RE:Question for those complaining about We've had 2 1/2 years of NASH now. We've got a lot of hindsight to work with. It's been mostly silence from the company with the occasional bold statement. You think the silence is a failure to promote and you want that fixed. I think the silence is more indicative of where that program actually is. You said it in an earlier post, some of the bolder statements were probably made to support a financing. My view is from the NASH KOL event onwards they had an eye on financing, that's when most of those statements came out. Before, silence, after the financing, silence. If we go back 15 months the only thing standing in the way was "harmonization". Do we hear about that anymore? Did they report successful harmonization? Nope, they put an IND in with one regulator and not the other. My best guess, they didn't want to hear (and be obliged to report) what the EMA would say. The indications are harmonization failed. Why?
It just doesn't feel right that this 'end-of-Ph2' process should take so long without that extra time being explained by issues. You know my problem with all this can be summed up in one word - biopsy.
I'm super uncomfortable with the next statement. I think as a biotech investor you are always looking for the moment when a company can make a leap forward (PoC, move to registrational phase etc). Right now I feel most comfortable if thtx took a step backward. To me the dataset fits a very promising Ph2b program, I think the investment community would look at it with fresh eyes from that perspective. As you said the NASH sector has moved to a new (less attractive) place, I think chasing Ph3 in that environment looks even more out of line with investor expectation in NASH. But as I say it feels so wrong to want them to take a step backwards I must have something wrong here.
All this is a roundabout way to say I think their biggest problem is not marketing, it's clarifying where NASH actually is. Once they do that then they can market it. I think they have probably been trying to sell the idea, via the traditional routes, and the collective response was "No thanks". I'm worried if they finally offer an FDA Ph3 protocol they'll get the same response. If they come up with something more creative then maybe people will look at it with a fresh perspective.
(If you are an author you can't go to readers and sell them half a novel with the promise the second half will be finished soon. I think you are asking them to market half a novel. I think they've probably been trying to do that for the last two years and failing. I share your frustration but if they had pumped this to retail investors from the start probably all we would have is more frustrated investor waiting for a NASH protocol)
SPCEO1 wrote: those of us who complain about the substandard efforts, or in some cases just the substandard results, of TH regarding marketing the stock to investors.
Since the complainers about the complainers seem to come from the scientific arena, I thought this question might help you understand where we are coming from on the business/investing side of the equation.
What would you think if TH produced great scientific results but refused to publish them or speak at conferences about them? Or what if they presented at conferences and published their work in scientific journals but their presentations were much weaker than what you had become accustomed to from others using the same venues? I imagine you would think that to be foolish and would be quite frustrated by the company missing out on getting the notoriety their work deserved.
For us on the investment side of the equation, it seems equally foolish to not fully inform the various types of investors who are constantly on the lookout for stocks with intriguing and potentially very profitable opportunities. OR to try to do so but continuously fail to pull it off when so many other companies seem to be having very little difficulty doing the same thing with worse fundamentals and business outlooks.
Does that help explain our frustration??