Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
I’ve seen the Professor Platt name thrown around several times here and on twitter but have yet to see any detail on what the supposed rumour is or any evidence. Can anyone elaborate if not I’ll just presume it’s nonsense..., thanks, Geecee
Hi roses, it maybe the company does not qualify for the cash payment from the R&D relief. I don’t know the ins and outs of the system so it’s not definite that Val are utilising it but it appears to definitely be an option for eligible companies. Thanks, Geecee
Hi roses, I agree that in most cases a company would get tax reliefs from R&D reliefs. Although a loss making company can elect to receive cash payments if cash flow is a burden. See point 4 of the attached website: https://forrestbrown.co.uk/knowledge-bank/how-will-i-receive-my-r-and-d-tax-credit/ ‘This is the alternative for a loss-making company. You can choose to receive a cash payment from HMRC, in exchange for the surrender of your R&D enhanced losses. This option is useful for companies who need a boost to cash flow, and it can be worth up to 33p for every £1 spent on R&D.’
Hi Nomlungu, those are the articles of association, the wording is most likely taken from a generic template which is intended to give the directors the powers to run the business day to day without having to get decisions passed by daily EGMs. They may be taking very generous pensions but the articles of association won’t be the instrument to confirm whether or not they are. The remuneration stated within the notes of the Annual Financial Statements will confirm this as they are required under the companies act to disclose this. Thanks, Geecee
The following link suggests for oncology that it is 25% for phase II and 40% for phase III. Perhaps a more refined statistic which relates more to the pipeline of val. (it’s the second to last set of statistics)
https://www.google.gg/amp/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4051661-investors-guide-clinical-trials-phase-success-rates-introductory-pipeline-analysis
Hi January, I recently read that a drug that is approved for phase III trials has a 54% chance of making it to market. A drug in Phase II trials has a 12% chance. The pre-clinical drugs have such a low percentage chance it’s not even worth factoring into the calculations. Unfortunately these statistics don’t really reflect vals chance of success as there are too many other variables which differentiate for example a large pharma developing a new drug - I.e. val has positive variables such as the safety and tolerability that the drugs have shown to date (val401 being a reformulation of a well tested drug) but then also negative variables such as a funding requirement. Thanks, Geecee
I could see a placing happening soon but I would hope that the BoD would wait until after the val201 results (if as promising as it appears to be alluded to) as if it was to raise the market cap the dilution would be less punishing to shareholders. We live in hope. Geecee
I don’t think we’ll see a val201 rns until right at the end of the year at the earliest. I recall that they started dosing at the beginning of October and on the presentation slides I believe it indicated that the average dosing period was 85 days meaning that would be near the end of December. I may stand corrected on any of the above. Geecee
Appears GM was on stage at 10:25 this morning (as announced with pic on twitter by @arenanltpharma), would be useful if there was a video or slides available that anybody knows of? Don’t expect any ground breaking information in it but it’s always useful to learn more about the company.
Johnboy thanks, it would be great to get the feedback on here. 1 and 2 for me are the questions I would like further clarification on, if they deliver on those I couldn’t care less if they own shares. I wish I could attend the presentation but for travel costs likely over £500 for me it’s not worth it. Thanks, Geecee
What I found interesting was in the Hardman report the capital increases chart showed 2019 and 2020 estimates of £0. Whilst on face value it is a third party report it was rns’d by the company and therefore the company would have had to have checked there was no gross misrepresentation. Doesn’t mean that this is the company’s outlook but possibly means that they consider this a possibility. Either hardman anticipate that cash will flow to Valirx in some form or maybe they think no further cash raises will be possible - aka deal or bust
Hi jonjo, agreed, I know many people don’t give them credit for their business skills but that would be ludicrous even for them to attempt especially at this stage. Until we hear otherwise the new company holds no bearing on my outlook on Valirx. Thanks, Geecee
The initial shareholding is not necessarily representative of the intentional shareholders of the company. These are the subscribers for the initial shares and may have been done for ease to amend later. If you look at the same document for ValiSeek you will note that only 4 shares were issued; Valirx, Tangent Reprofiling, Dr Dilly and GM all owning 1 each - far from the resulting holdings and %. This could obviously be the final shareholding but I personally don’t think they set up a Val company for their own benefit as would cause a conflict of interest. All in imo of course. Thanks, Geecee
Hi Badshah, it is quite common for businesses to have multiple subsidiaries which each looks after different aspects of the company. In this particular case one big advantage is the separation for limited liability. In essence if one part of the business was to fail the creditors of a subsidiary would not necessarily have rights to the assets owned elsewhere in the group. Also ValiSeek is separate as it is used as a jv vehicle for Valirx, tangent reprofiling and Dr Dilly. Thanks, Geecee