RE:RE:RE:RE:Hilarious
Wino115 wrote:
I guess I'm sick. We understand the "spigot" problem they created by not getting much traction with the rebrand except for a few new institutions. But at least they are mostly still there, have attracted Morgan Stanley (or someone behind those shares) recently.
Only thing I would say is that investing in biotech can often end up like this -feast or famine. They all live and die based on pushing forward the science in a methodical and provable way. You get no where unless you prove statistically to your regulators the drug is efficacious and it's novelty advances the standard of care for a sub population of patients. What we know from watching these companies over and over is that it's fairly bleak until you hit a provable milestone and then the switch flips. You go from a low market cap with pathetic trading to a multiple of that market cap with millions of shares trading every day. So at this point I'm not expecting to see much volume as those that own it are looking for the next release around oncology and those who don't can afford to just wait and would be the type that's happy to know more and buy in at $4-5 knowing it could double from there on the science. So you are right, no real reason to sell or to buy until more is known.
Momo25 wrote: We are all trapped. Cannot sell, Won't buy. A shameful case in the stock market world of today. Anyone finds TH is worth to invest in is sick, pretty sick.
The rebranding takes courage and hard work, one has to step out of their comfort zone and fearlessly face the challenges, gain the skills necessary and overcome obstacles during the process. You really need to want/mean it and it has to start from the very top. The chairwoman and her little circle of local friends need to lead the way. Unfortunately it hasn’t been the case despite all the rosy promises.
The low volume, lack of interest from investors are directly linked to low profile and lack of transparency from the company.
I want to know and not guess where exactly they are with NASH, I also want to know why after the long wait they only announced their MTD and the vague statement about results are comparable with the preclinical data! What exactly was their new comparable findings? The gap between few thousand shares traded and few millions is rather large so is the company’s lack of communication/opacity.
You can’t defend their way of running a public company so my hope is good or ok results from their oncology program and or a rejuvenated NASH field boost their confidence and they start selling their R&D potentials.