The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register 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.
TF, thanks for your comments
Ray, thank you for contributing to the debate.
I know many have said that it is pointless having an argument around valuation. I agree, it is impossible to put a precise value at this early (after 10 years!) stage but I disagree it is "pointless". As a professional forecaster, you have to accept it impossible to get things spot on but that doesn't mean you give up getting as close as possible and resort to guessing.
If you feel otherwise, please move on........
The initial question regarding the "extra" £3.2 billion on the perceived value came about from Inan's "£8 still works for me" comment. He is quite entitled to his opinion (as I am mine) but I'm afraid £8 DOESN'T work for me. In the formula:
Company_Value = Shares_In_Issue x SP
Or
SP = Company_Value / Shares_In_Issue
for the SP to remain constant when the shares in issue changes, then the other variable - Company Value) HAS to change. In this case from £1.8 Billion to £5.0 Billion (over a four year period).
Ray, I accept your point about the enhanced value of Immunobody over the past four years - but, was that already factored in to the £1.8 Billion valuation?
Personally, I'm a little uneasy that 64% of the value of Scancell has been produced in the past four years. Isn't that grossly devaluing the contribution of Immunobody and Moditope? I'd go the other way round and say that 66% of the value was already there 4 years ago. So IF it was £8 per share 4 years ago, we are now looking at £4.29 per share (£3.80 fully diluted)
Please note, I am not endorsing the £8/share valuation of 4 years ago, simply stating that IF that WERE correct, then this is where we would be now taking into account dilution and additional IP value for Avidimab.
If you don't want to discuss values and you have read this far - it's your own fault :)
“ The problem with Ruck he is trying to use valuations based on some sort algorithm.”
Yes, why use a formula when you can just say..... £8
LOL
LOL, I think there are "no trade" periods which apply to share purchases when there is news. As contractors have to abide by these rules, Directors of a firm are under even more scrutiny.
I think we have all been expecting news for a little while, and CEO has a Million shares locked in under option at 8.5p already (I haven't checked other entitlements). He's speaking at the end of August, so I'm waiting patiently to hear what he says.
CH indeed owned no shares, so was ineligible for the open offer. He will also have been in a close period during the placing and offer process. But perhaps now would be a good time for him to buy? .....
The problem with Ruck he is trying to use valuations based on some sort algorithm. when in reality you have the perfect formulae
Over the last 16 years, we think we’ve found a balance that reflects what the public expect the NHS to do. Our independent committees use a threshold for recommending treatments of between £20,000 and £30,000 per quality adjusted life year. We think it represents a reasonable compromise between ensuring everyone has fair and equitable access to the NHS and enabling access to new and innovative treatments.
NICE ... QALY
as i have tried to explain ......... to come up with those numbers without the Efficacy numbers is very difficult
but keytruda Sales alone Gives you a bench mark ........... currently $11b/year and rising ..
but overriding all this .......... because Scancells intention is to licence ........ we need "efficacy" data ... and the bigger the trials the more accurate that data becomes however because we are now targeting "shrinking tumors" evidence can be obtained as trials progress and unlike adjuvant treatment there is no "waiting time"
SCIB1 and 2 ............ only consider deals after trials ...
Avidmab .... stay in control by collaborating
Moditope Deals after trials not before ..
TCR ............ fascinating ....... because of "Mab 2811"
it does not matter how i do the numbers ... £8 is easily achieved .
I really don't understand what all the fuss is about ............. one MAB has just done a $6 billion deal ...
so ask yourself ............. why oversubscribed ?
The Golden Rule in evaluating Scancell .............. look at the market potential ..... Trinity have not really done that at all with no correlational to Pd-1 sales or even a mention of the AZN Mab deal ...
Keytruda had sales last year of $11 billion ...........
Nice grounds to approach a post (common ground!!), like it.
Common ground between Inan and Ruck :-)
Actually the missing 3.2 billion is the basis of an interesting debate. How has the science progressed over the last 4 years and how does this relate to the value of Scancell as a whole.
It's not an easy question to answer. Take Immunobody for instance. Four years ago the trial was showing excellent results. Now we have added a 2nd trial with Keytruda and we are patiently awaiting data for a trial that is currently stalled. We are also patiently awaiting the Scib2 trial to start. Then we are also now told that immunobody is also being used for a covid19 vaccine.
So it comes down to waiting for data. So the best we can say is that if the data is good then immunobody is worth a helleva lot more than 4 years ago. Then there are shades of good. Will the 2 combination trials produce data beyond Lindy's expectations and how far beyond.
For all 3 we await that all important data. We know that big pharma were highly sceptical about cancer vaccines in the past but will Lindy emphatically prove that they were wrong?
Will she also prove that immunobody is not just a cancer vaccine platform but also have an important place in viral infections?
You can have a similar debate for Scancell's other platforms.
Might explain the missing £3.2 billion
""Totally agree. LD is in the best position to assess the chances of success. I expect she knows stuff she hasn’t even shared with her fellow directors (yet).""
lol
Ruck - maybe Prof. Lindy can 'sense' possible new directions and issues around the array of all Scancell's existing science but IMO 'know' is the wrong word, as that requires a level of say, research and evidence. But an interesting point - this being Scancell, we just don't know what the next 'new' direction might be. It's possible more will come . . .
Your post 11/8 14.27 to Inan - "Would you be so kind as to explain where the extra £3.2 billion has materialised from?" My compliments on your patience in putting up with the obfuscation (and bleating from others) and you received no adequate reply. It was fair enough to ask.
LL,
Totally agree. LD is in the best position to assess the chances of success. I expect she knows stuff she hasn’t even shared with her fellow directors (yet).
Durrant is the scientist - happy to follow her lead.
Agree Bermudashorts, very reassuring to see LD take up her large full entitlement. Also good to see Sally take up hers although she doesn't hold many shares.
miavoce -
Yes think 6 directors were mentioned earlier on the bb but the only other directors eligible to take part were JC and RG. To be fair to JC, he has invested heavily and at a higher price in previous funding rounds and still holds those shares. Nevertheless, it would have been good to see at least a token buy from both. Having said that, good to see SA and in particular LD take their full entitlements.
Don't think CH actually owns any shares so wasn't eligible for the OO.
When all around you are commenting about their allocations, who mentioned the fact that the Durrant and Adams have put their money where their mouths are?
Brilliant message. What about CH and RG? Why not?
Best vote ever.