RE:RE:RE:RE:It is just about 11AM and about 1,000 shares have tradedIn order to give retail marketing a try they need to make fundamental changes to their messaging for instance some 5 months since the start of the oncology open label trial they never informed the investors when a new clinic started enrolling patients all we know for now is its still ongoing and that's all.
As for NASH the whole process started with withholding information and a big U turn and then radio silence followed by another U turn the consequence of all of that was unnecessary confusion and now they try to correct it by the KOL event. Point is low demand/volume is there for a reason which hasn't been addressed by the company so far. Those who follow this company know little or nothing re where they stand as per their progress in the oncology program or the final plan for NASH.
That's why I believe the whole messaging strategy has to change first before approaching the retail failing they can't implement any retail marketing cause there is nothing to say or better said nothing they are willing to share. Paul is great but again he isn't working for a big company followed by many investors so he and CMO need to attend conferences/platforms where the audience are. They need to do that now and when they have hard data.
Many companies are doing just that and managed to build excitement/expectations among big groups of investors and others including THTX are not.
There isn't any norm to follow it's all up to the company to choose which category it wants to be in.
They are trying to get the message out there but the problem IMO is the message isn't clear enough and not heard by many.
SPCEO1 wrote: Also, I am finding it increasingly difficult to stomach the $2 million plus we have been paying our CEO annually while getting these results in the capital markets. Operationally, he seems to have done pretty well but there is no way the same claim can be made with regards to how he is managing the company's relationship with investors. And it really doesn't matter much if he is good at the former but fails at the latter. It has to translate into the stock price or his tenure will be viewed as a failure.
SPCEO1 wrote: We can search for explanations but nothing rings true. TH has just found a way to get people to ignore them. They have some really interesting things going on but the credibility issue is evidently at the core of it. Investors are not being told to listen very well and even those that do listen are not finding a need to respond to what they hear. The KOL even got Qwerty to come on board with the idea that NASH was legit but evidently it was not enough to convince anyone else (or no one else even listened to it as LSA and Cantor failed to get anyone to pay attention to it). The content of the KOL was good but also somewhat boring to anyone who already had a background in NASH. They had no news at it - it was just a review of NASH in general and it took a long time to get to TH's NASH entry specifically. They did not address any of the shortcoming of TH's NASH entry head on either. Nor did they even give 5 minutes to the practical business aspects of TH's NASH effort.
I know some get irritated when CYDY is brought up but it is such a good comaprator for TH. When TH bought the rights to market Trogarzo the two companies were pretty much in the same place in developing their drug for HIV MDR. TH totally smoked CYDY as CYDY failed at every turn in developing their drug. Indeed, CYDY is a complete disaster of a company. But they market what little they have to the hilt. TH got Trogarzo approved in the US and Europe and is at least generating some sales from that while CYDY has nothing at all but nasty letters from the FDA and shareholders trying to unseat management, among other terrible things.
Yet, so far today, in something that just really defies any rational explanation, CYDY has traded 1,122,000 shares while TH has traded just 0.1% as many shares!!!!!!!!! And despite being a complete train wrck of a company, CYDY is valued at 3 times as much as TH, even though TH has legit opportunities in cancer and NASH as well as actual sales from two approved products.
Maybe giving the retail investor a try would make some sense if TH really wants to get some respect for what they have accomplished. A complete overhaul of TH's capital market strategy cerrtainly seems to be called for. Can our new director please bring his skills to the table and get this sorted out as it is pretty insane at the moment.
AMoschitto wrote: I have to believe that they know they should have PR-ed both of those conferences to a wider audience and it was a mistake not to, that could have been fixed in the run up to the events.
Im starting to wonder if there's any good reason at all they want to stay under the radar? assuming good faith and general competence on their part... why would it be good to be less engaged in this environment?
Could it be that (except for required PRs for earnings or things) they think less is more in rehabilitating their credibility? Cause it seems like they are lining things up very methodically and logically as qwerty mentioned before in thinking about both R&D programs and we are in the wait and see time.
Could it be they feel like being more engaged would be a detriment to the stock price and bring more volatility?
But if as JFM says they know generally what they have, why are they not preparing the market for the news? What are they doing to ensure any meritable news or value is attributed to the stock? LinkedIn can't be it. It just can't.