Member Info for emptyend

……and now it is time for FOMO-pumping, as the traders amongst us spot an opportunity.

Very predictable…..unlike the drift down to this entry point.

So plenty of people seem in a kerfuffle over the share price. Quite understandable, as there seems no company-specific reason for the low share price.

However, I’m reminded of some other companies:

In January 1991, Next Plc shares traded for a couple of days at 12.5p (10p intraday, as I recall). They were widely expected to go bust. They didn’t. And the same shares have recently been as high as £11.45.

Similarly, Ashtead shares were a couple of pence 17 years ago and have recently been over £6.

And, in the tech space, Tesla shares were under $20 (pre-splits) in 2010…..and we all know what has happened since! And, indeed, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook /Meta and many other companies’ shares have been bought and sold at a tiny fraction of subsequent prices.

Of course, on the flipside, plenty of companies looked to have potential and subsequently went bust for one reason or another…..

But the point is this: THE MARKET IS FREQUENTLY WRONG about the value of companies. Indeed in many cases it can be wrong for protracted periods, especially where disruptive technologies are involved. The ordinary punter commonly assumes that “the market is always right” - and there is some sense to that in that the market price reflects all public information (or lack of information). But punters often think that low or high market prices indicate that “someone knows something”…….and THAT is a fundamental error!!

In the case of Scancell, I think we have a lull in newsflow at the same time as some larger holders have needed to liquidate (fund wind-ups, deaths/probate etc) and that has depressed sentiment amongst those who thing the market price must mean something…..

…….but the market price is meaningless, unless a holder is forced to trade or a buyer is looking for an entry point.

I’m still expecting a share price nearer 80p than 8p by the end of 2025.

This highlights an important point about personalised vaccines versus off-the-shelf. Off-the-shelf vaccines merely have to be produced and distributed. Personalised vaccines require a whole set of additional complex processes before they can be produced and distributed…….and most of the knowledge and resources needed for that “whole set of additional complex processes” MUST BE CENTRALISED within a single company and, most probably, at a single location for the global market.

In a world market that is increasingly vulnerable to geopolitical disruptions, that seems to be a major advantage for off-the-shelf.

My 2p on this issue is that if we are partnered with a US pharma company (which is one of the likelier possibilities) they will almost certainly have global reach when it comes to running trials - and will plainly locate trials in the optimal location given the risks etc at the time the trials start.

In sum, it is certainly an important consideration (and may influence the partner pick) but it isn’t a concern for Scancell. Australia is a good shout for melanoma trials, by the way, as they have big melanoma risks and good but very concentrated health services - and people think nothing of driving big distances.

“ The relevance for Scancell holders IMO is simply that at a time when biotech sentiment both here and in the US is so low, it's great to see some positive news, some deal activity and proof that if you get it right there are still some great success stories out there.”

That was my takeaway too Bermuda. No clinical comparison to be drawn - but an early stage company being snapped up.

Well beyond my paygrade, but I’d be interested in any comparisons to be drawn between Scancell’s approach and Esobiotec’s. Both highlight off-the-shelf attributes, but target different cancers in different ways.

The answer is money.

Either monetising IP via deals - or money being invested by people who think money will arrive via deals.

Talk and pure science don’t cut it - turning the science into money does.

“ When the data from SCOPE is presented I expect it to be linked to a partnership or overall deal for the Immunobody Platform.”

I’d go along with that. They scattered a lot of bread on the conference waters last year and there must be a few bigger fish sniffing around the bait.

This comes back to the point I made to Lindy in the open session of the AGM: none of us are getting any younger, “including you”.

I’m hoping that this year Scancell will produce clear evidence on how to treat cancers and the mechanisms that can be employed to stop their spread and to shrink tumours. Hopefully this will validate Scancell’s treatment approach and provide real commercial and shareholder value.

In the meantime, there is a straw in the wind….

Scientists crack how aspirin might stop cancers from spreading https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1d4n119xr7o

At least he could have ramped something with a bit of upside like AEX 😉

Multiple new play types. Every reason for majors to have a fresh look.....

Tf, I don’t disagree that getting past 11.7p is not a difficult task. But that is the bare minimum for options to be worth anything at all. They only vest in thirds too so, as of now, he has the promise of options over c. 10mn shares at 11.7 in he is still employed in February 2026 and a further 10mn in each of 2027 and 2028.

In other words he still has to earn them, so it is completely wrong to compare his package with Lindy’s, as most of her options have already vested and have a lower exercise price too.

Personally I hope he makes an absolute fortune.

I’d see the CLN conversion as being tied to a major corporate event…

Remember, TF, that Phil is about 30% out of the money at present and that he has to actually pay the company 11.7p per share. These are not freebies and he has to start executing to provide shareholder value (something LD generally didn’t do, whatever her huge scientific accomplishments).

It must also be noted that they vest in thirds, so he only gets the lot if he stays three years (or a deal is done to accelerate management options as, I suspect, it would be if someone was offering £1 a share) - and they are only worth something if the share price rises.

10 year options are bog standard!

I have previously argued successfully for a shorter 3 year term for incumbent directors, but undoubtedly ten years would be standard.

They are also well out of the money, rendering them less expensive in terms of the accounting charge.

So Phil now has a chunk of skin in the game, once we get back to 11.7p.

Quite a generous package but doubtless pre-agreed…..and one reason for letting the share price do its own thing.

Perhaps the news next week may turn out to be a bigger game-changer than the low-key announcement implied?

How low can we go?......perhaps BMS are asking that question of Redmile right now?

“The data will highlight HOW its experimental melanoma vaccine, SCIB1, is working in combination with two widely used cancer drugs, nivolumab and ipilimumab."

I highlight in caps the key word.

“New” data is new data……I suspect this will relate to not just the outcomes, but the process by which those outcomes occur.