RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Uddin Sales of expensive, niche HIV drugs will not be a meaningful value driver. HIV patients are shrinking, not growing.
NASH is on pause and even if started, 2 years until prelim data and 4-5 for IND. I still actually believe in NASH and tesamorelin and th8nk it should be and will be developed at some point. I do think it's a highly valid approach with solid logic around MOA. Is it a value driver in next 12x24 months? No.
After waiting many years, I am only interested in something that will bring the company to the next level in the near term. And that is SORT1+ platform. Subject to what we learn soon, I am positive on the science and what I understand and think it has the opportunity to be a value driver 10-100x more than either HIV drugs or NASH in the mid term . I have been very clear about my own opinion.
palinc2000 wrote:
So you and Spceo dont agree or dont believe in Paul focusing on Hiv and Nash as a strategic vision?
Just looking for a Home run in oncology???
Wino115 wrote:
It looks very plausible to me that the latter is what he does. Rarely have I seen an analyst with a high outlier price that isn't attracting any client interest raise it even higher. They usually just use it to eliminate some other assumptions they've made to inflate the target so as not to embarrass themselves and give them an equal wiggle room. He will add Sort1+ and lower HIV and NASH franchises.
By the way, scarlets post (also on LinkedIn now) points to the fact that the likely pricing environment i Europe was going to consolidate around a number Taimed set as being uneconomic. You'd think they could have structured something in the agreement to get partial milestone refund if the pricing got down there, but I guess not. But it does show the decision was probably prompted by the transfer pricing mechanism and overall costs just not leaving enough for both parties. I doubt anyone will take on the drug in Europe unless Taimed changes the terms or finds a way to lower costs more.
SPCEO1 wrote: In a report on 4/11 in which Uddin looked more closely at cancer following the AACR conference abstracts, he had this comment:
Our valuation is based on a sum-of-the-parts (SOTP) methodology that combines TH’s commercial segment and the NASH project. We have not factored in TH1902 yet – but we have reviewed it.
So, assuming we get good data in phase 1a, he may start putting a value on it. Then again, he may want to wait until phase 1b is completed before adding in any value for cancer, which is fair enough. Whenever he does start adding value for cancer into his price target, he will be able to pick a number from a wide span of options based on the cancer markets he chooses to include, the estimated penetration rates he uses in those markets, the time he guesses until approval in those markes and the discount rates he applies. I do not imagine it will be a small number though, whatever assumptions he chooses to utilize, especially considering a fundraising is likely in the offingat some point in the not too distant future.
Additionally, whatever price target he ends up with after including cancer could/should also end up being reduced by a lower valuation for NASH's propsects. Concievably, his NASH component of his price target could be reduced to zero if TH does just more permanently mothball the project for now given the clearer/faster/cheaper/less risky opportunity in cancer.
qwerty22 wrote: Not yet cancer though.
"Uddin’s valuation for Theratechnologies is a sum of the parts composition which takes into account the company’s commercial segment, factored in at a 2.9x 2022 EV/Sales multiple to the revised 2022 estimate, and the NASH project, which was factored in at a probability-adjusted NPV assuming a new 25 per cent success rate."
palinc2000 wrote:
This is right up my alley!!!He is at least attempting to do the sum of the parts .....THTX is not a one trick pony....