RE:RE:NBOC increases their holding by 117 per cent Clinical trials by definition are risky but some are riskier .Th 1902 falls into that riskier category and THTX decided to improvize itself in oncology without any in house expertise at what appeared to the naked eye to be a low cost acquisition but without the funds needed to support the development of the platform .A small biotech primary goal is to survive and not let itself be seduced by opportunities if they dont have the means ( knowkedge and$$$$) to carry it through.Where would THTX be today if the focus in the last 3 years had not been diluted on oncology.
I think this is what the analysts who never took TH 1902 seriously were thinking.
We cant erase the past but we can learn !!!
Luckily the SP did not go sky high on expectations of positive results ...the pain would be much greater today
I will repeat what I have been saying a few times
THTX next move will define Paul s legacy...I trust that he will make the right call
scarlet1967 wrote:
"To us, the main question is why continue to invest in the development of such risky assets when time, bandwidth and cash could, perhaps, be invested in other assets with, potentially, better visibility and/or ROI such as, possibly, TH's commercial platform."
This is what National bank’s analyst said on December second day after the pause announcement, not very optimistic about company’s decision regarding amending the trial/submitting it…as per the PR day before. As of 10/13 they had about 240k shares worth $561k average SP at $2.3 then they added (521-240) 281k shares by the end of calendar year 2022 with the total value $462k, their 521k shares have an average SP at .88, THTX year low SP was .77 so they must have picked those shares after the pause after their brilliant skeptical analysis. Correct me if I am wrong looking at those numbers the pessimistic National bank must have picked up those shares at near multi year lows before that letter from Paul which National bank analyst was a big fan of. Naturally if “investing in the development of such risky assets…” is the wrong approach why increasing their portfolio by 117 per cent and that was before the announcement of planning for positive EBIDTA/cash flow, stage wise decisions about oncology considering the costs etc.
Point is relying on these analysts which time after time have been proven to be dishonest is absolute waste of time, no wonder with PTs from $3 to $9 we don’t have a long line up of investor in hurry to have a piece of this great investment opportunity. THTX for you commercial products your strategy has been direct to patient/doctors approach attending HIV seminars, arranging educational meetings for HIV communities, Thera Thursdays etc. etc. how about implementing the same communication strategy for the investment communities! DIRECT TO INVESTOR APPROACH...