RE: AGM reviewSimon,
I was in attendance as well. Mgmt is very tight lipped about when they will release news of the second indication. No one asked about the specifics of the strategic review but TH kept saying it was ongoing.
Since the PR in January I have been thing the review entailed either selling TH outright OR liscencing tesamorelin completely. I am now hoping, and thinking, that they are looking to out-lisc the rights to tesamorelin for HIV lipodystrophy only, whereas they will chase the second indication themselves. If this is the case, this can be an extremely strategic and cost effective move if the second indication is obesity. Pommier was clear to point out that having Serano drop out had its pro's and con's: Pro - TH will be first to mkt and could gobble up mkt share, Con- TH would have to clear the trial and incure cost as such. If a BIG Pharma liscenses the first indication, they will likely have to incurr the costs of educating for HIV, not TH. The pharma will essentially become the first-mover the way Serano would have. IF my scenario is feasible, then TH could collect royalties and focus on obesity where no real educaton is required! Sure the pharma could benefit from some off-label for obesity, but it TH got approved for obesity they would be rolling in dough!
Mgmt kept referring to 'we don't want to commit to' when talking about news of a second indication. My question is: why would any potential buyer be deterred from the fact that the market is larger than just HIV lipodystrophy, even if TH announces intentions to pursue a second indication in X, the Pharma isn't obliged to continue that direction. Sure, if the Pharma cancels that project its lost funds, but why would they cancel a project where the rewards are so great? Thats why I think mgmt wants to sell just one indication, and keep the better one for them! I always thought they were smart to pursue the HIV route, with fewer obstacles and competition, so that they could cross the finish line with so much other true market potential in the pockets.
From the start of the meeting and in each PR we have seen lately, mgmt keep referring to creating value---hell thats what the theme of the annual report : 'How do you spell creating value? Tesamorelin'...I wanted to ask if the strategic review would include selling only the first indication, but I couldn't find a way to frame it where I'd get a straight response...
Now, is all this my high hopes and mental madness, or is it possible? Takeguts I'd appreciate your feedback on the subject and any conversations you may have with mgmt...
IFC