Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Theratechnologies Inc T.TH

Alternate Symbol(s):  THTX

Theratechnologies Inc. is a Canada-based clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company. The Company is focused on the development and commercialization of therapies addressing unmet medical needs. It markets prescription products for people with human immunodeficiency viruses (HIV) in the United States. The Company's research pipeline focuses on specialized therapies addressing unmet medical needs in HIV, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and oncology. Its medicines include Trogarzo and EGRIFTA SV (tesamorelin for injection). Trogarzo (ibalizumab-uiyk) injection is a long-acting monoclonal antibody which binds to domain 2 of the CD4 T cell receptors. EGRIFTA SV (tesamorelin for injection) is approved in the United States for the reduction of excess abdominal fat in people with HIV who have lipodystrophy. Its portfolio includes Phase I clinical trial of sudocetaxel zendusortide (TH1902), a novel peptide-drug conjugate (PDC), in patients with advanced ovarian cancer.


TSX:TH - Post by User

Comment by Wino115on Sep 01, 2021 4:02pm
160 Views
Post# 33795888

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Message for Thtx

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Message for Thtx Never underestimate the ability of large and even mid-pharma to roll the dice and pay dearly to have a chance at huge success.  I've seen many deals that look unbelievably high risk and long-term, some are real dice-rolls.  This one looks fairly sane compared to some.  I realize different time frames influence deals.  I guess on the positive side we have huge cash-flow generation over the last 2 years, still underperforming R&D at many companies (even Pfizer wrote of something like 3-4 trial lines last quarter alone), low interest rates (means you can stomach a bit more risk and aren't giving up much in the way of interest).  I suppose you can structure things to account for all the issues we know if it's an asset you are intrigued by. I look at it as much up to Grinspoon to pitch the science as anyone else.  He was pretty good in the R&D a few years ago.  I'm expecting that they really just bought a year to explore this option and maybe they'll have even more options open to them in 12 months. I don't think that would be too late in the market place. 


SPCEO1 wrote: While a step back to a 2b would likely make sense if they cannot convince partners or investors of the value of what they have, it would still be another hit to their credibility, perhaps unfairly so. I would not fault them for taking the gambit on a phase III trial and getting regulatory approval for that aggressive approach. But the market would likely not be as kind in its evaluation of that change of course. We know the IP situation is less than perfect, which no doubt is an issue for potential partners. They may actually have sufficient IP protection, but for the person at the potential partner charged with convincing his boss and/or board that it is good enough, it likely is not something that is going to prove real easy, especially when bosses and boards are likely already looking at any NASH asset skeptically at this time. 

From a business decision standpoint, the delayed timing is the issue as you may get to the market way too late to justify the huge investment in a phase IIb and phase III trial. I could easily see the TH board tossing NASH to the side, especially if they feel like cancer is a winner. OF course, if they did make such a decision, I would guess we would hear first about good news in cancer followed by the decision to abandon NASH.



qwerty22 wrote:

On NASH. It's probably worth thinking about the markets feeling on NASH atm and Pharma. The market definitely sees more risk and NASH-only biotechs are suffering, I'm not sure it's so negative with Pharma. Not much new activity recently but 2020 there were still deals being done and there was some shift to shuffling the assets they have in various combo trials. So maybe looking to partners rather than the market for support is the smart move but that mostly feels right because of the negativity around investors. I'd agree with you partnering look challenging though.

I'd be shocked if they went from pushing for a registrational trial to dumping the program although we saw NGM do that pretty rapidly. I still think 2b is a strong option, unless somebody can see a business or IP or other reason to not do it. It's totally right they explore every avenue for getting the registrational trial going, exhaust that, but a final exploratory trial would put them on exactly the same path as all other NASH drug developers. 2b looks valid and value creating, answering non-futility has been highlighted as an important thing going forward. You could do that with a less risky trial.

I can see a dilemma that's been present from the start. If you are pushing for a registrational trial with regulators or partners then you can't spend any time talking about exploratory trials. They are in a sense mutually exclusive. Hopefully they get somebody to shoulder the risky of a registrational trial but it seems if that process ends without success they could start talking about exploratory trials, maybe to answer non-futility.

 

SPCEO1 wrote: The need to build both the business and the messaging. And I think they have made decent progress on both and yet still the stock price has not been rewarded by the market for that. Which is odd given the backdrop of a huge bull market, but perhaps not so strange given the sizable credibility hole they are in following huge overestimations of both the Egrifta and Trogarzo market sizes and the OO/NO (Maybe that should be modified to the ONO - odious necessary offering).

From my perspective, the medical side of TH should have a lot of credibility. I don't think anyone would say that TH has consistently set too high expectations on the medical side of the company and then fallen far short of them. It is the marketing/finance part that has dropped the ball and cost the company a lot in terms of credibility.

I am continually struck by how much better TH is now than it was 2-3 years ago. Two years ago the stock closed at $3.76 and three years ago it closed at $8.28. Three years ago, NASH was not even an issue and cancer had not even been acquired. While there is always a chance that NASH and cancer will both amount to nothing, that seems unlikely. TH has also added a seasoned CEO from a large pharma and had two IR consultants as well as hiring a new IR officer. The presentations the company now has are vastly superior to the ones they had a couple of years back due to both better medical info to work with and more talent that is putting those presentations together. There are also new marketing professionals on TH's staff now. The company's board of directors has also been upgraded since that time. I think it is indisputable that there have been a lot of positive changes made on both the business and the messaging.

Yet the stock price has not reflected those improvements as much as we think it should have, expecially considering the huge bull market that has seen many, many other stocks ride massively higher on hope alone.

But when you have low credibility, the hope factor doesn't play. They were making a lot of progress on the credibility factor but then blew that early progress up with the ONO. 

Still the stock is higher this year and that runs counter to negative trend in biotech stocks generally since early this year. So, perhaps some of the progress is seeping through to the stock. We have seen some institutions nibbling at the stock, which indicates the credibility issue is starting to wane a little and hope is starting to seep in.

I am worried, however, that TH's credibility might be at risk of taking another kick in the teeth if the NASH KOL fails to inspire partners and/or investors. If TH has to drop NASH due to lack of interest in what they have built there, and after a big effort like the KOL event, that is not going to help. And the noises they are making on NASH are not encouraging to me at the moment - it seems clear to me they are not being overrun with partnership offers. If they are able to "stick the landing" on NASH, that would really enhance their credibility in a big way. Let's hope it works out that way but I will beleive that when I see it. MDGL has bounced off its recent low but it is still very depressed indicating low interest in anything NASH related, which is not a great sign for TH's partnership prospects. 

In the end, however, anything positive coming from NASH I view as a bonus at this point. The main reason to own the stock is their cancer program as the upside from that ranges from very intriguing to massively exciting and data will be flowing from that program well before we get anything from NASH, if we get anything from NASH. After the effusive management commentary about cancer, if the phase 1a test results are viewed by experts and investors as sketchy, then that would likely be the final blow to TH's credibility. It will be time to for a full scale overhaul of the company that would likely include the need to change its name. I have to think the chances of a disappointment on that scale is near zero, but it is not zero either. 

TH pulled two very large rabbits out of its hat in NASH and cancer. Over the past 2 years, they have delivered a lot of good news on both fronts and not really got any reward for that. Now, we are at the point where reality will soon reveal if our hopes for those two big bunnies was justified. On NASH, either a decent partnership deal will be negotiated or the company will be able to get the market to value its NASH program in line with its peers and be able to sell stock through the ATM to fund at least the first 400 patients themselves. If neither option is viable, then the program likely dies. On cancer, we either have exciting data or we don't. Almost all the hints we have suggest there is going to be something exciting coming from the phase 1a, but hints are not actual data. And the critics rightly point out that insider buying of TH has been minimal, which seems odd for a company on the precipice of data that could reveal a wonderful new way to help cancer patients. 

The upside in cancer is so great that it is worth waiting to see if it materializes. It could be a truly enormous bunny. I doubt insiders themselves know fully yet if the phase 1a results will be impressive. So, they are likely hopeful but realistic like we are trying to be. They are not buying much but they are not selling either.   

My best guess is there is only a muted response to the NASH KOL, the partnership interest is too lame to accept, the cancer trial results are sufficiently interesting to drive the stock price materially higher, TH uses the ATM to sell shares into that cancer-driven rally and they launch the NASH trial on their own. Cancer analysts start picking up coverage of the stock due to the intriguing results, Soleus doubles the size of their holding (probably through the ATM, unfortunately) and NASH continues to be ignored. We will complain that the stock still does not reflect what we think it deserves but we will all still be in a better mood because the stock price is much higher. The credibility issue slowly dissipates as the company continues to execute on cancer and cancer analysts/institutional investors begin to view the NASH component of the company as a ball and chain on the stock. After the phase 1b basket trial results are reported late next summer or early Fall, TH becomes a takeover target and ultimately gets gobbled up by Pfizer at a price we will all think was too low but which will still let some of us retire if we want. 

Like the small chances of the cancer trial being a complete bust, the chances of my scenario above being close to the mark is near zero. But, despite the credibility issue, there is still reason to hope for some sort of happy outcome.

 

 

qwerty22 wrote:

I see they burnt bridges with analyst and seriously damaged their investor base. They got themselves into a hole. I see 2021 as a genuine attempt to get out of that. They aren't doing the things you want them to do. But I believe your excessive focus on messaging is the wrong diagnosis. As Wino said they have to build thtx as an investable thing first. That is what is happening in 2021. The misery is they couldn't get some of that done in 2020. It's the business they need to build not the message.

 

qwerty22 wrote:

 

Not to mention all of them are in negative territory this year except bycy.

 

qwerty22 wrote:

 

 

Thtx have 5 PRs in 2021 announcing attendance at investor conferences/events. They did posters in at least two scientific conferences and they did their own KOL event. They put out 30 PRs

I don't see 89bio doing much more than that. 89bio have put out half the number of PRs this year than thtx and attended 7 investor conferences.

ADC therapeutics has 7 active clinical trial. They just launched their first approved drug. That's substantially more stuff to talk about. They still only did 7 investor conferences and put out 26 PRs in 2021.

Its crazy you can't help throwing in two fraudsters.

I don't see these other companies doing a whole lot more than thtx, I think you've become jaundiced.

 

scarlet1967 wrote: They never told investors when both MD Anderson and Karmanos start enrolling patients, the interview with Dr. Shah describing their PDC as small missiles attacking cancer cells is on Gettysburg’s website but not on THTX’s.
The list below is few companies which frequently attend high profile conferences and update their investors re enrollment been finished, patients been dosed, updates on results in timely fashion etc. Yes it includes both Seson and CYDY. Now I never asked the company to go as far as CYDY or falsify trials but again we are talking about one contrast to the other. They have not been attending any high profile conferences this year apart from one where CFO  presented a preclinical cancer abstract and that’s about it, the rest were fire chats with concord,  the Water Tower Research and LSA webinar, the last two were supposed to be their retail approach. Water tower has very few follower and LSA is mostly approaching institutional investors.
The CEO of HEPA goes on well followed seeking alpha, the CEO of CYDY attended multiple times on Dr.been (YouTube) with tens of thousands viewings each episode etc.
Point is there is a reason why they have 900 followers on Stocktwits versus others multiples of that, again I am not sure why and what stops them to be far more proactive on both retail and institutional sides, is it liability issues well have a disclaimer before your presentation is it ego or laziness well would those stop them from doing it if their salaries and bonuses well depending on share price performance?
It is not about what you say and how you say only but where you say it and how often you say it, it is called marketing.
Press Releases | 89bio, Inc.
 
https://ir.cohbar.com/press-releases
 
https://investors.bicycletherapeutics.com/events-and-presentations
 
https://hepionpharma.com/about/newsroom/
 
https://ir.adctherapeutics.com/press-releases/default.aspx
 
https://ir.sesenbio.com/
 
https://www.cytodyn.com/newsroom/press-releases
 

 

 


 

 

 

 




<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>