Member Info for mathsprof

The rules for the declaration of a trade depend on its size. We may be lucky that a 9.1m trade is only delayed by 1 day. I suspect it was worked over more than one day (not today), and hence the SP rising dramatically. Come this morning, there is nothing more to sustain the SP, and it collapses back to the former level.

I'm interested to see Mr Slater's next holding RNS. If there isn't one we have a new larger holder.

I can't see how a sell at that price could be worked, and isn't Mr Slater the only holder who could sell that many. So I conclude it must be a buy. But the intriguing question is "why now"?

and don't fret - it's your not you're

The 2400% merchants have not taken off 100% to get the percentage INCREASE.

I agree with Ruga. But I think we're using 1.125p as closing price so 27/1.125 - 1 = 23 ie 2300%

nomlungu - you're calculator is showing an answer of 23 too!

lets hope it stays there!

Agreed. There are still eager buyers about. Even after 1m sales in 10 ins, bid is still 1.127p and rising again.

The timing of this RNS had nothing to do with VAL or fundraising. Patents are always unpredictable when they arrive.

So don't expect an immediate fundraise. The positive is that we've had an RNS with a blue SP holding for more than 24 hours. And you can sell at more than yesterday morning. I think the next move is much more likely to be up than down.

shows the nex trades - C7 often reports them on main bb

I wish I could predict them too.
C7 did ask for my thoughts, which I should probably have kept to myself! Not to be viewed as predictions.

Short term, I expect the market will overreact and SP could easily hit 15/16p again. But logically it should only add 2p or so.

Longer term, it will reduce the need for dilution, and so encourage long term holders, so I would expect 15-20p to be a good base from which positive news of success/deals to launch from. After all 15p only equates to half the max Mcap reached in the past.

Thanks, inanaco. I've a much clearer picture now, and can answer my own question as to what value it might add to SP, short and long term. More importantly, the grant would push forward new research at a fraction of the cost to Scancell and its shareholders.

Thanks for the replies. Part of the reason I asked was the impressive list of the 16 Eminent scientists making up the research team, and wondering how they would be involved with Scancell. Will all the research be owned by Scancell?

Can anyone explain why winning the GC could add anything to the SP? Would any of the funding be directly added to the Scancell coffers? Would it just be PR?

Oxmil - thanks.

I think I have got the wrong idea about a peer review. What we see is the submitted paper by the original authors, reviewed by experts for the publishers (anon), and amended as necessary after review. Not the place for comments or judgements on the actual results.

This article does not look to me to be a "peer" group review, simply an article by those involved in the trial.

I was hoping for some comments by some new faces assessing the study from an impartial point of view? Too much to hope for?

The RNS has triggered a strange reaction in the MMs. Spread has now narrowed to 0.8-0.85, but the bid at 0.8p is fiction. Someone was "lucky" to sell at 0.804p straightaway, but now impossible.
But why worry? Sell at 0.8p? Really no point - shares are now good value at that price in spite of many perceived negatives. Should be able to sell at well over a penny before the next real "event".

One more observation:
NS has not updated the market since his holding was 4.54% of 407m shares. This was before the May and September placings, which presumably if he took part in, kept his holding above 4%. So we don't actually know if he took part in any of the placings, or bought shares on the open market. What we do know is that he holds more now, and his holding is diluted, like the rest of us!

Woody: "Going on that theory all AIM shareholder information would be inaccurate lol. "

Just about sums it up. Lots of occasions when holders here have not updated.

Notice also the reason:

"An event changing the breakdown of voting rights"

but then the 8755000 are shares (8A) in section 7 the rest fin. instr. (8B)
and indirect part of the total in section 8A with section 8B blank with the rest as a direct holding.

very sloppy.

Read it carefully, please, even though its incomplete and confusing. My take is:

Holding has increased, but % decreased and he has rearranged his holding into direct and indirect.

Looks like he took new shares in placing, and then shuffled them around.