The latest Investing Matters Podcast with Jean Roche, Co-Manager of Schroder UK Mid Cap Investment Trust has just been released. Listen here.
This is the one I was referring to: https://www.voxmarkets.co.uk/articles/vox-markets-fund-manager-series-oliver-brown-of-rc-brown-6fb431a/
They might have the option to flog the diagnostics business by the time the next fund raise is needed. Also by then there should be clear data on whether this is going to succeed or not, so in the case of the former a partnering/licensing option would be more likely. In the case of the latter, well, need I say more.
You assertions were all over the place Wyndrum, that is all. You lean on "the market" to back up your arguments, but they are on the whole none the wiser. Do they know or don't they know? Paul Hill's interview with the fund manager who participated in the fund raise would that suggest they don't know. He freely admitted they don't have any specialists that can interpret the results to date and it was simply the fund raise at 50p that made the offer attractive, and "pushed the risk reward in their favour". He also let slip that this was popular with retail. Adding the two together, you could probably surmise that in this case the fund manager was none the wiser and just took the judgement that this stock is a retail favourite and the share would be trading back up at 90p soon enough.
Just to make the point abundantly clear, this was not some insightful play by this fund manager where they reflected on either the underlying science nor the trial progress to date, they looked at it as purely a trade play. In which case your statement:
"The market, who actually do have the technical ability to lift the bonnet, is not yet convinced."
in this case clearly does not apply. If this was the prevailing attitude or analysis that took place in the city, then you could say that the price only dropped down to 50p because they all saw a trading opportunity, especially when "the market" caught wind of the raise.
Why were there not other city funds willing to cough up at 100p for the placing, you might ask. All for the same reason as above, they just want to de-risk relative to the average retail appetite for this stock. I wouldn't read anything further into it in terms of it being a reflection of whether the tech works or not.
Who’s the market wyndrum? That’s you and me. In one breath you say:
“All we know for sure is that the wrapper works.”
And then contradict yourself with:
“The market, who actually do have the technical ability to lift the bonnet, is not yet convinced.”
You seem confused as to extent of what we do know and what can be known.
Wyndrum in full bashing mode now. The share price has not been declining for three years, it has been ranging, with an average of around 110-115p. Wyndrum, you seem to be having a breakdown, have you lost a lot of capital, or are you trying to push this lower? If you don’t believe Avacta have any future why are you here pouring so much energy and concern into this stock. Make up you mind.
Toukan, the rns did say updated clinical data - I take that to mean in addition to what was released in December:
"Avacta... today announces updated clinical data from the First-in-Human Phase 1 trial of the peptide drug conjugate, AVA6000 will be presented at the 2024 American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting, taking place in San Diego, California from 5-10 April 2024. "
Chatgpt:
Project Optimus is an initiative by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Oncology Center of Excellence (OCE). Its purpose is to reform the dose optimization and dose selection paradigm in oncology drug development. Here are the key details about Project Optimus:
Objective:
Project Optimus aims to educate, innovate, and collaborate with various stakeholders, including companies, academia, professional societies, international regulatory authorities, and patients.
The primary goal is to establish a dose-finding and dose optimization paradigm across oncology that emphasizes selecting doses that maximize both efficacy and safety of a drug.
Challenges with Current Paradigm:
The current approach to dose selection, often based on cytotoxic chemotherapeutics, may lead to inadequately characterized doses and schedules for molecularly targeted therapies.
Poorly characterized doses can result in toxicity without additional efficacy, severe toxicities requiring dose reductions, intolerable toxicities leading to premature discontinuation, and missed opportunities for continued benefit.
Specific Goals of Project Optimus:
Communicate expectations for dose-finding and optimization through guidance, workshops, and public meetings.
Encourage early interactions between drug developers and FDA Oncology Review Divisions to discuss dose-finding strategies before registration trials.
Develop strategies that leverage nonclinical and clinical data for dose selection, including randomized evaluations of various doses.
Emphasize performing these studies early and efficiently in the development program to benefit patients.
Oncology Dosing Tool Kit:
Project Optimus provides a resource called the Oncology Dosing Tool Kit to support stakeholders in decision-making regarding dosage optimization.
Publication:
A recent publication titled “Improving Dose-Optimization Processes Used in Oncology Drug Development to Minimize Toxicity and Maximize Benefit to Patients” discusses Project Optimus1.
In summary, Project Optimus seeks to optimize dose selection in oncology, ensuring that drugs are both effective and safe for patients12.
May be the confusion is how these trials work bottom raider. The p1a data is just about safety of the drug, and at the aacr Avacta will probably keep the focus on that. P1A trials are not even geared up to prove efficacy, and in the case of ava6000 they were just keen to demonstrate that dox is deposited in the tumours - which is has done.
Nothing wrong with admitting your limitations and bringing the right experience onboard. As for his ego, well that's all just subjective. He doesn't really strike me as an egomaniac when he's presenting.
Would you say AS is now surrounded by individuals with sufficient or insufficient commercial experience? It is important to understand the world of finance and not to go giddy at the prospect of a couple of million quid. I see the appointment of the likes of Shaun Chilton as being able to provide that kind of direction.
Lots of negativity today. Did I mention that Professor Banerji gave a thumbs up to a TTB tweet that stated:
"#AVCT is redefining #oncology. Realisation will kick in at some point."
I guess he was just sucked in like the rest of us mugs into believing that Avacta has a promising drug on their hands. meh.
Saint, I was going to point out the inconsistency in the logic. Really, if one thinks a company is done, then it's better to get out and preserve the capital. If on the other hand you think it's still worth holding then this is a buying opportunity if I ever saw one.
The numbers are still in our favour when you consider:
current raise caused 20% dilution
you can currently buy at next to a 50% discount!
If we had partnered you could have kissed 80% of the value of AVA6000 goodbye
Retaining AVA6000 will mean retaining the lions share of proceeds (still need to partner on manufacture)
I'm not really trying to interpret anything beyond the fact that Professor Banerji liked a post with the message:
"#AVCT is redefining #oncology. Realisation will kick in at some point."
I'm just taking that expression at face value.
Creating a new thread for this as to me Professor Banerji’s expression of support carries more weight than a bunch of randoms chasing shadows.
https://twitter.com/udai_banerji/likes