The latest Investing Matters Podcast with Jean Roche, Co-Manager of Schroder UK Mid Cap Investment Trust has just been released. Listen here.
FCA regs on disclosure of short positions:
https://www.fca.org.uk/markets/short-selling/notification-and-disclosure-net-short-positions
“ How to make a notification
You must send your notification to us through our Electronic Submission System, following registration of reporting persons and position holders.
You should send your positions by 3.30pm on the trading day after the day the position was reached. All calculations should be made as at midnight on the trading day the position was reached.”
So if they started closing yesterday, we should know some time after 3:30pm today, depending on lag time between submission to FCA and update of related online databases.
Unless, in combination with Energyshares’ musing about buying and bolting on an LFT manufacturing business…
“Avacta will be legal manufacturer of all future in-vitro diagnostic products.”
Perhaps signalling intent to either build or bolt on test manufacturing at a later point?
The fact that the ISO accreditation appeared on the BSI website on the same day as Bioserv listed Affimer reagents for sale (NB not an ELISA test, just the reagents for one) is probably not a coincidence. I imagine Avacta understand the requirements perfectly well.
It might also explain why so far Abcam still doesn’t offer their ELISA test for sale, if Avacta don’t have the ISO accreditation to manufacture tests of their own accord.
I think if we do see a takeover of an LFT manufacturer it’ll likely be after we’ve got the proceeds from shifting a few months’ worth of LFTs. At the moment it would require another raise, a loan, or wipe out the drug development pot. I don’t think any of those are currently likely.
Of course the advantage of acting now would be it’s cheap, but it would be a lot of risk to take on unless the board were 100% confident of the orders to support it.
Hmmm… If you are an expert in this field - and I’m certainly not - it would seem a very valid question to pose through investor relations +/- Twitter DM.
Alchemist, logically, wbat you say makes absolute sense to me given the wording of their ISO certification. But I can’t square it with the wording of the RNS. Are you saying that Avacta are lying to us in the RNS, or don’t understand the process? Or is there another way to read the RNS that does fit with what you say?
Timster, for a second there I thought you’d come over all bighero and started talking about yourself in the third person! Cheers timbo. Posts crossed over while I was looking into the potential time gap between them closing a short and us knowing about it.
Oftinhope, this concern was expressed and discussed yesterday. Without further info I’d agree with you. But today’s RNS specifically says:
“ISO 13485 certification means that the CE mark for the AffiDX® SARS-CoV-2 antigen lateral flow test can be transferred to Avacta from its partner, Mologic, and Avacta will be legal manufacturer of all future in-vitro diagnostic products.”
I think that is pretty clear and unequivocal.
Jupiter’s position increased over the 0.5% threshold on 7th July:
https://shorttracker.co.uk/company/GB00BYYW9G87/
Share price range that day was c.152-159p, so could be anywhere in that range. Looking at trades data from the day in question may give further insight, if anyone has time or inclination to dissect it.
Regulations for declarations of short positions:
https://www.fca.org.uk/markets/short-selling/notification-and-disclosure-net-short-positions
I read this as short positions >0.1% must be declared, different from the 0.5% quoted on short tracker, so there might be a better source of info.
It also says notifiable changes to short positions must be declared to the FCA by 3:30pm of the following trading day. So if Jupiter closed their position yesterday (as per the sudden departure of trolls), they could notify today, and it may not show up on short tracker until after the market closes.
Tell him you need him to do a brain poker LFT twice a week until he’s double-vaccinated?
But seriously, unless the job involves dealing with clinically vulnerable people, you can’t force him. It’s his choice and he has to come to the conclusion himself. So you could have a conversation with him and “coach” him by asking questions that gently poke him in the right direction. This is not easy to do! It’s a real skill, but a great one to have in life if you can master it. Next level Jedi mind tricks.
Doing it this way has to start from a basis of respect and listening to him, rather than trying to impose your logic and will on him. And it may take similar conversations or prods from several people whose opinion he respects before the message seeps in.
And remember, you can’t use logic to get someone out of a position they didn’t use logic to get themselves into in the first place! This is a classic mistake scientists and technically minded people make while trying to influence. Sometimes a more emotional appeal is required, eg anecdotes about young people who caught the virus and got really ill and/or died because they weren’t vaccinated, or those who were ok while others around them got horrendously ill, because they were vaccinated and the others weren’t. Yesterday’s panorama on long covid was quite harrowing. Depends what sort of person they are though, and what they’re basing their current position on. Once you know that you have something to work with.
But yes the vaccines are supposed to reduce (if not proven to stop) chance of both catching the virus and passing it on, and reduce severity and chance of dying if you do catch the virus.
Good luck.
Hmm, Pigster, yes looks slightly less sensitive at high viral loads than Innova, but only for experienced users. For inexperienced users with high viral loads the sensitivity results were actually slightly better (88% vs 80/81% for Innova). But then maybe if this test was done later in time, the general public have just gotten more experienced at doing LFTs and get better results?
Across all the tabulated results it does look like Innova and Orient Gene tests are almost equally crap.
On a side-bar, has anyone noticed how the Innova specificity estimate goes from 99.1-99.8% (self vs pro use) up to an estimated 99.97% for self-reported self-testing in the community? It makes me think that people at home not being watched are more likely to report a negative rather than deal with the hassle of an equivocal (or in some cases even firm) positive result. I doubt it’s really that high if experienced users only get up to 99.8% in the validation studies.
As a supporting anecdote, I myself got a really faint ‘test’ stripe on an Innova LFT once, but because I’d left it 1.5hrs by accident, the instructions told me to report it as void and do another, which was negative (even after 1.5hrs). I had no symptoms at all, but also no plans to see anyone, so made little difference to me. But if in doubt, I think most people are going to do the same and report a negative or find a reason to call it void.
I reckon once people are buying and using them for specific needs, they are more likely to heed the result. You tend to value and have more stock in something you’ve paid for.
It could be… but I doubt most are as well-informed as you if this is why you bought.
I think that whoever has been commanding the army of trolls and mounting a coordinated short attack over the past week or so has hit the target price for their short, sold up, and called off the trolls. Leaving one or two very lonely traders who jumped on the bandwagon still trying to talk Avacta down as it bounces up.
137, where were you on the way down, huh? Some friend, only popping up to rebuff us on sunny green days.
What is it about 137p/ MCap of £347m?
Thanks LDA - saw this on Twitter too. Good stuff!
Long post here - first a bit of science geeking out, then commercial musing at the bottom. Head straight there if you’re more into that.
Back to the Bioserv Affimer listings. If you read the description, this looks like all the parts for the ELISA test, which means these are the same Affimer reagents that go into the LFT.
(Still no idea why, after announcing the Abcam deal, the ELISA test doesn’t show up for sale on their website, so it’s nice to see these reagents actually on sale, even if it sounds like you have to build the test yourself.)
And it gives some interesting insight into the working of the LFT - note there are two separate distinct “capture” Affimer reagents. These will be the highly selective, high affinity binders to the virus that are the workhorse of the test. Interesting that two are used - presumably increases sensitivity and/or offers some mitigation against mutations? But I’d be interested to hear more informed views on the matter.
The other reagents are the biotinylated detection Affimer reagents. These are the ones used in “labelling”, I.e. making the captured virus/S1 spike proteins visible. I think generally their job is just to label the virus and not limit sensitivity; as such they would require very high affinity, but I believe selectivity is less important, as that is the job of the capture reagents. In the ELISA test, biotin is attached to Affimers that bind the previously captured virus/S1 spikes so that when streptavidin (conjugated to a visible labelling molecule, here horseradish peroxidase) is added, the strong biotin-streptavidin link that is formed means the captured virus is now highlighted with horseradish peroxidase. In the LFT, I would guess these same Affimer reagents are studded onto coloured beads placed in the conjugate pad, that then attach to viral proteins in the sample, and are captured as they flow along the test strip at the ‘test’ line by an embedded mixture of the two capture reagents.
Just my understanding, feel free to correct if wrong. Also interested to hear if anyone knows what’s going on with Abcam not listing our Elisa test, or other benefits of having two distinct capture reagents?
On the commercial side, note these reagents being separated out and sold separately - could this be to make a little change off some of the technology studies from companies approaching Avacta to test the Affimers in their own applications?
And I note 1mg of reagent is £1650, with 3 types required per assay - minimum of £4950 to get 1mg of each for the full set. From the point of view of licensing and potential revenues per unit, anyone know how many LFTs could you make from that?
Hahahaha… you had me at “restraining order”. Great stuff, some of your finest work.
Absolutely agree that it looks more and more like the self-test approval will be a, or the, critical step on the commercialisation pathway.
From today’s ODX RNS:
“We are also mindful that once we have self-test approval the VISITECT COVID-19 Antigen test would potentially be available for future DHSC purchase as a UK-developed and UK-made rapid point-of-care test for active COVID-19.”
“Outlook … COVID-19 - we expect a successful conclusion to discussions with DHSC that will see us utilising the capacity for both our own equipment and the Government-loaned equipment, which will be further utilised with expected demand for our VISITECT® lateral flow COVID-19 antigen test, especially once we gain approvals for the self-test version and the Emergency Use Authorisation from the US FDA.”
Seems like the UK government aren’t going to give any domestic tests a leg up with EUA for self-use, although they are clearly happy to dole these out to sub-standard Chinese tests. Makes the blood boil.
Also for the broader market opportunity in the rest of the world, and in the mid to long term here when the government provision of free tests ceases, self-test approval will be absolutely key, to enable sales direct to consumer.
Close enough. Thanks for popping in, Greg.
There is a Mologic-developed antigen LFT, which ODX make under their Visitect brand. This has antibodies, is nothing to do with Avacta, and not as good as the AffiDx LFT.
Mologic also helped Avacta develop the AffiDx LFT, and are manufacturing it via their subsidiary GAD. It’s not “the Mologic test”, but Mologic’s subsidiary GAD will very much be making it and using Affimers while doing so. If the AffiDx test is selected as the government’s UK test, and orders are placed for said test, then ODX will also be making it. Apparently they’re still working towards this, although the bureaucracy is crunchingly slow, and the corruption is rife.
Sure, there is 2 billion to GAD. It also shows about 700 mil to ODX (possibly counting two duplicate publications of the same contract for half this value?), and we know that hasn’t yet been converted into concrete orders, so I doubt the GAD one has yet.
At some point there was the definite plan in govt for these contracts to be used to order Uk-developed LFTs when ready and approved, and AffiDx remains the best/only decent candidate to fit that description, even more so since Mologic started legal proceedings against the gov/DHSC. Maybe these contracts will still be furnished with orders - BoJo recently said they were still working on building domestic LFT supply, and Jim Bethell said uk-made tests would ramp up from the summer. But who cares about the Uk gov? They are an unreliable customer, they’ve messed us around already, and Avacta has plans to scale up to 35mil/month without them. A big uk gov contract win is a nice-to-have.
EbbsAndFlows, thanks for sharing further details.
Could be they are allocating delivery slots in order of payment, as opposed to when the order was made? Or, as you suggest, perhaps the first shipment is delayed because Avacta are pushing back the first deliveries to Calibre? Given that we hear different (and later) dates from other people trying to place orders now, I’m inclined to think the former.
I can think of several possibilities, not all mutually exclusive:
- Avacta have limited initial production capacity, and it is all being sold out through Calibre, hence delivery dates for new orders constantly moving into the future.
- Avacta have other hungry mouths to feed, and orders via Calibre are low down their pecking order, and/or low capacity is allocated them.
- Avacta are waiting to hear on (a completely hypothetical) right of first refusal from UK gov.
Everything does seem to pivot around or near this 19th July opening-up day, so as much as I think we need to be cautious with expectations around false deadlines, I think it’s likely we hear further commercial news within a week. Of course, on the Avactarian calendar, that could be by the end of the month, or maybe mid August. Perhaps we hear a one-month update on the order book from Calibre some time after the 21st July? Or perhaps the really big orders pivot on self-test authorisation, and that’s the news that will kick-start said orders?
Sad to see previously constructive contributors to the board turn on each other, and on the company. I get the frustration, but would encourage people to separate their feelings about the company and its progress from their feelings about the SP. Otherwise you get into the trap of looking at the SP and retro-fitting a negative narrative to explain the movement, which probably doesn’t reflect the real business performance and underlying value. There’s a lot of negative venting from people whose opinions I have previously grown to respect. I think you guys and gals need a break!
Personally I’m prepared to give at least a couple of months for sales news before giving grief to the bod. It remains feasible there is a lot going on behind the scenes. And regardless of the currently uncertain prospective volume of LFT sales, the company has achieved a lot this year, in frankly difficult circumstances. This is biotech operating in a complex (and evidently hugely corrupt) political environment, during a pandemic that has changed the way (and amount) we all work. Sure they should have messaged timescales more carefully, but frankly they have been let down by external parties on that front, and AS has taken it on the chin with class rather than badmouth others to save his own face. I’m sure he’s learnt a lot through this and note that the communication of timescales has recently grown more cautious (cf “in the weeks and months ahead” in the most recent update).
We heard yesterday that for new orders, delivery now is not promised until end August/early September. Sounds like they have a large backlog of orders to fill and any new orders have to get on the end of a long queue.
Albeit we don’t know the capacity allocated to Bioserv/Calibre.
Out of interest EbbsAndFlows, were you initially quoted a different delivery date estimate and if so what was it?
Cheers.
I’m sure the negative lot will jump on this with aspersions about the company, LFT sales, timelines and management, or personal insults against me, but unless they have anything substantial to say, I’d just ignore the noise.
Frustrating. I still believe in the company and tech and will continue to hold, but I could do without some of the fickle shareholders and traders it attracts in even just a short news vacuum.
My guess is the shorters would be wise to be out before 15th June when the test starts shipping to distributors and a sales update is extremely likely. Of course, if it comes before then and burns them, I’ll be delighted.