focusIR May 2024 Investor Webinar: Blue Whale, Kavango, Taseko Mines & CQS Natural Resources. Catch up with the webinar here.
Glad it s obvious to you. When they haven't done a deal for a number of years how much more time will they wait until the "right" offer comes along? Could this attitude be the reason why they are valued around cash? Oh yes,blame covid!
They failed to address the question about the failure to do a farm out to-date. What do they mean that they won't do a deal that doesn't fully value Anchois? Have they got serious offers on the table or not?
Also they skipped the question as to whether they still receive 50% of their remuneration at rock bottom prices. Im afraid there is a big risk that there is not a real willingness to regain credibility.
Hoping to attend. In any case have registered and have submitted the following questions:
1. What are the reasons that the company has not entered into a farm-out or other type of agreement for a number of years now (5-6yrs+)? This questions applies to the whole of the portfolio but especially the Anchois field that we have been told a number of times about its value?
2. Why have investors have not been kept more regularly informed as to the company's strategy apart from some very generic statements?
3. (a) Why did it take management such a long time before they decided on a kind of pay-cut and even then, they created a conflict of interest situation by awarding themselves the balance in shares at record low prices? (b) Do any director still receive shares as part of their pay in lieu of the 50% cut?
It's not a bad strategy at all. He's kept sufficient shares in case there are meteoric returns having secured a very decent return already. Given how many shares RG has been offloading there seems to be no shortage of buyers as the SP has been standing its ground reasonably well.
The share and the way it 's been trading just doesn't seem to show the "body language" of failure ... though success shouldn't be taken for granted.
Without pre-empting things, would £2.50, £3 or £5 be an appropriate target level to hold a party?
Also with social distancing, we'd need to have lots of separate tables ...
Pleased to see such extensive consolidation without any serious fall in the share price.
Despite the spectacular rise in a short period from the 80s/90s and before that 30s to 50s, the SP is holding its ground very well. However, it is worth remembering that before the fire sales the SP was around 100p only last Feb and, even after the fundraising, it still hit 85p or so at the end of April after the RNS of April 23rd.
The first catalyst Seres was a success, but that was good news for the LBP sector in the sense that it was a reality check on live biotherapeutics. the not 4d specifically. But the main catalyst has been the oncology part A result. (In my view) this should be enough to support the market cap as it stands now. That's if we go by the logic that the market for our oncology LBP (MRx0158) should be in the USD billions and we should have a decent chance (e.g. 25%, 30% ... 40%?) of being ultimately successful.
With a positive result in IBS - the market seems to be of that opinion - we could expect to follow some of Seres's way upwards. Maybe it won't be quite the same multiple as we have already had some wind in our sails from it to an extent. With a negative result, the fall may be significant (e.g. high double-digits) but it should be short-lived as:
(i) I don't think the market has fully digested how positive the part A oncology results for MRx0158 were and
(ii) there are strong indications that there will be positive newsflow up to year end starting from Q3 leading up to Nasdaq preparations. Somehow, it is not only the more or less expected news from the programmes, but it is the surprises that I'm looking forward to which could be on the business or the technical front e.g. a new joint-venture involving one of 4D's LBS as an add-on to a trial, news from the vaccine collaboration with Merck ...
Vive NCYT, mais ...where are the numbers?
Thank you for re-posting.
Our knowledge of the immune system response to biotherapeutics (see below) plus the focus on bacteria metabolites that can act as HDAC inhibitors places us in a strong position to achieve a positive outcome during the covid-19 trial too.
In the case of covid-19, we are targeting inflammation whilst at the same time not limiting the capabilities of the immune system. As per the presentation (13:15 onwards): "...as a company we have a strong background in investigating the immune response to microbiome strains ..."
As per the webinar (still on the same page) we are also researching bacteria metabolites (i.e. substances that are produced as part of the bacteria metabolism) that can act as HDAC inhibitors.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2013887/
HDAC are histone deacetylases (had to look this up) and have to do with the control of the expression of the genes. My understanding, and in a nutshell, HDAC are designed to end the expression of DNA after transcription. However things can get out of control and hence the inflammation.
And I thought Covid-19 would be the "outsider" among the trials.
7:43 into the webinar: "... we therefore believe that our screening approach is unique to the microbiome field" by Dr Mulde
From the call yesterday and the article, it would appear that what sets DDDD and its IP apart lies in its methodology and know-how of screening and identifying the right bacteria (among trillions) by understanding their functioning and their role in "modulating diverse disease pathways throughout the body".
That skill enables the company to have a platform to address (potentially) very diverse diseases. That alone should make DDDD much more efficient and effective in targeting a number of illnesses as opposed to going through huge R&D expenses for each disease separately as it would be the case with traditional R&D.
There seems to be a concerted stepping up of market awareness campaign by the company which seems well timed: in the wings of Nasdaq, presence at the recent biotech investor conference, analyst conf call with a focus on the science, busy q3/q4 in terms of expected announcements. Would they have been doing all this unless FURTHER good news were expected?
Though the even the recent part A of phase I/II in oncology was so good that has pre-empted the outcome of part B: at the risk of sounding like a broken record the 5/12 result (patients that saw a benefit over total sample) result is good enough to give a percentage that exceeds the 10% criterion of success even if you add 30 patients with no benefit. 5/42 =12%. So we have a further positive piece of news in oncology almost in the bag.
And as DDDD’s oncology therapy becomes increasingly real -it’s already started becoming real- the words “disruptive technology / therapy” will take a new meaning …
As 4D has a portfolio of programmes, valuation can be the sum of probability weighted valuations in case of success in each programme (either ultimate success or at the next stage in the development of each programme). In other words it is not a russian roulette approach that small or even medium-sized biotechs are often faced with.
To work out the value of the company you can apply the probability of success at the next stage (or final success) in each programme (e.g. phase II IBS, or part B oncology Phase I/II) times the value that will be achieved upon success. That would be in order to work out what the company should be valued at.
Now, the emerging value upon success is a guess: just the IBS market is worth over £1billion and DDDD should be able to capture a big share of that and also expand it. The certainty is that a market cap of £170m is far too low as the probability weighed up sums in case of successful results.
Yes there will be a funding need but let's say that will involve guesswork say it is £20-50m? But, given that results were so good on the oncology front there shouldn't be a shortage of willing parties to invest. Also, given that there has been progress on all fronts, we are probably getting closer to hitting one of Merck's milestones under that "top secret" collaboration.
In any case, even with today's rise we are still seriously undervalued in my opinion. Most likely it won't be a straight line upwards and there will be peaks and troughs but I'd expect an upward trend in Q3 and Q4.
Great reasoning!
Indeed, so we don't know the precise milestones nor the timing nor the amount as it is "up to".
Could you present evidence as to the expected timing and any conditionality of such payment of £347m?
Given the outstanding news from oncology programme, it is suprising the share price isn't above £1 even with some uncertainty as to how those promising projects (all are still alive) will be funded. Uncertainty refers to the type of financing not to the likelihood of securing it!
Will there be a strategic investor at this stage or non-dilutive funding through a JV parter in the form of a big pharma? Will there be a public offering or a rights issue in conjunction with a strategic investor? I would prefer the latter.
The oncology results were that good, in my view, that can support the market cap of the company as it stands. It is the one of the three (expected) pieces of news in 2020 (part A oncology, covid-19, IBS) and it turned out to be good news! In fact and given the size of the sample, it is exceptionally good news.
However, I think the company has more aces up its sleeves e.g. IBS trial results are also very likely to show success. And that's in q3. So will we have the announcement of such news and then a significant fundraising or the other way round? My guess it is that it would be the former.
In any case, after some partial derisking by selling some top slices during the previous rise in the 80s/90s, I subsequentlyj bought back, in the brief fall that ensued, not only the shares I sold but bought back more than my original holding. So the oncology RNS was a nice surprise as it came sooner than expected. And ... I thought it was the riskiest of the three results for 2020 at least.
Bearded D
Can I ask what your qualifications to say that such results are laughable?
In any case, the fact that 42% (5/12) saw some clinical improvement allows to add 30 more patients to the 12 (with no improvement) and the threshold of 10% is still met (5/42 is greater than 10%). So Part B can be already thought of as a success!
Impressive, no?
The only question is at what price they'll be able to secure the 0.48% of shares ;-)
Just saying that the 10% target - even for the expanded sample- has been met already even BEFORE recruiting the extra 30 patients in PART B!
It's simple arithmetics 42% x 12/42 = 12%
The sample may have been very small but:
- The trial is to expand to include up to 30 more people. We already have a benefit of >10% in the disease control rate even before seeing the desired results on the additional 30 as ... 42% x 12 / 42 (= enlarged group) = 12%.
So in the Part B of the study we are starting with already having achieved the 10% target! (That's assuming that for the existing group results stay as they are)
This is how important the results were but without having the numbers to make them statistically significant.
- "Having been a clinical investigator on over 150 early stage trials with a wide variety of anti-cancer agents, I believe that these results are extremely encouraging, particularly given the novelty of the approach and the durability of clinical benefit observed."according to Prof. Jaap Verweij, Emeritus Professor of Medical Oncology
- We saw almost one in three patients (30%) having achieved tumour shrinkage. That's a result that has, in all likelihood, exceeded initial expectations especially taking into account the advanced stage of the patients. Yes in a small sample but it is unlikely to have been a coincidence ...
Oncology is the biggest target of the company but arguably the most difficult to achieve. However we are now officially allowed to be more optimistic than before.
Unless management was confident about at least one success this year:
- Would an eventual Nasdaq listing been mentioned, let alone firmed up as people say? It wouldn't make sense to move to NASDAQ with a market cap from London where it currently stands or an even lower one. I'd assume that 4D would rely on at least one major piece of positive news to take it to a decent market cap (i.e. at a minium amounting to a few hundreds of millions of USD comparable to small to medium sized US biotechs) and then pursue growth at a quicker pace in NASDAQ alongside the achievement of further milestones.
- It would be curious to talk to putative investors about the company's potential this week at a biotech and biopharma forum/conference and to announce unsatisfactory results from IBS therapy next week or in Q3 anyway. It's not as if potential investors are to commit straight away.
- Without overstepping the mark the company has given encouraging updates in press releases/interviews that allow investors to be positive about at least one major success in the course of 2020 among the IBS, covid-19 and oncology programmes. Also, that's setting aside any surprise announcements from Merck collaboration.
Have said before that unless that unless we receive the actual news nothing can be taken for granted. However ... don't signals point in the same direction?