RE:Accountability or lack of it?Good summary. I think they were, as our friend qwerty would say, data-driven with the early NASH push which then widened out. I don't recall them ever thinking they could pull off a Phase 3 on their own, that's way too large and expensive. The data made them move to building the plan and looking for a partner ready to go in to a P2b/3 (post revision). It wasn't a stupid move, and I think if there had been ongoing exceitement around it, it could have worked back then. If Intercept had been approved so the market came in to view with revenues, it would have helped. Same goes now for Madrigal - if they initiate sales and the industry sees hundreds of millions and then billions coming their way, others may want to jump start in. There still are only a handful that have made it to P3, so while we're all still in the prove-it-to-me category, a successful Madrigal would help.
I think all their oncology talk was also data-driven, it's just that the data was all in the lab and some anecdotal efficacy in the initial dosage part. Their task is to see if changing patient types, cancer types and dosing can get them back in the game with humans. But it's all been based on data, just hind-sight looking data, not the newest data. I can't fault Paul for not knowing what would happen with the investigation. It did look like a key, it just didn't fit in round 1.
Look - they're doing the right and only thing to do. Just do every thing you can to protect and grow the revenue from your products and do it as efficiently as you can so more cash is generated and you hit breakeven and then show you will be a profitable company with a decent ROI on those revenues. Those financials are the only guaranteed way to drive value for shareholders right now. All the other stuff they've tilted so it can only be a positive, not a negative. In other words, they've been clear NASH is there, but needs a big partner. Fine, if they find one because of Madrigal reigniting interest great. But they aren't spending a penny on that in the medium term. Same for oncology, if they can use the collected data to increase the probability of success, they might do a smallish final enrollment to see since it wouldn't cost a lot, and then look to partner it. So those two assets major investments are basically in the past. There's either no news or good(ish) news for those assets. So the real driver is just to keep going on sales, build it, --and keep lid on costs. It's slower for us, but only way to get share back to something more normal and related to their sales, cash flow and profits. That will unlock the market for financing too. The only 3 surprises can be positives, not negatives - another product to plug in profitably, something around NASH interest, or something on oncology. We'll know in a month how that's going, but they said it was "on target". That should at least reassure those bailing that it's a company with revenue growing 15%.
What the market fails to give them credit for is that sales growth, topline growth, is the best growth for seeing it filter down to help a company achieve financial goals. I get why the market could care less --they've burned it too many times now. But if they can push those numbers, cut costs more aggressively and beat all those expectations, that's the only starting point they can hit. That is the only real important thing now for seeing the share recover back to fair value in time. It just requires patience on investors part and we, like others, are pretty short on it but will have to watch the financials improve each quarter. Anything else is gravy and is either neutral or positive, regarding pipeline assets.