George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. Watch the video here.
Www.aimchaos.files.wordpress.com/2024/02/04-bsf-enterprise-an-introduction-1.pdf
Hope it's of use to anybody!
However, it is very important to remember that both AVA6000 and AVA3996 could receive accelerated approval from the FDA / MHRA etc, BEFORE they have completed (indeed, even commenced) their Pivotal trials (being P2 for 6000 and P3 for 3996).
As an aside, I am quite sure that the block selling going on these past few days, will be linked, one way or another, to the impending issuance of shares to HCI next week.
Very much looking forward to next week.
Following the announcement of the completion of the Suni Resources acquisition, I've spent the past three days researching and drafting this relative valuation analysis on Tirupati.
www.aimchaos.files.wordpress.com/2023/04/tirupati-graphite-valuation-analysis-05.04.2023-5.pdf
Simple message: TGR is brutally undervalued in comparison to its peer group. My view is that it should not simply be trading in line with the peer group, but in fact at a significant premium to the peer group average.
As the business stands, I think TGR should be valued at in excess of 200p/s.
Please read the note before shouting me down. There is plenty of relevant data in the note from which I have arrived at this target valuation.
PAH, I think people are (incorrectly) using Shasqi's compound, and the extremely high doxorubicin dosing levels they've achieved with it in their Phase 1a study, as a reference point - which is silly.
Click chemistry and cleavage via FAP - two COMPLETELY different delivery platforms.
I am quite sure Avacta will not go beyond 400mg/m2 (if indeed they get to C7).
As ever though, all my own opinion.
......
Morning IFA90 - if nothing has changed with regards to how quickly they can dose patients / how many doses per patient are required, etc... Then absolute best case it'll be 42 days between start of C5 and start of C6 (which they have actually already achieved between C3 and C4).
We have plateaued at +25% incremental increases, in line with the Modified Fibonacci Sequence that the trial is following.
Next dose should be 312.5mg/m2.
As I Tweeted some weeks ago, in a sense Avacta has been a victim of its own success (at least in the very near-term for traders focussed on weekly share price movements), as when it set the trial parameters it never thought that it'd reach 200mg/m2, let alone see the MTD dramatically surpass it (which I think will happen).
For Avacta, its long term shareholders and the value of the pre CISION platform, it is extraordinarily good news.
The delivery platform has exceeded (by a long way) all expectations set by the pre-clinical data.
To be clear, I think that a change in communications (and several other matters) will come in the near future. That's my opinion.
My opinion is based on numerous large shareholders (including myself) actively pushing management for a number of changes in the company. Our actions are fact.
A considerable number of shareholders who I speak to – who in aggregate control a not-insignificant portion of the TVR – believe that Avacta's share price should be multiples of where it is now, given that the preCISION platform has now been proved both with 6000 clinical data, and with 3996 pre-clinical data.
Avacta has an 88% retail shareholder base. They hold the power.
Forcing major change is relatively straightforward, if the retail shareholder base can be brought onside of those pushing for said change.
From conversations I have had with dozens of shareholders, as well as from reading various online forums, I would suggest that the large majority of retail – and thus the large majority of Avacta’s shareholders – want to see change.
There are a few simple fixes that can be easily made, which IMO would enable the share price to reflect the phenomenal progress made to date in the clinic with 6000 (i.e. via a large rerating upwards!).
Never been more excited about Avacta’s future. People seem to have completely forgotten that they have a working preCISION platform that will be worth tens of $ billions in the not too distant future. It’s just a matter of going through the clinic and ticking the boxes.
[So yes, RAH was correct in his statement below.]
More than 18:1 was not unexpected, for everyone who has been following Avacta (in mice, the ratio was 18:1 on average, and the company has been clear in its communications that due to less free FAP in the bloodstream in humans, compared to rodents, that this ratio could be surpassed).
If I do indeed recall correctly - and I say that as no one was given hard copies, it was all presented on the projector, and the specific slide wasn't up there for long - the ratio spanned from the teens to 120-130.
Happily for you with your rapacious mind, we in the auditorium had zero phone signal the entire afternoon.
I'd suggest that the reason for the delay in announcement of dosing C5, is to get permission from MHRA, and subsequently the SDMC, to alter the protocol so that they can hike the dose in greater increments than 25%. In this way, it could be found in no more than 3 cohorts from now. Just my own opinion, as always.
A wonder drug (and platform!) in the making.
That website does not account for ongoing equity dilution. Nor does it report on increases / decreases in positions below 0.50% (except for the initial reduction below 0.50%, as was the case for Jupiter on 18 October (who will, in my view, almost certainly have subsequently closed out the 0.30% balance of its position)).
If one thinks that Bronte has an open short still, then one must think that it increased its short, post the 95 placing, to maintain its 0.50% short position of the enlarged equity.
I find that highly unlikely.
Incorrect. It will only be 15-20 patients per tumour type in P1b.
If only one tumour type is selected, there could be as few as 15 patients in the whole of P1b.
If three tumour types are selected, there could be as many as 60 patients in P1b.
See slide 25 below for detail.
avacta.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Avacta-Group-plc-Preliminary-Results-April-2021-for-web.pdf
Significantly better than preclinical, in my personal view.
Public evidence from the fact that they went to a C4 (when they had initially been in two minds to go there, based on preclinical data combined with standard dox human data).
That said, I’ve been wrong on Avacta many times before!
Laughing face x1, crying face x10
Many thanks for sharing a link that actually works, VertizeaSun.
https://aimchaos.com/category/investment-notes/
Morning,
Hope everyone's keeping well.
I've put together a note covering recent developments:
www.aimchaos.files.wordpress.com/2022/10/avacta-group-transaction-and-fundraise.pdf
Personally, I think yesterday's news was fantastic.
It primes the SP perfectly to react as we hope it will to positive news from AVA6K Pla, later this quarter.
Really not long to wait now until that company-defining news...!
Robbie, it is nothing like a death spiral agreement.
It is a conventional loan for £2m, with a 2-year term, paying a 5% coupon.
The only addendum is that Cotec can simply choose to be paid back in shares, at a fixed price of 27p per share (which happens to be a 130% premium to the current mid-price of 11.75p), rather than be paid back in cash. That would equate to 7,407,407 shares, excluding any potential rolled-up interest.
I was sure I saw a post by RAH over the weekend on TMAC - perhaps it's been deleted.
Anyway, I think the gist of the question was: would an exquisitely specific pre CISION prodrug, to an extent negate the need for the development of TMAC molecules?
My answer to that would be, Certainly not.
In the best case scenario, that both platforms were to become a resounding success, then:
Pre CISION prodrugs I believe would be considered as, and used for, first line of defence against many cancer types. They’d replace standard chemotherapies used around the world today.
TMAC molecules would be a significantly more expensive treatment (incorporating the Affimer / mAb; the linker; and the warhead). However, their efficacy is likely to be superior to pre CISION prodrugs.
I have tried to explain as best I can in layman’s terms, exactly how TMAC molecules work, on pp.24-26 here:
aimchaos.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/avacta-group-precision-platform-3.pdf
In short, the prodrugs are purely chemotherapy (albeit very targeted).
The TMAC molecules on the other hand, have three weapons in their arsenal. Not only do they have the chemotherapy aspect (or something similar, in the warhead), but they also catalyse white blood cells to attack the tumour, as well as support those white blood cells via the immunotherapy component of the molecule (e.g. an Affimer blockading PD-1 or PD-L1). This ‘triple threat’ of the TMAC molecule, theoretically should produce even better anti-tumour activity than the likes of AVA6000.
The early pre-clinical data for the first two TMAC molecules have been incredible. See slide 20 below. Over half the animals experienced complete tumour regression; and, what’s more subsequent immunity to rechallenge. It would be foolish to use that word that everyone prays for, at this extremely early stage – but if those pre-clinical results can be built on and one day brought into man… Well. Who knows. TMACs could certainly be up there with the most potent oncology drugs ever developed, at the minimum.
avacta.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/IWC-2021-Avacta-Presentation.pdf
It’s important to note also that some tumours simply do not respond to chemotherapy treatment. Circling back to RAH’s question, that is the USP of TMAC molecules, and why the platform would still have a place (if Avacta can get it to work in man), regardless of the prior success of pre CISION. A cancer therapy that combines chemotherapy and immunotherapy in a singe molecule… It is quite incredible to contemplate.
I asked at the AGM if a data room for AVA6000 was open to possible licensees and/or suitors.
Whilst AS would not confirm whether actual talks were ongoing with any third parties, he did acknowledge that, yes, of course the data room could ("theoretically speaking" was the term used, if I recall correctly!) be open to any serious parties, under NDA.
"An opinion is that it would not be allowed to continue if it just went in and came out the other end untouched."
I am also of this opinion. Why?
clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04969835
Secondary Outcome Measures:
3) Elimination half-life (t1/2) of AVA6000 & Doxorubicin
4) Renal clearance (CLr) of AVA6000 & Doxorubicin
At the end of the AGM presentation, when I was questioning him, AS acknowledged that the Secondary Outcome Measures in the trial (i.e. focus on Activation at TME (essentially, Efficacy)) are critical – in reality, as important as the Primary Outcome Measures (Safety and Tolerability). As such, if NONE of the SOMs were being met throughout C1 (and subsequently, C2), it would have been pointless for the SDMC to continue the trial.
Now, I note that it's not down in black and white anywhere that achieving the SOMs is "critical" to trial progression... But, 1) I trust AS' word; and 2) I like to think I have a bit of common sense. In reality, activation in TME is as important as safety and tolerability, even in P1a (i.e. proof of concept). The SOMs are, in truth, POMs – and I think the SDMC will be treating them as such.
"What we anticipate is that very shortly we'll see dose escalation into Cohort 3" - AS, early on in his presentation last week at the AGM.
Quite a strong statement. There have been constant slippages, and it's likely there'll be more going forward - but those words do at least suggest that the last patient of C2 is very close to completion.
I'd go further than Timster - I think that the next Dose Escalation RNS will not only stabilize the SP, but provide a real boost, as the wider market (that only reads the RNSs, and hasn’t followed the story closely like us shareholders) will get excited and throw some new buyers in.