Member Info for golfnut59

ThetaDecay,

I respectfully disagree with almost every point you made on Gallop.

To start, the claim that “Gallop is in a crowded space” is the opposite of reality and that is precisely why PRTC chose MDS over AML. As far as I am aware, there is only one approved therapy for relapsed refractory MDS, and it only benefits patients with a specific mutation. The vast majority of patients do not have that mutation and therefore have no options at all.

This is exactly why LYT 200’s mechanism of action is so compelling: it has the potential to treat all patients in this population, regardless of mutation status. Galectin 9 is a genuinely novel target in oncology, which makes your “no special MO” comment inaccurate. The FDA clearly agrees as it has granted both Orphan Drug and Fast Track designations. These are not awarded to me too drugs in crowded markets.

A first in class drug with Orphan Drug and Fast Track designations, a pristine safety profile and meaningful response rates in a patient population with almost no alternatives is not a throwaway asset.

Also, do not forget there is a strong likelihood that the next trial, set to begin in early 2027, will be registrational. This would significantly cut both the cost and the time to market by a number of years. Management has already indicated that, if approved, this could easily become a blockbuster drug.

Yes, apologies Dallo, my mistake, you are correct. We'd need to include the sales royalties as well as the equity in Seaport to ensure we cover the enitre $460m market cap.

Nice start to trading for SPTX, up 3.5% to $18.12. PureTech's current market cap is just $339m and we hold 16.685m Seaport shares, so SPTX only needs to reach $20.32 for our equity stake in Seaport alone to cover the entire PRTC market cap

JPMorgan at Overweight with a $42 target.

Stifel at Buy with $30 target.

Investhome, thanks for sharing. Really pleased to see Shore Capital initiate with a £4 target and a Buy. Having a second broker on the stock is a significant positive for visibility and credibility.

However, looking at their SOTP they have Seaport at $284m which is simply the equity stake valued at the current share price. In other words they're valuing PureTech's 3-5% ownership of all future Seaport net sales revenues at zero. This is a major omission thats not captured in their £4 SOTP valuation.

This is exactly why the discount exists. If Shore Capital (who have presumably spent weeks analysing this company) haven't clocked the royalties, is it any wonder the rest of the market hasn't either?

The royalty streams owned by PureTech are worth at the bare minimum an additional 12-20% of Seaport's market cap. Here's the maths I posted a few weeks ago:

Based on a 25% net profit margin:

At 3% royalty: (3% ÷ 25%) = 12% of net profit

At 5% royalty: (5% ÷ 25%) = 20% of net profit

PureTech's 3-5% net sales royalties are economically equivalent to owning roughly 12-20% of Seaport's net profit in perpetuity. These are not equity, they're contractual, they can never be diluted by future fundraising or secondary offerings, and they apply to every single Glyph product thats sold.

Seaport's current market cap is $933m. Even using the bear case 12% figure that's an additional $112m that should be added to the SOTP. At the midpoint it's closer to $150m. That alone would add roughly 34-46p per share to Shore Capital's target, taking it closer to £4.40-£4.50.

So Shore Capital arrive at £4 per share applying zero value to the royalties. Their own SOTP, properly adjusted, gets you closer to £4.50. Lets face it, even that arguably understates the opportunity because it relies on today's Seaport market cap. If SPT-300 delivers knockout data in H1 2027 and Seaport re-rates to a $3-5bn company, PureTech's royalty stream alone will be worth mulitple of todays market cap.

The good news is the coverage is welcome and the £4 target highlights the absurdity of the current price. But the fact that even the analysts covering the stock are undervaluing it tells you everything about why this opportunity exists for those of us who've done the homework. At some point the market will wake up to these facts, until then wait.

Lesley, I strongly believe £5 per share will be achieved in the next 12-18 months and I suspect Tang and Briarwood agree with me. Let's face it, £5 isn't a fantasy, it's roughly what you get when you add up the assets at reasonable valuations. In all honesty I think £5 will be comfortably surpassed in time, but that does require things to go right, specifically at least one of deupirfenidone, LYT-200, or SPT300 delivering strong data that paves the way to FDA approval.

If we get knockout data out of Seaport SPT300 in H1 next year, multiple billions will be added to their market cap as not only will we have a potential blockbuster drug on our hands but it will vlaidate the entire glyph platform. PRTCs stake in this instance could be worth £5 a share in that business alone by then. At some point the market is going to notice. With so many late stage catalysts approaching, judgement day is gettting very near. We're not talking about an early-stage pipeline where major catalysts are years away. We're talking near-term, potentially registration-enabling readouts across multiple programmes simultaneously.

The closer we get to those readouts, the harder it becomes for PRTC to be ignored. We may be early but we won't be wrong. That's why I'm invested. My only concern is that management doesn't give away the family silver on the cheap in the upcoming Celea and Gallop financings. Retain meaningful equity, secure strong royalty terms and let the data do the rest.

"The stock market is a device for transferring money from the impatient to the patient." - WARREN BUFFET.

I used to scratch my head looking at PureTech thinking what am I missing, why is it so cheap, why would anyone short it down here. After today's price action following weeks of genuinely excellent news, it's finally dawned on me. The shorts aren't betting against the fundamentals. They probably haven't even read the Seaport S-1. They're exploiting a structural vulnerability: no analyst coverage, minimal retail awareness, a confusing hub-and-spoke model, and daily volume so thin that £50-100k of selling pressure can move the price 7-8%.

It's not just the shorts selling into a thin market knowing their selling alone will push the price down. The algorithmic market makers amplify it, their models detect the downward momentum. Then the momentum-following quant funds pile on with their own sell signals. The combined effect is relentless downward pressure that overwhelms the handful of informed buyers like us trying to accumulate at these levels. The worst part is it becomes self-reinforcing - the stock falls, the discount widens, it looks like a poor investment, new buyers are discouraged, which makes it even easier to push down further.

So fundamental value is irrelevant to the trade. All that matters is that selling pressure exceeds buying pressure, and in a stock this illiquid that's achievable with modest capital on almost any given day. Today is a classic example of this down 9% on tiny volume.

This all changes of course once serious buying volume arrives, flipping the market makers and quants from sell to buy. The only consolation is that being a PLC allows those of us who've done the homework to buy at these absurd levels. Patience will be rewarded my friends. These games won't last forever, the value on offer here will be noticed by the herd, it's just a matter of when.

Dallo, i get your frustration and you've been in this stock long enough so you have every right to vent. If this were a FTSE 250 stock with proper liquidity and analyst coverage, today's sellers would have been absorbed without the price moving more than 1-2%. Instead we get a 7-8% drop because there are literally not enough bids in the order book to soak up the selling. That's liquidity, not value.

In fairness to the hub and spoke model it has created enormous value, the problem is purely the share price doesnt reflect it.

Based on a 25% net profit margin:

At 3% royalty: (3% ÷ 25%) = 12% of net profit

At 5% royalty: (5% ÷ 25%) = 20% of net profit

Put simply, PureTech's 3-5% net sales royalties are economically equivalent to owning roughly 12-20% of Seaport's net profit in perpetuity. Stack that on top of PRTC's 16.685 million shares and even at $17 per share, PureTech's total economic interest in Seaport alone exceeds its entire current market cap.

Im 100% positive. The RNS this morning specifically confirms PureTech will hold 16,685,013 shares after closing and that's the same number shown in the S-1. Have a look back over my posts, we discussed this a few days ago and I also shared a link to the S-1

ThetaDecay, I'd push back on Avalyn being much more de-risked than Seaport. The same logic applies to both. SPT-300 is a prodrug of allopregnanolone which is already FDA approved for postpartum depression. Seaport is just making it an oral pill instead of a 60-hour IV infusion. SPT-320 is a prodrug of agomelatine, already approved and commercial in Australia and the EU but got rejected by the FDA due to the need for liver monitoring.

Both companies are taking proven drugs and solving the limitation that held them back. Also wouldnt say the likelihood of a positive trial is almost certain for Avalyn. It still needs to demonstrate in a controlled setting that inhaled delivery actually matches or beats oral pirfenidone.

Your Novo backing is noteworthy but Seaports links to Karuna argualbly carries more weight in my view.

The RNS confirms PureTech will hold 16,685,013 shares after closing which is the same number as in the S-1 filing. So it looks like PureTech didn't acquire any additional shares in the offering . Slightly disappointing but perhaps the underwriters limited insider participation to ensure maximum allocation to new external investors.

JSB thanks for the heads up on Avalyns first day peformance. A 55% pop on an oversubscribed IPO tells you the market has serious appetite for next-generation IPF treatments. If investors are willing to pay $1.1bn for a company with a Phase 2b inhaled pirfenidone programme that requires a nebuliser & won't read out for two years - what should they be willing to pay for Celea which has completed Phase 2b with superior data and is Phase 3 ready??

Also, think about what using a cumbersome nebuliser means for real world adoption. You are asking IPF patinets, who are typically older in age (60 years +), to sit with a nebuliser device twice a day, every day, for the rest of their lives, each session taking quite some time, potentially triggering coughing in lungs that are already scarred and struggling. Then you've got to clean and maintain the device, carry it with you if you travel, make sure you have power to run it. It's a meaningful lifestyle burden. Compare that to Celea's proposition which simply invloves swallowing a pill with your breakfast, lunch and dinner. Done. No equipment, no setup time, nothing to carry, nothing to clean.

Yet the market just valued Avalyn at $1.1b while Celea is embedded within PureTech at an implied value of zero. If that doesn't scream mispricing I don't know what does.

Interesting timing. Avalyn Pharma priced its IPO last night at $18, top of the range, and upsized from 11.8 million shares to 16.7 million raising $300m instead of the original $180m target. Demand was clearly well oversubscribed. The market is valuing Avalyn at somewhere around $700-800m.

https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/avalyn-heads-nasdaq-oversized-300m-ipo-fund-reformulated-respiratory-drugs

Why does this matter for PRTC? Because Avalyn is developing inhaled versions of pirfenidone and nintedanib for pulmonary fibrosis. As you are all aware, this is the same disease Celea is targeting with deupirfenidone. Celea is ahead on virtually every measure. Avalyn's lead programme is still in a Phase 2b trial that won't read out until 2028 at the earliest, has no FDA alignment on a registration pathway, no Orphan Drug designation, and the drug requires a nebuliser. Celea has already completed Phase 2b with world leading efficacy data and has FDA alignment on a single pivotal Phase 3 about to start. We are a good 2 years ahead of them at least.

Yet the market values Avalyn at $700m+ while Celea sits on PureTech's books at zero. If the Celea financing values it at even 70% of Avalyn's valuation that's $500m+. This is yet more evidence how absurd the valuation is here. But you all knew that anyway. Always nice to have further validation, so i thought i'd share this news with you all anyway.

Excited to see what price they get the IPO away at. Assuming we'll find out this evening or tomorrow morning before the US market opens. The range is $16-$18 and I'm hoping for at least $18. who knows, if demand has been strong enough on the roadshow we could even see $19 or $20. Whatever the IPO price, I'd expect Seaport to trade up nicely on debut, hopefully a solid 10-15% first day pop. Remember, 16,685,013 multiplied by whatever the share price is gives you what PureTech's stake is worth. Exciting times ahead. Fingers crossed for all us long suffering shareholders.

Another good article from the Oak Bloke and well worth a read. Yesterday I wrote that when investors start digging into the S-1 and realise PureTech also owns 3-5% royalties on all future Glyph product sales, they'll twig that PureTech's total economic interest in Seaport is actually worth more than PureTech's entire market cap. Interestingly, the Oak Bloke's article completely fails to factor this into his sum-of-parts calculation in the conclusion. He does mention the royalties in section 3 but it's a single sentence, almost a footnote, when it should arguably be front and centre.

As I laid out yesterday, 3-5% royalties on net sales is a far bigger number than it sounds. Net sales means PureTech gets paid off the top line. That's before Seaport pays for manufacturing, sales force, R&D or anything else. When you work through the maths, that 3-5% of revenue is equivalent to roughly 15-20% of Seaport's net income. It scales across every single Glyph product that reaches market, and crucially it cannot be diluted by future fundraising. These are contractual rights that run until patent expiry or ten years from first commercial sale, whichever is later. We await to see how the Seaport IPO performs but on its own the NPV of that royalty stream could be worth $150-300m depending on your assumptions. That's a substantial chunk of value that most analysts haven't even begun to account for. The penny will drop in time, tick tock

Kozma, I believe you are correct in your thinking - trading will begin on the following day

Thankfully Dallo, Im confident no one particiapting in this chat room were foolish enough to sell on that drop this am. We know what we own. I took the opportunity to add a few more bringing my average down to £1.32. Happy Days

The real upturn starts once Seaport has listed. At that point investors can easily look up PRTC's equity holding in real time with no guesswork, no sum-of-parts estimates, just a live number on a screen. A strong IPO and decent first-day performance could see PureTech's Seaport stake alone approach the entire PRTC market cap. When those same investors start digging into the S-1 and realise PureTech also owns 3-5% royalties on all future Glyph product sales, they'll twig that PureTech's total economic interest in Seaport is actually WORTH MORE than PureTech's entire market cap. That's before you factor in the $250m of cash on the balance sheet, Celea heading into Phase 3, Gallop with a potential registrational pathway in MDS, and the Cobenfy royalty stream from BMS. The arbitrage is real and investors will notice, it's just a matter of when. Let's hope the Seaport IPO flies so that gap is as wide and as undeniable as possible.

More dealys on Celea is very frustrating to say the least. Hopefully the delay will be worth the wait resulting in a strong post money valuation of $500m or more with PRTC retaining a stake of at least 50%.