Member Info for HarChris

Hates rampers when it’s not Kat.

Being paid no matter what is called having a job… if you reject that fair enough but CEOs are never going to run major listed mining businesses without any annual salary.

AV has no financial concerns to worry about, he won’t be requiring job seekers allowance to put food on the table but besides that there’s plenty of motivation for him to get this right. This is his (one) chance to continue the Viljoen legacy, a proud mining family. This is his chance to not only greatly enrich himself but also to become a seriously respected and important business magnate in Africa. That’s what matters most, that is his motivation and I’m sure he lives and breathes Andrada.

Clearly that doesn’t guarantee success but putting failures down to lack of motivation is nonsense, it’ll be other factors - inexperience/ incompetence / poor delegation etc.

I imagine he’s now feeling intense pressure to get things right as the institutional presence grows, he’s likely more motivated than ever knowing that a move to oust him will surely come down the road if the lack of operational growth and failed targets continue.

This is a pattern that's played out five or six times now, it's perfectly possible it plays out exactly the same way given the history. I'd argue it's likely given it's gone that way every time. I know you only react to share price movements that have already happened but it's much more beneficial to get in before to actually gain from such moves.

No idea about a deal but obviously i'm hoping for one, within three or four weeks post data release. As I've said previously if no deal by later this summer it would suggest one isn't coming, so it's now (well soon) or never.

Every single raise, and I mean every single raise, from the first 30p subscription when Hughes first joined right up to this one at 70p you have rushed to question why the share price hasn't risen immediately or asking questions like 'why is everyone is happy when the value of our investment is down'? only for the share price to rise substantially a week later. Every. single. time.

The last two times I have pointed this out and said 'wait and see, the share price will rise next week' and it happened each time yet here you are repeating the same old tired shi*.

You're a bit slow aren't you Wyn?

It just shows why the best outcome here will be proving up the tech as quickly as possible and then selling the company, something that should be possible within 12 months. Avacta is only pivoting because they have had such limited resources and therefore have to constantly look for the cheapest, quickest path to approval, it's not because other trials are making Avacta's drugs redundant.

In the hands of BP there will be countless iterations and potential for a successful platform that's able to produce highly targeted cancer drugs at a fraction of the cost of the current latest tech (ADCs), of that there's no doubt.

There's so much going on that this $2m could be swallowed up quickly but i'm sure enough cash will be held back to cover general working capital costs and allow for Jangada to raise on their terms, at the most favourable time.

Undervalued here down close to the 1p warrants price which what was always holding this back, I still think we'll see a sudden 50% move soon but probably not today with the markets.

Impressive with all the potential that they still have almost 20% of the mcap sat in cash ready to deploy for the exploration campaigns.

Odd that the seller is willing to offload on the supposed cheap instead of collecting the what must be large fees indefinitely?

Unfortunately it's not looking good is it?

Still, half a year on from the modest production targets for Oct 2025/Dec 2025 we still aren't getting any numbers.

Directors stepping down and all assets now up for sale.

Another cash call likely coming or a full sale of the business.

We've seen the same price action after every single raise. A good week or so of idiots saying 'how come the share price isn't taking off?' only for it to suddenly rise substantially at about the two week mark.

So barring news I'd imagine next week for new yearly highs to be challenged.

To me the pivot feels pretty understandable - here’s a rare cancer type with such unmet need, with a low PFS to beat and the data starts showing a stabilising/controlling or disease in almost all patients - jackpot!

The data from TNBC and STS will likely give us more insight into the potential for 6000 however that still comes with caveats as many of the TNBC patients may well fail to respond having already being treated with anthracyclines (sure the data will be chopped up for the most compelling analysis). STS will be interesting as Dox has been trialled extensively as a monotherapy for STS, 455 patients, phase 3, just 13% response rate and a low 4.5m PFS. Combo therapies have shown improvement ofnthis but for validation purposes signs of significant superiority over mono Dox would be auspicious.

‘ I imagine dox is used because it gives partial or minor outcomes on its own.’

_________

Well do some research then… No I don’t think there’s any evidence to suggest Doxorubicin as a monotherapy ‘gives partial or minor outcomes on its own’, that’s why it never treats SGC. There is evidence of some tumour shrinkage seen in the Doxorubicin combination therapies but again still only small studies and mixed results.

It’s a fair question to ask then why go after SGC and I guess it’s simply because the bar is the lowest and the quickest to approval but it might turn out to be the case that even with ava6000s ability to direct Dox in the tumour micro environment it still just isn’t all that effective against these tumours hence the chemo/refractory label.

STS and TNBC results should answer some of these questions as Dox alone is effective against these cancers.

As for what the above means for ava6000 that’s what we wait to hear - perhaps all the indications with be offloaded to a partner to run their own combo trials for example.

Well my post was simply in response to your '''If the tech works the stock will be rerated and it won't be at 70p!''

You said this, I agreed and pointed out why I think we're already there/almost there and then you went off on a contradictory ''So I guess I think the risks are less that avct tech won't work rather than its longevity which in turn affects its value.''

So here’s the thing then, we both agree that if the tech is proven Avacta is worth far more than 70p/£350m mcap… how much more is an unknown due to numerous factors and could be anything from the more pessimistic views of say $2B to the blue sky numbers like $20B (for me lower to middle of this range seems reasonable) but it’s multiples of a return from here bare minimum.

What proves the tech is consistent, repeatable data, payload release, MoA etc etc.

What I think is being missed with SGC data is how far it goes towards proving the tech. Sure we aren’t seeing tumours obliterated but we are seeing the consistency of data that’s crucial, with almost all patients seeing their advanced metastasised cancers stabilised across a growing numbers of patients with distinctly different heterogeneous diseases. This is not the case with the dox cisplatin combo that is often used to treat patients and it’s certainly not the case with Dox alone so it’s hard to conclude anything but that the tech is working here, even if technically 38 patients is too small a sample to statistically prove it.

Modifications have then been made in terms of the linker and capping group and extended release to improve the second gen drug 6103 further and with it has seen exquisite preclinical data which again shows consistency. This is also the case with the third gen dual payload 6207.

So the question is what else is necessary to prove the tech works and have bidders making their move? Arguably we’re already there but further consistency across 6000 indications and more patients (data later this month) is more proof. And then evidence of repeated results across multiple drugs in human (ie 6103 later this year) cements it.

There isn’t a whole lot more to do prove that pre|CISION works and with it that range of valuations coming into view. It’s now clear that Avacta will get to that point without any risk of having diluted away any chance of a meaningful return as the Heights debt is now a mere fraction of the mcap and so is the amount of cash needed to see Avacta through to further validation.

So whilst still not 100% guaranteed of course, the odds are looking highly favourable for what is, sure, currently an unknown return but a positive one at that, a few multiples at a minimum all the way up to possibly life changing.

That’s excellent risk/reward.

''If the tech works the stock will be rerated and it won't be at 70p!

I have been saying this for years!''

_____________

Well we're in agreement here Wyn! How do you prove the tech/platform? By generating consistent, repeatable evidence across multiple assets.

Later this year with 6103.

‘’That leads us to 6103 which there is no data for yet other than the lab results and the hype of the board‘’

_______

‘All’ we have is honestly some of, if not the, best preclinical data out there, objectively. It is essentially unprecedented to generate consistent durable complete tumour regressions across multiple pdx models.

With ava6000 showing the chemistry works there is a read across that says there’s a very decent chance of 6103 becoming a blockbuster drug worth billions of dollars.

It’s up to each of us to decide what the odds are but unless you believe the odds are tiny then the risk/reward here is quite clearly exceptional.

I can’t see how that isn’t the case just because the market as a whole isn’t taking positions yet on 6103 (personally I think they will before readouts later this year and we will see SP balloon).

My simple point is that if you're in an investment where next week a bid could come in at hundreds of percent to market price then that's an excellent investment. If you're right that such a bid being announced would receive such a reaction then it's evidence of the risk/reward being far superior to that even.

That's not me for a second saying I'd personally be happy at £2.50 a share, i've taken the risk here in the hope for a lot more. But if next week I walked away with such a result i'm still more than three times richer than I was this week, not exactly in the poorhouse.

I’d argue that management’s confidence and bullishness as time goes on increases its weight, ie there was less weight when Alastair was talking up ava6000 after a few patients were dosed in P1a vs when all seven cohorts were dosed. And therefore if management are oozing with confidence and buying shares and talking up a transformational period to come with dozens and dozens more patients dosed in 1b + a second drug producing data to validate the platform then that holds even more.

It’s impossible to assess risk/reward statistically at this point for a small cap biotech like this, it comes down to assessing all the info you have then ultimately personal intuition and instinct, without that you aren’t likely to do well long term from such investments and should probably stick to the ftse100 and similar.

'AZ is worth £214b on £50b profit'

_________

You must have meant £50b revenue*... profit for AZN is more like £10B. Pharma runs at large price earnings multiples, even for those so big that they have at most modest growth potential.

If a company thinks Avacta could be generating hundreds of millions of profit in the future (And obviously if ava6013 'works' like it's shown preclinical it's greater than that) then they will value Avacta in the £billions.