RE:The problemThoughtful response. I'm guessing the Board is staggered, but haven't bothered to check. To me, the Board appointments last year were a bit odd both in timing and in what added skill they thought they brought along that would be helpful. I had thought you only ever brought them up at voting time and we vote on them for a normal term.
There is one really, really good thing the OO could bring to THTX if they know how to go about it. We are still not sure if there was only one instiutional lead order or three, as rumors floated around. We only know of the one, Soleus. It behooves Paul and Dubuc to have a discussion with those guys around this issue given it hits their pocket too. All they need to ask for is introductions to who they think would be the best firms for them to work with in US and Can for both research coverage, client introduction and banking services. And would they provide a recommendation at the highest level and give the effort a push. They're all in the same boat and this is done all the time -- it's just asking them for their views on "best" firms for their size/strategy, and for a name and a phone number.
If they don't get at least that from them given the sweet deal they gave them, then they aren't as saavy as they need to be around this issue. If Soleus is in a bunch of these private deals like BioAtla, then they are holding a golden goose list of IPO candidates for investment banks and the guys who've worked on their past deals will pick up the phone if they call before it even rings. Those are the single best accounts you can have as an investment banker -- private equity and VC. Paul needs to avail himself and us of that opportunity to get some value for US from that OO.
SPCEO1 wrote: The problem for TH is really a very focused one. It's share price has come up way short versus all other comparables during a huge bull market costing us all massive amounts in opportunity cost if not also real cold cash. The board and management have managed most every other respect of the company's affairs reasonably well.
So what can shareholders do to fix that problem?
Not much, unfortunately. Voting out board members is a way to send the message that we are not at all happy with the situation, but that does not mean it ill get fixed as unless someone wants to lead a hostile effort to replace board members, the board members we don't vote off will just replace those we do with whoever they please. The chances of real change occurring are not great.
Real change only occurs when there is an attempt to put up new board members to replace current ones and shareholders vote on that. I have no interest in pursuing that route of trying to fix the problem and it would lead to a huge diversion of management resources away from NASH and cancer until it was resolved, If someone out there wants to go that route, I have an obligation to my clients to consider whatever alternative is being offered and vote appropriately. So, it is possible I would support such an attempt withthe votes I control. But it is not likely as the disruption is likely unnecessary and the board only has this one major problem that they likely can fix if they choose to.
The board has already approved something to try to address this issue as Paul referenced as much at the end of the call yesterday. I am pretty sure I know at least what part of that attempted effort is and, in my view, it has a decent chance of at least limited success. And it is not as dodgy an effort as the Water Tower Research thing. So, we should probably give them a chance to see this effort through for a while.
But, we will be getting the proxy soon and that almost certainly will cause many of us some serious heartburn. So, tabling the conversation until we get that and also see what comes of the new effort to get the stock the respect it deserves is likely the best idea at the moment. It may be that after seeing the proxy and seeing what the new initiative is that we all agree that a message needs to be sent by voting one or more off the board. We certainly have the votes to do that if we wanted to. Hopefully, we will not want to by the time it comes to submit our votes.
Also, I think we can reasonably assume that the appointment of the two new board members last Fall was in anticipation of one or two currently on the board retiring from it. So, we need to wait and see who is actually up for election before we might pick who to target.
If we are really ticked off when it comes time to vote, we could vote everyone off the board and through things into a bit of chaos. I am actually not at all sure what would happen in that situation regarding building a whole new board. But that seems unnecesary and way too disruptive too. That would be something we would do only if the current board mucks some more things up and it seems like there is no other way to achieve the changes we hope they will implement.
Again, this board has done a lot of good things. The only major failure is the stock price. That is a pretty serious failure but it is correctable, especially because the board has done enough good things in the past to create a very intriguing company with two very big shots on very big goals that it should be easier than normal to fix the problem. Still, they cannot do what they have done in the past and expect things to change. The idea that if you build the better mousetrap the world will beat a path to your door is not working. You need to get out there and tell the world about it. And given what they have pulled off in creating a whole new TH whose future has little to do with tiny HIV drugs and much to do with huge markets like cancer and NASH, all while using little in shareholder resources to accomplish that feat, they have a lot to crow about. They simply need to tell that great story to the right audience.