Member Info for Blockbuster1

I’m not sure it will have a dramatic effect on the current price. Only a deal to license will move the needle substantially.

Any views as to why tox studies haven’t rebooted yet? Formulation issues, delivery vehicle issues? SAR can’t afford to get this wrong, so I understand time being taken, but the silence is deafening……

For anyone focused on near-term upside, the attraction with Sareum’s CNS programme is that the value inflection happens early.

The CNS work targets neuroinflammation (MS / Parkinson’s biology) with the key differentiator being blood–brain barrier penetration. If Sareum can show BBB penetration, CNS target engagement and clean safety, this becomes exactly the type of asset pharma partners before clinical trials.

Importantly, Sareum is not expected to fund CNS trials itself. The realistic route is a pre-clinic or IND/Phase 1 partnership, where the partner funds development.

Deals at this stage typically involve:

• £10–40m upfront

• £200–500m+ headline value

• Royalties retained

With Sareum’s market cap at roughly £20m, even a lower-end CNS deal would be material. In practice, markets don’t price the headline value, but they do price:

• Non-dilutive cash

• External validation

• Removal of funding risk

Historically, that equates to a ~2× to 5× re-rating on deal announcement, without needing Phase 2 efficacy data.

Bottom line:

If a CNS partnership lands, the upside for retail investors is measured in multiples in the short term, driven by validation and funding, not years of clinical readouts.

The next six months are pivotal for Sareum.

First and foremost, securing a cash-generating out-licensing deal for SRA737 must be the top priority. Achieving this would materially extend runway and remove the need for near-term dilution.

Second, continued progression of SRA1801 into, and successfully through, long-term toxicology studies is critical to preserving its strategic value and optionality.

Third, identifying a credible partner to take SRA1802 into the clinic remains essential, particularly given the strength of the efficacy signals generated to date.

Finally, completion of the initial CNS programme work to nominate a lead compound for first-in-human studies would meaningfully broaden the pipeline and future value drivers.

Execute against these priorities and the investment case materially de-risks. Do that, and a £1 share price becomes entirely plausible. Fingers crossed, but grounded in delivery.

Happy Christmas you filthy animals, I hope you all have a good time. And here’s to a prosperous New Year for us all…….

Yes they said they have appointed a new CRO and have delivery vehicle options. I guess they just need to finalise the option they’ll go with?

Risk-adjusted valuations (USD)

Conservative scenario (low peaks, low probabilities)

• SDC-1801: $1.75M (500M peak × 7% capture × 5% prob)

• SRA737: $12.70M (200M peak × 63.5% share × 10% prob)

Total conservative pipeline value ≈ $14.45M.

Base / Most-likely scenario

• SDC-1801: $15.75M (1.5bn × 7% × 15%)

• SRA737: $95.25M (500M × 63.5% × 30%)

Total base pipeline value ≈ $111.0M.

Optimistic scenario

• SDC-1801: $63.0M (3.0bn × 7% × 30%)

• SRA737: $317.5M (1.0bn × 63.5% × 50%)

Total optimistic pipeline value ≈ $380.5M.

(Worked numbers and formula: value = peak_sales × capture_fraction × probability)

Can you ask this question for me tomorrow please?

How does the board prioritise and resource development across its increasingly diversified pipeline (autoimmune, CNS, oncology), and is current cash runway sufficient to meaningfully advance all programmes without dilutive fundraising?

My concern is the amount of dilution we will face if the board raise again now at this current share price. I know they’ve said they have enough cash to re run the toxicity study. But historically the business has been very conservative with the amount of cash runway it has. And to re run the trial without a raise would see us at the end of the current runway. Buckle up I think this could actually get worse.

It doesn’t need to be wolrdie, I’d take a tap-in right now just so we can show we know where the back of the net is. At the moment we have a barren striker!

At this stage the only things that are important are a deal for 737 or 1802, and the time / cost to get 1801 to a stage 2 ready asset along with the plan to partner at that stage. The rest is just noise and the share price will not move until any, and hopefully all, of the activities are completed. We remain at significant risk of further dilution and share price decline the longer we continue with no deal. And in our history we’ve not been able to get a deal over the line. This is now extremely concerning. And the board has so far been totally silent on the plan to get a deal over the line, and will, in my opinion continue to be so. Why that’s the case you can draw your own conclusions. Worst case for me is that there is no plan, and we are thrashing around trying to make one up. GLALTH very worrying times!

Good luck with that, I hope it makes you feel better and sleep easier!

What fo you hope to achieve?

That’s. Certainly a relief!

It is starting to look like you could be right with regards to 1801. It would also explain why the pivot towards other diseases and the work with Raptor AI. Perhaps they are thrashing around trying to find a new thread to latch on to and attract funding for to keep their salaries rolling in. If the science has failed then there is no IP here and I expect the share price to decimated and us PI’s wiped out. Very worrying times. But a picture starts to emerge!

My experience over the years is that the price mores downwards for a reason and up based on sentiment. I hope I’m wrong but I’m braced for bad news tomorrow.

After more than £30 million of funding over the years, Sareum has so far generated almost zero meaningful income. For a company with two decades of promises and pipelines, this is an uncomfortable truth.

Investors, both institutional and private, have effectively bankrolled not just the science, but the entire existence of the company and its directors’ salaries and lifestyles. In return, tangible value creation has been minimal, with continual dilution and shifting timelines taking the place of commercial delivery.

At some point, the story has to change. Sareum needs to move from being a perpetual development story to a business that genuinely generates shareholder returns. That means strategic discipline, credible commercial partnerships, and visible progress, not more blue-sky speculation or waiting for “transformational” news that never quite arrives.

Right now, the market is signalling doubt, and it is hard to argue against that sentiment. Unless management can turn scientific promise into measurable financial progress soon, it is difficult to see how confidence can return, or how investors can justify continuing to fund what increasingly looks like a lifestyle biotech rather than a commercial one.

The next phase simply has to be about delivery, not just discovery.

The RNS does not suggest that the problem lies with the drug. If anything, the data exonerate SDC-1801 and point to a contractor or procedural failure that forced an early termination purely to comply with animal welfare and GLP rules.

The damage here is time, not science.

The fact that Sareum is talking about restarting the same study “as originally scoped” (rather than redesigning it or lowering doses) is further confirmation that they do not believe there’s an intrinsic problem with the molecule.

Will most likely have to be repeated from scratch

AGM Question on SDC-1801 GLP Toxicology Study

The RNS on 10 October indicates that Sareum has had to terminate its 16-week GLP toxicology study for SDC-1801 due to safety findings that were, unusually, more prevalent in the control animals than in those dosed with the active compound. While it’s positive that the preliminary data suggest these issues are not drug-related, this event nonetheless introduces a delay to the start of Phase 2.

Could the Board please clarify:

1. Root cause and accountability: Has the company identified what went wrong operationally at the third-party provider, and what measures will be taken to ensure the integrity and oversight of the next study?

2. Impact on timelines: Given the need to restart the 16-week GLP study, what is the realistic expected delay to initiating Phase 2 clinical development, and how does this affect previously communicated guidance to shareholders?

3. Cost implications: Will repeating the study consume a significant portion of the company’s cash runway, or will the restart still allow Sareum to reach the key value inflection point of a Phase 2 read-out without additional financing?

4. Strategic contingency: Does the company have any flexibility to run parallel preparatory work (for example, regulatory submissions or site readiness) during this period, so as to minimise overall delay?

5. External validation: Finally, has the Board considered obtaining an independent audit or quality review of CRO practices, given that this is the second major external delay affecting Sareum’s development timelines in recent years?

I’m asking to understand whether this incident represents an isolated procedural setback or points to a broader challenge in Sareum’s operational execution as it transitions from discovery to clinical development.