George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. Watch the video here.
I don’t think we’ve heard anything on ModifY since July 2023, 9 months ago, so hoping for something soon. However, these conference presentations don’t seem to contain anything new so I won’t get my hopes up, but I would be delighted to be proved wrong.
Agreed, shares in Pfizer, BMS and Roche have all been poor over a year too, not all due to COVID. Guessing they could use a (needle free) injection of later stage clinical assets tax well.
Thanks both, quite a lot of nuance around trial design which I am not sure I will fully understand. However the point about previous results is helpful. More likely to work because of the addition, I guess. Very helpful, thanks
Just wanted to pick up a point on madeleine Armstrong’s article and ask about the comments she makes on the reasons to be cautious on SCIB1 results so far. She points out the study is “uncontrolled” making it difficult to assess scib1’s contribution. Can someone with more knowledge explain the trial design from a commercial point of view? My initial thought is that if the results continue to be good then it’s the combination that is proven, does this help either Merck or BMS with a patent extension? Or will it simply ensure that the CPI’s will have to continue to be used rather than any generic alternative? In short is the trial designed specifically to attract their interest from a commercial/partnering perspective? I don’t really understand trial design so if anyone has some insight I’d be grateful. Thanks
Oxford technology VCT is still a seller of significant size in my opinion. The results for the third quarter dated 19th December are worth a read. The company confirmed their holding of 11.3 million shares and also that they need to raise money, most likely from sales of Scancell, or one of their other listed holdings to provide ready cash. No doubt they will see a 10% rise in the price as an opportunity to let go of some stock. I believe they need funds to keep the lights on and are therefore a forced seller. Might keep a lid on the price in the short term IMO
I think the real close yesterday was 12.25p, the later trade at 13.7p explains the discrepancy. so it’s slightly up on the day. However aren’t Oxford Tech VCT a forced seller? They must have 7mill shares to get rid of before April next year, if I were them I would take advantage of more liquidity and a firmer price.
Just catching up, some really good posts yesterday from bojo, Bermuda and Burble. I assume, burble, you are referring to Dendreon’s Provenge with regard to the industry discounting the DNA approach? Yes, I’ve been here since then! Good to see Lindy doggedly sticking to her approach even when out of favour, maybe SCIB1 results will turn the heads of commercial Big Pharma. Not long to wait now for the 40 patients JCM indicated was the critical level. Am sure our institutional backers will be patient until then, I am happy to keep them company. They don’t appear to be perturbed by the AIM valuation considering less than 2% of the company has changed hands this year. Reasons to be encouraged if you can afford to wait IMO.
Agreed EE, also in potentially price sensitive discussions with third parties over the period since the last “wiggle” in March last year. IMO that’s why the BOD extended LD’s options rather than make her exercise, and gave the new BOD members new options, a way of gaining/maintaining exposure without contravening the insider dealing rules. Relatively standard I would say
Thanks both, so if the results continue to be in the same percentages then they could announce completion of the second trial milestone after scanning 33 patients to hit the required number of 27 responders from 43 patients, or 62%. That could be in reasonable time, is that then the end of phase 2?
Can someone help please? Just catching up with last weeks news and I am confused about the numbers so far on the SCIB1 trial. The RNS 10th July dates that 73% of the required number of patients have received SCIB1 in combo. Then in the RNS 19th September it states that 16 patients have received the combo with 11 at the 13 week evaluation stage. This later RNS seems at odds with the former, 73% of the full phase 2 of 43, would be 31 patients. Unless the July RNS referred to first trial milestone which was a response in 8 out of 15. 73% of this would be 11 patients suggesting that there have been a further 5 dosed during the July to September statements. My understanding is that it is not 73% of 43 but of 15, however, they announced because they completed the first milestone with only three quarters of the patients actually dosed. Am I correct in this? If so is it possible, that if the same results are experienced going forward, they could announce completion of the second phase with only 33 patients dosed, i.e three quarters of the 43 patients. Can someone clarify my conclusions please as I am a little confused on the various numbers in the two RNS’s with a mixture of patients and percentages? Many thanks in anticipation.
Arecor therapeutics is a much larger position for OT, 3x the size of their investment in SCLP but with under half the market cap. OT has a declarable stake in Arecor, I think they own just over 5% of the company, whereas I think they have about 11.4m shares in SCLP or 1.4% across the funds. Tough decision on where to raise the funds but I’m guessing if they can survive for 9months on £150k then to raise a years worth of expenses they would need to sell about 1.2m shares at the current price. IMO the market could take that sort of volume, many multiples of that on Monday and Tuesday alone.
If you read the outlook statement at the end of the Oxford VCT it says they have £150k of cash so they don’t anticipate having to realise any of their AIM stocks for at least 9 months, by which time they hope they have recovered. The carrying value for SCLP as at 31.8.23 in the OT accounts is based on the bid price of 9.5p per share.
Agree with the comment about the market makers being sophisticated, they certainly weren’t the victims in the recent sell off here. I think your comment on volume, however, needs a bit of context as there were some substantially above average volume (compared with average market volume) days from 20 to 13 and then again from 13 to 8p. All told the volume over the last 5 months has been equivalent to less than 2% of the total share capital, very small considering the 65% fall in the share price Year to date. As I have mentioned before there has been sustained selling pressure and no real buyers, more supply less demand and the market makers will adjust the book accordingly to make the turn. There is a pretty small free float of shares here so makes for a volatile share price on comparatively small volumes, which might be above average compared with normal market size. However, I do agree the market makers will not have lost money here, mostly private investors adopting the buy high sell low strategy. Therefore, Volume has been high during the recent sell off in my view by comparison with normal market size, but not as a percentage of the amount of shares in issue, coming in at less than 2%. Volume has now dried up again but the amount traded is always worth watching in my view, and all the above is of course in my opinion.