Member Info for glenonholiday

Thought I'd start up a bit of a different type of discussion on how Synairgen might be valued, based on a scenario I've put together which is obviously speculation on my part, but is intended to be a realistic possibility.

Check out the attached google sheets link below.

It's just a start point, and might even just be a bit of a distraction away from the share price movements! I'm really interested in any constructive thoughts people might have. Plenty of places to improve, discounting cash flows, etc. and loads of holes in assumptions I'm sure.

Would be happy to keep updating this though, based on helpful suggestions.

Now let's just hope the link works...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17EdjsQsGUSk4kL7TPDpylOZSADe-z-08yUeQvgnIlOc/edit#gid=0

It's in the CAT agenda

Timetable for assessment:
Procedure start: 03.09.2020
SAWP recommendation: 01.10.2020
CAT recommendation: 09.10.2020 CHMP adoption of report and final recommendation: 15.10.2020
CHMP adoption of report and final recommendation: 15.10.2020

In RM’s position I’d spend as little as possible to ensure that I’m in a position to ramp up production with as little lead time as possible. That would mean paying for long lead time items well ahead as he suggests, and identifying the point at which risks are minimised to make a decision to flick the switch on full scale production. That might include some early completion of finished product but might not. This would all be part of ensuring that the company’s resources are used as efficiently as possible.

£14m raised. Contributing to less expensive items and those with longest lead times. So sensible but not really specific enough to understand what isn’t being produced, how much it would cost, whether they have much in the way of finished product.

Referred to by John Campbell, collected for the UK.

% of people that recognise any of the Covid symptoms - 49%
% of people that self isolate when they have symptoms - 18%
% of people requesting test when have symptoms - 12%
% of people quarantining when alerted that they have been in contact with a confirmed case - 11%

Amazing statistics.

The breakdowns also suggested that heavily influencing factors for not following guidance were being men, young, general hardship, low socio-demographic group.

What do I take from this? And it's just my take. People as a whole responded well in March and April, but they're just not willing to do it again. They've lost interest. Likely older people really at risk, those very engaged and keeping themselves up to date, and those who are perhaps wealthy enough to happily take 14 days off work - these people will follow the guidance, but pretty much everyone else won't.

Before I read this I was fairly confident that the second wave would be much smaller than the first, but seeing this I think it will be every bit as bad, possibly worse.

On this basis, testing seems useful for not much more than indicating how bad things have got. Vaccines won't help us this winter. We need treatments, and we need emergency authorisation of these treatments to make them available now.

Something like 5 times every weekday I see a green filtered post followed by roughly 5 people saying "Org, you have no evidence that the virus is weakening", likely with various references to credible sources that it isn't.

Please, for the love of God, anybody responding to him, filter him or just ignore him. He clearly absolutely loves being able to just repeat the same point over and over and over and getting you all annoyed. And now me...

It takes me longer skimming through (no doubt well intended) replies to him than it would to unfilter him and skim read his posts.

RM stated money was being spent on items with long lead times, which makes sense. Can’t comment on exactly what that would be but no mention on easy or otherwise.

For today, 23rd September, looks globally at the pandemic and puts it all in context. Interesting points for me:

Roughly 320m estimated to have had Covid so far, ten times that of confirmed cases. Estimated death rate of 0.3%

Expected deaths before Jan 1st - a further 1.6m! due to winter in northern hemisphere (couldn't care less what Org thinks about this, have him filtered)

And also very interesting, COPD responsible for about 3m deaths per year, every year - probably about as big as covid at its peak in terms of deaths every single year...

Likely lots of other interesting things that I've missed but helps to put into context, shows how quickly we need to move if SNG is to affect all those deaths in the next 3 months, and also points to long term potential of SNG for COPD...

Agree Sparkle. It's bliss recently in the evenings, getting far more from posts after 9 o clock than the constant crap posted during the day. Annoying thing now is not the trolls its the people constantly responding to them trying to show how clever they can be in their responses. Complete waste of time on their part and clogs up the board.

Actually quite reassuring that it’s so transparent.

I’ve resisted using the filter for two months but past few days had to just to save time and allow me to focus on the more informative and constructive posts which are fairly rare but invaluable.

I heartily recommend appropriate use of the filter and just want to say thanks to those of you that are seeking to contribute positively to the discussions.

Thanks Tanzeel, works for me!

It's gone for me too. Has been sketchy for almost a week but completely gone now. Might be a specific web browser thing, not sure.

It's worth just saying on the consultation that while the closing date is 18th September, this is only the deadline for input. It normally takes quite a while to organise and consider the input. Not sure how long it will take given the urgency now, but the 18th isn't really a trigger for government actions, whereas the point at which they reach conclusions would be.

Having said that often government consultations are political exercises only, with the goal of being able to justify decisions that are almost certainly made already.

Against a context of 10,561 new cases in France:

Saturday's figures reported 2,432 people sent to hospital, 75 more than on Friday. Of these, 417 were sent to intensive care, an increase of 28. An additional 17 people died of the virus.

It does look like the case numbers are starting to translate into more serious cases.

I’m guilty of watching the RM interview 4 times now but suspect that others will have watched it more!

My read from it has changed a little in that my view is that he gives quite a bit more emphasis to government and regulators over major pharma. And on the final question around commercialisation he talks about pharmas “ultimately” getting involved.

My read - I’m starting to think that the most likely approach is a focus firstly on a UK approval with assistance from the government. This fits with the approach of already having the production in place and I notice that “government led distribution” has already been in place for I think it was Remdesivir in the US, so imagine with government support and perhaps favourable terms for an initial U.K. purchase of treatments, it wouldn’t be difficult at all to have SNG in hospitals in no time following authorisation.

This is quite an exciting approach in my view as phase 2 would be bringing in major pharmas from a hugely improved position and could still happen quite quickly.

It also doesn’t negate the possibility of phase 1 involving multiple countries, it could easily be a small number of agreements with selected countries with the Governments picking up the local logistics hence keeping things quite simple for Syn.

Interested in thoughts on this and I’d perhaps encourage people to re-watch the interview with this in mind and see whether you’re picking up the same hints.

Perhaps stating the obvious, but the critical question now is whether the evidence on safety and efficacy is sufficient for an EUA. Safety data has accumulated from the Asthma, COVID and COPD trials. Efficacy is of course the COVID trial only. I'm not in a position to say whether this is enough. But it does seem clear that we're soon to reach a fork in the road, leading to either EUA and a very active lead up to the end of the year, or to the pivotal trial which would mean slower progress (but would still hopefully be timetabled in a very aggressive albeit professional manner).

Based on it being a general conversation, I'd take a subtle approach. Make the general point that the government doesn't seem to be focussing sufficiently on treatments, and that it doesn't seem to be supporting UK companies active in that area, and let the interviewer ask who a good example would be. I wouldn't just throw out Synairgen immediately, you'd come across as somebody just trying to promote their shareholding :)

Quick question - wasn't it the case that a part of emergency use authorisation was demonstrating a viable supply chain? No sense in giving emergency approvals to an organisation with a great product but with no way of moving it. Does this not point to an RNS covering both JV and authorisation, rather than one before the other?

Seems to me they have to keep things simple. Trying to get too clever on the supply chain (with the possible exception of a portion of the manufacturing which will strengthen their position) is much more likely to undermine this getting to market. You have to remember that its a small company with the goal of providing their drug on a worldwide scale, at an unprecedented speed. The only reasonable way of doing this is using existing organisations that are 100% geared up to do this. If RM chooses to get too clever this is one of the major risks to my mind.

Takeover, licence, JV are the sensible options. JV potentially allows Syn to have a larger hand in manufacturing and to maintain a level of control in the testing.

It's a careful balancing act between maximising the value through waiting for trial results and approvals, and the need to make this available as soon as possible.