focusIR May 2024 Investor Webinar: Blue Whale, Kavango, Taseko Mines & CQS Natural Resources. Catch up with the webinar here.
Tomorrow at noon. Hant's it doesn't need to be in line to make a big splash - just superior to the alternatives, preferably by a material margin. It is difficult for it not to be off the back of the fact that a superlative Elisa and a cracking lab sensitivity result show that the initial study was no fluke.
My prediction is that it will
- have materially better specificity (close to 100) and sensitivity (95 per cent plus) than competitors could put out on the same kinds of CT value.
- all the additional known advantages of affimers - notably better batch consistency and better speed and cost of production, IP and therefore no competition for supply
short post for you Wyn - must have taken a pill for that verbal diarrhoea. Which is great as it will cut down on the incidence of narcolepsy induced by your posts.
Sounds logical Timster as we know BAMS had a different validation route in the end
'43 Laboratory Mass spectrometry Validated as a part of a broader pilot (different validation route)'
There are two other Mass spec tests mentioned but these do not mention different route
'121 Laboratory Mass spectrometry No-go because of product irregularities (turnaround time, too complex, high error probability and associated costs)
123 Laboratory Mass spectrometry Assay does not meet TPP standards for performance'
PSB - I don't think you will get more than half the population testing 2 x weekly in developed countries but otherwise I think you have some reasonable projections of the potential. It ought not to be for 12 years but unfortunately the lack of competence of many countries in handling the problem may mean that nightmare scenario is realistic. Unfortunately we could even be phasing into another pandemic before this one is over. Avacta might end up taking more than 10% of the market over time and by adding volumes may somewhat compensate for the hopefully reducing need for testing over time.
I would have said maybe BAMS but it seems to be a bit parked up right now or slow going at least
NdN is is a deramping piece of something that's for sure. And not impressed by Wndyrum. Tries to come across as neutral but seems to alternate between ramp and deramp depending on whether he is in or out. Then the usual suspects like GKB etc are still here.
I thank all of those here who are genuine and attempt to make contributions of value. I am so sorry that the Board gets drowned in crap sometimes from disingenuous folk.
Mina has suggested that Deeks has an unstated agenda. Mina says he knows what it is but won't reveal it in a public forum. Anyway, part of being an academic is taking a balanced approach to all the evidence. By that measure he is not an academic but a sophist, ignoring all the value of mass testing whilst highlighting the current weaknesses
delays in April mean may is a better start date. End April 4.64, end May 7.64, end year 17.96 on lft and standard developments, a lot more if there has already been some seriously good AVA6K news
that's a pretty smart idea!
I'll go for MCAP of more than
1 billion by end of May,
2 billion by end of summer and
3 billion by year end.
Star - there is more support for it than during the vaccine related drop. The new licensing deal not only bring value but suggest a speeding up of that area of activity. So I would suggest that it would ultimately settle at 125 or 150 initially without the LFD. But without the LFD is not a very realistic scenario - it has already been tested enough to CV and sell, its just that they have chosen to go for a larger study. Worse case is maybe selling 5m a month from existing bilateral arrangements and this would still probably net 300 million plus over the lifetime of the pandemic. '
However, given how great Elisa and LFD lab results are though I see the chances of them not being the best performing test being very slim. For me it is going to be down to how far they are better than the rest which would influence the size and speed of contracts for sales and manufacturing. I would say they likely end up being on a path to their reagents being in 100s of millions of tests a month and several billion profit over the course of the pandemic. Clearly only a fraction of that is priced in. I have long said it will hit a tenner by summer and the only thing that's changing in my mind is that we need to build in a bit of extra patience and realise that a tenner may not happen until late summer. Its ultimately going to be worth a lot more than that in the good as we think scenario though - possibly 20 or 30 a share.
The therapy potential is also underrated. If we go back to the VOX interview and look at ProDoxa - not only could it take the existing Doxa market but it could make a multiply bigger one via the reduced toxicity enabling both greater dosing per patient and the introduction of a whole new class of patients who couldn't take doxa at all because of its toxicity levels. Has the potential expansion of that market been fully factored in? I doubt it as none of the projections I have seen even attempt to put a figure on the expansion. Clearly 20 PE x 5 bililion is a different ball game to say, 20 PE x 1 or 2 billion.
Yes it was pharyngeal in the cv and in the Liverpool evaluation. That's what's causing the differential in sensitivity as between professional and untrained member of general public. And that's the vital difference with Avacta doing an AN collection in their CV- it may be professional doing it but it is so easy to do correctly that the difference (drop) in sensitivity will be minimal when the public in general self test with it. Innova's CV had it designed to deal with cases that were symptomatic and many of us smelt that it would be mediocre from the start because of this
Lets take Starbright's point that '(t)o be a successful active investor in the long run you need to find (& buy, & hold...) companies where the REAL odds of success are higher than the market perception.' That can also apply to a trade - as in a hold for a max of a few months as opposed to a max of years.
But the trade and the long term view are linked here Nostra because one of the questions to ask is if the CV is less than great can I still come out of this OK? On that front you have a company that is now breaking even after a period of presumably very high expenses (extra staff, facilities etc etc. for the LFT particularly). Its partnership work and licensing work appears to be very profitable and is accelerating. And beyond covid it has numerous other golden tickets - starting with AVA 6K. Plus there is the question of what impact a less than great CV will have. Statistically its very difficult to see them doing any worse that being 'one of the pack' in performance terms and other tests in that pack have done well and sold many millions. It has its own manufacturing capax reserved and so can do this, whilst it tries to then produce something better.
So in my thinking worse case realistic scenario is your money gets tied up for a year whilst a dip is recovered from. Now lets think about best case - the market in general appears to think that Avacta is likely to sell in the 10s of millions of LFTs a year (e.g. Stifel research note) . Yet the market is likely to be a billion plus a month in the coming year or two. And whilst its a bit of a fragmented market its reasonable to suppose that quality will win through to take a significant market share. Quality is more important than price here and yet Avacta should also be able to get them produced at reasonable cost as it owns the IP to aiffimers and they are cheaper to produce than Monoclonal antibodies and also a lot of the work is done via automated machines which cost the same more or less to everyone to purchase. Avacta is likely to produce the best test by a distance and that is likely to result in a demand of up to several 100 millions a month which will be met within months by manufacturers wanting to produce for it because it is the best test. In 2021 alone it is very likely that Avacta can make upwards of 1 billion in profit from this when only 100 million or so is baked into the current share price.
Everyone says when they are gone. Why don't they just flog them abroad? One possibility is that they may have made a contract for a new test under the dpa already but are holding off on announcing (and on company announcing it and related data) until they have a bit of a stockpile. Would be no sense coming out and saying 'hey look we've got a great new test' and then a few days later turning around and saying 'supplies have run out but we've got some of this inferior stuff lying around from before whilst we wait for stock to build up.'
see a doctor quick
Agent was it you that first mentioned it in lateJuly - I distinctly remember the timing - sitting on a beach in Yorkshire with the avacta sp riding. Its done 4x since then.
throw in the lft's great lab sensitivity too.
Space and Wilson - just need to go back to the Liverpool field trials to see how Innova, whilst useful, misses a large percentage of those who are positive and generates a considerable amount of false positives.
Sagetrade - you say RealityHunter can change but that sounds like a bit of a stretch.
I think its been useful rather than dangerous. But there is a wide goal to aim at in terms of achieving better specificity and sensitivity.