Wino115 wrote: Wouldn't disagree with any of this. I think every corporate executive would agree the characterization embedded in a stock price is a report card of sorts on the CEO and total market view of the corporate strategy. I do think PL views it that way and likely hopes this year proves it out.
Even just sticking to hard facts, you can communicate much more effectively with the market, so he needs to own that one way or the other. We can be ignored, but the share price is the ultimate vote tally on management and the strategy. He should care about that at all times, not just around the once a year milestone (hopefully positive milestone).
We may see that what we should have been earning over the last 9 months of slowly increasing the positive view around the trial (we know factually that high dosage = higher chance of good RECIST data in 1b) we end up earning in one day. That's a byproduct of the lack of coverage and very tiny audience that follows the company.
So maybe we'll be happy soon, maybe not. Maybe they did the best with what they know -we just don't actually know what they know. In hindsight, we will be able to see if they did another lousy job of informing the market on what was going on or if they did a decent job with what was known. It's certainly not how many of their very professional competitiors (not spivy PR hounds) do to build their audience and keep it informed and provide more depth and interpretation around developments. Maybe they'll get there with the new IR.
My report card in hindsight would be this: If they report interesting results and the share does gap up nicely, then they did a horrible job building the narrative over the last year where some of that should have been understood by the market much better and not happened all in one day. I get most should have been one day, but normally you'd see a nice slow rise as market awareness and understanding grows and confidence grows. If it sits here or falls on good news, then they actually did all they could and the market did incorporate it all from those various releases and KOL events. We'll see.
SPCEO1 wrote: Let's do an experiment. First, try to adjust today's PR to make it blander. Second, try to adjust it to make it enticing to prospective investors. I would submit an effort to make it blander would be much more difficult than using it to build some anticipation - even if the meat we are looking for comes at a different point in time than the earnings call. Wino, you have made excellent proposed PR's in the past for TH. I am sure you could improve the current offering with relative ease. TH is just terribly deficient in shareholder communications and has been for a very long time. I am not sure how fixing this has not become a priority for Paul. He has done a lot of things right but he has not been rewarded by the market for doing so. He should be quite concerned about this as the share price is the ultimate arbiter of whether he is a success or failure. As a reminder of just some of TH's failures on this front: 1.) Losing home town shareholder CDP's confidence. You know you have screwed up royally when you cannot keep them on board. 2.) Having an earnings call where no analysts attended. 3.) Never addressing TH's chronically poor analyst coverage - indeed they have made it far worse! The ONO put the final nail in that coffin. 4.) They ticked me, one of their largest shareholders, off to the point I will not even bother to speak with them. And I am really hard to tick off as my long and peaceable ownership of the stock through a lot of drama suggests. 5.)Despite hiring various IR consultants and a capable IR officer, not much progress was made and actually, TH went backwards with regard to analyst coverage. I could go on but it is evident they have a big problem in this area and that it has cost us all a lot of money. Good phase 1a results will help TH redefine the image of the company but unless there is a big makeover, we will all likely be left knowing a lot of meat was unfortunately left on the bone.