Member Info for douve87

To be honest im not happy. I wasnt happy when yorkshire bought them as i felt vm was worth more then and was actually better placed alone (no misselling compensation to pay), and was truly nimble and well managed. The sp has not done well under yorkshire and i feel this offer is undervalued. Obviously my shares have no sway but feel the offer should be at least the £2.50 mark.

Ok it may have not been at that level for long but it got a lot higher than scancell ha e ever got and seemingly held the rise better than any rise scancell had. So my question remain why is scancell so undervalued regardless of our results. Ive said for many years that other biotechs with either similar or worse results have sustained higher prices and agreed much better deals. The only thing i can point to is we have been a company run by scientists who lacked the necessary commercial nous. I am hopeful though that this is finally changing and will hopefully be refelcted in the shareprice this year but still disappointed that it hasnt had an affect yet.

It is bad news for the patients which is ultimately the bad news here. What i dont understand though is that the shareprice before the drop was approx £9 even after the 92% drop its now at 70p. They have around a third of the shares compared to scancell but that was still equates to £3 before the drop and over 20p even after the drop. Why based on our results so far are we only at 11.25p?

I share Matt's frustration but wont be selling on either. I think the science is amazing/has the potential to be amazing (i appreciate a lot of biotechs would fall into this category). But due to our bod lacking business nous and neglecting us SHs the shareprice has suffered. If i genuinely had doubts/major concerns regarding the science and products and thought the bod were doing their best but were coming up with 'jam tomorrow' excuses i would sell. But i dont, i believe we find ourselves in this position regarding the Shareprice due to the way the BOD have managed things and i point to other biotechs with the same or lesser results at earlier stages sustaining much higher prices and securing much bigger deals. Anyway as stated i believe in the science, and i am also positive about the new bod members. Onwards and upwards.

Violin you have lost the 'Chief Moaner' title to Douve.

Its a mantle i will begrudgingly accept but Im not happy about it lol.

Apologies youre correct the expense are not £2m but the point is still valid that every fundraise has led to further dillution due to costs. Whilst one larger fundraise years ago when sp was higher would have been more efficient, less dillution and actually put us in a stronger position for negotiations.

Also worth pointing out the shares that have been lost due to costs. I think based on original figures £8m of shares would give company £6m as £2m in costs. If we had raised a significant amount years ago instead of these smaller top ups it would have avoided all these additional costs (think of all the unnecessary dillution to cover these costs) and would have been done at a significantly higher sp than todays derisory price again meaning less dillution.

Bobbust (7.25) not going to argue that there was strong take up which has to be a positive but still come back to the amount raised not being that significant. You speculate that a pharma would say you only have a year of cash left you need a deal we want a discount. But from what scancell have said pharmas want derisked before paying so by the time we have completed the current phase and reported the results we will be in exactly the same postion as now ie less than a year of cash now. So from a negotiation postion still weak and potentially could be considered weaker as the pharma will know that LTHs and IIs will not keep being used as a piggy bank for scientists to do research (this is a business) so if the pharmas says £x and scancell say no pharma can just wait knowing a lot of goodwill has already been exhausted with countless fundraises (always the last one of course as deals will be done by the time the money runs out). Of course some will say a deal could come in sooner which we would all be pleased by but then this fundraise and dillution was unnecessary and we've all had our reward for holding for so long reduced. People will say if the results are as good as hoped pharmas wont be able to wait, well they have so far and we have had some remarkable results across all the assets to date.Really not trying to be negative but they keep saying exactly the same things. Talks under discussion under ndas of course. Pharmas want data before deals (for scancell but not other biotechs). Great results will get great deals but hasnt so far. Cashflow should get us to a stage of deal but then there are delays or scancell decide to focus on another asset or the deals that have been in discussion for 3 + years dont end up happening. And each time our fundraises are done at lower and lower levels. Because the shareprice is derisory as the bod lack commercial nous and dont care about the LTHs. Lastly people will say the over subscribed points that people recognise value of scancell but as someone said after genmab deal its very easy to give away something. If i sold rolex watch for £100 id be oversubscribed/sold out. There will be plenty at these prices who will sell out at 20p (basically doubling their money) and keeping the sp down for lths whilst the LTHs who have held for years and paid more than 11p wait even longer.

Paul Brains agreed but its been exceptional and weve wanted to do more for the last 10 years and all that is happening is our patents are running down. Case in point scib 1 had amazing results in admittedly small sample years ago, no pharma came in and scancell moved on to something else (as they enjoy researching without thinking of LTHs or the fact that theyre a business not a uni). Theyve now come to scib1 but due to the years wasted without a deal or commercial focus its lack of protection means its no longer commercially attractive so iscib1+ is necessary as it extends the patent. Again i recognise scib1+ is an improvement and has a lot of potential but so did scib1. And im sure after scib1+ there will be more tweaks and more improvements when what they need to do is license/sell to a pharma! Then they will have the money and resources to do all the research they want and to do it efficiently.

Bojo I agree predicting liabilities without income is very bleak but based on bod's performance to date is very accurate and seems most likely outcome. I appreciate scancell was a spin off from Nottingham uni but when i invested i thought i was investing a company/business not donating to a uni so research can be undertaken and data collected for ever more (or until us mugs sorry LTHs refuse to keep putting our hands in our pockets for no reward).

My question to this comment is since when do pharmas want a completely derisked biotech (well when as it stopped them doing a deal)? Its very easy to say more data, more derisked and we will get a great deal but we keeping getting more data, better data and yet the share price goes down whilst other biotechs with less data or worse data get deals. Im also not really convinced what difference 6 months make for a negotiating postion? Others have said without it we could get exploited by pharma with a low bid but 6 months/£6m hardly puts us in a position of power it makes no difference other than diluting us LTHs. Not trying to be negative and havent decided if will take part in placing but bloody annoyed at the bod and come back to them not having commercial nous. Surely they could have done a licensing deal on a mab or some asset for £6m. £6m is not that large a figure for a pharma. The deal with genmab 1st payment was £4/5m and that wasnt seen as a great deal by many on here and yet our bod cant manage it.

Hi WTP, is this a new analyst presentation or the one that marcus did months ago? If new, is there a link? Is there a link to the q&a lindy did? Im out of the country and unfortunately missed it.

Have to agree Taverham. That have been multiple examples when there have been conisderable increase prior to a conference expected news and then price has dropped due to either bad news or news that that didnt live up to expectation. The fact that the news has lived up to it and the sp is continuing to rise i dont believepoints to insider trader just pure speculation and luck (for those who bought yesterday). Although last weeks drop may not have all been one day there was still some considerable dropsin single days its purely speculation and luck in both examples.

RR yes but if it wasnt for the trish news we would be a lot lower than we are now. There is no way we would have remained in the teens for as long as we have without the trish confirmation and the radio silence. In that vacum the speculation would ha e been even greater and then with that rns last week from a lower start point would have ended even lower than now (which is crazy).

I cant undersrand how you think having a lower a starting sp would have been better? Or it would have better not to have had the one piece of clear good news/results that scancell have been able to give in the last 12months without confusing or hiding the good news. I stand by the view that there must be numerous rns worthy good news results if managed correctly by people/a person who has the commercial nous. Unfortunately our bod seem to be able to grab defeat from the jaws of victory its not caution its simply shooting yourself in the foot.

Quite agree there absolutely no reason why we cant disagree in a civilised way. Theres nothing personal about anything i say to anybody on this forum regardless whether i agree or not.

I do disagree that the drop would be less severe though as i think the sp would have been a lot lower then it is now and would have been for prob circa 5p if the bod hadnt confirmed Trish's results. Sp will.always suffer when pi are kept in the dark its impossible to sustain or for sp to improve with no news. So i cant understand the argument that we would have had a less severe drop without the trish news.

Good evening AB. I think you speak a lot of sense a lot of the time but dont agree with your post that finding out about Trish's response is to blame for current sp. I must sound like a broken record but i think it lies with scancells lack of commercial nous. Other biotechs with suitably skilled bod have done much bigger deals at earlier stages with less/worse results. Also i think the fact that people have felt the need to do their investigating is due to being kept in the dark by scancell. I understand lindys priority (rightly) is the science and the patients but we need someone on the bod who is actually looking after the pi. I dont buy that the current sp is because of trish's story being published on here even if scancells hand was forced to confirm they didnt have to approve the newspaper article. Equally as been mentioned a few times how much influence/impact do we really think this forum has on sp? I still believe in the science as have always said but getting frustrated by lack of commercial nous and not exactly over the moon with the idea of going alone to do a ph3. Im forever the optimist however and as others have said there was a lot of positives in the rns (even if we had to decipher it) and importanlty no adverse effects so am confident sp will look a lot healthier by the end of the year (hopefully a lot sooner).

I share the frustration of many here. I dont understand why we had so many weeks of radio silence (with a lot speculating it was due to a deal about to be announced) and then a bundled together rns like that. Why do we have decipher and break down the rns when they could released individual rns, kept investors updated and they would have had more impact than that one (especially the deals that have been signed they warranted their own rns). Im not selling at these prices and believe in the science but as have said for years still yet to be convince by their commercial nouse and disappointed to hear they see it taking another 5 years (when previously was always plan to partner up for phase 3). Scancell really need to look after PIs better.

Does anyone think this rns will warrant an interview by Lindy or Crossiery? As feel it would def benefit the shareprice if they did.

Apologies i missed that ivey did comment on my parity question. So if dual listing no are all shares worth the same allowing for currency exchange. Or can you have a scenario where nasdaq shares are worth a lot more than our aim shares (and aim treated as 2nd rate)?

Violindog quite agreeid much rather have 1% of a lot than 100% of nothing. But there seems to be a lot of excitement about potential of nasdaq but really what we need is do some commercial not acadamic deals and publicity. Granted nasdaq would give us more publicity and access to raise further funds but would mean further dillution. Whereas if results are good surely we should get plenty of publicity and secure multi commercial deals without dillution? And if deals are sufficient size we shouldnt need any further dillution? Also no one answered previously if we do have a dual/tri listing do the shares have parity? Or would our shares be 2nd class and worth less than those listed on nasdaq?