Theratechnologies Inc T.TH

RE:RE:RE:RE:Canadian Disclosure Law

[PinnacleX]

SPCEO1 wrote:

PWIB123 wrote: Nailed it!  Communications 101.  I really thought THTX was making progress with Elif in the role, but clearly someone internal, who has no clue how to communicate with investors is ultimately controlling the direction of the company.  You don't even need a communications background/investor relations experience to understand how basic these principals of communication are.  Someone didn't pay attention in Psychology class to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

The communications gap/errors demonstrated by the Executive Leadership Team has created too much risk in my opinion.  I'll be exiting this stock as soon as there is a reasonable price appreciation, assuming that even happens.  I still believe there is huge potential with the oncology platform and NASH, but I no longer care to place my bet on this leadershp group.  I'm stuck with this investment for the foreseable future, and, I have too many friends and family that have come along as a result of what I've re-communicated to them.  I regret that, but we are here now, today, and I believe the upside represents a greater opportunity than any further communication weakness demonstrated within the Executive Team's skills gaps.

Let's just hope they get lucky and actually find a way to monetize NASH or oncology.  I'll keep my lottery ticket for now.  

scarlet1967 wrote:

I think you mentioned the PR had too much information and I do think you have a good point.

“A company’s press release should contain enough detail to enable the media and investors to understand the substance and importance of the change it is disclosing.

Companies should be sensitive though to the risks involved in private meetings with analysts. Companies should have a firm policy of providing only non-material information and publicly disclosed information to analysts.”

From PR:

 

“Efficacy results observed thus far were not convincing enough to pursue enrolling patients and did not outweigh the adverse events seen in some patients.

The current intent for the protocol amendment is to modify the dosage regimen to optimize the delivery of TH1902, with lower doses at more frequent intervals.”

So they said efficacy were not convincing!

Does that mean no efficacy, some efficacy if so where are the details?

And more frequent intervals at lower doses in order to optimize delivery!

Again why they think that would work?

None of these statements have enough details for investors to understand the “substance or importance of the change..”which was the pause and amended protocol.

Again as you said previously posted it had too much information which in my opinion didn’t explain the situation and the rationale behind their decisions.

On private meetings with analysts and large investors we only found out about potential cost cutting from some posters here and the plan about the dosage of 100mg/m2 weekly!

So again in my opinion the PR was not informative enough or had too much unclear information and the analysts and large investors get privileged information which isn’t released publicly.

I am not suggesting they are intentionally breaking the law but the unclear and one sided communication(larger investors)with the market is and has been a major issue which has negatively impacted the demand from smaller investors as you mentioned just the legacy drugs sales justify higher share prices but some investors are confused about the R&D operations and the cost of them/whether it is feasible to move on with them etc.,hopefully their next move will be a clear and well thought strategy presented in timely manner.

 

 

palinc2000 wrote:

Read this on another MB.Not sure if this is the very latest version but worth reading .... Quite informative as to what and when needs to be disclosed to the market and limits on private discussions with analysts and others (section 5)

https://lautorite.qc.ca/fileadmin/lautorite/reglementation/valeurs-mobilieres/51-201/2001-05-25/2001mai25-51-201-ig-cons-en.pdf
 

 

To Scarlett - On the issue of large shareholders getting access to privileged info - this is true we have access but the info is not necessarily really helpful, particularly when things are going bad. Management might offer additional insights that are not in the public statements but those don't always measure up to the standard of "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". This is true for all companies, not just TH. Normally what is shared is truthful but rarely is it the whole truth and often something other than the truth gets mixed in a bit to get you thinking in a certain way. I actually mostly stopped participating in those calls with management due to this - I have found it is better to just focus mostly on their public releases if information as the standard of being fully truthful is higher there. Also, they don't like me sharing here what I learned from speaking to them and my allegiance to my fellow shareholders is pretty high after all these years, so I have just been opting out of these calls. They do have some serious communications issues they need to clean up but I have lost hope they will do so after all this time.

To PWIB - despite these communications errors, the stock certainly seems too cheap to sell. And the market ususally has a way of doing what is needed to get a company straightened out. If there is real value in TH, someone will identify that and seek to take advantage of it. It may not be in our best interests though, so it would be best if the company sorted things out itself rather than someone else taking charge of the situation in order to avoid another sub-optimal outcome for TH shareholders. Basically, the company needs to alter their entire MO and communications strategy by highlighting over and over again that they are putting shareholders interests first. There are many concrete, easy to implement steps they could pursue to send that mesage loud and clear too investors. Here is one - shareholders have taken a 90% haircut since the peak in the share price nearly 5 years ago. Board members could voluntarily align themselves with shareholders by reducing their compensation by 90% and only gaining it back as the share price recovered. Each quarter the situation could be reviewed and, if the share price met a certain target, say $2, the board would see 20% of that 90% cut restored. When it hits $3, another 20% gets restored and so on until they get back to where they started. Obviously, the CEO and CFO likely need to have something similiar, maybe not quite so severe, put in place too. Aligning management and shareholder interests like this would send a very helpful message to investors.   

"On the issue of large shareholders getting access to privileged info - this is true we have access but the info is not necessarily really helpful"

Anyone find this disturbing what this guy just wrote here?  I alwasy knew you were more invlolved now Id like to see you named in this lawsuit I thinkyou are just as much invloved a as the rest of this pathetic management .

How helpful it is to you makes no diffrence what does is, YOU GETTING MORE INFO THEN THE REST OF US.  You lying SCUM!!!!!!!!!!!!