RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Q1 salesBelow I hope you will be able to see a screenshot from Bloomberg. It is a page I often first go to when looking at a new stock I might want to invest in. If you look at the right middle of this page, you will see that TH's track record on meeting analyst revenue and earnigns projections is horrendous. If I did not already own the stock and saw this, there is a decent chance that would be the end of the road for me considering it as a potential investment. Now, some of this is a refelction of the analysts not doing a great job, but that has been an issue forever and the way to make sure that they do a better job is via guidance. That forces the analysts to be more tightly tethered to reality. But TH rarely offers guidance and we get this terrible track record as a result.
It is paramount that TH stop blowing up its credibility like it did with Q1 sales. It knew its Q1 sales were going to be well short of analyst expectations, expectations they helped build with the record Q4 numbers and the lofty growth aspirations, but they hung those analysts out to dry. This is one reason why you get no questions on a conference call!!!!
More importantly, it is a reason why no one beleives you when you have an exciting NASH program and an even more exciting cancer program. It is why the stock never finds itself overvalued while virtually all other stocks on the planet are overvalued. It needs to be fixed yesterday. It is well past time TH got its act together with regard to how it presents itself to the investment community. TH has done a really good job in almost every other area (three cheers again for Christian Marsolais and his team for all the value he and they have delivered to shareholders) but the company still seems to be in kindergarten when it comes to dealing with the investment community.
qwerty22 wrote: Just Egrifta sales the last 4 Qs
July 2020 2nd Q 9.2mil
Oct 2020 3rd Q 6.8mil
Feb 2021 4th Q 10.7mil
Apr 2021 1st Q 8.7mil
SPCEO is suggesting the strong 4th Q numbers comes from sales shifting between Q1 2021 and Q4 2020. When it's much more clear it came from sales shifting between 3rd Q and 4th Q, not only is it clear from the numbers, the company also explained it that way. Maybe SPCEO is right and there was also some deliberate creativity at the end of the 4th Q to bump up that number but it doesn't explain the bulk of the "record Q", that came from what looks like a one-off, necessary technical issue with the return of F4 vials and restocking with SV occurring over two Qs.
I think my point is SPCEO is making more of his original point than is necessary. There was no misleading going on.
qwerty22 wrote: <p> Fine throw in pandemic as well. My point was what to make of the 19.1mil.<br /> <br /> The Q before Egrifta sales were off by +2mil and the explanation was return of F4 and tighter inventories at the distributor. The 19.1 mil record Q came from the Egrifta sales coming in +2mil from their longer term position. This was all explained in Oct 2020 and Feb 2021. I guess my point is I think SPCEO is overstating things. Maybe there was some loading of inventory towards the end of the 19.1 mil Q but most of the excess from that Q came from the correction to what had happened the previous and all that was clear in the numbers and explained</p> <p> <br />
scarlet1967 wrote: You forgot one major point "pandemic ", we are talking about times when hospitals stop elective treatments, patients don't go to clinics worrying about contracting the virus, many doctors working remotely (phone based appointments), operative disruptions etc so it is absolutely reasonable to see impacts in fact Trogarzo administered by infusion and Egrifta being injectable drug for a still in many patients view a cosmetic condition should have been effected more due to lockdowns. They may have tweaked the numbers but sales of the drugs during the last 15 months environment shouldn't be compared to previous years. The covid19 essentially pulled the rug out from under the point of sales for many commercial companies THTX is no exception. So yes averaging down Q over Q over Q.. and a flat sale growth during unprecedented circumstances is not bad at all.<br /> <br /> </p> <blockquote class="BBQuote"> <div> <cite>qwerty22 wrote:</cite> <p> Here's the last 7 Qs starting with the oldest (it's as far back as I could be bothered to look up)<br /> 16.1, 16.4, 15.7, 17.2, 14.0, 19.1, 15.4<br /> <br /> Buyer beware. Anybody wanting to read too much into the 19.1 mil Q deserves what they get. My memory is we already had an explanation of the low Q before it (14.0) as a returned inventory issue (swap from f4 to SV) so there should have been some warning that the 19.1 mil was at least in part a bounce back from that and didn't all represent real growth. If there was some loading at the end of the Q as well then so be it, it seems pretty foolish to base a trend on one Q's results when it comes to THTX. </p> <p> When we were talking about whether Paul was making a difference in sales I made the simple point that we probably should have taken the last two Qs (14.0 and 19.1) and average them because of inventory issues, that put sales pretty flat overall. Probably we really now should be looking to averaging the last 3 Qs to correct for inventory biases. The long term big picture on sales seems to have been growing US Trogarzo sales which have been flattening and in Egrifta the switch from F4 to SV which was pretty disruptive and something they haven't fully recovered from. (Having said that it's pretty hard to think of a long term Egrifta trend because it's been disrupted a number of times and has been historically so lumpy)<br /> <br /> SPCEO the only thing I would say about your points here is it was pretty foolish for ANYBODY to base ANYTHING on that 19.1mil number, if they did that was just poor research/judgement on their part.</p> <p> </p> <blockquote class="BBQuote"> <div> <cite>SPCEO1 wrote:</cite> As you know from my reply below, I do not think anything fraudulent occurred. But obviously, TH knows a lot about its sales 1 week before the quarter ends. And it preannounced Q4 sales well before it was legally required to. If you participated in the OO, you would have good reason to be perturbed about the record quarterly sales pre-announcement followed quickly by the OO and then a pretty steep drop in sales in the following quarter and the dropping of the 20% sales growth goal. <p> </p> <blockquote class="BBQuote"> <div> <cite>realitycheck4u wrote:</cite> <p> TH collects its knowledge of sales after the Q is completed and shares it legally when it's time. It does not pump and it does not withhold unless required to do so. So just stop this complete BS people. </p> <p> </p> <blockquote class="BBQuote"> <div> <cite>SPCEO1 wrote:</cite> I would not go that far. Whatever amount of pushing drugs to the distributor at the end of Q4 there may have been - I cannot imagine it would be that meaningful as to be considered fraud. My concern is the lack of candor about Q1 sales on the Q4 call is one way you lose credibility with the investment community, not build it. They may have been willing to not tell the whole truth on the Q4 call but I can't see fraud. Remember, Q1 sales are always the weakest of the year so some decline is to be expected from Q4 and that has been the normal pattern in past years. But the 20% growth rate claim which shifted to medium and long term growth on the Q1 call really undermines credibility. Still the $4+ million Q over Q decline in saleswas large enough does raise the possibility of at least some Q4 channel stuffing. Companies do that all the time to manage earnings. My concern is credibility with investors. A case can be made that they hurt their credibility again in order to prop the stock up with record Q4 sales for the OO. Once again, we see the failure to get the stock properly valued in relation to others and the very intriguing prospects for NASH and cancer leading to other bad outcomes for shareholders. It is well past time to cauterize thst wound. <p> </p> <blockquote class="BBQuote"> <div> <cite>stockman75 wrote:</cite> Channel stuffing and recognizing revenue prematurely violates Gaap. If that is indeed what happened we have fraudulent financials. Seems like a very serious issue if true and quite worrisome about the integrity of the company if true.</div> </blockquote> <br /> </div> </blockquote> <br /> </div> </blockquote> <br /> </div> </blockquote> <br /> </div> </blockquote> <br /> <br />
<br /> <br />