Member Info for JRDC

Further raises will be needed, and

Can these private shares be held in a SIPP (with ii) or will I be forced to sell?

I imagine vlad will sell CBR IPR to further progress trials. He turned down what he considered to be a paltry amount earlier in the year (under £800k apparently) but might be tempted next year given this 'confidence' of non dilutive funding turned out to be crap to keep existing shareholders happy.

Personally I'm hoping for 3p again over next 6 months to get out, the science is great, but I have zero confidence in his ability to bring it through trials without wiping out existing shareholders.

Funding now sorted for phase 1 which is excellent news, SP will likely double from here when first patient dosed, then just a waiting game over next year or two for a possible partnership if it safe

Actually, not quite a joke. The word 'advice' is protected legally, if their advice means that shareholders lose out more than if they'd sold now at 2.1p, then it opens them up to potential legal action and may not even be able to hide behind limited liability either. Now that would be glorious if we took Betts' and his teams personal assets off him.

I presume he meant not to take any legal action until he's shredded all the paperwork

Ouch, £50k! Writing has been on the wall for a while, this and COPL have striking similarities, both run by incompetent and probably fraudulent management. Knew these were both gambles, but the game was rigged as the dealer knew we had sbit cards. How a company can fail when gold is the highest it's ever been takes some doing.

UFO likely to be next to go t!ts up so it's all down to GGP to hit 20p over next few years to cover my losses

Until today I honestly thought there was a chance they could pull things around and I might see 12p again late next year to at least get out without a loss.

JB probably sighed with relief with latest fatality as gives him another excuse to use for next quarters failings.

Will add this to my turd pile alongside NCYT, EUA, BMN, UFO, COPL, HEMO, SAE, WBI and THG.

They don't have enough cash to last till end of phase 1 which could be 18-24 months away and cross at least 2 accounting periods, auditors won't sign off as a going concern either without sufficient funds for day to day operations. That's why the market reaction is muted. All down to vlad now to pull in this promised funding. Question is from whom and how. Hopefully sorted before dosing starts, he's had years to get it in place.

"complete responses ", that means cured, right?!

The pipeline and the way it's been revealed says Avacta are planning on going it alone or know they'll likely be bought out in 12-18 months. Before now I always thought they'd be partnering up on future pipeline. Going it alone means partnering out ava6k, with a large upfront payment before phase 2 starts later next year which will fund each of these in to clinic, perhaps similtaneously, and then no more fund raises ever needed as sales come in (my preferred method given most shares are in my pension and one that could see the mcap eventually reach billions, and maybe even start paying a dividend within 5 years), or after phase 1b, at least one large pharma with its loose change will snap everything up. Hopefully they'll have been some funding secured before then so the SP still isn't in the gutter or at least trigger a bidding war.

If it was solely straight up none dilutive funding, eg a loan with commercial rate of interest, then the SP would make sod all difference. The fact Peter seems extremely frustrated, and these leaks must have some basis in truth, means whatever funding method they are trying to use is directly related to our value, and with it dropping it makes achieving what they want more difficult. Guess this is the risk of investing in pre clinical pharma. I still think 100% rise from here is achievable when trials start and funding isn't too detrimental on us existing holders.

Lets hope these are better at negotiating a deal/partnership than Avacta. 3 years in to phase 1, several placings later, for a technology better than any ADC out there and CEO admits still no deal in sight.

All well and good having a pipeline, but if it lacks any details of how they plan to fund it without issuing more shares I suspect the SP will rise in the morning before finishing red. Then again, this pipeline reveal isn't really for us investers, it's aimed for our potential suitors who will likely be making a move in the next 12-18 months.

As soon as trials start in anger I can see a 50-100% spike from here, and then if non-dilutive funding is achieved, a further boost, quite possibly to 5p and beyond depending on terms.

I'm hoping funding is announced before or at same time as trial starting to show confidence and max effect on SP, but guess it depends on how successful he was at achieving funding.

Neither is Vlad to be fair

That was my question she answered (first one I've ever had answered in a QA session!) about would ava6k based on the safety data so far that if it was shown to be no more effective than dox, would it still get approval for its chosen indications. I found her answer interesting and not what I was expecting (considering Taps response to it becoming standard of care overnight), and wish there was a chance for followup questions, for example what is the measurement for effectiveness over dox? Dox obviously works otherwise it wouldn't be prescribed, but it's main barrier to longer term use is safety/toxicity. Does a a have to show X% greater tumour shrinkage to be approved? Who sets this goal, is it regulator? Does Avacta have input so it isn't an 'impossible' goal? Does this affect the thinking of treating lower amounts for longer, is there a time frame where this improved response must be demonstrated?

Got a load more too I could ask.. Maybe ones for the agm.

She seemed v confident, she made it clear that slapping someone else's drug on our platform is a no-go, and listening again I presume this next candidate drug will likely be an off patent / generic one rather than waiting for a partner to collaborate, so funding will certainly be a question. I will be disappointed if a pipeline is announced with no idea how to fund it - I also note she refused to use the words 'dilutive funding' so wouldn't surprise me if this is used alongside selling of DX, just hope it's from a far higher SP than now. Does nasdaq have different funding requirements before listing? Chatgpt seems to think a minimum price of $4 per share but don't know if that's bolox

hope you're right, wents. i've give my remaining ******* to see 0.5 again

Whoever owns UFOs assets this time next year is gonna make a fortune. Shame it wont be us shareholders.

tbf i plucked that figure out my ****, point was our bit will be done hopefully during phase 2 and accelerated approval met and it'll be down to a partner to get the stuff in to hospitals and help with phase 3. theres no point in simon if we're not pursuing licence deals and given he's apparently busy, i suspect that's the direction we'll take.

alan also said attaching traditional chemo warheads is pointless and funding wasn't an issue so i'm not paying much attention to what has gone before.