Member Info for AB124

Dragon,

Your Broker is simply showing the LSE (London Stock Exchange) price. The real time market is very much closer. I guess your broker doesn't maintain book a position hence the use of published prices.

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

:-)

Bermuda, great read. Thanks for sharing.

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.

For clarity,

From Investormeet,

"Following today’s announcement the results presentation for SCANCELL HOLDINGS PLC on 24th of October at 4:30pm will now be rescheduled."

.

One good thing has come out of this morning's events and that is that the near Gap is closed.

All neat and tidy now.

Onwards and upwards (all being well).

AIMO

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

Confirmed positive trial Data?

I should have made clear that Unlisted Companies does cover AIM).

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

Cleaner,

Please help me. What is the explicit (rather than your implicit) connection between the two cut and pastes you included in your 07:44?

I know very little about the science here and I find your post difficult to understand in the context of Covidity (which I thought had been sidelined by Scancell FTB).

PLEASE could you explain because I'm struggling with this and your posts frequently arrive on the BB but you never post your own conclusions so I end up reading a load of stuff that I am completely unable to contextualise. I imagine you understand why the two posts are linkable but I can't, so your explanation would be helpful.

Thanks C11 for your plea to the science types. If you're correct in your assumption (and it is supported) why are we constantly trying to link Scancell with the next epidemic when Scancell seem to be centred on Cancer trials.

I genuinely need help on this as I thought Covidity was out of the picture FTB.

Apologies to those who know much more about the Science than I ever will.