We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
As a private individual investor in the US I would not count on overseas support. It is down right difficult to purchase shares independently. Schwab and IBKR would not allow direct trading on the AIM exchange. I bought shares OTC where volume is miserable. Maybe institution buyers using a UK broker but it is not easy for individual investors in the US.
FL
As an outside observer, I believe it apparent that NYCT cannot settle the dispute in typical fashion (sealed non disclosure agreement). This has gone on so long and there has been enormous reputational and share price damage, such that NYCT can only win by clearing its name as well as winning monetary settlement. As someone in the States, I'm amazed at how long the sword of Damocles has been held over NYCT. If the case is settled in NYCT's favor, does UK law allow additional damages for loss of reputation/disparagement?
FL
I have not posted in an eternity. I bought NCYT well in 2020 and sold for a nice gain but then thought it was beat up too much and bought back in late in the year. I never foresaw that DHSC would sue and put a small cap company in purgatory for as long as this has drug out. Anyways part of my investment thesis was that Novacyt had a very strong R&D growth driver that would crank out products. I thought that the Sepsis research conducted in conjunction with Immunexpress (a program initiated in 2014, I believe) would have paid off years ago. A point of care sepsis test has tremendous market potential. But alas, this program appears to have gone nowhere. Now I'm locked in believing that the DHSC way overstepped given the contractual terms and the pandemic environment that existed at the time. Hopefully the Court sees it this way.
I'm in the U.S and learned a lesson that it's the train you don't see coming that you have to worry about, and I know nothing about the train schedule in the U.K.
Good luck longs.
FL
Is not a circulating tumor composed of the same DNA building blocks as other living cells? Yes it might require extraction, but depending on the users needs, there is no reason such a sample could not be used for either living cell research or extracted for analysis of the molecular drivers found in the DNA. If introduced in a easily utilized form, Parasortix might help get by one of the chief problems associated liquid biopsy, That is extracting sufficient usable, non degraded tumor content for DNA analysis. I invested in another molecular diagnostic company whose liquid biopsy products have been called out for this lack of sensitivity in blood samples containing low tumor content. The company's (Biocartis) analysis of molecular biomarkers in solid tumors are highly accurate, however they lose sensitivity in liquid samples. I think Angle might be more successful if they license the microfluidics technology and collect royalties, rather than selling lab services.
FL
FL
The study would be more encouraging if all of the authors were not employed by Angle. Traction represented by the independent user community authoring studies is worth 10x internal studies.
FL
I'd be careful not to read too much into the report abstract and table of contents. It has been published for at least the past 10 years. Based on past review, oncology diagnostics was projected to be the fastest growing area of the entire diagnostic field. Growing at about 20 % per year. Of course the pandemic resulted in a major blip in the infectious disease growth trajectory.
FL
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jeremy-hunt-made-britain-no-152016801.html
A follow up to my PoC post and the DHSC blindside. While I misread the business climate in the UK a couple years ago, it is pretty unmistakable now. Money is flowing where it gets treated better.
FL
Two year time frame? I bought shares in June 2020 sold half in October, but held half thinking that the Sepsis partnership with Immunexpress would certainly bear fruit in a couple years. By my count that partnership has gone about six or seven years without sending a single sepsis biomarker assay to market.
At the time I believed Nova had top notch R&D that would deliver. Also, I'm in the U.S. and never anticipated that a government would place a business in such purgatory when they were acting in good faith to quickly bring needed products to market during an emergency.
FL
and Angle is up on high volume. This should be a weak volume day. So is this significant or just another head fake?
Merry Christmas
FL
I'm not going to claim to be an expert. I have a small position in Angle purchased in the last month on the US pink sheets where the volume is almost non-existent. The position is primarily intended to force me to pay attention to Angle's future progress. From my previous investment experiences I've listed a few general steps toward profitability and also listed some things that are unique to Angle. The following are provided in no particular order.
1) Build out enough of a product offering to justify the users purchase of any hardware, buffers and reagents required to run the Parsortix. Placement of sufficient systems generally requires approvals that go beyond RUO.
2) Secure Insurance reimbursement codes for parasortix breast in the US.
3) Gain EU approval for Parsortix breast. same for DHS and other geographies.
4) Establish distribution and technical support systems. This might require distribution partnerships with Fisher or other large distribution clearing houses.
5) Generally, the first units are commercialized on a prototype production line that is not fully automated, An automated production line is generally required to scale production and improve margins. To be frank, I don't fully understand this part of Angle's capacity.
6) Raise cash when market conditions are conducive. Conserve cash by focusing on the most important initiatives;
7) Continue to develop a user community that independently publish research papers; This is important to growing a user community;
8)Place equipment and continue to develop pharma usage of parsortix.
9) I'm not certain where development of Laboratory derived test facilities in the US fit into the scheme pf things. I'm concerned that staffing buildout and marketing these LDTs might increase cash burn beyond the benefit. I'm more interested in partnering with MDx firms in order to leverage their sales forces.
10) Given the time and funding level necessary to achieve profitability, Angle should seek out license IP to gain a royalty stream to fund these endeavors.
11) Similarly partnerships with pharma that pay out milestone payments for reaching goals might also help advance research while keeping the lights on.
Obviously Angle must respond to dynamic market conditions. The focus on liquid biopsy monitoring services is well placed since this area has tremendous demographic tailwinds which are reflected by high projected growth rates. If they can gear product offerings to sell to the many MDx companies chasing this market. they can become well positioned.
I have an early morning, so that's enough for now.
FL
dhs
Dibs
Be careful calling Angle a market leader. In diagnostics, there are a lot of market leaders in there respective niches in MDx but they are still not profitable. I agree that Angle has staked their IP claim to an area of diagnostics that looks like it should be profitable since it has universal application to pharma and diagnostics etc. However, Angle must demonstrate that it can scale Parsortix to commercial success to be considered a market leader in a manner that leads to SP increases and company longevity.
I like the fact that Angle seeks to displace expensive solid tumor sample acquisition procedures. This should position the company to be at the cross roads of MDx monitoring. With aging baby boomers and the increased number of medicines targeting the genomic drivers of disease, Angle has the potential to position the company as the go to partner for liquid biopsy monitoring. This should be one of the fastest growing areas of oncology MDx. But unfortunately there are still a lot of steps to go.
FL
Burmuda
Certainly I'm not questioning Abbot's cash position to complete a take out of Angle. The calculus goes a little deeper. Abbot has to consider the increased headcount and the amount of time for the acquisition to start to pay off. One of my earliest MDx investments was a company called Vysis that was taken over by Abbot in 2001. They did the acquisition before Vysis was profitable since it became the basis of their entire FISH diagnostic program, So you're right that big pharma has more potential to think in a long term strategic manner.
My comment about accretive acquisitions is more applicable to MDx companies. Another investment GHDx had a great test Oncotype Dx that could inform an oncologist whether a woman suffering from breast cancer would benefit from chemo. The sales were growing about 20 to 30% per year and the company was about to break even when the NE Journ of Med released an article touting the test , sales increased tremendously and EXAS paid up to acquire the company at a 30 to 40% premium to the post NEJM run-up price. EXAS could have acted 6 months earlier before the NEJM TailorX article and acquired GHDX for less than half the price they paid. The point is that often Diagnostics firms want strong external validation of a platforms value before completing a deal. Angle will benefit by broadening the IP to cover other cancers (i.e., show that breast was not a one off) and by demonstrating that they can scale production of parsortix.
FL
Dunk
Many of the posts on this board are looking for a white night to ride in and acquire Angle at a healthy premium. Unfortunately most of the MDx companies I follow are looking at their share price down 50 to 75% and they are shell shocked and unlikely to make acquisition moves unless they are accretive in the near term. This is not the case for Angle. The value on Ang is presently limited because the approvals are focused to breast cancer. NSCLC, prostate, ovarian would help prove out the applicability to a wider gamut of circulating tumor types.
Your comment keying in on the roll of the insurer is key to understanding the US market. If Angle can win approval of parsortix for other cancers and demonstrate the cost savings and technical advantages compared to the presently employed biopsies methods (i.e., lumpectomy, prostate core sampling and the myriad of sampling methods for NSCLC) then Angle will really be coveted by many potential acquirers. Until then, controlling costs and cash burn while building out the franchise is critical. I think we're in for a long haul here. If a company sweeps in to buy Angle for the IP, then I think the most likely candidate would be QIAGEN since they have a multi year partnership (since 2017 I believe) that would allow them to assess the importance to their downstream NGS and PCR testing capabilities.
But if I was a gambler, I'd say prepare for the long haul and that is why they are in cash preservation mode.
FL
Phantom
I definitely realize that Parsortix can be used to harvest whole ct cells. But presently (until cell therapies progress further) the most immediate use is to analyze the ct cells for biomarkers to determine what molecular drivers exist that might respond to currently available drugs.
The analysis of the ct rather than a whole blood sample with lots of healthy red and while blood cells has the potential to increase the sensitivity of many liquid biopsy analyses.
In full disclosure, I'm long ANG and BCART and DHR.
FL
Thompi
That is precisely what I am questioning. I gave the example of two microfluidic based cassette platforms, but there are many others including microbead systems. The angle PR definitely indicates that Parsortix can be used in a complimentary manner with these downstream technologies. However, the current Parsortix system is designed as a stand alone system with pumps and buffers etc. So in my mind it seems that presently any relationship would be as part of a two step process where the ct content from the whole blood sample would be used as input into one of the downstream technologies. My question really goes to the engineering of Parsortix and whether the microfluidics might be licensed and incorporated into a single cartridge? I think the potential relationships work even if it is a two step process. But if the microfluidics could be incorporated directly into the cartridge as a single step, it would create a very versatile and simple liquid biopsy platform. As much as anything, I believe these licensing opportunities are the low hanging fruit for the commercialization of Parsortix.
FL
I'm not going to claim that I'm any kind of MDx expert, but my take away from the following article is that the sensitivity of Idylla when used on liquid biopsy samples decreases when the mutant allele fraction is < 5%. Insufficient tumor content and MAF a frequent problem when the analysis is based on a random whole blood sample. Might Parsortix be used to collect ct for analysis thus increasing the MAF? A sample higher in tumor content should provide MAF levels that result in increased sensitivity. I believe this issue is not unique to RT PCR analyses such as Idylla. I've seen statistics that up to 25% of NGS analyses on NSCLC are also limited by the sample quality and low tumor content.
In any event, most of my question is whether Angle's microfluidic technology would be transferrable if they licensed the IP to a user. Obviously, the IP has to prove out for each cancer type before it could be licensed.
FL
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45616-y
Researcher
I see Parsortix as an up front part of the assay used to enrich the circulating tumor content before liquid biopsy analysis of biomarkers. If used in this manner it seems like it would increase the sensitivity of the assay by increasing the mutant allelic fraction being analyzed.
I don't want to suggest this is an "either or" proposition for Angle. I see no reason why Angle can't license IP to develop a revenue stream while pursuing its lab build out strategy. I think the strategy could be especially effective if they can demonstrate the NSCLC version of Parsortix. monitoring lung cancer for EGFR and gene fusion mutations is a difficult proposition. I think this market would be very receptive.
Regards
FL
FL
The Baillie Gifford's piece emphasizes scaling as a major challenge to Angle's profitability. I agree and have made the mistake of investing in other small MDx companies that seemingly had a better mousetrap but struggled to commercialize it in a manner that could challenge bigger entrenched competitors. So my question to those with knowledge on Angle's IP, is the technology potentially transferable? can the microfluidics be licensed and incorporated into a downstream MDx testing firms device? For instance, Cepheid (now part of Danaher) and Biocartis have microfluidic cartridge based systems used for oncology. Could parasortix be incorporated into the front end of their system via a license to use the parasortix system? In the case of Biocartis they have a partnership with LifeArc to introduce a breast cancer assay which should be released as a RUO assay in the next month or two. Similarly, they have a collaboration with Astrazeneca for a CDx for Tagrisso. The Biocartis Idylla system is used for both solid tumors and liquid biopsy samples but the liquid biopsy results would benefit from a ct harvesting/enrichment step. Is licensing parasortix technology for use on the front end of these types of systems potentially a faster path to profitability for Angle? Getting a royalty on each cartridge or assay that uses the technology could be lucrative and a quicker path to profitability than building out labs.
FL
You'd have to be run by idiots not to be in cash preservation mode. The market with the exception of this week sucks and the bulk of the MDx stocks I follow EXAS, GH, ILMN are down 50 to 75%. This is a difficult environment to raise cash and the recession is predicted to hit next year. Cash preservation is only being prudent.
FL
Unfortunately, Parasortix must be demonstrated for each circulating tumor cancer type. Breast was a good start but lung would be huge since obtaining quality biopsy samples from lung scrubbing or fine needle aspirates is very difficult and costly. Prostate will also be an important market since prostate cancers are notoriously heterogeneous, often requiring around a dozen core samples to provide reasonable representation of the prostate cancer risk. This biopsy is procedure is not pleasant and even then, prostate cancer is often missed.
The market is ripe for a relatively non invasive method of obtaining samples. However, my experience investing in this space with other companies is that it may take years to come to fruition.
FL