RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:remember this? My perspective is this all relies on hitting milestones and for both R&D programs we still haven't hit those milestones that really count.
NASH, even though it's dragged on forever, has no real history with the company. You need to do a pretty deep dive to understand the potential. I guess the company doesn't help new investors do that deep dive but I think it might be an easier prospect once we know what the future of the program looks like. As I've said before the odd thing about their 'study may proceed' letter is you would expect it to clarify the future steps but in this case it still hasn't. At the very least they need to nail down the future of that program. I think they start building from there. I can only think that 18 months ago they likely expected these milestones to be reached more quickly, it's that tardiness that thrown things off.
I think in cancer it's more clear to everybody here that that program relies on data flow this year and next to be taken seriously even with all the overachievement so far.
There would be no harm in them becoming better communicators, they get no gold stars for that, but overall I think I'm still mostly looking to the future of these programs. I want them to nail down the future of the NASH program and start rolling out the cancer data more than trying to tap into retail investors. Somebody highlighted Galectin stock getting Ben Carson onboard. Yes they saw a nice run for ten days but they tanked yesterday 18%.
SPCEO1 wrote: Here is how I woould answer your questions:
1.) Do they realize there are issues that need to be resolved? Well, if they did not before, they certainly realize it now due to all of our efforts here.
2.) Are they capable of dealing with the issue? The first human reaction when you are shown to have done something wrong it to defend your wrong action. If they can quickly get past that, I do think this board has the capacity to deal with the issue. I don't know if they will get past that though and it is quite a distance for most to go to get from denial to an optimal response to the problem. That is just human nature.
3.) Are they interested? We will be able to answer that better once we hear from Wino.
4.) Are they motivated? You have heard it said that the guilotine tends to focus the mind - right? If they are not motivated to action at this point then they should be voted off the board as they are unable to see an obvious threat to their position as board members.
5.) Why are they not already dealing with these issues? Good question and I suspect more is going on behinid the scenes than we are aware of. They have apparently engaged Life Science Advisors which is not a bad start. It is unfortunate that we had to grab our pitch forks and torches to get some movement and that the alarm bells didn't start ringing loudly intheir minds when there was no reaction to the general NASH news last September.
scarlet1967 wrote: Question is do they realize there are issues which need to be resolved?are they capable of dealing with the issues? Are they interested? Are they motivated?If the answer is yes why haven't they already been dealing with the issues?
I clearly remember Mr.T during a CC mentioned they only have one chance to get the launch of the Trogarzo right from the go. I just hope they haven't blown their chances to launch their R&D marketing. The longer this keeps going the harder it gets that's why I believe we need expertises not found among most of the members/management team (Paul and his new recruits together with scientific team excluded) to turn this round as it's not a quick fix imo.
SPCEO1 wrote: It is worth stating again that TH's shortcomings in the marketing of the stock have been unusally extreme. In an evironment when all sorts of stocks are seemingly easily getting very high valuations for the hope investors have in their future, TH stands out as not being able to plug into that kind of interest despite having made huge strides in two huge drug markets. It is not that TH is just a little off the mark, it has been way off the mark in this respect. Investors are thrilled at the moment to even chase very dubious stocks much higher but TH has legitimately impressive prospects in both NASH and cancer and it cannot get almost anyone to pay attention to what they have. No reaction to the general NASH announcement? No questions on the quarterly conference call after new cancer data was released and new management was hired? It is an extreme sitaution that deserves the immmediate attention fo the board and that is why we are rattling their cage. Because this problem has been left unaddressed for so long, we had a huge chunk of the company sold to very fortunate new shareholders on the cheap, thereby reducing our stake in the company by at least 15% (I am adjusting here for the fact that a share offering had to be done but should have been done at a higher price, thereby lessening the dilution).
Our disappointment with the current situation is based on real problems that have cost us a lot unnecssarily. TH's leadership has done an excellent job of pivoting the company away from the small HIV products towards potentially huge market opportunities and did so on the cheap. They deserve our praise for how quickly and econommically they pulled that off. But it is hard to praise them when we see how immpressive that is, but we are the only ones seeing it, resulting in a share price being well below the comparables for other NASH companies and not reflecting anythign at all for the cancer opportunity, all within a market that is paying high prices for stocks with far less going for them.
It is an extreme situation and hopefully, the board will step up now to start sorting this out. Otherwise, who could blame any shareholder for voting down some of the board's members.
SPCEO1 wrote: TH is executing well on medical research in cancer and NASH, and Marsolais and his team deserve a ton of credit for that, but the issue is they are not getting much credit for that from the market because they have not been able to get investors interested in their progress. A slick video distributed in a way that investors might see it certainly would help. Can't see how it would hurt. Whatever TH has done regarding marketing their impressive progress to investors has clearly not worked very well, so TH should be open to new ideas.
qwerty22 wrote: They are executing on a medical research business and you're complaining about videos.
scarlet1967 wrote:
"3D animations are great support to explain the mechanism of action of a molecule. With the help of Amerra, we were able to convey how our promising peptide-drug conjugate technology works inside the body. Amerra produced such an amazing result at a cost a small biotech like us can afford. We're very much looking forward to working with them on our next animated video."
- Nichol Pelchat, Associate Director, New Product Planning
https://youtu.be/6iu07e1_us8
Yet they are quite generous with their compensations which was announced on a Friday afternoon thus less attention. So whose interest has been prioritized using the funds for a cash strapped company? the employees with fat bonuses or decent marketing to support the valuation of the company subsequently a decent ROI for their loyal long-term shareholders?