Member Info for golfnut59

Senator: "They know any reasonable upside trigger is months away so worst case it provides cheap funding for a few months." This is a deeply naive perspective. PureTech has explicitly signaled its intent to pursue an exit. Recent bids from Nordic indicate active private equity interest, raising a substantial risk of another offer materialising soon. The probability of this is far from negligible, so if Millennium thought shorting PRTC would merely secure cheap funding for a few months, they’ve clearly misjudged the situation. Tang’s recent moves, likely targeting board influence, should further heighten concerns for anyone shorting PRTC, underscoring just how misguided your assessment is.

Agreed JSB. Tangs entry tells me the low is amost certainly in. I have also added this morning bringing my average down to under £1.30. Millennium's short is looking even more stupid now - they are gonna have to close sharpish

It's reassuring to see we're not alone in this; Keving Tang - one of the sharpest deep-value hunters in the sector has clearly spotted the same untapped opportunity. News of Tangs involvement will definitely not have been welcomed by the shorts that is for sure ! The plot thickens

The last short attack on PureTech Health hit in April, dragging the share price to a record low of £1. Qube Research disclosed their position on April 9, marking the bottom, but they ceased shorting, and no other hedge funds piled in. Within two months, the stock rebounded to £1.45. Unless Millennium Management keeps pushing their short or other funds join the fray, I expect the share price to recover swiftly. My guess is Millennium is banking on their short triggering algorithms and drawing in other hedge funds, similar to Qube’s play. Qube’s short backfired, and they exited quickly. I suspect Millennium’s bet could fizzle out the same way if momentum doesn’t build.

Dallo & JSB, I agree with you both. The risk-reward profile of shorting PureTech Health here looks wildly unbalanced. To achieve a 20% return on a short, the share price would need to drop to £0.84, implying a market cap of £203M which is well below the company's current cash reserves. While its not unusual for biotechs to trade below cash when their clinical pipelines are perceived as weak or burn rates suggest an imminent capital raise, that’s not the case here. PureTech is funded into 2028 with $320M in cash, bolstered by expected Cobenfy royalty revenues in 2026 and 2027. Moreover, near-term catalysts in the coming weeks could drive the share price higher, including the Cobenfy ADEPT trial readout, FDA Phase 3 LYT100 meeting feedback, and the Gallop Phase 1b data release etc. Shorting in this context seems reckless. How far below cash could this realistically trade? If rumors of Nordic Capital’s £2 bid from earlier this year hold any weight, shorts at current levels risk a c. 90% loss if a similar offer emerges. Why take that gamble for a potential 20-30% gain, especially when it means betting on the stock trading at a steep discount to cash? Bizarre move that doesn't pass the sniff test. Something is brewing

Here we go again, new short activated by Millennium International Management. This stock is plagued in recent months by a number of parasitic hedge funds with short mandates. Next we get the low ball takeout bid whilst retail get dragged along for the ride. No wonder the share price has been so weak in recent weeks. So tiresome.

Senator1, I respect your disciplined approach, but I think you're overly anchored to the market's current verdict. The hub-and-spoke model is complex, certainly, but dismissing it as unfit for public markets misses the point.

You say hard numbers are needed, and we have them: $320M cash (June 2025), a runway to 2028, and LYT-100’s Phase 2b data showing unmatched IPF stabilization. LYT-200’s six complete responses in AML Phase 1b aren’t fluff, they’re concrete signals of potential. If you want to dig deeper, here are some numbers for you: Roche acquired Esbriet (pirfenidone) through its $8.3B acquisition of InterMune in 2014, giving them rights to Esbriet in the USA only. PureTech’s own literature estimates the TAM for IPF at >$10 billion by 2033. We know pirfenidone and nintedanib currently exceed $5B in annual global sales. We also saw United Therapeutics’ stock rise by $4 billion in market cap in one day on the back of strong Phase 3 IPF data. Now use these numbers in your analysis of LYT-100. Surely you can do this rather than just apply a zero? I could do the same exercise for Gallop and Seaport, but I’ll leave you to do that. My patience isn’t stargazing, as you put it, it’s informed conviction.

Senator,

The essence of investing is spotting when the market undervalues a stock and seizing the opportunity. That's why I often find myself at odds with consensus. I was on the wrong side of my other big biotech bet on French firm Abivax, which skyrocketed 6x after positive Phase 3 data, yet the mispricing was glaringly obvious, and I nailed it. I'm not so arrogant as to claim I'm always right, but I strongly disagree with your analysis, and I'll explain why.

Your valuation boiled down to this: £200m in cash, £83m for Seaport, a £100m NPV for Cobenfy's revenues, and £0 for the rest of the business. Essentially, you reverse-engineered the sum-of-the-parts to align with the current £260m market cap. Even in your most pessimistic scenario, you're barely justifying the price, which speaks volumes. You might prove correct in the long run, but as I noted, PureTech's $320m cash runway comfortably funds most of the pipeline to commercialisation. If Cobenfy delivers solid performance, that war chest swells dramatically by 2028. Once Gallop and LYT-100 secure funding, the thesis hinges on the pipeline's potential. From there whether you are a bull or a bear will be determined mainly by your view of that pipeline.

Our role as investors is to gaze into the future and place informed bets. My average entry at $1.34 leaves me underwater for now, but it would appear my outlook is far brighter than yours. I think the market is missing a trick here. The hatred for the hub and spoke model has clearly driven investors away but I see this as an opportunity to buy stock on the cheap. The bulk of the cash pile will be used to fund, what I believe is a very exciting pipeline. I’m betting that in a couple of years from now, that pipeline is going to be worth many multiples of what it is today.

Thank you, Dallo. I found it odd that I couldn’t find any trace of the "press speculation" PureTech mentioned, and now I understand why.It’s definitely a challenging time, and it’s wild to think that at least 99% of PRTC shareholders, myself included, are currently facing losses. That said, I’m in it for the long haul. As I mentioned earlier, PureTech has sufficient cash to advance most of its pipeline well into the later stages. By 2028, we could own stakes in multiple candidates in advanced Phase 3 trials, and if all goes well, Seaport might even have a commercial drug. I also forgot to mention another key catalyst coming soon: the readout from Bristol Myers’ COBENFY ADEPT trial. If the results are positive, the royalty and milestone payments to PRTC, as outlined in the presentation, could increase significantly. The market & clearly Senator1 are not factoring in the possibility of this.

Thank you for your response, Dallo. Out of curiosity, do you know which social media platform mentioned the £2 per share figure?

I agree that a Phase 3 drug in the underserved IPF market has substantial value. For instance, United Therapeutics' share price surged, adding roughly $4 billion to their market cap in a single day after their Tyvaso IPF trial results. This was for a drug intended as an add-on to existing antifibrotics. Post-trial, a Cantor analyst estimated Tyvaso’s peak sales could hit $5 billion, highlighting the immense potential of the IPF market. This makes PureTech’s current valuation seem significantly undervalued, especially since PRTC fully owns LYT-100 via Celea Therapeutics.

While IPF competition is intense, most trials focus on add-on therapies. For example, only about 23% of patients in Tyvaso and Boehringer Ingelheim’s nerandomilast trials used these drugs as monotherapies. Tyvaso’s monotherapy data hasn’t been revealed, suggesting it’s less impressive than the combination results which were encouraging. In the case of Nerandomilast, it performed best in combo with nintedanib, though its monotherapy arm showed efficacy comparable to pirfenidone which (if approved by the FDA) will give doctors another althernative. Another key player, Bristol Myers’ admilparant, is in Phase 3 and likely to be used in combination, but its Phase 2 data suggested monotherapy efficacy similar to current standards of care. Overall, promising treatments like these will provide clinicians with multiple options but there is nothing I've seen to date that indicates antifibrotics like pirfenidone (or its enhanced counterpart, LYT-100) will be displaced any time soon . For this reason & based on the strong Phase 2b efficacy results, I believe the FDA will approve LYT100 to advance to a Phase 3 trial. Funding will follow shortly after.

Senator1, the market may not love PureTech’s hub-and-spoke model, but your £83M valuation of their Seaport stake is laughably low. Seaport Therapeutics, post an oversubscribed $225M Series B in October 2024, reached a $733M post-money valuation, making PureTech’s 35.1% stake worth ~$257.3M (£195M), plus 3-5% royalties and milestone payments. That’s over double your figure, and Seaport’s clinical progress over the past year only bolsters this value. You’re right that the market awaits clarity on Celea and Gallop funding both of which are key catalysts for a share price rerate. I suspect if the FDA clears LYT-100 for Phase 3 the share price will react positively as Im sure funding for Cela will follow soon after.

Let’s not overlook LYT-100’s potential: Phase 2b data showed a 50% better treatment effect than pirfenidone for IPF, with 52-week data indicating lung function decline matching that of non-IPF patients - a profile unmatched by any drug in IPF trials. This could be a multi-billion-dollar blockbuster if Phase 3 replicates. Similarly, Gallop’s LYT-200, with FDA Fast Track for AML, delivered 6 complete responses in Phase 1b, and topline data due Q4 2025 will likely be a catalyst for not only the share price but also funding of Gallop (assuming the data is postivie).

PureTech’s $320M cash as of June 2025, with a runway to 2028 and lower expenses planned for 2026, ensures they can push these programs toward commercialisation. We’re waiting to see what percentage of ownership PureTech will retain in Celea and Gallop, which is creating uncertainty that investors dislike. However, this is likely to be clarified within the next quarter or two. Based on the stong cash positon I would hope that ownership in both is 50% + but we will have to see.

Once the funding question is reloved its a question of how you view the pipeline. The bear case is simple, if your view is that: Seaport, LYT-100, Gallop, and Cobenfy all flop, PureTech will likely burn through all its cash by 2028 with nothing to show. The bull case is if one or more of the current clinical candiaidates in the pipeline becomes a blockbuster, buying at today’s valuation of £260m will prove to be a steal. All it takes is a little patience. If your hoping to make a fast buck in the next month or two this is not the stock for you.

Hi JSB, the circumstances surrounding the PE bid are puzzling. ActusRay Partners opened a short position just a week before the bid, then increased it the next day, with Cube Research joining in on the short same day. The fact the shorts initiated around a bid for the business at what was surely a premium to the share price raises red flags. Why then? Unless you have some insider info it seems crazy to short a stock when there is a potential buyer sniffing around? If the bid was £2 per share (a 50% premium over the share price) why wasn’t it disclosed? Even if deemed too low, such a premium seems worth announcing. Also, where did you get the £2 figure? I believe Dallo mentioned it too.

I agree. The Jamie Ward article could be applied to any pre revenue biotech conducting clinical trials. It was blatantly clear from the absence of any actual analysis that he had done minimal research into PureTech.

The market appears to be disregarding LYT-100 which I obviously believe is a significant oversight. Although it was only a Phase 2b trial, the data, including the subsequent open-label extension, was impressive. It showed LYT-100 to be significantly more effective than pirfenidone, but the market's response has been muted. As you all already know, the open-label data showed minimal lung function decline, comparable to healthy adults, not IPF patients. This level of efficacy is incredible. Yes, a Phase 3 trial is still needed and there's no guarantee the results will be replicated, but dismissing LYT-100 seems so premature. Concerns were raised about the safety profile, but it was safer than pirfenidone. Also, the high efficacy provides a significant therapeutic window for clinicians. They can adjust the dose to manage side effects while maintaining excellent efficacy, which means matching the efficacy of current treatments with far fewer side effects is possible thereby opening the drug up to so many more patients.

LYT-100 is positioned differently from other IPF drugs. Many therapies in development, like United Therapeutics' Tyvaso and Boehringer Ingelheim's nerandomilast, are designed to be add-ons to the current standard of care. LYT-100 aims to replace pirfenidone as the antifibrotic of choice.

Following Tyvaso's strong Phase 3 results, a Cantor analyst suggested peak sales for the drug could reach $5 billion. This highlights the sheer size of the IPF market and makes PureTechs current valuation seem low to say the least! This is especially true when you consdier PRTC own 100% of LYT100.

I suspect the market is focused on new drugs with novel mechanisms of action, so in this regard I get why there is may be less interested in LYT100, particularly given the known side effects of existing antifibrotics. However, there is yet to be a clinical-stage competitor that appears poised to definitively replace current antifibrotics as the standard baseline therapy for IPF. Well, ive not found one yet! Therefore, until such time as this is the case then LYT100 has a very strong chance of becoming the SoC in IPF.Either this analysis is incorrect, or the market is missing a substantial, multi-billion dollar opportunity by overlooking LYT-100 and PureTech.

Just added to my position at £2.24. I’m quite happy to cough up here at 10 times - the downgraded - FY26 forecast earnings. With the dividend intact, margins improving thanks to pricing power & continued mass roll out, I’m very confident that my future self will thank me for buying here.

Snow king, I suggested that PureTech’s Phase 3 trial for LYT-100 might need to include a Tyvaso arm due to the compelling results from the TETON-2 trial, which demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in FVC with benefits across all subgroups, including monotherapy and patients on background therapies like nintedanib or pirfenidone. These results, position Tyvaso as a potential game-changer for IPF treatment, especially given its favourable safety profile. While Tyvaso is not yet an approved IPF treatment, the FDA might expect new IPF drugs to demonstrate efficacy against or alongside emerging therapies like Tyvaso, particularly if it gains approval prior to LYT-100’s Phase 3 trial. Including a Tyvaso arm could strengthen LYT-100’s case for approval by showing comparative efficacy or compatibility, especially since LYT-100’s phase 2B 52 week data appears competitive but it lacks direct comparison to Tyvaso. While it’s definitely not certain, I believe the FDA could require such a comparator to reflect the evolving standard of care, making a Tyvaso arm a strategic consideration to ensure LYT-100’s regulatory and market success. This is especially the case as Tyvaso may open up the IPF market to many more patients who were otherwise not able to tolerate the current standards of care, which we know come with some very nasty affects. However, the fact the LYT100 trial will likely begin before the FDA gives Tyvaso approval in IPF leans on the probability of a Tyvaso arm getting included as quite low. The reality is, I don’t know, I’m just putting my thoughts out there and asking the question. Maybe I’m way off in my thinking & that’s way it’s great to sound off with you all on here.

Despite the promising results of the TETON-2 trial, United Therapeutics’ omission of specific efficacy data for the Tyvaso monotherapy subgroup suggests that the drug likely performs better in combination with background therapies. I hold this view because a publicly traded biotech would typically highlight the most favourable trial outcomes to position Tyvaso as a potential new standard of care for IPF. If the monotherapy arm’s FVC improvement was comparable to the overall +95.6 mL versus placebo, they would likely have emphasized this to showcase Tyvaso’s standalone potential. The absence of such data implies the monotherapy effect may be less impressive, reinforcing the likelihood of stronger efficacy in combination settings. I will be very interested to see the mono therapy data from Tyvaso trial when it’s published.

One final observation on the TETON-2 trial. I noticed the trial included a subgroup receiving Tyvaso as monotherapy, but specific FVC results for this subgroup were not reported, only that “benefits were consistent across all subgroups”. I suspect the monotherapy arm’s efficacy may be lower than the overall reported +95.6 mL FVC improvement versus placebo, as United Therapeutics likely would have highlighted this. I mention this because I feel that the FDA may require an arm to the p3 trial vs Tyvaso

Snowking, indeed, the 52-week efficacy data for LYT-100 appear superior to Tyvaso in IPF. LYT-100’s FVC decline was only -32.8 mL, suggesting a benefit of +170 to +320 mL compared to historical untreated declines of 205–350 mL, while Tyvaso showed a +95.6 mL FVC improvement over placebo. However, caution is needed: LYT-100’s second 26 weeks were open-label, potentially introducing bias. Also, we lack details on patient group compositions. Tyvaso’s patients may have had more advanced disease, affecting outcomes.

Apologies to all, I was mistaken yesterday about Tyvaso. After discussing with Grok, I now understand both LYT-100 and Tyvaso slow IPF progression by reducing FVC decline, likely via anti-fibrotic mechanisms, but neither addresses the underlying cause. My earlier claim that Tyvaso only treats symptoms and LYT-100 targets the disease was wrong; both are disease-modifying, preserving lung function compared to placebo or historical controls. Tyvaso’s strong efficacy and safety profile could make it a game-changer for IPF, potentially complicating LYT-100’s Phase 3 trial. A Tyvaso arm may now be necessary to reflect the evolving treatment landscape.

Rockefellow, I agree, stupid desicion and a very diasappointing response to your question from the CEO. We wont be expecting any coverage from UBS anytime soon then

Investhome, that’s not quite right. It was raised in prior meetings that PureTech could have partnered with LYT-100 and retained it internally, but they opted not to. As i previously stated, I think this decision is a major reason behind the recent price drop. You may see it differently, and that’s perfectly acceptable.By the way, I’m a fan of the hub-and-spoke model - it strikes me as a sensible approach - but it’s obvious the market feels otherwise.