Theratechnologies Inc T.TH

RE:RE:RE:RE:Message for Thtx

[PinnacleX]

Wino115 wrote: One thing I can add from my perspective as a PM over decades is that THTX now and through most of the last 2 years has not really had a solid investment thesis you can even pitch to someone. There has to be a convincing and solid fundamental thesis you can hang your hat on as an analyst, PM or retail investors. It's frankly been really hard to do that since the last 2 years has been a tug-of-war between the declining realization around the commercial products (they are small and will stay small), and the ascending view of the pipeline assets. Net is a dip and a recovery, but at the same level as 2 years ago roughly.

But the ascending view is really 100% "hope" and very few invest around a thesis of hope.  You'll get some (like those here), but more will pass.  NASH did very little, if anything, from a market investment return perspective and as oncology came in to view and they had much more supporting pre-clinical evidence, they showed it to the market and did attract some new investors at low prices and with a "partial refund" tacked on via both the low offering price and the low priced, long-termed warrant.  So they got some bites on that as they lowered the risk those investors took at the expense of dilution to shareholders who did not participate.

In a situation where there is not a real solid thesis you can pitch that doesn't involve the high risk of hoping for good early results or hoping for a partner to come along, the ONLY thing that will help to build that is success in the clinic.  That is really the only way to build the facts up that will lead to estimates around market size and revenues, that will create the kind of thesis that is unavoiably good for someone looking to take low risk and high reward.  That is why it is crucial that the ongoing trial works out positively.  I completely agree that they can and should be building that audience in preparation for what may lie ahead, but I also think that we need to sit back and see how they do this once there is something factual to say. Like SPCEO said, while there still will be a positive bump on any positive newsflow we see around the trial, it's what they do with that information over the next 6 months as far as pitching it and building that excitement around Phase 1b and then again around Phase 2. So what we are hoping to see now in a build-up to Phase 1a in all likelihood will be better done in the post Phase 1b to Phase 2 timeframe adn that would be the time to judge whether they are passive and sitting around eating Cheetos or they are out, actively constructing and pitching a solid investment thesis around their assets and strategy to capitalize on them, and whether that can attract new analysts, new investors and the kind of Phase 1 to Phase 2 run that we would all expect.

We've said it before but that hole they dug for all the reasons we've documented requires hard data in humans to begin digging out of.  But I don't really think there has been a solid investment thesis that would hold for many types of investors over the last 24 months or so. We are higher risk, higher reward investors willing to be early and patient, and sometimes suffer from the negatives around that.  I think we're close to the end of this cycle one way or the other.  Let's hope on the upside!

qwerty22 wrote:

 

* Paul seems to be planning for success, that's a good thing.

qwerty22 wrote:

 

 

Bucknelly21 wrote: While I applaud the accomplishments made on the pipeline front here are issues from where I am sitting.

 

First they are "shocked" at the low sp and lack of interest from market? Why because you have an open label trial where you have so many ways to update/let the market know how it's progressing without really giving an uncomfortable amount of information away. You don't need to tell anyone "we have cured cancer" but certainly can say more than what you have.

I don't agree with this at all. If you're not saying "we have cured cancer" then what are you saying? Regular updates on progress are the worst idea. You think it would be a smooth upward trajectory but it wouldn't. As an example, maybe 20% of Ph1 cancer patients die 3 months into enrollment because they are in the end stage of the disease which can quickly turn into the end stage of their life. You want them to update every death? You just want them to say everything is fine and not say these two guys died or this guys liver has started failing? You're asking for updates that maybe calm your nerves (maybe actually make things worse) but probably have little intrinsic value creation potential. What they are doing is normal, limited hints when they speak, and a proper interim data readout when they have enough data to meaningfully add to the story. What you want, I think, would amount to little more than 'noise', likely low value noise, potentially quite disruptive noise, noise that's unlikely to produce any greater understanding. I'm not against them telling the present story to more audiences but updating the trial constantly would be a mistake and not something serious biotech do.

Second if you have the attitude that you are above the average retail investor you aren't, you have burned multiple analysts, failed to correct bad forecasts and jumped on any money that is thrown your way at the expense of legacy shareholders and the atm looks to be setting it up again ( possibly). You  paid a bunch of money to assess the market for trogarzo and Brian Abrahams from Rbc picked up the phone and made a few calls and got the actual market forecast for trogarzo correct. Who is responsible for that?

Trogarzo got them out of a very deep hole, it's poor sales put them back in a less deep hole. We could argue to what extent that was a complete failure.

Until Viiv started putting out their papers on the MDR market in 2019(?) there was really no reliable data about the current state of the MDR market. It's a sad fact that these older guys that contributed to the development of hiv drugs and paid for it with resistant virus have been hugely neglected in the past decade or two from a research perspective. Many on this board could see Trogarzo sales flagging quite early on, Abrahams made the right call. Of course the company has to continue to support the drug and try to exact the most value from it. It looks unlikely the drug has the potential to turn around the company's situation but it will continue to generate some revenue.

Three, no one has a clue what your Nash plan is, so cloudy and so unclear yet you say you are in a position of strength. Despite saying it went smoothly with both regulatory agencies while it clearly didn't.

I think NASH is clearer than it's ever been. We do know the position of the agencies, those positions take into account the strengths and weaknesses of the program. The problem early on is the company (and some on this board) sidestepped the weaknesses in order to present a best case scenario. My views are mixed on partnering ability. I can't predict it's likelihood, I don't know when it will happen, I got no idea how much value it will unlock for shareholders. I just have to wait to see what materializes. I don't think I'd be invested much if that is all the had. I'm not sure what they could say that was truthful that could make the picture any clearer. The outcome with the agencies or the general state of the NASH sector or both has not led to a go-it-alone program atm, if you fully embrace that fact you'll get a better understanding of where things are at.

You have not been able to capture any part of this historic bull market because of you unwillingness to change your strategy in dealing with the markets. Told shareholders that change was coming on that front and the only thing you have done was hire Lsa to put on a fireside chat that was probably 90% existing shareholders. No retail engagement whatsoever even when pre clinical programs left and right get crazy evaluations with nothing but hopes in there program. If you would like I can pull up dozens. Did an awful offering where somehow made coverage worse. With analysts who don't even know you are months into a phase 1 cancer trial.

I think we need to separate 2020 from the previous period. There is no bull market in biotech in 2020, the sector has been significantly depressed since March and thtx has been doing an ok job of fighting that trend. My own view is the assets they were developing were not ready for messaging in 2019. There are also dozens of preclinical programs with sub-$100 mil valuations that are flying under the radar, probably a longer list than your list. If you're trying to understand very early programs then you have to look at what they are offering, who is running them, who is backing them and what they potential mean for Pharma. It's not an easy job to understand that, I don't believe it comes just from the companies messaging. There needs to be intrinsic value. I don't believe the market believed in the intrinsic value of the NASH program and the cancer program really got the attention it deserved. I don't think many want to invest in preclinical cancer programs unless something solid (like Pharma involvement) leads them there.

Bigger payroll with a bunch of useless board members who don't buy shares and sit on options.

I agree there is no evidence the Board is doing much. If by bigger payroll you mean all the hirings they've made I think I've only got one point to make there. I think Paul is building a structure. I think that structure has far bigger aspirations than Luc had, to be fair to Luc I don't think he had many options. Essentially Trogarzo, even with it's poor revenue, has given them more options. I think in building that structure they need the assets to support it. They need something positive to come from NASH or cancer or a new asset to support this bigger structure. We might be pleased Paul is putting this all in place, we might unfortunately get to see it all dismantled. It going to depend on the success of the assets. I'm not against Paul's aspirations but they need the assets to catch up. It seems to me a potentially exciting time. Paul seems to be pla


That's just about in the last year or so. In summary the market doesn't believe or trust you and quite frankly I'm at that point as well. I'm stuck with my position at the point and I can easily accept that. But what's hard to accept is pretending you don't know why. Frankly I hope that the future is out of whoevers hands that makes the decisions about what to say and what not to and that the results are so good that your inability to create value for shareholders is out of your hands completely. Thats the only way this ends with everyone being happy because it's aparent that's it not Thtx's forte. Sorry if this is harsh and it's not meant to single any one person out but it's the truth. I've said my peace and I'm going to sit back and watch for a while 

good luck to all the people here who are much smarter than myself and have dedicated a lot of time and effort to teach the whys and how's to people like myself 

 

 

 

You mean they never had any thesis period.  Where would this company be if they didnt buy this cancer company, over a year ago? They dont have money for NASH, so this has to be a success for them to proceed. Im curious to hear what youd have to say.