Member Info for beinthelead

RAH - that statement would have been true pre trial. That’s where interpretation is exactly why the SP where it is.

You know I believe it works and communication will be ‘how well’. We must wait.

JT - Fist bump.

The comparison piece is a good reminder. This is tech we’re valuing, not a product. Infinitely different. We’ve been taken down the rabbit hole this week with a few wind up merchants.

Nice one.

That’s exactly the new angle. It’s beyond trolling now - just funny.

Concerned that others will be happy with a derisking RNS that puts a heightened floor in the SP.

Bizarre.

Starbright - again, makes no sense.

£10 or nothing?? There’s a few of us here happy with what will come from a P1a RNS. You do you.

Starbright - what do you mean?? The data read out RNS, if positive, will change things over night. Instant run to £10? Absolutely not. But will change this company forever.

Gmcc - Tried to communicate with the company on numerous occasions. Oddly, I understand them not taking the time to speak to me.

My views aren’t and challenge to your view isn’t personal, I don’t mean to offend you.

Gmcc - where did I say that?

This is not the first P1a trial. This is not the first time a CEO has communicated progress. This is not the first time AS has communicated a route to an ‘inflection point’.

What is so emotional for you? I’m highlighting why we and the market expects a Q4 update. But once again, every single time, accounts flock to defend against slippage with the same excuses.

It’s not sacrilegious to highlight where I feel more effort is needed. That said, they’re my expectations, not yours so you are entitled to your opinion.

Gmcc - We’re investors taking lead from the comm’s we receive. LTH have been very patient in this regard. Very easy to excuse everything after the event.

Armchair CEO? Naive comment.

RAH - I don’t disagree that things slip because of ill patients, I know this happens from reams of data I’ve analysed from previous trials.

My point is around how you manage the ‘project schedule’. He doesn’t manage it. You don’t slip 3 months in a month. Ever. Poor management, hence my point.

Q4.

JT - huge difference between expectations (zero LTH AS) and commitment. They’ve said Q4. If they fail again, we’ll fall off. He knows when he commits to these dates what the outlook feels like. As in, Q2 to Q4 slippage is not because of the ill patients. Just poor management of expectations.

I’m holding him to Q4. Others should to.

Tomorrow it is then :)

It’s arriving in Q4.

Seriously…

Thanks for the paper.

I’m in the mindset where the Affimer needs to leave the lab and start working. Academia is great. Let’s commercialise it.

We’re a £280m company that could be worth £10bn. And we’re arguing about all of the in between.

Be nice to see the RNS to make all of this end.

Mental to think a few of these accounts could be invested here. Wyn is the perennial wind up. Others; just out to be contrary.

Ironic given how simple the investment case is right now. The tech is simple. That’s its joy.

I’d rather Avacta stayed well clear of anything commercial - LFT being a prime example. I don’t believe they can do it. But I do believe they have the people to guide it through P2 process and into commercial hands.

Safety data, FAP MoA confirmation, Biopsy bits. That and There’s absolutely no need to be concerned with where the money comes from. They’ll be spoiled for choice.

THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE. Value that. And yes, it hasn’t been done because it’s been too hard. Not because it was not required.

It’s a tiring board, which is down to Avacta to be fair. Q2, then Q3, now Q4. It creates unnecessary tension.

Neutronic - that was waffle. Uncle and aunty stuff.

RAH is using what data we have now. They have said they’ll retain it. They’ve said what the market size is. They’ve said they’re geared to take to market, but would prefer others to get it there.

You’re now trolling this rather adding valid challenge.

Tom’s valuation is mega rampy. Huge holes.

AVA6000 is now a retained asset. Not licensed.

Industry multiplier is very subjective, but sourced nonetheless. RAH quite correctly uses £1.5bn as declared by Avacta, not the rampy £5bn mentioned by AS in an ancient video.

He’s done his homework.

Tom - I realise it’s genuine, it just looks photoshopped. Like, very much.