Member Info for beinthelead

Rip - fully agree. We’re a spinning top.

Worth ignoring the new troll

Fair analysis.

But I already expect a ‘clean safety profile’ from the info and presentations we’ve had to date.

Future DEs? They need to communicate this quickly if this has now ‘leaked’. We have been told to expect 4, and data in Q4. If we now assume this has changed, based on this note? Wow.

AS needs to talk. The market doesn’t know which way to turn. RNSs are king, hence where the SP is.

“£24 million for the Acquisition, for general working capital purposes of the enlarged Group and to support expected growth of the Group (as enlarged by the Acquisition and any future acquisitions).”

Acquisition plan in recent RNS.

I agree they’ll be consulted, clearly paid. But disagree (with respect) that they’ll be informing the market via this poor note.

The note is very boring. Such a disappointment. Between this coverage and Paul Hill… I look forward to some proper coverage.

RAH - I disagree and wholeheartedly hope they are not privy to the info you suggest. Trinity know nothing. Their notes are aggregated from the RNSs to date. Nothing new.

221p. ‘Potential upside’ from P1a date. Typically underwhelming coverage.

Yes. And was meant with sentiment.

The valuation will take care of itself in the coming weeks. Hopefully (as planned) in the coming days. Your numbers are valid.

They couldn’t raise ‘meaningful capital’. Licensing 2286 wouldn’t have touched the sides. They will have needed 100s m to move forward. Nothing sinister or complex.

This really is a proper indicator of what to expect. Far more than any poster, billboard, LinkedIn like. This is industry raising their hand and telling us how much they value this type of tech.

Best bit of news in a while.

RAH - You’re going to have to stop trying to question the disconnect. It’s there, it soon won’t be.

AS speak up please.

Yes RAH.

And my 225p assessment was a minimal substantiated floor. Expecting a lot more.

Exactly this.

We’re slowly breaking down the valuation barriers. Or, more apt, the game of chicken is losing players.

£600m minimum on results. That’s now the baseline.

So the real differentiator here is notice of results. Clovis communicated initial results so their cat is out of the bag. Ours remains bagged and gagged.

Results SHOULD resolve it.

RAH - this could also mean Novartis have shown their hand and now bought their FAP asset? Could suggest they stand little chance in acquiring ours.

Weakness?

They’ll call their bluff to a point where true value will ensue. Funding and working tech is defence against any weakness.

“Its total wishful thinking Avacta make AVA6K to commercialization”

100%.

Another thread ruined.

That said, it’s painfully slow now on here and Twitter. Less and less interest (socially) which is a good thing.

Absolutely. Hence a lot have been here 3+ years.

I’m highlighting the reason for the disconnect amongst the market, which is made up of timeframe over attitude ‘investors’.

There’s a disconnect RAH. Absolutely. My relatively short time investing on AIM is brought me to two conclusions; time in the market is short. LTH is measured in Q’s, not years.

The disconnect, for the 1000x is delay. Q2, to Q3, to Q4… AIM isn’t sympathetic to this.

Re FAP - yes, good debate. But also a highlights how interpretation can differ amongst investors/market.

We’ll know soon enough.

By the way - you’re given far too much respect to the market. The delta in disconnect will be evident when they release some data. I’m cool with that.

Not so much about active FAP in circulation, but active FAP at sites of tissue remodelling/fibrosis (inflammation). It’s actually not much of a concerning unknown.

Liver disease is the biggest offender here. Arthritis is up there, but not really much of a concern. The amount of free circulating dox, caused by this ‘off target’ cleaving is unlikely to make that much of a diff. Quite evident based on no DLTs to date.

Back to the subject…

RAH’s point re cleaving only in human being proven. The statement was made in relation to the available enzymes in the human body’s ability to cleave the chemistry. So a call made substantiated by the preclin pack. Arguably supported by human data to date.

We also know the xenograft model is as close to human as you can get. Theory and xeno support the printed claim.

But it was? They know the closely related enzymes that exist (DPP, PREP) that can cut ‘FAP’ chemistry. He’s essentially saying it’s specific where others aren’t.