Member Info for emptyend

Re the perceived drag of the funding question, I think that is a total red herring. Not only does today’s news confirm another deal with a smallish upfront, it also implies that a milestone payment will soon be forthcoming on the first deal with GenMab. Or perhaps more than one?

Whilst partner funding will still be needed for the registration trial, todays announcement gives Scancell additional financial leverage in negotiating that, whilst the scientific validation of the Scancell team provided by this latest deal will add to the scientific leverage in negotiations over SCIB1/iSCIB1+ (especially given the expected strong results due early next year.

It is entirely possible, I think, that there will need to be no new share issues at all.

VD,

It is a huge mistake for people to focus just on the upfronts……every bit as much of an error as assuming the whole $630mn would be payable. The fact is that, almost certainly, the value will lie somewhere in the middle - but the important point is this:

…..even if it somewhere in the middle, they whole company value looks to be considerably in excess of the current market cap. The recent management upgrades show that those “in the know” fully realise that - and so they have a chance to earn a piece of the action as the portfolio gets proved-out over the net few years.

….ps……and I don’t rule out a full bid for the Glymab platform (or more) in the coming year or two. If GenMab think they are likely to be on the hook for payments of c.$1.2bn to a company the (market cap) size of Scancell, why wouldn’t they consider it?

Crusty,

The upfront doesn’t much matter. The analogy is an oil E&P obtaining back costs as part of a deal that involves a major financing a drilling programme on which the seller obtains a free carry and revenue share or royalty.

What matters is that GenMab have growing knowledge of the outputs from the Glymab platform and growing confidence in it. They also appear keen to shut out their competition, hence the exclusive second deal JUST BEFORE they pay milestones on the first. Again, an E&P analogy is the declaring of a quiet hole to enable data to be analysed and analogue play acreage snaffled before the competition gets a sniff.

So I think today’s news ALSO indicates that GenMab will shortly be triggering one or more milestone payments on the first deal.

I have a couple of takeaways from this RNS:

1. There is an intriguing lack of detail about exactly what is GenMab’s objective (or range of objectives). This is positive news, as it suggests to me they have several applications in mind, which may begin to generate several parallel streams of milestone payments.

2. As previously suggested, they have not hing about until the end of their option period, suggesting they are very keen to crack on .

3. Taken together with the first deal (which is surely now approaching milestones) the above points may suggest that we are on the cusp of getting sufficient steady revenue to finance a decent chunk of expense - especially if we partner up for the registration trial of SBIB1/iSCIB1+

I suspect the violin is very small.

Looks as if GALP have had a good “light oil and condensate” result from their appraisal well at Mopane in the Orange Basin:

https://www.upstreamonline.com/exploration/namibia-galp-appraisal-well-on-huge-mopane-discovery-hits-light-oil-and-gas-condensate/2-1-1746747

Another supergiant field off Namibia?

I think being content with one’s position in the current market (which I think is what tf is saying) is quite different from claiming the investment is secure (which isn’t what any of us (with one noteworthy exception on another board) are saying!.

I would say “confident” at current prices, given the expected news events due.

Https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/roche-acquire-us-based-poseida-therapeutics-2024-11-26/

I think that would be an error.

Only this week a deal was done for a similar company at six times its market value on the previous day’s closing price.

In my opinion, if Scancell were to receive similar bid interest, they would be seeking 80p+ per share.

Of course, that may seem a somewhat unlikely scenario - but it is far from impossible……and so it cannot be “safely” dismissed.

No

Smart cities are a big deal in India. Even the bartender on my holiday in Goa had heard of them……and the UK government has a clear pitch too (for once):

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a80a31040f0b62305b8c4b0/UKTI_-_The_UK_offer_to_build_together__1_.pdf

I would be totally shocked if the partner was of Exxon/Chevron quality. Or anywhere close!

We don’t have a partner until a deal is signed. If a deal is signed, then it must be promptly RNS’d. So where is the RNS announcing this partner? 🤨

I specifically asked if it was “fully negotiated” and was told that yes it was.

Now the person who told me (undoubtedly involved in negotiations) may have misspoken or been imprecise in their agreement to my enquiry - but that is what I was told.

The detailed legals might not be in the form of a signable, binding transaction - but the commercial terms are certainly set and USD 1 million has been paid. And if the option is exercised, the deal terms will be announceable without delay once the party has decided to exercise (if they do).

They signed an option in June.

Of course. But people (including me) have been assuming that an announcement cannot come earlier than late December - and I was just noting that this assumption isn’t correct.

Then don’t mention me by name. Just state your point. 🙄🙄🙄

Yes it certainly will happen in their time and perhaps (depending on the deal scope and size) it might possibly be a Board decision - though I doubt that, unless it is a wider/bigger deal than we suppose.

But it isn’t in their interests to string it out if they already know what they will do.

Why do you persist in asking me impossible questions? I’m not on the board!!! 🙄

As to the point about confidence, it is my (totally reasonable!) assumption that the exclusive period was set to be longer than they might actually need to test whether the Mab does what they expect it to do in the settings they are interested in. It would make no sense whatsoever to set a period that was likely to be too short.

It might of course be a timeline determined by cashflow or (more likely) budget…..or something else. But so what? It doesn’t invalidate my point!