SPCEO1 wrote: I don't know the Trillium story but taking a glance at it quickly, I see it has 8 analysts covering it, several of them US. So, a Canadian drug company can get interest from US analysts. These are not top analysts in the US but at least Trillium has engage analysts. TH really only has three analysts covering it and only one is currently really paying attention to it. This is largely because of how they have badly handled share offerings - TH seemed intent on ticking off as many brokers as possible and succeeded in doing so. And it is costing all of us.
They need to figure out a way to get the investment community engaged. I think they have tried but our CEO is not someone who has any experience in this and it is showing.
If they are overreacting to their past failures that led to the low credibility they now seem to have with most investors, that is only making the problem worse. If they are refusing to interact with the part of the market that might be most willing to listen to their hope-filled story (US retail investors who have not been as burned by TH in the past), that is just dumb.
Undoubtedly, the stock will really jump when/if they produce intersting cancer data. I would expect nothing less. But that does not give management an excuse for not doing their best to optimize the shre price between now and then. The cancer trial is an open label trial and they are free to share info about it at any time. There is certainly some info they could share without jeopardizing anything important about the trial. The market needs to be fed and cancer info is the food it needs to get (unless they can announce a decent NASH partnership sometime soon). For THTX to trade 1,200 shares halfway through the trading day is a ridiculous situation and highlights just how far off the radar screen management has allowed this company to get. It is flat out an unacceptable situation to have happen two days after you bring three emminent scientists into a presentation to talk glowingly about one of the company's two main investigative assets. One has to presume that no one other than a few like ourselves even attended the KOL. If so, that is unacceptable and changes need to be made as you can't just keep swinging and missing on something like that without there being some consequences for how you do things. The defintion of insanity is said to be doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
If Loomba and Harrison singing your praises can't get you a good result with investors with NASH, I am not sure anyone can. My guess is they can get you a good result but if no one actually hears them, then you won't get a good result, and that is more likely what happened.
In the end, whatever TH is doing regarding getting shareholders interested in its stock is clearly not working. The CEO needs to see to it that opportunities like having Grinspoon, Harrison and Loomba talk about one of your key assets translates into investor interest as it should. He needs to specifically highlight the undervaluation of TH relative to other NASH stocks in his presentation. He needs to talk about what he can with regard to the situation with the cancer trial. Would there be a law broken if they updated investors about what dosage was currently being administered? Let investors infer what they want from that info but what would be the harm is giving the market such an update?
qwerty22 wrote: Trillium went from 30c to $20 over 12 months and daily vol from 1 mil to 30 mil. None of it on a change in it's messaging. Most of it on the fortune of it's cancer target, CD47, going from unloved to hot and it's own clinical progress. It got bought out 6 months later for $2.3 bil. Trillium and CD 47 had been hot prior to the 30c period, it wasn't obvious they would get out of thier hole in the middle of that 30c period. There are multiple ways for thtx to bounce back, clearly they've chosen to execute on the research assets.
scarlet1967 wrote: In 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.