Theratechnologies Inc T.TH

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Weekly Report Card

[qwerty22]

So you want them to "create a very positive narrative around"  something you "do not give .... any value in my model for the stock"

Arent you identifying the limits of this approach just there? So when exactly would you start assigning value? Data? And shouldn't the market follow you in that?

BTW from your industry insider position did you get any hint at how much attention the KOL event attracted, it didn't bring much stock buying but did you hear of people who came to listen?

Like you I do hope they do more selling of the company, the KOL event was great. It would be crazy if they didn't prepare the market for the cancer data and really push it afterwards if it's good. I can't imagine them not doing that.


 

SPCEO1 wrote: As much as we focus on cancer on this board, I am just like the analysts covering THTX at the oment and do not give the program any value in my model for the stock. Once we get some hard data that will change. Even so, I do recognize that the current stock price likely is incorporating at least $1.50 worth of option value for cancer. That is, if cancer was a flop, the stock would likely fall by about $2 initially and then recover a bit for a $1.50 overall loss. Even if that were to occur, I still believe the NASH program is worth much more than the zero the market seems to attribute to it. But with NASH in the investor dog house right now following all fo the failed trials, it may be hard to get investors to value it fairly in the near term. So, let's hope the Fast Track designation, the Soleus investment and MD Anderson's involvement indicate that TH-1902 maybe is deserving of a place in the top 10% of cancer drugs.  
 

qwerty22 wrote:

Preclinical cancer programs should be valued appropriately. There are some standouts but there is usually something behind those (like Pharma $$$) that lead to that. All the rest of them get valued appropriately due to the high risk, challenging nature of the project. I think some people are failing to remember that. We've done the deep dive into the science and like the story, I'm pretty sure many preclinical programs offer equally strong justifications to move to clinical. It seems people here think THTX's program is exceptional when really it isn't. They've had a solid preclinical run, it's an obscure target with promise. It's an untested (in humans) peptide with a well understood chemo. It has positives and negatives, it's far from standout. The only road to standout is human data.

I don't think people like SPCEO would have any problem seeing the limitations of 9 out of 10 preclinical cancer programs just because they are super early, on that fact alone. Thtx really are in that 9 out of 10 portion, I think the deep dive into the programs allows us to think they are part of the 1 in 10 standouts, they aren't (until they get the data to support that)

 

jfm1330 wrote: Don't distort what I said. My view is that the only thing that will matter in the end is results, so the quality of the science and proper execution in the clinical development. So fundamental stuff. Also, Levesque is there for more than a year now. He improved the communications of the company, but up to now, to no avail. Which tend to prove my point on the impossibility to change the perception of the company without clearly positive results. We often talk here about hard facts, this is a hard fact. You can continue to believe that it will significantly change until good results are published, but it won't. As weeks will go by, maybe we will see a little rise of the SP because the longer it will take, the better it should be. Also, maybe Thera will make public some little infos that will reinforce the confidence level in a positive outcome. But the real game changer would be clearly positive results.

Also, I would like to add that I am the most positive contributor here about the prospects of the company and I was the first to see the Katana acquisition as much more the a lottery ticket. I said it from the very beginning. What matters to me is the quality of the science and the quality of the business moves. Buying Katana could end up as an absolutely incredible deal. A value driver that could erase a lot of errors for those, like me, who made the mistake not to sell in May-July 2018, and also to those, often the same, who lost their mind over the last financing. Between a CEO very good at stock promotion, and one that can close a deal like the one that allowed Thera to buy Katana, I will always chose the one making the great business decisions. The good thing, is that Levesque does not look like a guy focused on the stock promotion. He understood he has no time to lose on that. That being said, he improved the communications of the company, which was needed for us, actual shareholders. But it did not change a thing about the negative perception of the company by the market. I hope that in a few months this divergence of views will be behind us because phase Ia results will be great and only that will matter and the SP will be where we all hope it will be.
 

 

SPCEO1 wrote: Exactly! The uniqueness of their PDC Sort1+ technology is something to be embraced and celebrated. The uniqueness of how they got to a phase III NASH trial without ever doing a company sponsored NASH trial of any kind is something to be embraced and celebrated. Management has the power to create a very positive narrative around these two pipeline  programs right now rather than embrace the view that JFM1330 espouses (essentially they screwed up in the past and they have to live with the consequneces of that until they produce hard data). And the approach they take will have an impact on the share price. Paul has been gutsy with his decision to pursue general NASH and to ask the FDA for Fast Track status while still in pre-clinical with cancer and it worked. I would not mind if he should similiar guts with the way he positioned to investors the situation the company finds itself in with NASH and cancer. It could blow up in his face if one or both of those fail but that was true with his effort to move to general NASH and his Fast Track request too. I think most here would agree that the new TH is not the old TH so there is every reason to make every effort to persuade people that Paul has brought to the company a whole new attitude and has been hastily building a team that supports that more results-oriented approach. 

TH dragging itself along the ground as a failed commercializer of tiny HIV drugs until they finally hit paydirt on cancer just is not very appealing. It is no wonder the stock is so undervalued versus its peers when so many still hold this view of the stock.   

scarlet1967 wrote:

I understand lack of precedents is an obstacle in order to value the program but this is also the strength of the program, let me come up with my own experience of a new and innovative treatment. Back in the day I was very interested in new material and methods in restorative/ cosmetic dentistry as many other colleagues were happy to carry on with well-tried treatments rather than learn about the new stuff, I attended many conferences and was looking for something different something others were not doing for instance when they launched lumineers which are very thin porcelain veneers I saw the potentials of that treatment as these veneers often didn’t need any or minimal preparations so one could without being unethical use it on young patients without removing healthy tooth substance, also the no prep or minimum prep of the enamel didn’t require any local anesthetics again that was ideal for patients with needle phobia. That new at the time technology opened up a very lucrative market for me while no other dentist was offering that treatment so I had a great amount of patients who happily compensated me for my rather unique and expensive services dealing with their dental problems others couldn’t.

Using that analogy to the innovative targeted drug delivery specifically peptide drug conjugates I can see potentials, yes not many PDCs have been approved and they used different peptides, linkers and cytotoxic agents but the technology is quite similar and if it works apart from the clinical advantages which by now we all know about they also are targeting late stage cancers with no competition and that is their strength and that is what has to be communicated with the market, what is the size of stage 3 or 4 cancers which they are chasing? Billions of dollars! What would be the uptake among seriously ill patients? Very high as the traditional chemo is not working so they can quickly have good chunk of the market share for those cancers, this is the end value of the approved drug then use the discounted back NVP and value their progress. Point is even without hundreds of comparable there is an argument to make, there is a value to be justified, the value is bigger market share of their targeted patients where those hundreds of cancer companies can’t touch you, the value is an innovative technology if successful has many clinical advantages, the value is a technology which can be used for multiple cancers… and yes it has to be proven in humans but so does other cancer trials. As for Canadian or US Company I do agree the US based companies have the advantage but cancer is not restricted to certain geographic areas, preclinical up to approved drugs should have a value. Paul did a great job of marketing their programs but the chats and the webinar have limited audience and that is the issue IMO.

 

Wino115 wrote:

I think you are both identifying the issues that describe why THTX is where it is at currently.  They've pivoted their science completely into unproven novel areas, yet to have human data to prove its scientific  concepts,, and have lost both their investor audience (retail and institutional), big bank backing, and research coverage.  It's not an either/or, but we need both the data to overcome what JFM has identified and a best-in-class investor relation effort to serve all shareholders and the markets with timely, accurate and supportive efforts. Let's see how this week goes.
 

To add two points to what JFM described, while they are from UQAM, there is a lot of further scientific research done by others around Sortilin expression in tumors and peptide conjugates from respected KOLs and universities.  But I take your point and it is valid.  

Second, I've seen that most of the newfangled cancer approaches get discovered and then you have another 100 companies taking their spin at the science.  That validates the approach to the market and gets them their preclinical valuations. We've seen it with n7merous ADC approaches, CAR-T, TIGIT, Stem Cell, immunology approaches, etc.   One firm has success in the clinic and hundreds follow their path.  We know PDCs are truly novel and have had some successes and some failures -bit they are very, very new.   Combine that with Sortilin only being identified as a possible target for advanced cancers 5 years ago and we are in the trailblazing category.  We don't really have 100s of companies doing what we are.  There's some, but not many and there's only one other we know of working with Sortilin in breast cancer (the Gothenburg folks).

 That reinforces JFMs point that not many really see other successful examples they can use as analogies.  Maybe in 5 years it will look different, but it's not a mainstream tumor treatment yet.  That's good for owning the market, but creates situations like this where there is not and understanding, this appreciation, for the science. 

In that case, it's only the data that will change this perception. 

 

jfm1330 wrote: The company is maligned by its own US shareholders here because it is Canadian. So imagine how it is pecieved by US investors that are not shareholders. The science behind SORT1 is not out of Harvard, it is out of UQAM, a Montreal university that is poorly percieved even in Quebec, well behind McGill or Universite de Montreal. Richard Beliveau is a well known figure in the province of Quebec because he wrote books aiming at a large audience and he is writing a column in the tabloid newspaper of the province, Journal de Montreal. But outside of the province Beliveau is only a biochemistry scientist among thousands in the world publishing very specialized academic articles.

So you go to a fund manager in New-York to convinced him to invest in Thera only with promising data on mice. He will look at the background of all that. If he search well he will find that Thera bought Katana for just a few millions dollars. If he looks closer at Beliveau he will find the story of Angiochem which is not a success. If he looks at Thera he will only find commercial failures and clinical success on niche drugs. He will find that the company is 25 years old with still no profitability. NASH with an old drug they try to revamp and four to five years away from a possible approval, forget it, it won't be a driver for the stock price in the short term.

Then imagine the exact same SORT1 platform coming out of a renowned american university, out of the lab of well known scientist in the US, the program being pushed by a newly created company out of Boston or San Diego. Somebody here think that the perception would be the same? Absolutely not. The science would be the same, but all the rest would be more appealing to a US investor, even to a Canadian investor. That being said, if in the end the SORT1 concept works, it will change nothing. If the validity of the concept is clearly proven, if it's really efficacious against many types of cancer, then investors will not care about the background. But until the proof is clearly made, it will matter a lot. I made that comparison before, but Thera are the Clevland Browns of biopharma. Perennial losers and underachievers. That's the firm perception of the company and in my view, only clear good results are going to change that. You become a winner when you stop losing and you really win something, a championship. So the market looks at Thera in a way that is saying, prove us you really have something, otherwise we are not interested. Come to us when you will have really proven you have something valuable. There is no benefit of the doubt for them. Between the market and Thera It's put up or shut up. That's it!

 

 

SPCEO1 wrote: JFM1330 is a scientist so it is not surprisinig at all that he is biased towards hard data and against marketing. Similarly, we are biased more towards marketing and less towards hard data. It will all work out in the end if the hard data is there but the road to get there could be much more pleasant and rewarding if there is some good marketing thrown into the equation as well. 

scarlet1967 wrote: Why did they company bring the new CEO with decades of experiences from Pfizer, added a member again with decades of experiences from Merck and Pfizer, another member specialized in partnership( a deal maker), new recruits with marketing skills and looking for a communication manager to rebrand the company and its reputation?
All these new folks come with a price tag and expectations to make a difference. Of course good results will appreciate the valuation but these new recruits' job is to make the best they can so that appreciation materializes to its best potential.
To claim nothing but good results can change the market's  perception is not correct regardless of their history, the company is run by new folks better at getting the job done and part of that job is to create a brand distancing themselves from the old THTX.
Why companies big or small spend millions in marketing if that would be a waste? THTX isn't the only company in the biotech industry with potential promising programs there are hundreds and hundreds of them and yes every single of them with good trial results will be rewarded! The job is if THTX is one of them they get rewarded fairly and equally to the comps.
With their depressed valuation compared to the competition there is some heavy lifting to do to catch up.