RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Merck buys Velosbio The CFO and IR said this on separate calls within the last couple of months. My guess is they were trying to figure out how the stock did not react positively to the general NASH news. And they may be right about that too, at least in the short term. If the FDA approves their phase III NASH trial and the stock doesn't move, then that would be strong evidence they are right. But I think the stock would react to news if they had a retail investor strategy versus an institutional one at this point. Institutions cannot buy such a small cap stock.
longterm56 wrote: Who at the company conveyed this to you? If it was the IR lady, she's making excuses. So, all the following makes the stock price go down.. - shorts - weak handed longs - long term holders - tax loss selling - poor sales - poor communication THTX has all the above. Pretty sad. -LT
SPCEO1 wrote: I think you are blaming me for a theory the company actually has. I am just noting it and discussing it with the board. I can see the company's point of view but think their conclusion is not fully accurate.
longterm56 wrote: Exactly! I've never heard that loyal shareholders are to blame for a low stock price. Actually, this kind of worries me .... seems like SPCEO is running out of explanations for why this stock doesn't move. And if HE can't keep coming up with reasons .... then we are all doomed. I'm almost ready to get a new user name ("Long Term" might not be the case much longer).
-LT
qwerty22 wrote: How bad was the ownership situation at the start of the Trogarzo story? The stock ran up on something investable, namely the potential of Trogarzo. It ran down as that potential failed to materialize. Why can't they do the same with NASH and/or cancer?
longterm56 wrote: How is " the concentrated ownership of the stock represented on this board" a problem? We're all long term investors which makes less shares available to trade so if there was a demand for the stock it would run. The problem is the company fails to make a demand for the stock. How did you come to this conclusion? Did you just make it up? -LT
SPCEO1 wrote: Management appear to have talked themselves into a belief that one of problems for the stock price is the concentrated ownership of the stock represented on this board which leads to a desire for them to diversify the ownership of the stock. They may be right but I am not totally convinced. Still, if they do some sort of offering and they do one wisely, it could be a positive long term development. So, my sense is they are trying to figure out how to do something to provide more liquidity to the stock. Clearly, logic dictates waiting until they get good news on the NASH phase III before doing an offering. And if they don't get good news, there is no immediate need for cash. But I am guessing they are itching to do something as indicated by the thought they wanted to sell shares following the general NASH announcement. There is a lot of guesses in the above regarding the company's intentions, but that is my take. It is almost certainly wrong in several respects.
Wino115 wrote: I think given the cost of the cancer trial, they will get a lot more value post any kind of human trial. There's the obvious risk of failure, but as we've said, this is not about the chemo agent being used, it's about attaching to the SORT1 receptor, internalizing it, and seeing the toxin work. That seems to be a lot less risky kind of trial in my view. So to get the best value they should wait.
They should also just license out the two they are working on now and not the whole platform. Seatle Genetics (SeaGen) is doing it indication by indication it seems. That looks smart to me as a way to maximize and also get the right sales partner for each. So there's really no need to partner for the whole platform or even the whole company. There may be someone better in TNBC and Ovarian versus Lung or Colon. Also, remember I found that article that said SORT1 overexpressed in leukemia too.
I know Boards want to see a financial path out 2-3 years and that encompasses the cvt bond coming due. But they do have a bit of time to learn things first and get it all lined up. There's no debt due until 2023 and the cost of oncology trial is low and they have the cash for the NASH trial for first 2 years (most costs will be in year 2 post-signing up patients). So they can go for a while without worrying too much. Costs are under control and they have revenues to pay for a lot of the ongoing SGA. I'm sure they hope they can see in the next 12-18 months whether the bond will convert. If not, in 2021 or 2022 when you start thinking about financing, you would obviously include the bond payoff if it's not over the convertible price and if you do a deal early you could even tender for them or just buy them in the market if they're below par.
I guess my point is you do have time at this point. Time for more information and time until any debt is due. Having any kind of data on the human trials would be most beneficial for getting the proper value for the initial SORT1 indications. But keep your hands on all the other indications. No need to give them away for nothing.