RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:SEC filing You were here for the ibalizumab/Trogarzo story. The same kind of complaining was posted here, many were complaining that the value of the deal, including me, was not reflected in the SP. Finally it got approved, the SP went to 14$, proving that with real good news the market was reacting very positively. Then, sales were well below expectations, we were proven wrong, and the market rected negatively, but most stayed in and did not profit from the rise. We thought sales would be good, and it would go to 30$ or higher. We were totally wrong about that, me the first. So I find it weird to see the same pattern again. The reality is that it is a speculative stock. NASH will cost a ton ans will take time and oncology was bought two years ago for 2 M$ garranteed and milestones. Big success with both programs is not impossible, but again, clinical trials exist for a reason. I am not negative here. I just try to be more realistic than the last time with Trogarzo.
ANALIAS00 wrote: I am aware that we may not helping ourself being negativ. But we are not all the time. We are just not putting our head in the sand. We report their good moves and we question or criticize the bads. The revenues are not negligeable, the potential to increase revenues is real. They have two products in the pipeline that can be very rewarding and in which we clearly believe. Beside the fantastic science work they are doing, we just want management to insure they take the best decision possible for shareholders.
jfm1330 wrote: Sorry, but if a potential investor comes here to learn more about the company the first thing he will read is repetitive posts stating that this company is plagued with incompetent management and BOD. After that he will ask himself why are these people writing all that still invested in this company?
ANALIAS00 wrote: One of the first thing Paul said was about being accountable. If Dubuc suggested that Nasdaq was the way to go and at the end that made no difference at all, it would be interesting to insure noone got bonus for that. And dont get me wrong. Nasdaq idea was good, they (Dubuc's strategy or absence of strategy ?) just failed to optimize what Nasdaq could have brought to THTX days, weeks and months after getting there. So yes THTX must insure bonus are proportionnal to results and THTX must insure that no result = no bonus.
realitycheck4u wrote: He said we should claw back bonues. Kinda stupid to go back and copy/paste what he did, and to think it's even close to reality. You forget, I am realityCheck4U
ANALIAS00 wrote: So you are saying we should forget and forgive all bad decisions because their PR are full of "should, may, we beleive, potential,..." ? I for sure do not think so.
realitycheck4u wrote: Here's why.
“We believe (they were wrong) that being listed on NASDAQ will help (not "for sure", just help) to foster interest (not deliver it for sure, just "forster it") from more potential (not fure sure, just potential) investors and financial analysts, and that it should (not for sure) result in increased liquidity for investors. If you cannot read a statement without also reading what it means, that's a problem my friend.
palinc2000 wrote: Lol!!!
realitycheck4u wrote: You are losing my respect. That's the stupidest comment on this board in a very long time.
palinc2000 wrote: From the August 12 2019 PR re application for Nasdaq Listing......I am not 100% certain but I think part of Dubuc s bonus was based on Listing on the Naz.......IF this is the case then maybe .there should be clawback clauses on bonuses
“We believe that being listed on NASDAQ will help to foster interest from more potential investors and financial analysts, and that it should result in increased liquidity for investors. Theratechnologies will enter NASDAQ with a strong commercial portfolio and a research pipeline that will undoubtedly attract more attention and be better recognized,” said Philippe Dubuc, Senior Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer, Theratechnologies Inc