Theratechnologies Inc T.TH

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Melphalen flufenamide

[Wino115]

I think those patently wrong revenue estimates are just indicative of the really bad and really fairly lazy analysts that cover the company. You'd think by now they know the growth rate is no where near that level. It's absurd how they not only figure those numbers out but that they aren't guided to reality as soon as those come out.  Often, analysts will run numbers by the CFO for a reality check.  Doesn't seem to happen here. 

SPCEO1 wrote: TH is burning about 10% of the cash annually that Oncopeptides is yet sells at roughly 33% of Oncopeptides valuation, which just hit a new annual low level today (while THTX share price is up 45% in 2021). THTX has maybe $70 million in revenues to Oncopeptides zero. It all comes down to selling the future possibilities and TH has not done that very well at all so far. I suspect this is about to change but, until it does, we are all going to be tortured by these comparisons because there are so many of them.

Also, I noticed that Bloomberg's estimate for TH's 2021 revenues is $90.3 million. Hopefully, Leah can work hard to get that number moved much closer to the likely reality soon. There is no reson for TH to always have the quarterly headline on Bloomberg read that they have fallen short versus expectations on revenues. It is an easy fix - just give guidance you know you can beat like most every otehr company out there. This is not rocket science but TH has still somehow failed repeatedly to learn its lesson over many years on this front. Since I am sure Leah wants to get this corrected, we should expect revenue guidance whenever they launch their rebranding effort with the help of LSA (or maybe just before that). I am not sure how the analysts get these numbers but they have always been way too high on TH's revenue outlook and TH has never been able to get the in the vicintiy of reality outside of providing guidance. 

SPCEO1 wrote: Oncopeptides has eight, count 'em, 8 analysts covering the stock. Most of them from decent firms. They have traded over 4 million shares today versus just 16,600 for THTX. One company had a viable capital markets strategy and the other one has not. Hopefully, this is about to change as the absurdity of the current situation with THTX is quite remarkable.

scarlet1967 wrote:

They are burning cash with speed of light, about 300 M SEK q over q and have about one quarter of cash left with this burn rate they need to raise funds soon.

 

Now they will generating some revenues for their drug but the market knows with multiple programs all for multiple myeloma apart from one below they will be issuing shares again. So again there is a reason for their roller coaster valuation, multiple platforms probably delayed by pandemic, multiple offering and high cash burn. Their approved PDC for one myeloma is currently their main asset.

 

Just because their drug has same MOA as TH19 series I don’t think they are right comp for THTX overall operations.

 

 

 

ASCENT

 

The phase 1/2 ASCENT study is the first study with melflufen outside multiple myeloma. The ASCENT study is an open-label study with melflufen and dexamethasone in patients with AL-amyloidosis, who have undergone at least one previous line of therapy.

 

 

 

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/oncopeptides-publishes-report-for-q1-2021-and-updated-dates-for-the-publication-of-the-reports-for-q2-and-q3-2021-301299546.html

 

Wino115 wrote: What that valuation informs us on is that one PDC for one indication of mylenoma (and 100% of their pipeline is that same drug for various interations of mylenoma) is worth those market caps you've put up there. 

I'm not sure the expected path of earnings from the drug or the peak earnings for it, so don't know what that valuation is supporting as far as a potential revenue number.  It may not be far off from what someone would value the option value of TH1902 at this point, and you'd have to add it in to the other THTX assets for a full market cap.  But it seems clear if TH1902 shows any evidence of being viable, it should be worth more than melflufin given the wider possible usage and revenue opportunity.  Should be multiples of that. 

qwerty22 wrote:

 

You saying offerings explain the Sp? It all looks rational to you with that info?

I guess I have the sense that people pick some "over-achievers" like cydy (lol) to compare THTX to. There are perfectly good companies, executing well, who have much more down to earth valuations. I'm all for balance.

So at IPO 2017 had a valuation of 200 mil euros, about 200 mil USD at the time. It was ready to start it's Ph2 at the time. As I said the stock quickly rose in the following 18 months or so (tripled, more if you include one of your offerings). We are one stage behind that at the moment. With this as a comparator it's reasonable for THTX's to be valued sub 200 mil now with good prospects for growth on good data.

I'm not against the idea the whole THTX package is grossly undervalued.

 

scarlet1967 wrote:

 

Since the IPO this company has been diluting their shares just about every year the total proceeds overall were  $455 M!! Balanced view please....

Oncopeptides has completed a directed share issue raising approximately SEK 1,106 million (USD 130 million) Regulatory

March 10, 2021

Oncopeptides has completed a directed share issue raising approximately SEK 1,414 million (USD 144 M)

May 6, 2020 - Regulatory press release

Oncopeptides has completed a directed share issue of approximately SEK 727 million (USD 78 M)

June 28, 2019 - Regulatory press release

Oncopeptides has completed a directed share issue of approximately SEK 546 million

January 24, 2019 - Regulatory press release

Oncopeptides has completed a directed share issue of approximately SEK 314 million

March 22, 2018 - Regulatory press release 38