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 and have access to Premium Chat. 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.
Corr, lack of communication from the BOD, lol
Ok , guess you have turned it in for the night, catch up tomorrow, it would be good next week if we can bring civility back to this BB again. Many shareholders are rightly concerned about their investment here, IMHO it all goes back again to a seeming lack of communication from the BB and at a time when the share price is still weak, halving halved in recent months the silence gets louder.
Nobody shuld be criticised for their feelings, I would just say that on Wednesday feelings run rather high, and at the end of the day it only serves to bring out some very nasty posts from just a few people and we get no further in learning what is happening. Hopefully with Lindy presenting the Moditope Platform today in Boston, and the six posters recently displayed in France, it is as Ray suggests the start of the Moditope build up to the MOD1 trial in mid 2020.
I think it is imperative we meet this timeline, get news out about the current SCIB1 Combo Trial, whatever other Updates we can muster and take away the speculation that has engulfed us for far too long. We might even find the market reacting favourably again. However much I don"t like seeing such negativity, the BOD are not exactly dealing with it for feelings to be running so high, you cant survive on just promise as we have been for a few years without patients being dosed and timelines being met. So yes hopefully this is the start of newsflow which we have been hoping for and expecting all year.
Sincerely hoping too that the very personal posts I read from crackin, dracula and TF again stop, ADMIN removed two but crackins (Aimbig) post still lies in its glory, but to the three of you in one ear and out the other, I feel sorry for you such nastiness is held from old battles, time to move on perhaps.
Inan, as its past midnight, how did that BBC election debate go? I fell asleep as it started
Semantics Inanaco, but makes you think if we get that commercial deal perhaps on the Third Platform, Glycans ,Mabs etc dependant on the deal the market will take this so much higher overnight.
Which is what I meant earlier when I said we know the difference as to why the market values us where we are, we need income, trials and data.
Many other battles to fight Inan, take care and Goodnight
Ivy.s new Friend
. Literature bore. Anarcho-fabulous. Muslim. THFC. Walks like a supermodel. F...ks like a champion. Luxury communism now!
yes but that is different .,.....
The royalty itself is 100% profit .......... how you spend that is another matter
C7 .......... perhaps the need to squeeze Inanaco into a corner ....
they have the "group Hug"
Ivy is so determined to have a fight on Twitter he has joined the labour Party ... !! he is Now Comrade Ivy ...
Inanaco I"ve just woken up, surprised to see this thread still going, yes that is true, not disputed by anybody but the monies would be used to develop SCIB3/4 or any other platforms we are working on, the benefit is and the aim surely is to be self funding, no more placings, declaring profits and being valued accordingly.
BioNtech is a license ...
probably stage payments with a royalty at the end of it ...
but the cost attributed to the development of SCIB2 and TCR have already been accounted for in this 2018/19/20 accounts
so what costs would you apply if they start paying Royalties ............ None ... its already accounted for as a carry forward loss ... of which we have already funded and received Tax credits ..
Scancell policy is to license .......... indeed if SCIB2 completed all stages under this agreement and we did not take the license back at phase 2 ...... we would be in line for Royalties on sales on approval
I thimk all the posts bear relevance to the earlier comments, and i like Rays explanation as to both sides point of view. It was written too in the hope of bringing an end to another long thread, which Ray has put into words in one scenario . I s there really a company that achieves the good fortune of having a regular income without pursuing future platforms, which obviously maintains differing levels of overheads.
It was and is always my understanding that Scancell would develop platforms up to end of Phase 2 perhaps, sell the asset and move on to the next platform which has already been in development for some time, incurring costs and needing further costs to completion of the stratagy. Obviousely in that situation all incoming earnings will fund future developments so no income can be seen as 100% profit.
Sometimes I feel the arguments continue on semantics, unnecessary and I believe we all know each persons style pretty well enough to shorten the length of these threads. Ivy, Ruck you make obviuos good points which I agree with, perhaps the need to squeeze Inanaco into a corner, negates the main points which you have made already. Just MO but it takes two to end a thread, and i would give more attention to readers who understand your original points only too well. GN
straight to the bottom line ..............
means you can carry on investing ... R and D on other projects ... but this can be off set against the 100% profit from the Royalty ..
No Dilution or borrowings ...
i get a royalty cheque because the 25,000 volt line runs on my land ............ but i dont pay for the upkeep !!
simple stuff ...... why do you need an accountancy degree ?
Appreciate you are trying to “ understand both sides” and using a nuanced argument which is fine.
However when one poster states something without equivocation as a given and argues the case I do feel inclined to support the individual that is imo correct.
Simply see it as a kind of Factchecker in the same way many others feel the need to intervene when someone is making spurious claims for whatever reason.
Ray, you are of course right, in the scenario you describe. But can you really envisage Scancell ceasing all further research, closing down all operations and simply having a P.O. Box where royalties are sent and a part time person who deposits the funds?
I admire you trying to give some credibility to Inan’s stance but it is what it is - ludicrous.
But I'm not an accountant - thank God
I think I understand both sides of the argument.
Royalties flow through whether or not you have ongoing costs. You don't have to do any further work to earn them.
Because of this "free" money you can concentrate all your efforts into producing new products, running trials etc, plus all the other costs of running a company. There is no effort involved in manufacturing or marketing the product for which you are receiving royalties.
In effect, all the costs are investment in new products.
If you owned the company outright, you could indeed decide to stop all activities, fire the workforce and have no costs whatsoever. You just live off the royalties (minus any tax of course) without doing anything.
This, to my mind, is different to the situation where you have costs manufacturing the product, marketing it, etc. To keep receiving the revenue you have to keep spending on these items.
No worries Ruck and I will be out for my Taylor’s Landlord soon..
We understand why he has made the mistake thinking as Royalties don’t have any direct cost of sales save for a bit of admin etc but he totally fails to take into account ongoing variable and fixed costs like salaries and other stuff.
Whether you have 100k of royalties or are making 20% on 500k of revenue it is the same effect in that it all goes into the one bucket to cover all other costs to produce a profit.
Enjoy the W/end Ruck et al
Ivy, thanks for the interjection. So just me, you and the pint of bombardier making any sense!
What an absolute nonsense that Royalties go straight to the bottom line.
It is like any income from which you must deduct costs sunk or otherwise.Yes there is no direct cost of sales attached like revenue but that is why Royalties are at a much lower rate than normal sales generated revenue which have cost if sales to take into account.
All very interesting but I would suggest that Moid1 action is an example of entropy decreasing.
Temporarily of course.
You deflect to the train crash called Valirx - a poor defence of your beloved Scancell.
Whilst I do not know this paper it may explain more:
The Wikipedia page about Bacteriophage may help [please remember I supposedly know nuffink and all of my posts have no relation to reality in the opinions of some].
I am mystified whether entropy and evolution has any relevance to fighting cancer.
I am mystified who might be paying the royalty - who are they? Do they have a sound financial footing?
VAL .......... all will be well
I am mystified who might be paying the royalty - who are they? Do they have a sound financial footing?
You might know I am interested in peptides and their commercialisation which is why I have money in XYZ... Whilst I appreciate your input you do not model protein shards and shape theory even though it is an esoteric concept which I expect you to know about.
If you do not understand or reject my maths based logic I can only apologise.
Nom ... if you have the Royalty cheque in your pocket, the legal stuff has already been done