Member Info for dgdg1

Does anyone understand why the share price at 47p is so low. I mean at 30.9.21 its NAV per share was 108p so it's on a 57% discount, how does this make sense? And NAV is likely to have gone up since then due to further house price gains. Even if house prices were to fall 10-20% it would be on a big discount.

Just seen reported from Wall Street Journal that apparently Muddy Waters are being investigated with a search warrant in a probe of illegal trading tactics https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-is-pursuing-wide-ranging-investigation-of-short-sellers-sources-say-11645019122?page=1

Could be interesting

I agree with shareholderchar - it's absurd to assume that charts can take into account possible future surprise events. To say that " it is certain that that info has been around and taken advantage of by some in the days preceding, and the chart will show that" - just doesn't make sense. Of course it can sometimes happen but you can't assume it will.

Aceofclubs is an obvious deramper, everything he writes is nonsensical, I'm not going to waste my time explaining why

People are welcome to search the internet to work out how long it took other companies to announce phase 3 top line results from when the the trials finished - it would actually be pretty interesting if someone has the time.

I think there is some confusion here. The suggestion was that they wouldn't release results until the end of the 90 day period as this may affect people's reposnses to the questions (I have argued that this is not a problem as it would equally affect those on placebo, but that is beside the point). No-one is saying they have to wait until they have ANALYSED the 90 day data to avoid bias, they just need to capture it from the patients before release. They can then analyse the 90 data for however long it takes and then release it.

On a different note, see https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20211122005249/en/ where Pfizer announced results of their assessment of safety data for their vaccine (in children 12-15). It says "These data were collected from November 2020 to September 2021." But the announcement was only made on 22.11.21. So even if September 2021 means the end of September, it still took Pfizer 7 weeks to announce. So that gives some indication of the time required to analyse results, even for big pharma. Synairgen are only now up to 7 weeks. And of course that trial may have finished earlier in September, meaning it took up to 11 weeks to analyse.

Matterhorn, I understand what you're saying but my point is that this argument (of "association") will also apply to the people on placebo, so it won't matter, as the trial will check if people on the drug outperform those on placebo. And again, you could make the same argument about association to the whole trial even if results are not publicised. As in, people have heard about the potential of the drug and indeed the good phase II results, so they are more likely to be positive in their responses. Which is precisely why there is a control group on placebo. This nullifies the unconscious biases. So I still don't see why producing results would affect anything.

Sorry I don't follow this theory of waiting for 90 days. How could it create bias given the patients don't know if they had the drug or the placebo? It won't be any more biased than the whole trial is from the beginning in that everyone knows they might be having a drug which could be helping them - that's the whole point of blinding and placebos. Announcing the results wouldn't cause people to know if they had received the drug or the placebo - unless you think they might somehow be able to work it out from the details of the results, but it seems rather far-fetched to me.

Can't hear anything despite pressing play a few times and refreshing

No it doesn't

When you say the "talk in the city" is that the mood at Synairgen is good - was that a serious comment? If so where did you hear about this "talk in the city"?

What was the z score for the phase 2 results - is there a different z score for each metric analysed? Where can I find these results?

I think you're being pretty unfair to Andy (both of them), no-one is predicting a doomsday scenario, it's just frustrating that the company is not well-known at present. Pretty fair comment in my opinion.

On a different note, does anyone know how much they are planning to sell the drug for, and the expected profit margin on each treatment course? Have they discussed this recently?

I know I'm sounding slightly negative, that's why I sold! To be fair there are a number of positives for Futura, in particular you have those big professors sounding very supportive, and presumably they must think that it's unlikely to be just a placebo effect, this always was one of the main pulls for me. Clearly they are not stupid. Presumably they have made an estimate of what is the likely greatest placebo affect they could imagine even allowing for the fact that it is a gel, and the effectiveness of MED3000 is bigger than that, and it seems like the FDA have reached the same conclusion. But then you have this long delay in reaching a major deal, I mean it was 19th March when they got the "recommendation for approval" so they could have started discussion then with companies. That's over 9 months. Surely it has to show something? I suppose it could be Futura being very picky about the terms of the deal, but I still find it strange that it would take that long to sift through the companies interested, and if they were happy, surely then some would make fair offers and Futura would see quickly what the best terms available were - how long can it take? So that's why I'm suggesting that the companies might be reasonably convinced of the efficacy, but still not happy to do an actual full launch in their own name without a proper placebo-controlled study, and are perhaps demanding trial launches or a new placebo-controlled study, or weak terms. Obviously it's impossible to know and time will tell. If the price would go down to about 25p I probably would buy back in, but at the moment I'm just a bit nervous.

TheItalian, I've looked on the official list of shorts at https://www.fca.org.uk/markets/short-selling/notification-and-disclosure-net-short-positions and it looks like no-one has disclosed a short position either now or historically, although of course there may be some under the threshold for reporting. Also, I am assuming that AIM shares sold short also have to be reported but I am not certain.

TheItalian, I didn't mean the price has risen just because booth stopped posting. I meant that maybe the shorts have decided that now is a good time to close, because their main agent (booth) can't post any more, so it will be harder for them to keep pushing the price down - and that the shorts closing has pushed the price up. Although admittedly that is probably also a bit far-fetched.

I looked over your earlier comments as to why you thought the RNS is positive. I have to say I don't really agree that there is anything newly positive, except maybe that they are now referring to "multiple" interested parties as opposed to a "number" - they say "Futura is in advanced discussions for other commercial out-licensing agreements covering additional major regions and countries of the world with multiple interested parties." I don't see that completing the human factors study or enrolling people to the US trial is at all surprising or positive - why shouldn't they have managed those things easily?

They are now talking about deals being reached now in 2022, whereas I am sure they previously said 2021, though to be fair I can't find an RNS where it says that - maybe it was in an investor call, not sure. Or maybe I am just thinking of them saying in July "Manufacturing scale up and capacity to meet projected demand is progressing well in conjunction with commercial out-licensing agreements covering the remaining major regions and countries of the world with a number of interested parties. As previously outlined, Futura expects to be able to update shareholders further during the remainder of 2021 Futura expects to be able to update shareholders further during the remainder of 2021" - which I took to mean they would announce a deal in 2021, though I accept that would have been a misunderstaning as technically it doesn't really have to mean that. Does anyone recall them stating specifically they expect a further deal in 2021 and if so where?

Also, they say "agreements covering additional major regions and countries of the world" - which we assume includes the EU and UK, but we can't be sure it does, it could be Africa or Australia, Russia or Canada which may need regulatory approval although admittedly I don't know if that is the case. And it may also include the EU, but maybe only one or two of the multiple interested parties are interested in the EU, i.e. it's multiple altogether but not for any one particular region.

As I said, the main thing that has bothered me is why it is taking so long to get an EU deal agreed. I am wondering how long it really should take to get a deal like that agreed - does anyone have any way of knowing what is "normal"?

Just checking back in today as I haven't looked for a couple of weeks as it was getting so ridiculous with booth, well done to all those that kept on knocking him down and eventually getting him "boot"ed off. I had previously had some arguments with him but eventually couldn't be bothered anymore, so well done all.

So now it's safe to make an admission without the risk of booth using it as a rod - I actually sold all my shares some time ago, basically as I was concerned that it was taking so long to get deals agreed for Europe and no signs of big names for the other regions. My worry was that the big pharmaceutical companies were delaying making deals as they were concerned about the lack of a placebo in the trial i.e. against MED23000, which was itself the "placebo" against MED2005. Now previously I was worried about this, but when I saw that the FDA were allowing a final trial without a placebo I was encouraged that they must be convinced that all is well and didn't need the reassurance of the placebo. But now I find myself worrying along the lines that - yes, maybe based on the science logically there is a good chance that the gel is good, but the big companies are nervous since there wasn't a placebo, so if hypothetically it eventually turned out that really all was just the placebo effect (which I think we all agree is not impossible, even if a low chance) - then they will look really bad at having sold the product in their name and people will say - how could you sell it if it wasn't properly tested against a placebo? Then that would be bad for their reputation and they are worried to take the risk. Oh dear I sound like a deramper now, but if you think I am one then you are welcome to look back at my arguments with booth.

But anyway I wish all holders well and hopefully the product will turn out good for the benefit of shareholders and ED sufferers. I am continuing to watch this and I am running the risk of missing out on a major announcement, but it's difficult to know what to do.

I am interested in the share price increase in the last few days. It looks like it's a result of the last RNS though I find that hard to understand as there was nothing really new or interesting in it, just a delay to 2022 of finding partners, which also make it unlikely that news is about to drop. So I am wondering whether it's the shorts (booth) closing, perhapsn because booth is off LSE.

Indigo, when you say Jason has all the contacts needed, how do you know that? Also, surely if this would be the case then they wouldn't have needed all the contacts like Younes Mammar, Freepoint, etc?

soulac, thanks, found it now though looks like thre is very low volume in the US

I can't find this share listed in USA at all - which exchange is it on and under what name?