focusIR May 2024 Investor Webinar: Blue Whale, Kavango, Taseko Mines & CQS Natural Resources. Catch up with the webinar here.
Hey Phil, agreed fully.
Because of the nature of 4D projects some delays in producing data from trials are, within reason, understandable. Yet, June became late summer / early autumn and H2 in the recent presentation became end of this year, beginning of next for Keytrudea + 0518 trial (Duncan Peyton). Still fine but we should have a progress report. The SP is lower than it was before the presentations which demonstrates that the info provided hasn't been substantial and was largely recycled material. You are right: with some positive news the buyers would have largely outnumbered and outweighted any seller. Or, if data are inconclusive to date, we should still know.
It would be v. good to see data from the oncology clinical trials to firm up the optimistic statements by Dr Mulder and other members of the 4D team.
I think the recent placement simply was to give the company more negotiation power ahead of any phase III. Even with an extra US$40m in the coffers, we don't have enough to see all current trials through to the next stage and, in particular, MRx0518. But now we are not in a rush to agree to a deal, we can afford to sit back and pick a deal for phase III IBS trials or for other programmes.
I'd go further than that. The company are largely to blame for the confusion and over-expectations with a mixed bag RNS , hence the subsequent SF fall. The sooner they come up with a much clearer and compelling link between the numbers in the RNS and their previous over-optimistic communications the better. Otherwise, there could be a further fall in the share price.
The majority of the patients, 246, had already been involved by the primary endpoint. If the results were non-futile how much would the conclusion have changed with 78 additional patients? Even if results turned negative, we would have known sooner. I'm confident about the result of the rest of the trial.
From the Interim analysis of Blautix phase II study data:
The BHT-II-0002 study interim analysis, aimed to support clinical and commercial development plans, has been conducted on a total of 246 IBS patients (118 IBS-C and 128 IBS-D). Data on around 78 additional patients who have all finished drug treatment and primary endpoint evaluations for all patients are expected to be included in the full study analysis and trial data. 4D Pharma expects to report on this full data set as planned in Q3 2020.
I'm part of a small group of investors which are considering to send the following letter to the FCA. It would be helpful to have the views of other shareholders.
Dear FCA team,
We'd like to highlight a case of potential conflict of interest concerning a company in the oil and gas sector (Chariot Oil) and to ask the FCA to look further into this issue in order to assess whether it is in its remit to investigate the case and raise the issue with management. There has not been an AGM since the case arose and therefore we have not had the chance to bring it up directly with the CEO and other directors.
Even though the company is currently trading significantly below cash value and trading at levels near all-time lows, the CEO and other directors recently announced a plan to receive a significant part of their remuneration in shares. Whereas, at first sight this might look a good idea, some other factors need to be taken into account:
- the CEO and other directors have a degree of control over the timing that deals are to be struck with putative partners and therefore it may create a disincentive for applying best efforts for a timely conclusion of the deals required (e.g. off-take agreements, farm-in partnership) in order to take the gas field development project to the next major stage.
- The license of the field in question was awarded well over one year ago and on the basis of information provided by the company there has not been a great deal of activity since,
- The last fundraising took place in 2018 at 12p so that is approximately six-fold of where the price is now and even that price was a fraction where the price has been historically trading.
- the share price is trading close to an all-time lows (as mentioned above)
- historically, there have have been long delays and a long list of unmet objectives in connection with developing oil fields resulting in a serious destruction of shareholder value for investors in Chariot Oil which gives rise to the above concern which might have not been raised in the context of another company.
One would hope that the issue of shares in order to accommodate salary payments would be the subject of voting at an AGM which has not yet taken place.
Would FCA be in a position to recommend to management an option award structure - with a strike price above current levels - instead of the unconditional award of shares at extremely low prices?
The above is only a synopsis and we would be happy to furnish you with back-up information that can be found in annual reports (notably salaries).
Woodford administrator under fire for £224m asset sale
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/woodford-administrator-under-fire-for-224m-asset-sale-tb9gg7jq0?utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=newsletter_103&utm_medium=email&utm_content=103_9586754&CMP=TNLEmail_118918_9586754_103
Ben Martin, Senior City Correspondent
Friday June 05 2020, 12.00pm, The Times
The administrator of Neil Woodford’s failed investment fund has come under fire over its handling of a deal to sell a group of the fallen stockpicker’s healthcare stakes for £224 million.
Link Fund Solutions announced that it had agreed to sell 19 of the assets held in Mr Woodford’s crippled Equity Income fund to Acacia Research Corporation, an American company focused on life sciences and technology patents. Link, which did not say which investments had been sold or when it would return the proceeds of the sale to investors, gave scant details on the terms of the deal and warned that it could take up to six months to complete.
It also risked disappointment over the price that its advisers secured for the stakes. Link said that the fund was now valued at £444.2 million, including the amount it will receive from the Acacia transaction. This is markedly lower than its £558.2 million valuation on May 20 and suggests that the asset sale had valued the healthcare assets at a steep discount, inflicting losses on the hundreds of thousands investors who have been locked in the fund for a year.
Adrian Low****, head of personal investing at the investment platform Willis Owen, said: “Rather disappointingly there is no detail on what was sold, for how much and what the losses were on those investments. Investors should be given an idea of what the costs incurred for this deal are and what they could expect to see back.”
Mr Woodford, 60, was once considered Britain’s top stockpicker until a run of poor investment performance erupted into a crisis. Investors were blocked from making withdrawals from his main Equity Income fund last June and Mr Woodford was subsequently removed as its manager by Link, which handles the corporate governance of the vehicle, in October.
The turmoil forced Mr Woodford to shut his investment company and Blackrock and PJT Park Hill were hired by Link to sell off the assets in the frozen fund to hand money back to the trapped investors. This process has so far returned £2.27 billion, although investors will have suffered losses at various points throughout the debacle because the fund’s valuation has dramatically shrunk.
It peaked at £10.2 billion in May 2017 but had dropped to £3.7 billion by the time it was frozen after investments soured and withdrawals mounted. The valuation has also declined since the fund was suspended, delivering a further blow to trapped investors.
Woodford administrator under fire for £224m asset sale
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/woodford-administrator-under-fire-for-224m-asset-sale-tb9gg7jq0?utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=newsletter_103&utm_medium=email&utm_content=103_9586754&CMP=TNLEmail_118918_9586754_103
Ben Martin, Senior City Correspondent
Friday June 05 2020, 12.00pm, The Times
The administrator of Neil Woodford’s failed investment fund has come under fire over its handling of a deal to sell a group of the fallen stockpicker’s healthcare stakes for £224 million.
Link Fund Solutions announced that it had agreed to sell 19 of the assets held in Mr Woodford’s crippled Equity Income fund to Acacia Research Corporation, an American company focused on life sciences and technology patents. Link, which did not say which investments had been sold or when it would return the proceeds of the sale to investors, gave scant details on the terms of the deal and warned that it could take up to six months to complete.
It also risked disappointment over the price that its advisers secured for the stakes. Link said that the fund was now valued at £444.2 million, including the amount it will receive from the Acacia transaction. This is markedly lower than its £558.2 million valuation on May 20 and suggests that the asset sale had valued the healthcare assets at a steep discount, inflicting losses on the hundreds of thousands investors who have been locked in the fund for a year.
Adrian Low****, head of personal investing at the investment platform Willis Owen, said: “Rather disappointingly there is no detail on what was sold, for how much and what the losses were on those investments. Investors should be given an idea of what the costs incurred for this deal are and what they could expect to see back.”
Mr Woodford, 60, was once considered Britain’s top stockpicker until a run of poor investment performance erupted into a crisis. Investors were blocked from making withdrawals from his main Equity Income fund last June and Mr Woodford was subsequently removed as its manager by Link, which handles the corporate governance of the vehicle, in October.
The turmoil forced Mr Woodford to shut his investment company and Blackrock and PJT Park Hill were hired by Link to sell off the assets in the frozen fund to hand money back to the trapped investors. This process has so far returned £2.27 billion, although investors will have suffered losses at various points throughout the debacle because the fund’s valuation has dramatically shrunk.
It peaked at £10.2 billion in May 2017 but had dropped to £3.7 billion by the time it was frozen after investments soured and withdrawals mounted. The valuation has also declined since the fund was suspended, delivering a further blow to trapped investors.
Hi room,
Don't know whether this has already been posted. It starts with a reference to the study cited in The Lancet a few days ago. Otherwise, I thought a few parts were especially interesting, although some of which most people would be broadly aware:
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200515/could-interferon-drugs-help-fight-covid-19#1
The whole article is of interest, but a couple of paras stand out:
'But there should be a bigger research push to test interferons as stand-alone treatments, said Eleanor Fish, a professor of immunology at the University of Toronto in Canada.'
'Interferons are being studied for COVID-19, in part, because they are "broad-spectrum" antiviral drugs, meaning they are not directed at only one kind of virus. There is also precedent for using them to battle severe coronavirus infection, Fish said. During the 2003 SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) epidemic in Toronto, she and her colleagues found that interferon-alfa helped hospitalised patients, by speeding resolution of their lung abnormalities'
'Interferon drugs are lab-made versions of those proteins. They work with the immune system, and also have direct antiviral effects, Fish said. '
MHB,
I was also surprised to see a mute reaction this morning. Have only been an investor in Scancell for two years. About time people saw results and putting projects on a faster lane.
It would be helpful to see which projects in its pipeline the company is prioritising.
Well said about AGM. Will make sure I attend this year. It sounds as if the next 6 months are critical for the company.
...because disclosure of inside information is tantamount to market abuse
Harts
Let’s beg to differ on what you call research. Are you not going to apply any discount on the cash forecasts?
First, Actual production and production capacity are not always equal. Hence my expectation for a 25% rise from here but take the point, it could be marginally higher.
You talk about a P/E metric but it would not apply to this company as the company is the first to admit this is an extraordinary year possibly slipping into 2021.
Do you call diversification mobile testing and cutting down on reagents? That’s still very much in the covid-19 arena.
As for second and third waves, it’s a hardly convincing argument to base one’s investment on a bleak and remote possibility.
£200m market capitalisation? It will be justified if 10m tests per year are carried out per month for the rest of the year and into 2021 as NCYT says.
Where can the upside come from if someone was to come in today? This is the company that can reward investors with 20 or 25% as things currently stand but if it wants to attract investors that are looking for bigger returns then it's got to start thinking about diversifying or expanding its game.
Whilst the current levels the share price hovers around may seem a little on the frustrating side, there is a useful process going on. It's consolidation and it involves flushing out the last bit of sell orders.
It's not as good as a rise, but it will be handy when news begins to come in.
It seems that there has been some activity since the US submission. Might the rise today have something to do with it?
Any idea what the following dates mean?
Last Update Submitted that Met QC Criteria : May 11, 2020
Last Update Posted : May 12, 2020 (Estimate)
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/keydates/NCT04385095
Ghia
I believe there is some positive correlation between the outcome of the COPD trials and covid-19 ones as there are symptoms in common such as inflammation that happens in both cases.
Question is: how strong is that correlation?
The 15 minutes met the legal requirements, but every other AGM I've attended includes presentations to and opportunity for Q&A from shareholders, quite different from interviews with journalists on websites at which, I concede, management are effective.
The AGM was a farce, ticking the legal boxes in a quarter of an hour, whilst effectively refusing to take questions, the answers to which would have exposed what seems to be the butterfly approach to strategy adopted by the board.
The meeting treated business as a strict, legal formality and was a mockery of an AGM, ending after 15 minutes. I could be wrong if the webex link is actually correct in talking of a meeting at 4pm BST.