We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Fair shout maidit - “look in on your other stocks”. I actually see this as one of my least speculative growth stocks at the moment, given the rapid ongoing revenue growth. The timeline to breakeven and then profit is short, with a highly credible and obvious path to getting there.
Just shows me I need to think about holding a bigger cash supply in future to take advantage of such dips. Because when one stock’s on sale, most of the others are as well.
Thanks for sharing the article. Makes a nice change from the influx of baseless dross that has accompanied the new short position opened yesterday. Looking forward to that ageing poorly.
I’ve been saying all along it looks like AS is keen to do his bit to build up the biotech industry in the North, all around the diagnostics division. Look at the big LFT partners - manufacturing by Abingdon in York, sales and distribution from Medusa19 (building from scratch) based near Manchester. If this thing had received government backing in late 2020 to build to 10s m millions per month, it would have done a darn site more for the North than HS2. Whether the UK gov ultimately provide any support or (more likely) not, AS has a long term game plan and I wouldn’t bet against him.
I like your thinking, ES. Thanks for sharing.
Moderna would not be the only partner working with Affimers against PD-L1. LG Chem are confirmed to be developing a PD-L1 Affimer (could be AVA004, could be a different Affimer against the same target) using the XT serum to extend half-life, and have exclusive rights for that combination.
AS has said that Avacta are not looking to compete directly against existing drugs with Affimers that perform the same function (eg AVA004 vs Keytruda or similar), but to use them instead to do novel things you can’t do so easily with antibodies, eg TMAC, multi-specifics, etc. I think that’s why AVA004/Affimers against PD-L1 as a monotherapy are instead being pushed by external collaborators (LG Chem), while Avacta focus on combining them with PreCISION and a chemo warhead to create TMAC. mRNA coding of them would be a third application - maybe others yet to come?
The LG Chem development, if/when it gets to clinical trials, could be the key to unlock these other applications of AVA004/PD-L1 Affimers - as well as Affimers in humans more generally, just as the AVA6000 trials are the key to unlocking the whole preCISION platform. These two drug developments are absolutely massive for Avacta.
Interesting discussion and obviously a really tough challenge for policy-makers.
Have to say, despite the frustrations I share towards those who refuse the vaccine, I agree with rxdav that there has to be a line somewhere towards what can be made mandatory. mandating face masks - fine (by my standards). Injections - less fine (probably by anyone’s standards, and not currently allowable in UK law/policy).
The best legal answer surely has to be to make injections freely available to all, promote the benefits, ‘nudge’ people to get them, and work hard to shut down the spreading of misinformation about vaccines. Obviously we’re doing the first two things pretty well in the UK, and the mainstream media are all clearly on-message. It’s that last part where I think more work needs to be done, especially through social media channels, and getting trusted pro-vaccination voices into communities where there is a low vaccine uptake. But it’s not easy.
If there is legislation to be made around vaccination, I think rather than mandating it, it should be around strengthening powers against misinformation.
This reads very much like civil servants generically covering their backsides by flinging **** at everyone else involved in holding the process up but themselves. We can draw absolutely zero inference that Avacta have done some paperwork incorrectly.
Also - “again?” - They never messed it up before. It was a third party subcontracted by a partner that made the dodgy paperwork error.
Timster, I reckon the Medusa phone call was referring to the European regulator doing the HUA review, not rather than DHSC/CTDA that sent this email. But aye, maybe the dithering and slow iteration with requests for further info are common to many regulatory bodies.
Great podcast yesterday, and nice to see the SP showing signs of life again this afternoon! Thought I’d take a revised post-podcast look at this estimate of revenue breakdown. What I learned:
- >$80k monthly rev was c.$83k and this was for October, including the $14k from Argentina which was received in Nov. This is great, it means in Nov they must have been past this already.
- ME said they put out revenue figures around July and $83k shows 85% growth from these. As others have pointed out that means growth from c.$45k, which give or take rounding and currency variations, is comprised 100% by the Streams revenue which was reported at about £35k/month in July. I.e. Zero or negligible legacy business revenue.
- The 70k subscribers is entirely new subscribers. No legacy users accounted for.
So against my $73k estimate MOS must have been earning c.$10k more in Mexico and/or Streams Data. Given Mexico’s 10k subscribers were reported on 13 Oct, this estimate probably represents a good average for the month, and the $12k/month probably only has $2-3k wiggle room to the upside for October. So my guess is Streams Data had added c.$7-8k/month recurring revenue by October.
It’s all looking good. I was really surprised to see the share price this low again now that hard cash is demonstrably rolling in and given the BoD has a few continuous months of consistent delivery on promises behind them. But you have to put your money where your conviction is, so I doubled my holding with a hefty (for me) ISA top up sub-0.4p this week.
As always, appreciate discussion and corrections. I think it is Cunningham’s Law that says the best way to get a correct answer out of the internet is not to post a question, but to post the wrong answer. ;)
Further confusion roley. Mexico subscriptions are split presumably with the telco and Quanta. Of that $1 a week that subscribers pay, I estimate between about 0.2 and 0.33 goes to MOS, based on them saying they would get $1.5m from growth to 95k subscribers over 3 years.
Monthly revenue exceeding $80k was “across all channels”. There’s nothing in the RNS to say that is for LiveScores only.
Morning Hep. Haha, true, guess I wasn’t sleeping too well.
Maybe I saw and was influenced by your numbers… They look eminently sensible to me. Even with +/-5000 in each of Mexico and Argentina, it still suggests a great first month for Brazil. But of course, as you say, these are guesses until official numbers arrive.
On those 70,000 Streams service users (or “monetizable users”, per tonight’s tweet)…
I’m going to assume that Streams and legacy business users are low relative to LiveScores. Tonight’s tweet certainly implies the figure links to Mexico, Argentina and Brazil.
Mexico:
26/07 - launch
02/09 - >3500
30/09 - >7200
13/10 - >10000
Argentina:
01/10 - launch
01/11 - >6000
18/11 - c.10000
Brazil:
01/11 - launch
Assuming pretty constant growth continuation in Mexico and Argentina, we may be at, say, 20,000 and 15,000 users respectively in these countries.
Unless I am vastly underestimating Streams and legacy user numbers, this would suggest 30,000 - 35,000 users signed up in the first month in Brazil. Compared to 6,000 in the first month in Argentina, which led to $14k revenue, on a similar affiliate revenue-dominated model. This number of users would be completely in line with the relative population sizes. I feel like the market’s expectations, if it has any, are about to be blown away when Brazil revenue lands.
Interesting to try and work out where those revenues are coming from, and see what it tells us about the unknowns. Here’s my brief stab. I’m entirely open to challenge/debate.
What we know about revenue split from most recent segment updates:
- Streams (12 July 2021, previous reported major contract win) - c.£35k/month - about $47k/month
- LiveScores Mexico (13 Oct 2021) - 10,000 subscribers. Assuming $1/week x c.0.3 split to MOS (per my previously estimated range of 0.2-0.33) this translates to about $12k/month. Growth since then unknown.
- Argentina - as city says, affiliate revenue is billed for previous month so presumably c.$14k in Nov (per 18 Nov 2021)
- Brazil - per above, zero in Nov.
- Legacy - ???
These segment estimates (albeit rough and slightly out of date) add to $73k/month, plus any legacy business, and growth since the quoted dates. Compared to >$80k as reported in the RNS, shows we’re in the right ball park. For me the best candidate to fill the gap is likely growth in Mexico revenues and/or the Streams ISBA client win. Streams revenue seems to rise in more lumpy steps with enterprise contract wins.
I think this shows that the legacy business must have now dropped off to almost, if not, zero, and that the new business is growing rapidly to replace it. There comes a point when it’s not worth the admin costs to keep a declining venture running so I wouldn’t be surprised if they had closed out most of the legacy segments. There’s room here for growth in the Mexico numbers to look very healthy indeed.
This is not novelty ringtones etc, this is giving people added value on how they follow their lifelong passion of football. So it’s early days but I’m less worried about subscribers tailing off. If anything this growth is sky-rocketing with this subscribers update.
To look at revenue growth, perhaps the best comparison is to look at the lowest recent period on record so far, in the trading update from March this year, which showed gross revenues from H2 2020 as £176k, an average just under £30k/month. That’s about half the $80k revenue run rate for November 2021, so we’re looking at about 100% revenue growth in the past year so far. And they’re just getting started.
Annual results for the 12 months to mid 2021 are due in December. Perhaps another reason for revenue run rate the trading update, to show something more current before they report those pre-LiveScores revenues as old news.
Interesting to see Streams come back into the story. Diversification in nature as well as territory of the growing revenue streams can only be good.
I wonder if this $80k run rate is partly about laying down a marker, against which to show phenomenal growth when Brazil’s revenues start rolling in.
Thanks MilkMonsta and MOS IR - very helpful.
Ok scratch that bit about an unknown date. I forgot this part from the 1st November RNS about Argentina:
“The Company is also delighted to announce that, as stated in its RNS dated 18 October 2021, its LiveScores service will be going live in Brazil from today, 1 November. The service will be marketed under the name Placar365 and will be live on the website https://placar365.com , the Google Playstore and then Apple App Store.”
So Wednesday or thereabouts looks very high probability.
Really looking forward to an early glimpse of Brazil figures, potentially this week, but if not then soon.
If we take Argentina as an analogue for updates given the affiliate revenues model, we had:
1st October - service launch
1st November - 1st month download numbers (6000)
18th November - 1st month revenues ($14,000)
For Brazil we know launch was planned in “early November”. So maybe we get download figures on the 1st Dec. If not, they’ll almost certainly come within 2 weeks (max) and be bigger, if they want to wait and announce a full month’s data from an unknown date in early November.
Either way downloads are likely to point the way to monthly revenues much bigger than those in Argentina (based on 5x population alone, before considering other factors).
Then Brazil 1st month revenues just in time for Christmas and a supercharged MOS Santa rally? Would be nice. ;)
It’s not just about how good Affimers are and the many applications - we’ve known that all along, and all the academic papers linked are welcome, but tell us more of what we know.
There’s a potentially commercial implication here, in that this PhD is for Affimers to be developed in partnership with Mologic for just the sort of diagnostic purposes that the Soros/Gates buyout was intended to pursue.
Granted the timelines of a PhD are often much slower than industrial development timelines, but given that Avacta have the IP and sole commercial rights to use of the Affimers, success could lead to recurring Affimer-licensing revenues for test provision to tackle important health issues in developing nations, to a customer with very deep pockets.
For balance, an alternative explanation could be that Tomlinson labs/White Rose are driving this, and Mologic have been brought in as an industrial partner purely to help with developing LFT diagnostics from the identified Affimers, because they’ve shown they are very good at that.
But we know Mologic are looking to develop just this sort of test, in bulk at low prices, and we know Affimers are great for that.
Right you are, thanks Bella.
Either that or Avacta are driving it, and Mologic are down as development partners, because they make great LFTs… But if that were the case, I’d have thought you might expect also to see Avacta’s name on the project outline, and it’s not there. Only Mologic.
Where are you seeing June 2020? They’re looking for candidates for a PhD starting October 2022. Looks like deadline 7 Jan 2022 for applications. This is very much live.
Sounds like this links to the Mologic not-primarily-profit-driven goal of producing diagnostics for currently under-addressed diseases in poorer nations.
To hear that Mologic are planning to trial Affimers in such applications and working with the very much Avacta-linked Tomlinson labs… Looks like they might very well be a future customer for Affimers in these diagnostics, as was speculated by many at the time of the Gates Foundation deal.
Very intriguing. Find of the month for me.
Thanks for noticing, PL. Guess I was too subtle, or maybe it it just slipped under MrR’s radar? Whatever it is, I just can’t stop.
Good point Timster, although elsewhere the process of seeking approval has not been specifically discussed, whereas “we’ve submitted an application for HUA with Medusa to an EU body and are waiting on them” is extremely specific! Maybe it will come out of the blue, or maybe other medical bodies are not prepared to go out on a limb until the EU reaches a verdict?
I suppose you might get into a version control mess if one regulator approves it, but then another comes back with a requirement for further iterations on instructions, etc, and you end up with a different product than the one already approved. Just speculation of course. And I’m sure they know what they’re doing.