trial if things were not going welland the new trial does to. What exactly changed? He also pushed a lot the SORT1+ program. Remember the KOL presentation, he was very positive and talked of a new way to treat cancer and so on and they were very optimistic about timelines, when in the end it will take twice the time they said it would take a year ago.
I would love to know the full back story on how this went down as it really did take an exceptionally long time for the phase 1a and we are not quite finished yet (as best we can tell). Also, at the time of the KOL, patient #2 already likely had had 2-3 cycles of treatment (assuming they got started in late April) so they probably already had some good indication something positive was happening at that point. Remember Levesque saying that Marsolais would not tell him everything he was seeing in the trial because he did not want him to get too excited? I sense there was quite a bit of drama between the time of the KOL and now behind the scenes. When they took the corporate presentation down at the end of last year and left it down for quite a while, one wonders what was going on that made the old presentation potentially incorrect? Then they posted it again with almost no changes. They put disclaimers at the end of press releases ans at the beginning of conference calls for a reason. It's a very speculative business. Since Levesque took charge, it was all promises, but he did not deliver results on any front.
From my perspective, despite the missed deadlines and shortcomings on various fronts, it is pretty clear TH has improved quite a bit under Paul's watch. The legacy drug business has not been as great as he had suggested but it has performed better than thought it might - let's face it neither drug is all that exciting at this point. He pulled off something of a miracle with getting NASH to even where it is (credit for this likely belongs more with Luc and Christian as that process wass started before he got there but it was comleted under his watch) and we are likely weeks away from some news on the phase 1a that will provide encouragement that TH has an exciting future in cancer. If cancer turns out to be a dud, then Paul's tenure is going to be hard to be called a success, so much depends on it. But until we get that final word on the phase 1a, he still has a chance at redemption. And we should know soon. The commercial business is not improving overall, Egrifta up, but Trogarzo down. NASH is in limbo, and we wait and wait for results of the phase Ia on TH1902. So the only achievement under levesque, if we can call it that way, is the ongoing clinical trial in oncology. At least it's ongoing, but it is awfully slow and totally out of the guidance they gave on the time it would take. Maybe it's just a steeper learning curve in oncology, and they will be fine in the end,
I suspect the odds are pretty good it will work out fine in the end. but for now there is nothing to push up the stock price and nothing to promote it.
As usual,I believe you have that wrong. Is this attitude a Montreal thing? It is not the normal approach for most biotechs and the valuations all highlight it as I have demonstrated over and over again. If Paul has a huge failure, it is not surpringly on this front where the IR function has gotten even worse in many ways under his term of duty. And the ONO was clearly the biggest value destroying thing he oversaw. All we can hope for now is better sales number next week in Q1 results,
TH has said you will get that, but we need to remember the 1Q21 results were unually low as the company pushed sales into 4Q20 to help the ONO. and some kind of positive news in oncology in May.
I don't want to say that good news is guaranteed on cancer but it is not far off of that based on patient #2. What we do not know is if there is some bad news as well that will be revealed when the full data is reported sometime soon. Nor do we know if the market will respond favorably to any positive news TH reports as the stock is being largely ignrored by the analysts and the company has not figured out a way to engage with retail investors who can actually invest in it moreeasily. Basically, the stock has no sponsorship and that is goign to cost us all a lot and has already cost us a lot. The stock may go up but it may not go up as much as it deserves to if they donot have support for the stock from some source of investors. NASH is on hold and I don't know what will happen with that. The company simply does not have the financial means to go alone. So unless they comme with a really great news in oncology that would push the stock price much higher, I think NASH will stay on hold, maybe forever.
If the cancer data is good enough, no one might be concerned about dropping NASH. It is expensive to do that trial and the chance of success may not be high enough to justify the cost. If the BOD sees the chance of success in cancer is higher, it would make sense to not divert sizable resources to NASH. ANALIAS00 wrote: Hi Fred, I think Palinc's input is always very realistic in all time and I appreciate his input a lot. I think he could be less in JFM's back and reply to his input with less emotions and sarcastics comment but we saw worse comment from others. I also like JFM but he is very wrong on one thing. He wont admit that in between news, there is a lot a companie can and should do for shareholders. He does not agree that shareprice should not only reflect the actual situation but also the possible outcomes, the guidances. Then on top of that, what should increase even higher SP is if news announced by the cie meet or surpass expectations and cie's guidances. Remember the basic. For the first share to be sold in the 90's TH had to provide a plan and expections and guidances and many argument that shows that the ACTUAL SITUATION at the time and the "POSSIBLE" FUTURE might profit the investment. Today, and for the last couple of years, TH is not taking any opportunity or is failing to communicate properly their actual plan and state and the benifit that can result out of it. I agree with many here that TH could have simply find a way to keep their shareholders on board, excited about a possible bright future. Many here provided many other similar cie that succeeded to keep their SP at a level that reflect the possible outcomes, not TH. I also agree that even if they come up with the homerun you are expecting in vain since 2018 that they are failing to fairly promote their work and this is costly to all of us sharehoders and may keep custing us $ in the future if they dont change their "strategy". SP should reflect parts of the future expectations from the companie. Maybe it does and we are all refusing to see it ?
FredTheVoice wrote: Yep, your right on that one, with THERA I made a huge mistake when we look at my choices in the last years in that bull market. I admit.
Hope for the best.
And, on the other side, I never will be waiting for you to say your sorry or wrong with your human acumen......
GLTA,
FTV.