The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
He must be nervous or would not be back (?)!
Master.... we missed you.
4D so is finished, look at the market as it makes slight gains for the first time in many weeks.
4D makes no gains because it’s gonna continue heading south !
It’s just a matter of time until your investments get swallowed into the abyss…
Hi Asterix (the Gaul?)
Let's be clear: if you read my posts in their entirety, I have an issue with BOTH i.e. a potential issue equal to 100% of the current number of shares AND the possibility that it may not include a rights issue.
In a nutshell, I'm saying is the following: I trust that the directors would only resort to a (dilutive) capital increase as a safety net (though, once more, 40% should be enough!). IF a capital increase is unavoidable and we didn't manage to get funding otherwise, it would be unacceptable not to include existing shareholders.
Your probably have read the following from the notice:
"Having the freedom to be able to raise capital in a timely manner will align the Company with US listed biotech companies which do not have to comply with statutory pre-emption rights"
I'm hoping though this discussion is theoretical as the company is focussing its energy on non-dilutive options.
I see this is your first ever post. Are you an investor in 4D?
Best,
MHB
Asterisk what worried me was they say us shareholders may be given an opportunity not will be given an opportunity.
Have any of you actually read the notice of the AGM? Michaelhighbar says 'overall I probably have more of an issue with the exclusion of 4D's existing investor base rather than the 100% issuance limit'. In wihch case what do you think to statement 'The Directors are aware that in the event that these authorities, or some part thereof, is utilised it may lead to a material dilution to existing shareholders. The Directors will therefore give consideration to ways in which all shareholders may be given an opportunity to participate in such a fundraising, including by way of an open offer.' People on these boards need to start reading actual materials from the company for themselves
Fforestgwmp,
I understand where you come from.
First, the chances are that res. 9 is an overconservative safety net which could be relied upon if non-dilutive options for funding (incl. Oxford Finance further drawdowns) haven't worked out and the company needs to move very quickly to secure funding - at least that's my take on it.
Now, a rights issue might take bit more time or it might not if coordinated in parallel with rest of fundraising arrangements.
So res. 9 may never be applied in practice if it's only a safety net. But, it's a matter of principle and fairness: the investors that have supported the company and stop its SP from falling further, shouldn't they be given the chance to buy into a share? I'm overweight 4D too though would still want the chance to take part in a fundraising likely to take place at a bargain price AND, after which, the SP is likely to take off. It could be an easy (top slice) trade for some or for others the chances to beef their holding. But, we should be given the chance.
Overall I probably have more of an issue with the exclusion of 4D's existing investor base rather than the 100% issuance limit which I think is too high even as a safety net.
Michael, must admit my first thought, emotional, was to vote no, why 100% and why cant we take part.
Why can't we take part, could be fear that the raise by us wouldn't be that succesful, let's face it most of us are overweight already so would we really buy more, if we we're inclined to surely we would have at this price already.
100%, if all else fails we need the money to keep going and even if it isn't used it's in our arsenal should funding concern occur again.
Even if it had to happen is that bad, if it funds us for 12mths+ or in to 2024 think of what we could have achieved by then based on results of the last 12mths - time for Porky or Phil to post the reminder of what we're expecting.
Ultimately if this funds us until TO or we hit a milestone that releases those eye watering sums that's not a bad thing - 10% of something is better than 100% of...
I'm not 100% decided yet but there are my thoughts, I used to be uncertain now I'm not so sure.
GLA
Good morning friends.
The annual report clearly states they need $45m once the current cash runs out.
The plan for the raise would have been in place since at least last July as it was made a condition of the release of Oxford loan funds.
The current market cap is $78m so if they can only raise 40% of market cap that would only be $31m.
If the SP were to drop more then a placing would get harder and harder with the 40% restriction in place.
So clearly they need freedom to be able to raise 100% of the value.
I don't think people get how partnerships between big pharma and small biotechs work. Big pharma are not charities that provide bailout funds to smaller companies that are struggling.
Merck has dozens of ongoing Keytruda collaborations with small biotechs. They are not going to fund each and every one that is running low on cash.
It's dog eat dog capitalism my friend. At 8am I will buy 1 share and then I can vote for the resolution and be free to comment here.
Hi crl123
I'm inclined to agree with you there. Overall though I remain optimistic but there are questions that need answering. Hopefully, the AGM will be such a forum.
@Porky
You 're welcome and good point re the eventuality of lining up a major investor such as a big pharma i.e. they could get a big stake in 4D in exchange for covering future clinical trial costs, in cash or both. But still ... 100%? I raised that as a possibility in my post though, if that's the intention, it could have been alluded (in vague terms) in the notice. So not convinced that's the case or the intention.
When I came across by chance the AGM RNS, I was actually looking for the 53p options thinking whether we'd have the chance to vote separately for the staff options to the options awarded to Duncan and Alex. They will probably be for next year AGM as I think they were in January.
In any case, a reminder to the board that retail investors are still here even with SP at 34p could be a good idea. Let's see as you say.
MHB
@Michaelhighbar
Pure speculation and guesswork but it Could be that Duncan is going to accept a milestone payment on the Vaccine in October and as part of that deal is going to issue more stock at discount to Merck. That way funding fully secured for 2023 and Merck increase position to say 10% from 4.6% - wouldn't surprise me.
Merck currently hold 8.3m shares and average £1.10
@Michaelhighbar
Thank you, appreciate that. Not had chance to read it in detail yet until the weekend.
I always like to keep my pre emption rights in full where i can. Bit bloody cheeky dropping that one in. Keeping it at 40% is more than adequate, they don't need to increase to 100%.
Unfortunately, it will be over the heads of most PI and the way the decks stacked they will probably get it over the line anyhow but i will certainly vote NO to resolution 9.
See what happens
Pork's
I will vote against Resolution 9 and would encourage others to do the same. We have been taken for granted too long and suffered enough already. I , for my part, will resist the opportunity for a 100% dilution and would stronglyburge others to do the same. It can be stopped, but only if people do this.
Shareholders have a voice, but are too often cannon fodder.
One of the proposed resolutions at the AGMs is to allow the issuance of shares up to 100% of the currently issued issued shares (a steep increase from 40% in 2021) without offering existing shareholders the chance to participate!
https://www.4dpharmaplc.com/application/files/2316/5348/1816/4D_Pharma_Notice_of_Meeting_2022.pdf
“In June 2021, shareholders voted in favour of resolutions giving the Directors the authority to allot shares and other securities up to 40% of the then issued share capital without having to first offer such shares and securities to shareholders. This authorisation has not been used and will expire at the AGM. The Directors believe that it is in the best interests of the Company for the Board to have ability to be able to allot shares and securities equivalent to 100 percent of the Company’s current issued share capital. This will significantly enhance the Company’s ability to compete for capital in the current prevailing market conditions.”
That is, potentially, a concern. It is retail investors that have supported 4D and kept its share price from crashing completely in the last few months. Why allow the possibility for such steep dilution and ESPECIALLY without having to include existing investors?!
We should be well placed to achieve non-dilutive funding from Merck who stands to benefit so much from 4D’s R&D, or make sure tranche II of Oxford Finance gets released or do a licensing deal (e.g. on IBS). Even if funding was needed, isn’t 40% of capital enough? We should only need some bridge financing to keep going in this climate.
4D's reasoning in the AGM notice is not convincing (e.g. bringing in a strategic investor isn't stated) so I expect to be voting AGAINST that (resoln. 9). Perhaps others would wish to do the same. You can contact your broker and here's proxy form: https://www.4dpharmaplc.com/application/files/1216/5348/1816/4D_Pharma_AGM_2022_Proxy_Form.pdf
The management has had the opportunity to bring in new investors and thus enhance the share price at the Wainright investor conference. IMO, the presentation fell short from being an effective sales pitch for 4D.
Why?
- Not much emphasis on the commercial aspects e.g. what are the objectives in terms of deals and at what time in the development of each therapy/platform (MRx series)?
- Most of the milestones re trials are to come late in 2022 at the earliest - most in 2023 or 2024. That’s fine but what are the compelling reasons for an investor to come in now rather than in say 6-18 months? There must be some.
- Hardly any comparison with rival firms. What sets 4D apart? We know about safety but what else?
- The page on financing stated the obvious without much assurances that we are working on non-dilutive funding.
Hopefully, though, it did generate sufficient interest. We'll see. After all the conference allowed for one to one meetings. Let's see.