Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Stakis,
Your 11.28
If anyone over there (with a few notable exceptions) REALLY did understand the science it seems they don't get the INVESTING side as they seem to have spent a great many years telling everyone that "the" RNS is due, "any day now".
Since they have failed to see "The" RNS that was predicted, which will skyrocket SCLP to £8 per share, it appears they've been waiting 11 years for their ideal exit, although they'll all come up with reasons why they are right (Irrespective of the irrefutable proof that to date they are not).
I say 11 years rather than 12 because of the cash raise in 2013 (@ 22.5p a substantial discount to the previous day's closing price) that finally wiped out any near term prospect of a return to the dizzy heights of the 2012 (64p - BEFORE the mass dilution - which followed over the ensuing (almost) 11 years).
So it seems a relatively straightforward but obvious conclusion that many of the "experts" over there do not have the global view of the Biotech industry (or even a passing acquaintance ) with the commercial situation in the Biotech industry which would have been helpful in making Scancell an investment which could have been profitable and that, or some of that profit, secured in 2012.
Now THAT would have been a great investment. Many are now left with a break even in 2024 which (IMO) cannot be claimed as a brilliant strategy. Many watched their holding swing from significant profit to their current position by following the Scientific "Experts" on BBs.
Buying and blindly holding has clearly been not been the stellar moneymaking process that so many trumpeted year in year out. It's a shame but irrefutable.
Anyone who has taken the decision to disinvest at the many opportunities which have arisen over the years have generally been "ridiculed" for their decision, even though most of those who have sold have generally been able to reinvest at a lower level given the passage of time whilst recovering some (or all) of their initial investment.
I'm sure there's a few realists on this BB who would agree. Fewer over on the other side (or however the divide is described) and maybe there will be howls of protest that my comments aren't valid or even born of malice. They are neither. There will be people who have profited from Scancell over the years, but it won't be those who have followed the "expert" advice of those who are most vociferous (and often outrageously wrong) on not only this, but other BBs.
AIMO
Nothing wrong with the level now if you think that the SP at 25p was wrong.
Ask yourself why was the SP at 25p a year ago?
Ah yes, it was because of the completely misplaced expectation that all the Modi trial results would replicate the outstanding initial results in one trial participant.
That's why the SP wat more than twice the level of now.
The disappointment in Scancell's SP over the last twelve years might just be to do with the overhype of the discovery of Moditope and the lack of understanding of the length of time it can take to get from Concept to Commercialisation (quite apart from the underfunding of Scancell until 2020).
Surely that addresses the reason why Scancell SP has never fulfilled the promise many attributed to it since 2012.
Shame, but now the future seems to be positive it seems likely there will be more time required to prove the pudding.
We can but hope.
AIMO
Wigwammer I'm tempted to agree with you (speaking as I am a non scientific person).
I suspect there are more non scientific people invested here and that might just be the reason for the "derisory" SP.
Anyone who has held the line on Moditope being the holy grail since 2012 (or whenever it was first announced) to a sceptical world has been punished by the SP. Maybe that has been a result of people who don't understand the science having the whip hand with the day to day SP movements for the last eleven years.
Sadly thus far the data for Moditope has seemingly failed to live up to the hype.
Maybe that will change, but as a non scientific type Scibs of various "persuasions" seem to be the flavour (and nearest term) hope for the moment.
I'm sure my ideas are far too simplistic but Modi looks like it needs some further development before it can even approach the claims that have been made for it.
Shame, because it would have been good to see all platforms roaring ahead by now with the long anticipated SP benefits which again are rather illusive.
Hopefully that will happen IDC.
AIMO
Thanks Berm for your comments on WTP's find.
I feel I have a bit of an understanding of this (which I would never have had your interpretation not been forthcoming).
Let's hope it's as positive as the concept seems to my Layman's mind.
Thanks again.
Something I should have researched before posting my last.
One definition of RESEARCH.
"the systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions".
Reverting to my last post, IMO the lack of conclusions rather detaches some posts from being classed as research.
If you use a scattergun approach to "research" by definition the odd bit will stick (ie have some connection with Scancell's business).
I have a problem with posts that provide information which might or might not have a connection to Scancell, but the lack of any additional idea from the poster as to what that link might be rather deems such posts useless.
I think I might be agreeing with C11 on that point.
By all means post an article but is it too much to ask why that poster thinks there's a connection? If they can't give their reason it's a bit like answering a maths question without showing the workings. The reason workings are required gives the examiner/post reader the ability to determine whether the person answering has any clue about what they are putting in front of them, which in a subject as complex as posts on this BB is if not important, quite useful.
AIMO
EE
Yep, nothing new on the "pensions investment in Technology/Growth sector".
Unlisted Company investment but possibly a double edged sword from the Pensions Funds Management perspective.
see:-
https://news.cityoflondon.gov.uk/lord-mayor-welcomes-landmark-agreement-to-unlock-pension-funds/
Also worth a look at the following (specifically the various pressure points on the Pension industries portfolio managers) and the (unintended effects it can create - viz Gilts - and that's a BIG market)..
https://www.intereconomics.eu/contents/year/2023/number/3/article/pension-funds-and-financial-stability-the-case-of-the-uk-gilt-crisis.html
In each case there are potentially great benefits to both sides, but on the numbers involved the funds at startutup could be very distorting. That's good if you're on the right side of the deal.... but......
AIMO
Moon,
Sorry I wrote my last under the earlier thread heading but I've only seen your new thread since I hit Post on mine.
I think we agree that the news from earlier this year such as you've posted is great to see.
Wonder if the idea includes AIM stocks?
Given the pension Funds' ability to derivitise Gilts (turning the bedrock of safe and secure investments into highly leveraged "assets") maybe AIM will become an acceptable place for future pensioners financial security.
Seems to me with the BoE underestimating the inflation threat three years ago and pension funds "cleverly" falling into the trap of "sexing up" Gilts any rethink of their Investment authority would be a very good and timely idea.
AIMO
Anyway, interesting point.
Moon
Of course it is, but stranger things have happened (than the Conservatives getting reelected)
That said its a bit like asking what effect Labour being elected would have on the Stockmarket generally. The only dead cert in that scenario would be a boom time for the Tax avoidance industry.
So really any consideration of what ifs on the tax from after the next general election is moot, but rest assured there will be strategies being drawn up now for all political eventualities in 2024.
Let's hope that Scancell provide sufficient good Data to allow those invested to make some choices. I for one would be disappointed if a move from the LSE occurs as that suggests to me that existing shareholders might not be the major beneficiaries.
Maintenance of science based companies in the UK should be the aim of any Government of whatever persuasion in the coming years. The UK needs to be a technological centre of excellence. It would be possible with the right governmental incentives and rewards.
Now THAT's a really moot point!
AIMO
C11,
Exactly, and to say there'll be no impact should IHT be scrapped it seems to me that is a rather sweeping statement.
If Oddmoney is referring to the article I saw earlier today in the MoS he'll have seen that a proportion of the GBP90Bn (MoS figure) held in Aim stocks could conceivably be vulnerable to some encashment and removal (particularly those held outside of ISAs and SIPPs.
I certainly hope that IHT is either abolished or the thresholds significantly increased as was to have been the case over ten years ago, but complete abolition would potentially affect some qualifying AIM investments I'm sure.
Of course Scancell would be completely immune from such heretical sales LOL.
No, of course there's no guarantee there wouldn't be any form of selloff should the IHT abolition occur.
AIMO
Hasiba,
Unusually I agree with you.
Your point about the concept of finding Partners etc, finds favour with Vulpes who support your view too per their recent update.
Specifically they say,
"We continue to view the current share price as derisory; reflective of poor market sentiment for biotech stocks and the
early-stage nature of the business, with management too focused on the science, rather than
medium- and long-term commercial aspects."
it's not just many PI who share this view it seems.
Hopefully the recent and upcoming conferences will help (in conjunction with the recent hires.
AIMO
It probably has more to do with Vulpes reinforcing their assessment of Scancell.
What is most interesting is the preparedness of the Fund Manager to publish ,
"We continue to view the current share price as derisory; reflective of poor market sentiment for biotech stocks and the
early-stage nature of the business, with management too focused on the science, rather than
medium- and long-term commercial aspects."
Under the "Valuation implications for Scancell".
A very upbeat document with that sting in the tail.
I suppose it allows some people to find a reason for the lack of the Market's appreciation of Scancell's achievements.
The question must surely be whether Vulpes' perceived misaligned focus will be corrected IDC.
I certainly hope so, particularly if it paves the way for some positives in the Company's near term commercialisation announcements.
AIMO
Cleaner,
Thankyou for your reply, You mentioned that,
"Have no wish to influence your investment strategy. In doing my own research I have read the full articles in order for any posters to form their own individual assessment........"
If you don't want to influence anyone's investment strategy, why are you posting the seedcorn of your research without applying your own thoughts to the information you've retrieved.
If you were to post your reasons for linking two or more discovered articles together then lesser mortals such as myself could use your generous donations to consider whether your conclusions might be valid or not.
Since you don't want to influence anyone's investment strategy (or maybe just mine) why post your findings rather than apply what you think they mean to your own buys/sells/holds.
Sadly since you're too shy to say whether your posts are helpful to Scancell's cause or not why bother to put them on the BB?
Anyway, you seem reluctant to be tempted to offer your own views on the reasons you feel your latest finds are useful. Sadly for me you remove yourself from the list of people who post here who are prepared to stand by their ideas with subsequent debate) and it is those (whether the evidence supports their conclusions or not) are the most readable and helpful of contributors to this forum. I quite accept that I am probably the loser by taking this view, but I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to understand how to draw conclusions from your posts.
So thanks for your reply, it was kind of you to respond.
AIMO