Member Info for HelloSanDiego

FTC7 - "how would "partnering with a large pharm company to get the entire company at 150p share" work in practice?"

As an example,

hundred-billion-dollar pharma company says they're willing to risk £300m on Synairgen because a new $20m platform trial is underway and the P3 and Activ-2 data shows a higher chance of success than some of the R&D projects they already have billions committed to. So they tell Polygon they'll buy the company if Polygon can secure it for 150p a share.

I think this could be a plausible scenario next spring if a new, government-funded trial is underway.

FreeTheCaterham7 - "If they already had 30% I doubt if they would need to bid as much as 150p to hoover up the extra 20% they’d need."

I think you might be underestimating just how quickly the share price could rise if the market saw one investor was attempting a takeover.

Tommy, you think it's just mischief making because you can't work out the answer to that question yourself, apparently.

I'll answer it in a minute after you've had some time to think about it.

Tommy - "The market doesn’t allow two companies to collude of a buying offer for a company."

I don't believe that would fall under the definition of collusion. If Polygon put in a takeover offer and another company (a non-shareholder) agree to back it financially, I don't think that's collusion.

I could be wrong. I'm not an expert.

Tommy - "they will not be buying Synairgen."

You can't rule it out.

If the exisiting data is promising enough for another (taxpayer funded) platform trial and it gets underway, how do you know Polygon would pass up partnering with a large pharm company to get the entire company at 150p share?

Manifesto - "IF they wanted to carry on adding at these low prices they would declare at the last opportunity."

Or alternatively, they know that the sooner they declare it the sooner the price will settle back down. Then they can resume buying and hit 29.99% before another trial is announced, and just sit back and wait until they can put in that 150p takeover offer.

I'm still a little concerned their plan could be to make a low-ball offer in February.

Even if another platform trial is announced soon, I don't see how our price could be beyond 90p in spring 2023 and if that's the case, I'm sure they would be able to get a 150p offer approved. So the only question remaining would be whether they would be interested at that price.

Never mind. The lowest they can offer before February 2023 is around 180p and I don't see any danger of that happening any time soon.

If they hit 30% in the coming weeks, I wonder what price they would have to offer to get a takeover approved.

MrCosts - "When you are 73% down you have no choice but to keep your shares."

You do have a choice. If your money will provide a better return elsewhere, that's where it should be regardless of whether you're currently sitting on a loss here.

If there's news on the horizon re. an other platform trial, I think they'll want to hit the 30% threshold at this price while they still can.

TommyD_19 - "FDA gave Biogen the benefit of the doubt in allowing it to market aducanumab."

Thanks. So it IS possible for a drug to get approved without a successful Phase 3 trial, and our one example of that happening is "a controversial decision that led to the resignation of three advisers to the FDA in the absence of evidence that the drug is effective".

Proof the system works (most of the time).

So we don't know of a single drug that's ever received any kind of regulatory approval without a successful Phase 3 trial then.

Ok, glad we cleared that up.

Ok, let's try again.

Do you have any reason to believe that any drugs have ever been approved without a successful Phase 3 trail?

Can you provide any evidence of it?

Manifesto - "from the YALE link I posted erlier"

I can't find anything in there to back up what you said about drugs being approved before P3 trials. Can you post a quote so I can see which part you're referring to?

Manifesto - "EUA has been approved for drugs that have not got to P3"

Which ones? Because if you're comparing it to experimental drugs for cancers that would otherwise kill every patient within a year, you're comparing apples to orangutans.

Anybody who thinks a regulator is going to approve a drug that failed its last trial needs to stop smoking crack before breakfast.

Docdaneeka - "Also confirms - as has every RNS since Feb 21st - that Synairgen is no longer associating itself or its drug with the fight against Covid-19."

I really don't know how you come up with this stuff. Read the email again, then keep doing it until you see why you're wrong.

Doc83 - "But acknowledge even that £3-5 seems very far away right now. "

It's so far away it might not even exist. I wasn't referring to you specifically. But the attitude of some posters on here is that it's a question of when, not if, and I don't think that's a realistic view.

Doc83 - "even £3-5 would be very nice."

You say that as if a 1200% gain is only a modest rise, and the bare minimum we can expect.

I get the impression there are a lot of inexperienced investors left on this board who fail to understand that this could end up with their investments being worthless. £10+ is a possibility within a few years. But so is 0.1p