The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
touk, you don't seem to know your **** from your elbow. to my question about whether p1a results were good ones, you replied with:
"on their own they aren’t"
i roundly disagree with that, and have given my reasoning. whereas, i'm sorry to say, you generally tail off into a black hole of despair.
Cj62, I don't hang off every word that Al mutters, I follow the trajectory of the trial, and base my decision on how well or not that is going. I'm also trying to read between the lines about the shifting strategy, and to me it stacks up. You must appreciate that any experimental endeavour, of which a clinical trial could be considered as such, will naturally take an evolving path.
So far, the mechanism of fap cleavage works, that much we can be sure of, but whether AVA6000 with a Dox warhead will be some silver bullet for treating cancer I'm not so convinced. That said, there are clear signs that dox is effective on some tumour types, so with the right strategy (dosing regimen and targeting of indications) this trial will achieve a number of things:
- it should prove effective for many high fap tumours, particularly some orphan diseases, which is brilliant. It should even prove effective for many other high fap indications, but unfortunately as long as Avacta go it alone with its limited resources, these remain out of scope for now.
- it will prove the delivery mechanism, which opens the doors to license deals for other warheads, that might ultimately become a silver bullet for any high fap cancers
- it will generate cash for Avacta. Even for orphan designations this could dwarf our recent fundraising efforts, and would put Avacta in a very strong negotiating position.
The path that Avacta are steering is designed to get us to that point and in my view the change in tack is down to the reality of limited time and resources, and Avacta making the best use of these to reach a position of strength.
Touk, I'll help you a bit as you seem blinded somewhat by the golden goose. Tell me, what were the success criteria for phase1a? What would have made it a successful phase and what has in fact been proven? What do the cases of efficacy tell us, even those with a minor response?
Isn't the embedded derivative element just the conversion feature of the bond i.e. HC can issue a notice of conversion at any time to convert part of the principal into shares, but cannot go any lower than the conversion price.
Here are the calculations for the next 2 years assuming a share price of 30p:
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| SP % | 4P S | 4P D | 8P S | 8P D |
|--------+--------+--------+--------+--------|
| 0 | 0.3 | 8.17 | 0.3 | 13.9 |
| 1 | 0.31 | 8.06 | 0.32 | 13.52 |
| 3 | 0.33 | 7.86 | 0.37 | 12.82 |
| 5 | 0.35 | 7.67 | 0.42 | 12.18 |
| 10 | 0.4 | 7.24 | 0.58 | 10.83 |
| 15 | 0.46 | 6.86 | 0.8 | 9.74 |
| 20 | 0.52 | 6.53 | 1.07 | 8.87 |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
That is less than 2% per quarter on average. If it drops to 30p and rises back up to 50p by 2025 then we're looking at 8.87% or just over 1% per quarter on average.
Amortization is on our side now. Any more than 2 years at 30p and none of us will be here 😂
Analysis of results - fine in my book. Decision to start ramping, be it in sae, ond, tgr, or indeed he1 (as we all know you were a massive ramping exponent of wyndrum), is dangerous and should be ignored.
Snoz, there is no death spiral overhang here. Even considering some of the slightly low life fundies that participated in the fundraise, they are not like pi's and highly unlikely to have a panic attack and start selling their shares if it dips below 50p.
In fact the important point I'm highlighting here is that there's very little difference in dilution between the share price remaining flat at 50p and the share price ending up at 143p. After 12 payments the dilution is 11.68% and 8.06% respectively. So over 3 years there is a difference of just 3.62%, between the share price remaining flat and a rise to 146p.
The reasons behind this are:
- there is a heavy weighting to that last payment
- the 20% dilution we have just experienced also applies to these payments, therefore reducing the dilution impact
- the principal and interest repayments reduce with time i.e. the affect of these payments is reducing as time passes. (We have already had the worst 5 when the conversion price was more than double this).