RE:RE:RE:RE:Lower SP HoldingsI agree that a fund like Soleus can consult with expert knowing more about cancer in general and on the sortilin receptor. But without more data available to them from Thera, I don't think they can understand much more. There is no very complex science involved in SORT1+ and TH1902. Thera did not identify sortilin. Their key idea was to use it as a selective entry point into cancer cells because of overexpression in many cancers, especially adavanced cancers. They were also able the create the peptide that is a good ligand to sortilin, and able to remain a good ligand while attached to two molecules of cyrotoxic drugs. That was another key, but peptide design is no rocket science either. It is just a good appilication of realtively simple science. They likely looked at natural ligands of sortilin, then made ten or hundreds of peptide sequences, tested them for affinity with sortilin under the unloaded form, than the loaded form. Then made some adjustments to the sequence if needed, chose the linkers they would use for selective cleavage into the cells, tested affinity again, and internalization tests with radiolabelled version of the peptide. After that they started preclinical work on animals with cancer xenografts with different kind of experiments to validate the concept on animals and here we are on humans. So if Soleus does not have access to more preclinical data than us or data from the actual phase Ia, there is not much they can understand that we can't. Thera is doing a phase I for a reason, to learn and validate the concept on humans. So they used relatively simple science by today's standards, but made a clever application of it, at least up to the animal model.
Wino115 wrote: A top notch healtcare fund upping exposure in a very difficult market (and a tough performance year for them it appears, but just guessing at) is a very positive sign.
One thing they likely do beyond what we all know -that being, have super smart PhD analysts who understand these things as well as Christian, is to extensively plug-in to their network. They may discuss the concept with the other CMOs in their oncology investments, they likely have a bunch of KOLs they plug in to, etc... One thing I'm pretty sure they likely do that we can't is to pay research services for expert advice. We used to use one of the services that allowed you to put out a call for an expert in an area and a list of questions around data or science we wanted answered. The service would send it around to their hundreds of experts in oncology, trials, sortilin, whatever the keywords are that may be able to answer the questions. You would screen them by what they are or who they are and then set up calls to go in depth in the areas you wanted to explore. Just to allay your concerns, they are all bound by confidentiality agreeements around their own firms and by conflict agreements with the research service company so that it's just a scientific discussion and nothing about any company per se.
Those kind of engagements are incredibly valuable to understand not just the science, but have a better sense than we do of the probability clinics would use it if it comes out as you present it to them. So they will know before we do on how it realistically will fit into the commercial space, who it will primarily compete with, if it can move down to the 2L or 3L, what else can realistically be attached to it, what other cancers could come in to play, and the probabilities around success in those 4 tumors and perhaps the probability of the FDA letting them go ahead with the more broad "all sortilin expressing solid tumors" as an indication. The level of insight a firm willing to spend the money for extensive in-depth reseach can gain versus your average Joe or even average investment firm is huge if you want to spend the money becuase it's a huge investment for you. Those experts are not cheap at all --$1000 an hour type fees and you have to pay the network firm on top of it, so probably 50% more. We can never hope to have that insight unless you personally know similar people.
So I do take that as a very positive sign. They do know a lot more than we do, but not from the company (they know the same stuff we do there), but from their massively more robust understanding around the isues we grapple with. They are ahead based on their access to knowledge they pay for.
palinc2000 wrote: I had at the most a neutral reaction at Soleus initial investment in THTX via the OO...Funds do take risks and getting in early in the game is very risky but these funds are high risk tolerant and they win some and lose some.....
However the fact that they have been accumulating wuite a lot according to the latest 14 G Filing is worthy of mention.......What are they relying on? Just on PR s issued by the Company?
or on something else?
scarlet1967 wrote:
It looks like Soleus is accumulating quite a bit.
https://fintel.io/so/us/thtx/soleus-capital-master-fund-l-p
SPCEO1 wrote: We just filed our ownership position with the SEC. Our holdings have dropped considerably from last year but I never placed any sell orders in TH. We had a client who had a 7 figure amount of shares in his account die a couple of years ago and when his estate settled last year, most of his heirs took the assets to their own money managers. They may still own the stock but Stewardship Partners no longer manages those assets so it is not in our totals any longer. We also lost some other accounts over the last year which accounts for the rest of the decline in our ownership.
We still own just under 4 million shares and are hoping this investment will finally start paying off for our clients (or paying off again might be a better way to put it).
Other money manager should be reporting their holdings soon so it will be interesting to see what shows up. AIGH reduced their holdings slightly in the fourth quarter but most other hodlers have yet to report.