Stefan Bernstein explains how the EU/Greenland critical raw materials partnership benefits GreenRoc. Watch the full video here.
A few posters have mentioned the surprise of a phase 3 suddenly re-emerging. However, wasn't it always the case that phase 3 would be required for other indications such as breast and lung cancers? I'm fairly sure the idea here would be to, at that point, partner with a larger partner to fund that phase. There's nothing to say that phase 2 can't still be pivotal with respect to its approval for STS cancer types.
Again, why would they if they have options to buy cheaper? That would be insane. Would you do that, buy at 100p when you had the option to buy at 20p say? I don't think you would, and if you did, I'd question your judgement.
Do you understand what options mean bellamy?
Again, why would they if they have options to buy cheaper? That would be insane. Would you do that, buy at 100p when you had the option to buy at 20p say? I don't think you would, and if you did, I'd question your judgement.
What is important to the price is the active shares. If you consider that the majority of shares are locked away with institutions, then the active shares at 50p will be just 13m, which represents a significantly lower dilution than the 20% in active terms. Let's see where it goes after the REX placing.
They’re not free, just heavily discounted. It’s still an incentive for them to succeed. If Avacta were to become worthless they’d lose the potential value from exercising the options, so what’s the difference?
RD just gave you the reason there. They have options to buy at a predefined low price at any time, therefore they don’t need to buy on the open market.
You have no idea of my position, so again, you seem to be living in some kind of self-made fantasy. I'm simply pointing out to you that you have selectively edited text from a recording, and what's more, you haven't even been able to understand the context of the original question.
Bit of a thicky, no?
"so I'm not for a minute arguing it's too high"
The question is why is the mcap not higher, not, is it too high. Do you have problems with comprehension? Perhaps go back and re-read until you understand. Two or three times should do it - take pauses, try and internalise.
I was going to reply to haigh's earlier post, where various quotes were taken out of context. Let's see what AS actually said in response to the question of "why isn't the share price *higher* than it is?" at that time:
"...the average biotech market cap is nowhere near what our is. So that's fine, we have platform technologies and we have enormous potential and that is reflected in our valuation.
The point i was going to make was we do have to be careful and I hope we've demonstrated this over the last few years that we need to build value durably based on really solid clinical, pre-clinical, commercial progress so there's some real substance underneath share price. so I'm not for a minute arguing it's too high, but we also then have to think about you know what's critical to us is not being starved of resources of capital. We've got to convince specialist healthcare investors to invest in avacta and not in something over here that's got potential that's a lot cheaper. So there is a balance and i'm not arguing the share price should be lower obviously, and I would argue it should be higher.
Clearly Stifel have set a target of 185, I think Trinity has set a target of 225 or something like that, so that's their vision of 12 months from now. I have *no* doubt that this is a multi-million dollar business when we get to those sunny uplands that you were describing, but we need to do that in a very measured way because we need to raise capital and we can't do that if we're considered to be let's say hugely overvalued compared to our peers."
So clearly AS does not think the SP is overpriced, and the question is why is the share price not even higher than it was at that time.
haigh just trying a couple of cheap shots, so is clearly another cretin that has decided to drop by.