Member Info for douve87

This question is just out of genuine interest in what people think the future for scancell is (future being the next 5 years). I'm not ramping, or naive to believe that nothing can go wrong or there isn't a chance we've gone bankrupt within the next 5 years. But assuming at least one of our platforms is successful (and again to reiterate I'm not saying that is the only thing that can occur) what do people think will happen to scancell. I know originally scancells plan/hope was to be bought by a bigger pharmaceutical company but a lot has changed since then? Do people still think this is still the most likely outcome (assuming success), or do people see scancell still exisiting but in an ARM licensing like capacity or does anyone see scancell growing to be like biontech or even genetech.
My question is what people think could happen not what people would prefer to happen as obviously we would all want scancell to grow to be the size and worth of genetech.

Well if it is a buy, someone is feeling confident in scancells chances. A little disappointed we haven't risen further though.

Any ideas what the 1.13m transaction was. Looking at price I'm assuming a buy but weren't sure if anyone had any other ideas (such as some sort reorganisation)?

Hi ruck. I wasn't jumping to conclusions. I understand that they suspended valuation but (incorrectly) thought their statement about suspending valuation was on the main page for scancell so as that statement wasnt on the main page but 15.6p was (again incorrectly) assumed this was their revised valuation. I now realise that their valuation suspension statement was on the page regarding the additional funding and never updated on main page. So nothing has changed. Wasnt trying to imply anything or allude to anything just an innocent mistake.

Good point, I just assumed as that statement was not showing on the site(about re-appraising the share price). Any idea how long that usually takes as would be genuinely interested how they value this news considering lack of funding has been listed as a potential issue and presumably been impacting their prediction as a result.

I thought previously on the trinity delta site it stated they would consider and recalc their share price projection. Now and in the link that Chelsea provided it just states 15.6p again. So doesn't this mean that they have completed their appraisal and remained at 15.6p? Although the share price has remained the same the value of the company has still increased by their reckoning due to the increased number of shares.

So Trinity's share prediction has remained unchanged. Couldnt remember what it was before and couldn't be bothered to read back on the forum. Cheers Chelsea

Can anyone remind me what trinty delta's valuation of scancell was before the share dillution?

Im with iweb and I've yet to get any notification of the oo.

I wouldnt call a few million to multi billion company to be big money and would probably be considered a punt to them. Also worth remembering vulpes did sell some earlier in the year which isn't a great sign of confidence.

No an oversubscribed fund raising doesn't prove me wrong, that is a ridiculous statement when I'm criticising the bod for their lack of commercial progress and having to dillute. What would prove me wrong would be a commercial deal (and a good commercial deal).

Not ridiculous. As you constantly have said our science is better than any of our competitors. Are you telling me there have been no commercial deals in the oncology /immunotherapy sector in the last 8 years? No, in which case either our science is not as good as you say it is (and I don't think this is the case), or our bod aren't doing a good enough job? I think what you said is the issue and what has never been a criticism they are great scientist but a not an effective bod (thats me being kind). Chelsea, I hope that's the case but was also hoping that was the case with scib 1, 2, moditope and research collab with karolinska and biontech and to date nothing. Like I say I do believe in the science and my current negativity/annoyance only comes out of frustration caused by the fact I truly believe we have great science and with a different bod us shareholders and end users would have been better off.

I appreciate dilution goes with any biotech but most other biotechs also manage some non dillutive funding. It annoys me that our bod can't complete a commercial deal. Its always going to be different after the next set of results (which are always delayed) and unfortunately never is (we've had some amazing results to date). Constantly since I originally invested in 2012 we have been close to a deal and yet 8 years later still to have one. Even at the last fund raise they were talking about non dillutive funding but still nothing. Its also annoying that my fear with regards getting involved with a covid vaccine has come true at least in the short term. When it was announced I was afraid that it would necessitate further funding, stretch an already stretched team during difficult times (as a result of the pandemic) and by the time we get anywhere with the vaccine be too late. Some good may still come from the covid vaccine but I'm yet to be convinced (only negatives so far). My prediction is the share price will go down to the offer price it always does, but hopefully will go up from there. Apologies that this sounds so negative but it comes out of frustration as I truly believe we have good science but our bod seem to be stuck in a cycle of repeating the same actions and messages again and againwith no commercial progress being made. As someone else has said today I'm sure our science in a different biotech/pharma and with a different bod would have progressed and developed much further both for the benefit of the shareholder and the end user.

Hope you are well and keeping safe in theses difficult time times.
Unfortunately as always seems to be the case i suspect we will be doing a raise and share dillution shortly, which i suspected and feared as soon as the covid announcement was made. We always seem to get involved in promising research/initiatives with seemingly no way of funding it. Either we have been extremely unlucky and our funding plans have fallen through every time or the bod naively agree to plans without thinking where the funding is coming from.
As always i hope im wrong but as ive been saying since 2012 im still waiting to be impressed by the bod's commercial nouse.

I think thats a very valid point as its basically what i thought when the covid rns was released. By entering the fold of covid19 vaccines it has the potential to be great for the public and the company but so does our cancer vacines. Without a better idea of collaboration partners, timings and most importantly funding its just another very very early stage research project (and we have enough of those already). And as ive already stated when i first read it my fear was it would further stretch our meagre resources or dillute the shares further, it would delay progress on other more advanced studies and judging from our previous work even if we were successful would be after everyone else (even if what we have is better) had brought something to market. As a result i was surprised theshare price reacted so positively (pleased but surprised).
As always like everything we are waiting for funding to be confirmed; once that is for any of our projects our shareprice should climb rapidly (but ive been saying that since 2012). However with covid19 being so hot at present there really is no excuse for not getting non dillutive finding this time. If they cant i really will be worrying that our bod couldn't sell water to a man dying of dehydration in the desert.

Hi my reading of the covid rns was yes non dillutive funding was being considered/pursued but alongside dillutive funding and by the way it was worded it sounded as if the non dillutive would be the minority (grants towards as opposed to a fully funded research). Its very easy to get carried way by semantics and infer things from innocent statements so i may be way off but i personally did not get the impression it would only be non dillutive funding for covid and thats why i was concerned by not for profit being discussed. But we can all have our own interpretations and as everyone has said funding is only sorted when it is officially announced so i guess we will just have to wait and see. Good to hear other people's opinions though. GN

Thanks for the explanation. Thats what confused me as id not seen not for profit mentioned anywhere other then here so was confused where it had come from. Equally i was concerned at the notion of share dillution for a not for profit drug. Although i hope it would be great exposure for scancell im not convinced it would be worth share dillution for. If you think of the people we are collaborating with and who are interested in our data currently and this hasnt translated into shate price rises or commercial deals so exposure any goes so far. Also if the exposure so far is anything to go by ive not been impressed. Equally although i dont want scancell to exploit the covid situation price wise, we are not a charity and cant feel bad for wanting to make a profit. Just like i wouldnt want to exploit cancer sufferers but at same time not giving the drugs away. Personally i feel even if it was wholly funded by the government that there should still be some tsngible financial gain for scancell in the immediacy otherwise its a distraction and further delays to already delayed platforms.
This may seem negative or a greedy point of view and i dont mean it to be as im only too happy for scancell to be involved if they can offer something of value, but at same time i am concerned that lindy could be spread too thin and as always im concerned by the constant issue of funding (for our existing platforms). We wont help any cancer sufferers or covid 19 sufferers if we dont have the funding to comlete the important work we've already started. Fingers crossed my concerns are way off the mark.

Hi, ive just been reading the board and keep seeing the mention of not for profit mentioned for the covid work where was that mentioned?

For the record im not selling, im.convinced by the science. But equally convinced if we had a different bod who were more commercially savvy we'd be in a completely different position shareprice wise.

Personally i wouldn't take anything for granted regarding funding. The amount of times we have said the bod must have something lined up either due to a positive press release or the fact they've hired more staff and its been said thats a sign they know where funding is coming from and it hasn't. Equally we've all been shocked in the past when we've announced very promising data and people have thought it can't be ignored by big pharma this time and is (hence where we are today). Hope they really have got something lined up this time otherwise i personally (and may be in a minority here) but would have preferred them to concentrate on their existing platforms instead of trying to further stretch their already limited funding resources or further share dilution.
Not questioning the science but as yet to be convinced by the bod's commercial nous (waiting to be impressed). Otherwise id consider it naive to constantly sign new research projects, and expand remits with only optimism that funding will arrive.