Member Info for HarChris

there was a poster on lse that kept throwing money at such risky stocks similar to this after making some money from covid companies and he was **** sure he was an incredibly savvy investor. eventually his luck ran out and he lost the lot, close to £1m i think.

take heed. otherwise well done on this, the relief rally could see a 50% return for those that bought in near the bottom.

Fair play, live to fight another day for now! Hope you get a bit of a relief rally.

The big difference now is if management can bring those margins up it would take very little to generate profit not too far off the market cap.

That wasn't the case when market cap was close to 1X sales.

If not cash flow positive across the group it'll be close and so cash burn reduced to a very low figure. Can they reach group profitability before the cash runs out? We can't say either way for sure but it's certainly more than possible and if that announcement were to come in Jan/Feb then 1.7p will be in the rear view mirror.

Personally I see value here, especially vs the most recent raise at 3.2p per share.

You can't compare across indications, it's only reasonable to compare with other SGC benchmarks.

I mentioned it on here the other day but go have a look at Actuate Therapeutics and their recent SGC phase 2 update. For a start there were just 32 patients which shows how Avacta's phase 1 is almost a phase 2. Worth comparing their results with Avacta's...

So firstly they chose ORR as the primary endpoint and achieved 9.4%, with 3/32 partial responses, this fell well short of the 25% needed.

Why did they choose ORR instead of what Avacta are likely to choose for their phase 2 registrational trial? Well because clearly elraglusib does not produce such durable responses, seeing a median PFS of just 6.4 months. Their disease control rate was just 65.6% so they were needed to go straight down the line for tumour shrinkage... as for safety their results look solid but neutropenia events were high.

We should remember that Avacta will have a wealth of data by the time it starts its registrational phase 2. It's already obvious that the PFS endpoint is going to be no problem, same with the disease control rate but is it possible they use the knowledge they've built + Tempus to design their phase 2 to potentially see plenty more partial responses and therefore an ORR that is at least as good as what's out there + improved safety, far higher PFS and far higher DCR?. If so SGC is a slam dunk.

I think when you take into account that AVA6000 is merely the pathfinder with future drugs being where the real excitement is the SGC results, taken in context, really are pretty damn impressive...

IRON management will be doing all they can to avoid a placing now they're so close to seeing cash come flooding into the business.

The last placing was at 0.045p with the company's future in much more doubt, to raise below that even for a few £100k would be disappointed.

Personally think now they've reached christmas to raising it's unlikely but not the end of the world if simply a small subscription if an institution came along and offered the cash.

'I would remind all here, the initial results on the mice in the lab for 6k meant it could not fail... and yet it ultimately disappointed just as every other bit of AVCT tech has to date'

__________________

Some might have said 'it can't fail' but besides that hyperbole by some I think you'll find the mouse trials are proving to be rather illuminating. For 6000 it showed a lack of cardiotoxicity at 10X higher levels and far improved tumour to plasma ratios as has then been replicated in humans. What 6013 has shown in the mice trials is sustained release over many days and complete responses, a stark improvement on 6000.

Replicate the mice into human again and we'll be able to see why Christina nicknamed it 'the beast'

You're missing the point. The lack of corporate experience/some bad luck / whatever you want to call it led to Peter promising no more dilution, dialling the leverage up to 11 and then getting caught on the wrong side of a downturn and being forced to sell shiny new assets for peanuts.

You can't predict SWC is going to go the same way when they are sat here with $240m+ in bitcoin and zero debt. It's totally different circumstances. SWC raised when their share price pumped hard earlier this year at multiples of mNAV and now there's the opportunity to slowly accumulate below mNAV for whenever it eventually turns.

Whatever you think of the management personally the above balance sheet shows that the parallels between Argo and SWC aren't objective reality.

'SWC reminds me twofold of Argo Blockchain: a loyal retail following that was highly defensive against criticism, and a popular CEO (Peter Wall) who engaged well but lacked deep corporate experience – plenty of hype until the crypto cycle turned and it all unravelled.'

_____________________

Sure but at the end of the day Peter Wall saddled Argo with debt during the bitcoin bull market and got swallowed up by it when bitcoin turned, that's why Argo went under whereas SWC are debt free with $240m+ in bitcoin reserves.

I’ve been known to complain when companies string you along and then suddenly suspend when accounts are missed locking you out of selling if you wanted - not here with Ironveld, they’ve been upfront and transparent.

Personally will add considerably if it goes much lower, I trust that ironveld comes out of suspension in not too long as a profitable entity.

Egg on my face re most recent comment, eh?! Detailed and positive update otherwise.

No they didn't state that, they discussed each brand individually and two out of three are EBITDA (operationally) positive... unless you think the loss at Boop is so big as to drag the three in aggregate into operational loss it likely means HUD are now operationally profitable but just not there yet in all three brands as targeted.

We have to also remember that Hud include admin costs within EBITDA which means all admin costs are now covered in terms of DD and Nutricircle and it's just Boop that short of that.

Yes plenty of the £2.1m cash (£0.6m + £1.5m) will have been eaten into at this stage but certainly not all of it so there's still time to reach group profitably to stave off any future cash call.

I don't think it's true, companies like I shared are going after SGC in a much more focused way than Avacta which suggests it does have considerable value - for Avacta this is just one indication from their gen 1 drug that likely gets totally superseded by ava6103 and everything else that comes out of the pipeline.

If Avacta was just ava6000 it would be worth exploring your question further but it's not.

Wyn, have a look at Actuate therapeutics who recently released their full phase 2 trial results for SGC... all the focus was on survivability. They saw 3 out of 32 patients with a partial response which they deem as positive but fall far short of Avacta's 30 patients on the survival front despite that being the angle they are pushing from their trial results. A median PFS of just 6.4 months pails in comparison and disease control rate of 65.6% too.

I've seen it many times, there is nothing stopping the company quadrupling or more the share count as long as a special resolution passes at EGM. AIMSL could take enough to maintain their percentage and new investors come in at a discount to own a big chunk each of a debt free company (post raise).

Those same large investors would likely fund the necessary capex too so for example in GRLs case the future would be secured but there would be billions of shares in issue and so a much higher market cap for lower nominal share price. Low risk for them getting in at such a low price with gold at $4400/oz

Not saying that's happening here, no-one knows, but companies do sometimes raise their way out of debt in the above fashion.

I won't apologise because I feel always just shared my honest genuine views making sure to distinguish between what parts are fact and what parts are subjective. My views haven't changed, they've always been that either GRL folds or some sort of restructure is sorted that has Emma out of the picture - for me the one non-negotiable was some sort of resolution that had Emma still at the helm.

Today's news is positive for the reason that it makes it clear dissolution isn't likely come a few week's time and shows that some sort of progress is happening behind the scenes... we now wait to see the detail in the coming weeks to see how shareholders are affected.

It doesn’t matter if long or short, positive or negative, the one thing you can guarantee with Thorn is that he must be the centre of attention.

This news could still mean the sort of corporate restructure i've long talked about on here (one that keeps GRL trading but essentially wiping out existing shareholders in regards to ever realistically seeing a meaningful return) but absolutely no doubt that is a positive update that means some sort of solution has been found behinds the scenes which isn't default. Intriguing.

It will be released next week i'm sure of that, absolutely no reason to assume otherwise.

Not the news we're waiting for though, that'll hopefully follow fairly swiftly in the new year.

The main difference between now and a week ago is that previously it seemed almost certain that we were going to see this data update leading to a partnership and with that third party commercial validation considerable share price appreciation that provides the platform to fund the company right through til a takeover.

That hasn't been extinguished, there's still plenty of time to surprise to the upside in the new year with more SGC data (with a December rather than early Oct cut off), TNBC data, possibly some STS, ava6103 IND filing etc and there's still every chance that a partnership lands in the coming months (the Novartis headline at least shows they are meeting the big players)... It's just not as certain in the market's view as it was a week ago hence the sell off.