Member Info for Matml74

Once SEE has completely cornered the DMS market there will be no option other than the SP to move north. I am more than happy to wait and accumulate as many shares as possible at these levels and keep seeing these licence deals come in.

Doubt it. The company will know what QC related future licence revenue will look like and that will be taken into account in potential buyout.

The strong II holdings in SEE will ensure the company is not bought out on the cheap.

Think you will find the legacy car makers will still hold significant market share by 2025 in the markets that will require DMS. Volkswagen are forecast to be the biggest worldwide EV producer 2025 by a long way.

Bozo, you may have missed that SEE tech will be taken up in Chinese manufactured cars through partners that have embedded the tech such as Qualcomm. This was recently stated by the CEO after the trading update in February. So it doesn’t matter where in the world the cars are made SEE now has the capability to be included.

It is now up to the company to ensure they are winning a large part of the DMS market and revenue and subsequent SP increase will follow.

Not serious surely STP. Would be very unusual to base a t/o value on management performance targets!

The targets were set in 2019 long before many of the partnerships, Qualcomm etc or the regulatory frameworks were adopted. PM should be quids in, although he better start issuing some res's in the near term if he wants to hit his 2022 target!

“ Lets face it, the SM management have never cared for the private investor, except when they needed cash.”

Like all listed companies then. What a ridiculous statement!

Just no volume so so can’t move either direction. If there was a buyer it will take them an eternity to build a position when there is barely 1m shares traded each day.

There was a bull-****e UT trade last night as well which inflated the price.

No infill drilling means less rigs required as it looks like they have the data required for DFS. Its all about testing growth extensions at the moment.

Rhodium moving up as well.

Nice post Brand!

“ 3. Whilst the increased market share sounds significant, and the better margins are always useful, we still lack any actual hard financial forecasts”

He clearly said in his interview at the back end of 2021 that the company will be in a position to give forecasts to market at the end of this financial year.

I am happy to wait for this. Once the current rfq’s have been awarded they will be in a much better position to forecast than this point in time.

Robert, Its been a disappointing couple of days for sure. Its very hard at the moment to make sense of exactly what has gone wrong with the trial and hopefully RM and the team will be able to shed some light for us over the next few days. Keep your chin up.

I am absolutely gutted with the readout today. Have been in a state of shock most of today. I certainly did not see that coming with respect to how poor the outcomes were on the primary endpoints. Hopefully RM comes out and addresses shareholders of a way forward for the company in the very near future and something they can garner from the full analysis that will enable the company to move forward and will wait to see what that brings.

Good luck to all you genuine sahreholders and hopefully everyone is OK after today.

The Sponsor has every right to look at the data once unblinded. They own it. They can look at it. Just because it’s a small biotech doesn’t mean it’s rights are any different to any other pharma.

Liam, There was an interim analysis planned on the data so it’s not like they are peaking at it multiple times.

The FDA guidelines allow provisions for looking at the interim data. If people think in the middle of a pandemic the FDA are not going to make some allowances on this they are mistaken. Ridgeback/Merck took a peak. There is a possibility SNG looked at the interim data to allow planning of drug production. It is not unreasonable that, with worldwide issue around supply of various consumables the FDA would not allow this if based around planning purposes.

Page 31 outlines the FDA guidance for looking at interim data for planning purposes.

https://www.fda.gov/media/75398/download

Not sure Doc. I certainly had expectations they would have been released by now. I think we can see by the companies actions since December there are a lot of moving parts and I am sure they have a well thought out strategy on how to get the drug approved and produced at a scale and this is all intertwined. Investors perhaps, have been solely focussed on the trial readout and not taking into account these other parts which may have lengthen the timelines.

If anyone wants to look at what’s involved in a statistical analysis plan here is Remdesivir’s for the EAMS covid trial. I have tried to track down the Sprinter SAP but no luck.

https://isaric4c.net/files/StatisticalAnalysisPlanv1.0.pdf

“Either the top lines results are a bit sketchy and they are really having to work the numbers to get them looking half decent.”

I see this written a lot but there are a few reasons why this can’t happen on the topline primary endpoint data.

1. Firstly the data once cleaned it is locked for analysis. This dataset can be used by anyone (regulators/peer reviewers/SNG etc). So this dataset can’t be played with to get the result you want as it will get found out at a later date either by regulators/peer review.

2. The locked dataset has the Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP) applied to it. This document has already been submitted to the regulators, prior to completion of the trial or any unblinding of the data. It is very specific and outlines exactly what analysis is applied to each primary and secondary endpoint. The main analyses to be applied to the primary and secondary endpoints are outlined in the protocol for anyone that wants to see what they are doing.

3. Lastly the success of the trial, as outlined in the protocol, is based on very simple analysis of the two primary endpoints. One of these primary endpoints needs to be statistically significant for the trial to be considered successful.

So any suggestions that they are working the numbers don’t relate to reality. The way the numbers are ‘worked’ are documented prior to trial completion and both regulators and peer reviewers have access to these documents.

If they were involved it is more likely they were involved in stability testing of the formulation IMO.

https://www.sourcebioscience.com/stability-storage-solutions

Viroclinics have a UK lab so they could have still used them.

True Doc. I think with Ashfield it was rns’d as they were about to start a visible recruitment drive.

My thoughts..... Another piece in the puzzle is in place. A shrewd move getting someone with big pharma experience and covid related PR. For a man of this calibre going out alone and naming a tiny little biotech from Southampton as one of the two start up contracts is pretty exciting.