RE: Crunch time20 Apr 2025 21:52
referred the link content to grok, pointing out the phase 1a results in a 'first in human' trial were meant to show that the drug was safe, and that initial signs of efficacy were evident.
for what it's worth, this was the meat of the response:
"baillie gifford’s rationale for selling:
the factsheet emphasizes that the “efficacy falls below what was desired,” despite the safety profile meeting expectations. this suggests baillie gifford had specific expectations for the phase 1a data beyond safety—possibly stronger or more consistent early efficacy signals.
possible reasons for finding the data “underwhelming” include:
weak or inconsistent efficacy signals: the early efficacy signs may have been less robust than anticipated (e.g., lower tumor response rates, variability in patient outcomes, or biomarkers not meeting internal thresholds).
competitive landscape: baillie gifford may have compared avacta’s data to other oncology drugs in development, concluding that avacta’s drug was less competitive, especially if efficacy was only marginally promising.
risk-return assessment: the global discovery fund targets high-growth, transformative companies. if the phase 1a data raised doubts about the drug’s potential to achieve blockbuster status in later phases, baillie gifford may have decided to reallocate capital to higher-potential investments.
additional data: the factsheet mentions “recent clinical data,” which could include phase 1a results and possibly early phase 1b data or other studies. if phase 1b or supplementary data showed weaker efficacy, this could explain the decision.
safety vs. efficacy trade-off:
the factsheet notes that the “better safety profile… counts for very little if the efficacy falls below what was desired.” this reflects baillie gifford’s investment philosophy: for a small-cap, early-stage biotech like avacta, safety alone is insufficient without strong evidence of transformative efficacy, as efficacy drives commercial success and stock value.
even though phase 1a was not meant to conclusively prove efficacy, baillie gifford likely set internal benchmarks for early efficacy signals to justify maintaining the position. the data fell short of these expectations, prompting the sale."
++++
by 31.03.2025 - baillie gifford may have decided to liquidate certain holdings that may be affected by trump and confederates making drastic changes, then reversing them in many areas such as fda etc, because nasdaq listing is being actively sought by avacta. etc etc. ie they dislike the ****storm trump is creating in government bodies, have made their excuses and sold. - america is what it has become, and we don't like second / third guessing presidential moves.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
