RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Forgot Sakai There is no investment thesis right now. It's complete gridlock on pros and cons. How can we blame anyone who doesn't want to buy a lottery ticket from holding off investing until more is understood? The market doesn't care about the underlying value. That investment thesis is played out, because of the risk of investors dumping stock if TH-1902 doesn't work. All of us are already underwater as it relates to the underlying value, so the only hope we have is a lottery ticket. I can't imagine based on what we do know that TH-1902 won't work, and the theories on why it's taking so long outlined here make some sense. That doesn't change the fact the days march on with no news.
SPCEO1 wrote: Please see my comments in
red qwerty22 wrote: Look they have a viable business to protect, it might not be an exciting investment opportunity but it's viable. They can't go gung-ho over cancer when it's high risk and extremely uncertain atm and completely destroy their reputation. ATM all that is happening is timelines are slipping, name me a biotech that has never happened to. That hugely frustrating for us but not a sin you should be crushed for.
I am sure many who read this are saying to themselves like me that they have no reputation to destroy at this point, except a bad reputation. And I would point out again the comments about "a few, several, maybe many" announcements between mid-August and Christmas coming from Paul's mouth and "the key to unlock the cancer cell". There was some vague promotion of their cancer prospects in these comments and then they stopped, again harming Paul's reputation. But you are certainly right that these delays are the norm in biotech. Let's hope the change to a more quieter approach represents an effort to say little until you have solid info in hand and not a change in what was going on in the trial.
I think we have to get more grounded about the 1b. 70 patients is a good number, especially for safety, but it's 10 patients for each cancer type and that is a bare minimum. A realistic outcome, which would still be positive, is one cancer type gets across the line (let's say with 3 responders) and maybe they get a responder here and there in the other cancers. That would be viable going forward. But that would be an oasis of positivity in a desert of negative outcomes in terms of what emerges from the 1b data. The idea that that oasis will come into view 1/3 or 1/2 way thru the 1b is optimistic. We could imagine this drug is a mega over-performers and responders are popping up all over the place and we would expect they could say something positive half way thru the trial but how likely is that.
While optimistic to think we would get some sign of positivity early in the phase 1b, it was not entirely unrealistic given the strong pre-clincial data and assuming decent enrollment. Also, it is realistic to think TH-1902 would have a positive impact on several cancer types based on how it is supposed to work and the preclinical trials. It may turn out that TH-1902 is not a really special drug like many thought would be possible and as the company itself evidently thought as well. The more time that passes without some sign of efficacy, the less likely the drug is something special across multiple tumor types since TH is required to announce any material event in the trial regardless of when it happens. Since we are six months into phase 1b with no announcements, either enrollment is disatrously bad or TH-1902 might not be as special as once seemed possible.
I think Paul has been the optimistic, best case scenario guy at times, and he's getting criticized for that now that has failed to materialize. Christian is the realist in suggesting we need to get all 10 patients enrolled in any cancer type to get a more clear picture to emerge.
I am hoping the scenario is one where TH is not forced to announce anything positive until they have all ten in any cancer enrolled and fully tested. That would account for the disappointment in not seeing anything so far. But I am not sure what rules they are playing by and they are not making those rules public. It would be nice if they could clear that up but I suspect when you have an uncertain situation as company management, you think ti is better to leave everyone in the dark until you have it all nailed down.
I think what's likely 1/3 or 1/2 the way thru the 1b is a dataset that looks like a slightly larger 1a with not much more clarity about the path forward. It could be a lot of negative and a little positive which might not be all that well understood as shining a light on the path forward. The chances are we do need to wait for 1b to deliver all it's data to get a clear picture of the road ahead.
Every day that passes without an update, the market is entitled to assume the worst case scenario and it likely will continue to do so. With the share price already so low and a legacy drug business that is worth more than the current share price on its own, there probably is not much risk ifor current investors in TH being more straightforward about where things stand right now. But my guess is the need to do an offering if the news is good on TH-1902 is the top priority so all decesions about transparency around the pahse 1b trial revolve around that. So, if the news from the trial is sketchy at the moment, TH has no desire to highlight that as there is still a chance they might ultimately have good news to report. If so, they don't want to dilute such possible good news with any interim sketchy reports thereby coloring potential new investor's thoughts about TH-1902's long term prospects to get approved and sell well.
realitycheck4u wrote: I will say it differently.It will be a shame if they come out with good news because the stock market reaction will be a fraction of what they would have seen had IR been good at their Job of building momentum. They are waiting for results versus preparing the market for them.
ANALIAS00 wrote: It is sad to say they will prove their poor communication strategy if they come out with good news. Because the way they act can only be justify by result not being what they were expecting.
PWIB123 wrote: I guess you could look at that several ways, but obviously invstors wanted more and weren't given those details. The success of the lawsuit's defense seems to have emboldened THTX to stick to their history of providing less communication. I would've agreed with the courts on this one. I think they made the right call, but that doesn't mean THTX is doing the right thing in how they communicate with investors.
Lee430 wrote: Perhaps this is the reason for their ultra conservative PR stance.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/the-law-page/top-court-tosses-suit-against-theratechnologies/article24004231/
Joemare wrote: I think it's fine to voice your opinion. Not sure how busy she is. Very quiet on linked-in and twitter.....