Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. Watch the video here.
Well to me, the whole Oliveira situation is rather strange. If I was in the situation we perceive him to be in - needing to raise funds following the Forte collapse, I doubt I would have telegraphed my actions (& perceived intentions) in quite the way he has. If (as I think you mentioned Sang), being overseas he has little respect for the notification rules, why on earth would you issue a TR1 early on in the selling process (indicating compliance & alerting to sales) & then not follow it up with further TR1's for almost three weeks. There's no logic to that at all. If I had no regard for the rules I wouldn't have issued one on the 16th September & would have carried on offloading.
In all probability I appreciate it's likely he has been offloading. But what if, knowing that everyone is aware that you have just taken a massive hit, you decide to sell a few & issue a single TR1 showing a reduction. Which exacerbates an already declining share price, while at the same time he actually increases his position & sends in a very late TR1 advising of such. Thinking logically, that would be the conclusion I would come to to form any rational explanation for that single TR1. And I appreciate that would be a rather wild call - & I'm probably wrong. But certainly wouldn't rule it out!
As I have commented on before, the 4D order book is totally false. I believe the true volume is a fraction of what you are seeing, which just gives the impression of lots of investors trading (to the downside). I suspect we would have a lot more TR1's if those volumes over the past year were actually genuine. Just a thought.
It would be sensible to totally discount any progression to Activ-2 Phase3 as it simply may not happen. Home use is not our current focus & we know that we don't offer the same benefits in that setting as we may well do in hospital. Put it out of your minds & assume we will not progress on that trial based on current knowledge. It is nowhere near as important to us as our Phase 3 Sprinter trial which, even with the recent modest delay may well report sooner than Activ-2 Ph3. The constant prattling about 'when' we move to Phase 3 is simply setting you up for a fall if it doesn't happen. Assume that we will not move ahead, & if we do, it's a bonus!
I do wonder at times, taking a cynical view especially as far as our own government is concerned (I'm not so sure of the US), whether a treatment such as SNG001 is more likely to be approved if it is specifically indicated for those most at risk following hospital admission rather than a treatment intended to be preventatively used at home. If our treatment was to be approved for the latter, then the demand from patients for it could be immense, & at £2000 a treatment would be unaffordable for the NHS. I have an exceptionally low regard for our own government & wouldn't be at all surprised to see a potentially beneficial treatment being blocked (on the basis of cost - even if this were not to be disclosed). My hunch is that we would have a better chance of approval (perhaps in general) if it can be shown that we are approved for a more targeted & therefore potentially less costly cohort of patients.
I appreciate that in the States, all sorts of potentially unwarranted spending has gone on with regard to treatments such as Remdesevir. But we are certainly not Gilead & have zero lobbying potential! Perhaps we have to be smart & accept this so that governments are not put under undue pressure to supply something they could ill afford. Just a thought.
A better presentation today from Richard for sure. From the results RNS though I can't help but wonder whether they have already written off Activ-2 & that we may not progress to phase 3? We already know that it is quite difficult to show tangible benefit in the home-use setting so is this what we are also seeing in Activ-2 & there may not be sufficient benefit (in the home) to progress to phase 3.
These words from today's RNS have no specific mention of home-use. Should we read anything in to this? (And not be too disappointed or surprised if we don't progress!).
"The Company continues to develop SNG001 for (i) COVID-19; (ii) future pandemic preparedness; and (iii) patients hospitalised with severe viral lung infections."
Thanks JR - that's a good read! Pretty much sums up my own views re 4D (albeit with the added Oliveira factor!).
I shall be holding for sure.
This morning's RNS was positive - I cannot see anything negative at all within it, & under normal circumstances would have brought about a rise. But today's share price action did not surprise me in the slightest. We all know that someone, for whatever reason, is manipulating the 4D share price. I have watched it closely for well over a year & I am absolutely convinced that for the majority of the time it's a false book. I have bought & sold large volumes over the course of the past year, & obviously if I have been wanting to buy or sell in any decent size it's better to do that on days with decent volume. I've experienced days where perhaps 1,000,000 shares would be traded & where there is a regular stream of trades, buying & selling (or backwards & forwards!) & the share price behaving in a relatively stable manner, & then I come along & start to feed some shares in (& I hasten to add that I'm certainly not selling currently!) & all hell lets loose! The bots go crazy, taking out the bid & lowering the ask in a very aggressive fashion - lowering the price. So I have witnessed a very different reaction when I myself have traded both ways, than what I witness from watching background activity within the order book. My hunch would be that the real volumes being genuinely traded are a fraction of what you think are genuine trades on a daily basis, & that the remainder of the activity provides the appearance of an actively traded company & seeks to manipulate the share price & take it wherever it wants to do. All is not what it seems in my opinion. I have no idea whether Oliveira is currently a factor, but we'll see soon enough.
That said, on a day when we have a newsworthy RNS & all eyes are on the company, it stands to reason that if you want the price down you are certainly going to want to take it down when there's a news release. Why? Because people read the release, don't fully understand it, see the share price action, & conclude that it was not good news. And that's just how it is then reported in the press. "4D Pharma released further data in connection with its forthcoming presentations at the ESMO Congress. Shares closed down 5.8%" And that's precisely what they want. The whole world now thinks the news was bad. Even if it costs them a significant sum it's worth it, because anyone with 4D on the radar as a possible investment then switches off & turns away, & existing investors become demoralised as they can see no real reason for the fall....& sell. And so what would have been a potential pivot point is lost, & the manipulation can continue unhindered. But there will certainly be a turning point. A bottom will be reached, many shares accumulated, & the whole process will either reverse & run in the opposite direction (shares may rise for no apparent good reason), or, a bid will come out of the blue & we will be taken out for a lot higher than today's price, but nowhere near as high as it might have been. All impo of course!
I would agree with aspects of both sides of this His2 & Sang. While Duncan has worked incredibly hard to build 4D to where it is today, we have to be mindful of the fact that we are predominantly seeking to raise our profile in the US now, & things appear to be conducted quite differently over there. The lack of a tie, unfastened shirt buttons & glimpse of a chest-wig are simply not what US investors are going to expect to see from the CEO of a company they may be contemplating investing millions of pounds in. Before you shoot me down in flames, yes - I get it - the science is far more important. But there is no escaping the fact that Business Stateside is conducted in a different way, & if we are to be taken seriously I do believe, with the greatest respect, that Duncan needs to sharpen up (for his own sake as well as ours). Think Michel Barnier or Rishi Sunak, & not Boris Johnson or David Davies! I believe, rightly or wrongly, it matters.
Very positive news today, & tomorrow's presentations will hopefully add some more colour. In view of everything 4D have, the current market cap appears absurd! I have watched the order book closely over the past few months & would concur with other posters on here in that I have never seen a more tightly controlled & manipulated share price than that of 4D. The closing auction each day is an utter farce!
A genuine seller (or even a shorter wanting to open positions at as high a price as possible) , would never load the order book so visibly on the sell-side 7.50 am every morning as has been the case with 4D for many months now. It appears to be US centred as is far less noticeable when they have a public holiday over there.
My view (& no doubt that of most others on here) is that 4D is an incredibly valuable company to the right purchaser - no more so than to Merck. The share price is easy to control if you have the muscle, & you don't even have to accumulate a large short position. I firmly believe that the 4D order book is a false market. That shares are constantly bought & sold (moved) between connected parties with the sole intention of keeping the share price down & demoralising (& deterring) investors. Probably quite easily achievable for a few £million outlay, while having the effect of reducing the market cap by many multiples of that amount.
So if you were a big Pharma, wanting to get your hands on 4D for as little as possible, would you consider doing just that? If a bid came in next week at £2.50 would it be successful? Maybe - in the absence of a counter-bidder, & someone would have picked up 4D for a song. Certainly far far less than allowing the share-price to run as it ought to have done with such promising news on so many different fronts. Dirty tactics for sure, but I wouldn't rule anything out when it comes to the markets - I've seen it all!
Just look at Trillium (Nasdaq) which went from $6 to $18 overnight when Pfizer took it out last month.
Just a thought....
A further tweet from Antmwah, for anyone who may be interested:
https://twitter.com/AntMwah/status/1427593384059981834?s=20
It is standard practice & commonplace for directors to sell an appropriate proportion of shares to cover tax liabilities & exercise costs following exercise of options. It literally happens every day on Lse. Not so many people have hundreds of thousands of pounds lying around to meet those obligations every time an exercise of options takes place!
To any (specifically share-price manipulators) out there looking to profit from 4D having to issue more equity in 12 months time - this should help lay that ghost to rest & is good news for us holders! Maybe the Shorters out there will look elsewhere once this is factored in:
https://uk.advfn.com/stock-market/london/4d-pharma-DDDD/share-news/4d-Pharma-PLC-30-Million-Credit-Facility-with-Oxf/85695713
Good news!
Thanks Fatgreek1 - that's a very positive view of the Blautix results & potential to take it further!
Thanks for finding that Phil - an interesting read, & DP sounding very positive!
A further Tweet today from @AntMwah worth looking at (sorry i'm not sure how to post a link!). Very well respected chartist/investor.
Part 2:
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-innova-tests-another-covid-scandal-in-the-making-part-2/
Just throwing it out there, but has anyone considered the possibility of Innova making an offer for the diagnostics division of Avacta? Covid antigen testing is going to be in demand for many years. Innova have the manufacturing scale, are probably cashed up, & are certainly aggressively expanding. Wouldn't it make sense for them to secure the best performing LFT & cement their position is the worlds largest supplier of Covid Antigen LFT's. As far as the UK is concerned, they also have history with the UK government.
As time goes on, the quality of the test is likely going to become more & more important to potential purchasers (governments, companies etc). Imagine how difficult it would be for others to compete with Innova if it not only had the manufacturing scale, but the best performing test.....
@Big Bite Now. Good afternoon, & thanks for your message.
I wholeheartedly agree with everything your have written there, & your thought processes match those of mine very closely. I guess from my own personal perspective, whilever I would arrive at a similar conclusion to yourself having my 'logic' hat on, I also have the constant nagging doubts introduced by the 'cynical', or perhaps 'suspicious' hat. At times it can be a most unwelcome distraction & has certainly caused me to make a hash of a few investments in the past. Nevertheless, probably a valuable counter to what is spread out before us.
I have been investing for many many years, & have seen it all (well perhaps not everything, but certainly more than I would have preferred to have seen), in terms of market manipulation & untoward (at times fraudulent) activities. I have witnessed many a retail investor being burned by adopting an approach which has been perhaps too trusting, or naive; taking things at face value rather than taking account of what may lurk beneath the surface. Not a pretty sight, & one which I am sure most (but not all) of us would prefer not to witness.
For me, much as like yourself I see a great company in Avacta, with tremendous prospects especially in the therapeutic arena, I am always wary when share prices & company valuations become so incredibly volatile as they have in this case. Whilst I would not want to air all my concerns on a public forum, I am acutely aware that there is enormous scope for a great deal of money to be both made, & lost here, & that can sometimes bring out the worst in people. For me, Avacta did lose a little credibility when it reassured twice (late last year), & again early this year when Mahmud Kamani & Clare Hughes invested, that it was now fully funded to the end of next year only to weeks later announce a very significant fundraising (& subsequent dilution). I understand why they did it, but for me, Alastair (& Avacta) lost some trust. It is very likely that individuals will have made tens of millions of pounds when the shares plummeted from over £2.00 to where they are now in the process. Likewise, there remains potential for the same thing to happen again, but only really if Avacta management & others, helped the process along. One would hope (as do I) that would not be the case, & the part of me which has caused me to remain an investor does give them the benefit of the doubt. Alastair & David appear too 'decent' to me to become embroiled in anything of that nature, but I can't help but have some nagging doubts & I hope that they will shortly be totally dispelled. If they are, then this company would have to count as one of the most exciting investments I have ever come across.
I am sure BBN that you will easily figure out where I am coming from, & for anyone else perhaps less experienced please don't ask me to elaborate as I am simply not going to comment further on this. I thought that a reply was certainly in orde
Indeed, but I can assure you that nowhere either in writing or on video will you find Alastair stating that they can meet (for instance) 95% Sensitivity/ 95% Specificity. It simply does not exist. What does in fact exist is a lot of hopefulls putting words in to his mouth, & in my opinion that is a dangerous exercise with the potential of creating an awful lot of disillusioned investors if we produce something around 85% or 90% or even below. You must be mindful that NOBODY on the entire planet has EVER produced a POC saliva based antigen test (without having even the benefit of the holy grail PCR) & had it assessed. It is totally totally unknown, a world first, & we simply do not know how it will perform. It's all well & good Alastair producing the (very good) video describing LFT performance criteria & what we would ideally want to achieve. That does not for one minute say that we will in fact achieve it. This is cutting edge science & I for one still see a very useful place for this test (as it is saliva based & easier to sample) even if we achieve a less than ideal result (within reason). It matters not that Sona may achieve 96/96 - they are DIFFERENT TESTS, albeit trying to achieve the same objective, & there is ample room for both - & more!
My personal view is that we will come out below Sona & still launch as there will still be massive demand, while at the same time undergoing a process of refinement over the coming weeks & months before launching V2. If we come out anywhere near Sona when using a saliva matrix I will personally be ecstatic. But do not bank on it! And I encourage you to listen again to David Wilson towards the end of the Cytiva/Avacta/Sona Webinar where he alludes to the fact that we may have to cede some specificity in order to obtain a decent sensitivity. It is easier after all to secondarily PCR test all the false positives, than to miss the positives in the first place.
Yes, I have already watched & read every single piece of literature in the public domain relating to Avacta. And yes, I have just joined. I don’t normally post anything at all, but felt compelled to in this instance as it is clear from reading the posts that you are being delusional. I would like nothing more that to beat 96% on both counts, but by setting your expectations so incredibly high, investors who read this board are going to feel very deflated IF we come in below that level. You are setting us up for a fall! Is that your intention??
And yes, we have all heard Alastair saying that the test currently works, & I have no doubt that it does. But that doesn’t mean that it works in the same way that management aspire to. There can be a gulf in between.
It is quite feasible that we currently only have 75% sensitivity for instance, & that we are. Ow working to bring that up to an acceptable level. What I am saying is that if we do not manage to match Sona’s 96% when testing Saliva, it need not necessarily be seen as a failure. If we have a Saliva test that works at anything over 90% on those metrics I would see that as a positive.
Conversely, your sky high & unreasonable expectations will only lead to disappointment if not met, & a falling share price. Is that your intention??
Contrary to many, I am not expecting our LFT to outperform that of Sona. We need to be mindful of the fact that Saliva is undoubtedly more difficult to test than nasopharyngeal swab samples (as used by Sona & all PCR tests). Even with the high affinity & specificity reportedly attributed to Affimers, they would be doing exceptionally well to beat 96% on both counts. If you listen to David Wilson on the Cytiva/Avacta/Sona webinar he clearly states that during development they may have to cede some Specificity in order to obtain an acceptable Sensitivity (which they see as being of paramount importance). If you keep convincing yourselves that we are going to beat 96% on both counts you could well end up very disappointed & set us all up for a fall!
Don’t get overly complacent. Obtaining suitable performance on a Saliva test is incredibly difficult. If we get close to Sona we will be doing exceptionally well with a Saliva matrix & it will be a good result. To think we will beat 96% at this stage is pie in the sky thinking & people would do well to remember that.