Member Info for emptyend

….and indeed the discovery of Moditope was one such example. They kept it under wraps for about a year whilst they got patents, according to the recent Breese interview with RG.

The point here is that there is absolutely no duty on directors to go “open kimono” on everything they believe is significant, important or of future value - and there is certainly no duty on them to RNS such developments, if the company’s interests (ie shareholders’ interests) might be damaged by a detailed disclosure.

And I would add that if people believe that the company is holding back on some details, I think they would be far better off speculating as to why that might be, rather than pressing to have the entire world brought up to speed.

You need to read the rules as a whole, and the Companies Act.

In particular about the fiduciary duty imposed on directors to act in shareholders’ interests. There are likely to be times when disclosure of non-public price sensitive facts would damage shareholders’ interests - and in such circumstances the company would consult the NOMAD to resolve the conflict.

Just on a point of fact, there is absolutely no such duty on any company’s directors.

They can keep things non-public for as long as they like, subject to giving accurate statements in annual reports etc. Indeed Scancell kept the original discovery of Moditope secret, whilst they obtained patents.

What they must do, though, is ensure that any price-sensitive information that comes into the public domain does so via an RNS announcement. But, having issued the RNS, that discharges their obligation. If the market misinterprets or ignores the contents of an RNS then the market is perfectly capable of continuing to get it wrong for an extended period of time. In this case, that is likely to persist until then next Modi-1 trial update.

There is a great deal to be said for the Company sticking strictly to reporting facts.

It isn’t the Company’s job to speculate - it is the market’s.

Not necessarily “slowly”…….

If someone wants to sell, they will sell.

Nothing can be done to manage it.

Ichor wouldn’t want to be accused of endorsing a competitor by holding on….

What nonsense, Matt!

Ichor have taken the strategic decision to exercise their options and sell their shares. It isn’t in Scancell’s interest or the interest of new shareholders if Ichor get their exit price inflated at the expense of those who buy their shares.

Watch what happens next.

Don't know about Matt, but I can say that!
The important bits are that every single one had a T-cell response and we know that dosing levels aren't an issue. Therefore, because a majority of patients (at 8 weeks) did show some improvement, then it is likely that increasing the dose or continuing for longer will improve the results. It is merely a matter of tweaking and time.

Yes, I agree. No dose limiting is very important - especially in relation to patients with advanced cancers, such as these. It makes one wonder whether the dose needs tweaking a bit higher to move patients from “stable” to “partial” etc…..and also whether these doses, used earlier, might cause material tumour reductions.

Interesting. There is certainly a paper in production on Covidity, and that should be well-advanced, given the lead time for most of the data.

The NAV is on the accounts….more than double the current share price.

Yes, RuckRover, that was exactly my message….

….and, one surmises, the quid pro quo is that GSK can do likewise. That might be more relevant, as Scancell management is probably no more than two degrees of separation from GSK’s……

I see that the LSE woke police are unfamiliar with the Latin for man or the Greek for “the same”. Irritatingly pathetic to have **** inserted instead…

I suspect this may prove to be quite an important comment from TD on Modi-1:

“Promising preclinical studies show Moditope can generate a potent immune response against many solid tumours. Animal studies using a variety of citrullinated and ****citrullinated peptide combinations confirmed the early work using cancer cell lines and have shown impressive survival in several aggressive tumour models. Interestingly, the effect appears to be long-lasting as tumour rechallenge assays show generation of a strong immune memory. The potency of the anti-tumour response seen suggests tumours have limited defences against an attack from cytotoxic CD4 T cells, unlike one from cytotoxic CD8 T cells.”

….”tumour rechallenge assays”

I’d just point out that the valuation in the TD report is completely and utterly irrelevant to Scancell. That is not what they are paying for. They are paying for independent comment on the investment thesis for Scancell, including how the various platforms work and link together. Experienced sector investors can then make up their own minds on valuations.

The reason that the valuation is irrelevant is very simple: Scancell aren’t selling the company in 2023. Neither are Vulpes and Redmile who, between them, effectively can block any unwanted premature takeover. It is therefore pointless debating whether the risking should be 2%, 5%, 10% or 20%. Or more.

The ONLY time that valuation matters is when the company has advanced its opportunity set as far as it can without selling itself or its platforms.

And it is for these reasons I’d expect any deals done to appear to be at a massive premium over the TD sum-of-the-parts valuations.

That article is 3 years old, kashdog.

What would the top 20 be today? What will it be in 2024?

Ruckrover,
I’m not disputing that 33p right now is as good a stab as any. Far from it.

Neither am I disputing that £4.72 is a fair enough guess for the long-term, based on the known pipeline if everything goes perfectly.

But I AM saying that the Trinity note gives no real clue on the likely path between one and (hopefully) the other……except that it implies it will take close to a decade to get there.

The bit I am intensely interested in, though, is the PATH from one to the other. In particular, my guess is that we could see a 6-7 fold share price gain by mid-2024, as substantial de-risking occurs and mAB deals get done, leaving a respectable potential tripling to take place over the succeeding 7+ years.

Trinity don’t attempt to bridge that valuation gap in their note and, IMO, that is why they can only say (rather weakly) that the market hasn’t grasped the potential. That potential lies in the substantial derisking over the next 18 months as the trials produce results. Those who sit on the sidelines, assuming it is a straight and rather slow line from here to nirvana, are likely to get gamma’d :-)

You are still missing my point about the passage of time.....there are four dimensions to the pattern - and time may be the most important of the four.

Where you say “if it follows the first 3” you are omitting the impact of the passage of time and completion of the dosing. The first three cohorts should enable some general conclusions to be drawn - but they may differ somewhat from your extrapolated expectations.