Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. Watch the video here.
I've been an investor in SCLP and last sold down in the early twenties. I havent been following the share closely recently, but remember times when there were long pauses and delays in the business. In part thanks to the institutional investors which must have put their conditions, the SCLP team is getting on with its trials. I've also seen the recent RNS: exciting times re SCIB1.
I'd appreciate a comment regarding the cash situation. Where do we stand? Can trials can be completed without recourse to another placement?
Thank you, Fatgreek. Great news that the directors want to appoint their own administrator. Of course it would be in their strong interest to support Interpath in any case as we there is so much more in the company than the $13.8m that is owed to OF plus any fees. The fact they want to appoint their own administrator tells us that on top of protecting the worth of their shareholding they don't want any of their assets going for less than they are worth. They have worked hard for this and for years so it is natural they would hate any fire sale.
It also perhaps reduces the possibility that something untoward has been going on...
I have no reason to doubt that Interpath will do a good job but two administrators working together and looking over each other's shoulder can only be of benefit to shareholders.
Yes, I'm afraid you're wrong BlueBelly - the company hasn't mentioned $45m. Please provide some link or some piece of evidence if you have a different understanding.
As MHB points out the funding requirement could be a manageable amount of under $25m and even less with Oxford Finance second drawdown.
The $7.5m on account is a red herring - if released it would be great as it would mean even lower funding requirement!
I'm attending and think a pre-meeting confab is a good idea.
Also spreading questions around strongly advisable.
Masks are falling. Some people are spreading negativity. They don't sound disappointed investors. Pure altruism, shorters or low entry price seekers?
Others who are by their own admission not invested, keep on posting feverishly. What would they do if they owned shares? Someone is voicing his support of those others who are not invested. He's saying we should have listened to others when they expressed serious doubts. Never mind the time when those others were super rampers.
What's going on and why all this interest in a share of only 30million quid?
Seres is still rising on the other side of the pond. Come on 4D!!!
If the biotech index settles firmly above 70 this week, it is possible to end up in high teens. The higher the index the cheaper 4D will look in comparison to peers. Spillover effect is good.
Any push upwards will have a self-propelling effect for good reasons. The higher the price the less the dilution and all that.
Watch out for Seres Therapeutics and XBI index later.
XBI biotech index today up 3.9% after a rally on Friday. Now back to above 70 having fallen last week to 62
NASDAQ also up.
4D close to 20% down. Imagine if today hadn't been a great rally day for the sector.
Is the market trying to tell us something? 4D's has a great potential but maybe market thinks we have the wrong CEO. I agree with the market.
My feedback after the presentation had to do with the many questions that were not answered. It's not on really.
Question 1:
If directors invested at 110p, why not at 25p or, for that matter, anywhere in the range up to 100p?
Question 2:
What efforts is the Board making to ensure that 4D can raise funding by the end of the year?
Question 3:
Where are we with Oxford Finance?
Question 4:
Following the promising results in 0518 trial, are we likely to see Merck contributing to the financing of the rest of the trial?
Question 5:
Are we likely to see Blautix licensing this year and in particular before Q4 2022?
Question 6:
Have the CEO and directors been approaching funds such as for examples Frazier Healthcare Partners which specialises in small to mid market biotech companies or Vulpes Investment Management which has invested in UK biotech firms including an AIM-listed one of comparable market cap also focusing on oncology trials? Have some of the hedge funds with a biotech arm been approached?
Yes. Let's reiterate MHB's points, so as to increase the likelihood of them being addressed.
Crl123
Beautifully put. If the world beautiful is not appropriate, given the context, then articulately put.
First, the stock markets are down today not just 4D. NASDAQ and NASDAQ biotech are down by more than 3.5% and XBI index -5.4% and Seres Therapeutics in free fall at -12.5%. 4D is now down for the sixth day in a row. Tomorrow a bounce back should be on the cards - we can but hope.
The stock world collapse aside, it is still staggering that the Board are asking us to vote on generous packages through Res 3 when they have not managed to bring in a single II for the last year or even years. The Board members are supposed to have been in the industry and Duncan has been an Investment Manager in the past. No contacts through the non-execs or Duncan?
The share price is now less than a quarter than the placement at 110p which we thought was the floor.
Is that what they call rewarding on the basis of results? Who's kidding whom?
Time not to pull any punches at the AGM. On a bulletin board it matters a lot less.
Bounce back day tomorrow at the latest, might even be today, I expect. An RNS this week will help greatly.
How many days of back-to-back falls? 5? Time for a trend reversal.
Watch out for the shorts starting to close. Smell already something burning.
Interesting thread.
An MBO is not a crazy idea, but still want to think it as unlikely. Risk of a takeover at a very low price is more real but wish a bid happened as it could trigger more bids.
A short squeeze can also happen, higher probability if they allow a rights issue and the lower the amount of the placement.
Very much like the idea of a proper pitchbook properly explaining the business and the science, to replace that document that they reluctantly update every couple of months.
Let's see what develops before the AGM.
Good luck all investors.
100% is a double-edged sword. I wouldn't wish to reduce the chances of a big industry investor coming. If it was Merck, it would have to invest 20million USD or more this time rather than 500k. Though I do wonder whether that can't happen with a 40% issuance. At the same time why not also allow a rights issue? The argument that CEO would also be affected doesn't go far. They have the very generous options issued in January and they may possibly issue new ones.
Overall, the question is whether we trust CEO/CFO sufficiently not to bring about yet another share price collapse. But by far the best option is for them to be much clearer about their intentions behind notorious res. 9 in the notice. I agree that explanation in the notice is poor.
...Picking up on MHB's earlier post:
Looks like the M&A market is on fire as big pharmas are trying to beef up their pipelines taking advantage of low valuations:
Blenrep annual sales: £89m / US$117m
Myelofibrosis treatment market:
GSK pays $1.9bn to buy Sierra oncology whose drug Momelotinib complements Blenrep. Momelotinib has completed successfully phase III trials.
https://www.gsk.com/media/7377/fy-2021-results-announcement.pdf
Now let's look closer to home:
Keytruda annual sales: > US$ 17billion
RCC treatment market: US$ 6.3billion
https://www.grandviewresearch.com/press-release/global-kidney-cancer-drugs-market
MRx0518 in combination with Keytruda has already hit phase II target so phase II likely to be successful
So GSK has bought a derisked asset whereas MRx0518 is half-way. But if we look at RCC only then de-risking has occurred to a significant extent.
So on the basis that MRx0158 Keytruda combo continues to deliver strong results, it can target an RCC market that is also in the billions. Even if MRx0518 was to complement Keytruda only in respect of RCC, I don't see why we could not command a valuation comparable to that of Sierra Oncology in the next 6 to 12 months or so.
- Apart from RCC will we not see any other MRx 0518 Keytruda trial updates regarding other oncology types for the rest of the year? (Anticipated Development Milestones and Key Objectives for 2022 as per 1st April Annual Results RNS).
- One of the Oxford Finance conditions is linked to 1 in 10 success in NCSLC cancer. If we are not going to have news in NCSLC cohort for the rest of the year in the MRx 0518 Keytruda trial, does this mean no further drawdowns?
- Are there on-going negotiations with Oxford Finance to adjust the conditions for second and third drawdowns?
- Are their any commercial milestones targeted for this year? There were none listed in the RNS of last week.
- Does Duncan Peyton think that pay rises for senior management and the options at 53p for CEO/CSO weaken the alignment of interest with shareholders?
- How long are we prepared to wait for the regulator in case of Blautix? We've been waiting for news for almost two years now. Is there a plan B? Can Blautix be licensed and can the licensee apply to the regulator for phase III trials.
- Why the radio silence on the antibodies program with Merck?
- Can management confirm that with cash in the bank and with drawdowns under Oxford Finance facility there will be no funding gap?
Here is yet another example of a $830m fund that also invests in listed small and medium sized caps:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20211028005036/en/Frazier-Healthcare-Partners-Closes-Oversubscribed-830-Million-Life-Sciences-Public-Fund
“first dedicated public life sciences fund”, "Frazier Life Sciences Public Fund is a long-only fund investing in small- and mid-cap public biotech companies"
In the end it’s been oversubscribed!
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220316005215/en/Frazier-Life-Sciences-Closes-987-Million-Venture-Fund-to-Invest-in-Companies-Developing-Novel-Biopharmaceuticals notice inclusion of “public investing”
Duncan should be knocking on its door if not already. There are dozens of others: Vulpes, Redmile, Octagon to name but a few.
There are many excuses that 4D is inactive when it comes to getting II investment in recent years … however, they are what they are: excuses.
Despite the RCC news, we are not getting the right kind of TR-1s we are hoping for about IIs. It is only the naïve who are attributing the recent share price falls to SO.
As people pointed out the other day, the financing need that the company announced for the next 18 months is more than covered for by the remainder of the Oxford Finance facility and cash in the bank. That’s without counting any type of licensing or deal.
So why the fall to 38p? Before the RCC news we were at 44p again, as someone pointed out.
You would think the shorters would have much better shares to short.
What are we missing? The only rational explanation is a small placement. Let’s hope it is not the case but can’t see any other reason.
My suspicion is that we have more news waiting in store in the near term.
We are waiting for:
- pancreas
- update on the other groups in MRx0158 Keytruda combo
- earlier stage oncology, MRx0158 and Bavencio combo
- beginning of the pivotal study: watch this space!
- IBS: potentially regulatory or licensing related news
- monotherapy MRx0518
on the off-chance ... MicroRx discovery programme (vaccines).
The news last week has helped flush out whatever's left of the persistent sellers and I'm going to chance that we've turned a corner and the forties are now behind us. The price has hit the MACD and bouncing up, famous gap's been filled.
My only concern are the shorts that are up 20% from last week.
https://www.ortex.com/payment?source=pf&need_license&GUIv=2&length=15&start=0&filter=%7B%7D&sort=%7B%7D
But, if we get the news looking forward to their squeeze.
Let's be positive. Despite the speculated liquidations in his fund, SO has managed to keep 3.8% whilst waiting for the important 0518 update and other news. He has shown no intention of getting rid of those judging by the trading since 18th March.
I could do with a 3.8% stake in 4D ahead of potentially game changing news!
Assuming that such an investment (if info is correct) comes from the investment management and not the brokerage business (i.e. that simply holds funds on behalf of investors), it would be very good news provided we were talking about $5m to $10m as a minimum.
If indeed we are talking about $260k that's not even worth mentioning - it is still the kind of funds that an individual investor might put, albeit on the high side.