From 30% they would need another 21%, that is about 30% of the remaining shareholders. These are all, by definition people that have not sold to them on the way up, so will value the company still higher. Polygon do not want to own a small pharma company, they want to offload it to a big one, so what added value would they bring by buying the whole thing? Answer none. Doubt they would try it, doubt it could work.
Doc, no chance of ghis happening. For anyone to get to 30% the price will be way north of £2. Thwn they make an offer that nhas to be accepted by I think 90% of holders. Easy to say no to a rubbish bid. This happened to Polygon when they tried it on another company. Less than 2% of holder said yes to them. They are buying here to make a large sum of money. As an inevitable by product all other holders will too. They are in it for themselves, not acting to help out a big pharma company get us on the cheap.
As per normal a large proportion of the posts have nothing to do with the company but are just repetitive ad hominem attacks on other posters. More akin to a playground of 8 year olds than a serious investment discussion.
The other issue with having both divisions within the same entity is management bandwidth. As well as the time needed to devote to each, they require quite different strategies and skills. I'd prefer to see heavyweight independent management in each, with AS oversight.
RE: How Cuba has brought Covid under control - Interferon.06 Oct 2021 18:27
Far be it for me to accuse others of bad faith, but I find this drip drip negativity and conspiracy nonsense a bit hard to take. Has anyone noticed perchance that a giant sized hedge fund is hoovering up the spare shares on a daily basis ? Would they be above planting a few more seeds of doubt in the minds of unsure private holders ? Make up your own minds.
When you have a company with such immense short term prospects largely owned by a somewhat uninformed private investor shareholder base, who, furthermore are liable to sell based on emotion and sentiment, and contain a large proportion of 10% traders to boot , it is no surprise that a clear headed and nimble hedge fund can prise the shares out of those hands with relative ease.
Acting on behalf of a pharma ? Could be. What do you think they would do if say Gilead approached them and said we want to buy the company, will you buy the shares and then selll them onto us on the cheap ?
Lest say, for the sake of argument, that a sucessful pro-dox product would completely displace the existing treatment and double the value of the market. (I think it could do much more than this BTW). That makes it a potential $2bn per annum product, that would not need massive sales repping to launch and grow rapidly. For a big pharma this would add at least $15 to $20 billion to their market cap. If they thought that this was only the first of many (ie the chemistry works in the human body) what would they pay to get the rights to the whole shooting match ? A typical deal on a single molecule like this would be something like $30m up front, all development costs covered, stage payments on pre agreed milestones linked to trial sucesss of maybe $200 to $ 300 million, plus a royalty at the end of perhaps 5%. Success in these early trials will see the share price go to the moon IMHO.
Stop obsessing over the UK sovereign test, its over. Avacta will be fine without it, but no billions of revenue in months from that source now. AS right to chase it, who in truth could have predicted the actions of the Govt over the last 9 month, but it is what it is. Happy to be wrong on this one of course.