Adrian Hargrave, CEO of SEEEN, explains how the new funds will accelerate customer growth Watch the video here.
"In line with the change in leadership, and in light of the current lack of market appetite for exploration activity, Chariot also plans to evaluate other opportunities available to it" ... this could mean if you put it in the translation machine:
(i) put the company or the Lixus field up for sale OR partial sale. I have suggested the company sale option before in light of the lack of progress over the years but assuming Lixus has a decent value, OR ii) buy a producing asset at reasonably good value OR
(iii) with a new CEO, it should be a less hard task to find a strategic investor ... In fact, might it have been the condition by such a part?! That's where things may get most exciting, assuming an investor that could add some value.
However, let's not forget the neighbouring plots in Namibia and Brazil which were mentioned in the broker's report and that are coming up for exploration. Some as early as H2 2020. That should give the SP a significant lift upwards. Well, it could hardly go much lower!
Are things beginning to look a little brighter or is it my idea?
The way the SNG price was going recently i.e. down to 35/33p made me think that news might have leaked and results were not very likely to be good. That was even in the (public) knowledge that the usual institutional investors had also been selling there. Still, I decided to stay put as my exposure in SNG was significantly less than in DDDD. Yesterday, it was a very pleasant surprise as the announced news is a major step against covid-19. But, what conclusions or parallels could be drawn re or with DDDD?
- For a start, the persistent drop in DDDD share price also means nothing in my opinion! Not that we need much confirmation of that but the extent of the price fall, coupled to the erratic timing (at best) of TR-1 info, gave rise to some some vague talk about placement at ... some point in the future.
- Next, SNG001 presents DDDD with (another) team up opportunity as DDDD should be among any possible combo therapy candidates, at the top of the list, due to the non-toxic nature of its drugs. And for the same reason, other successful pharmas should be interested for a combo therapy even if DDDD's MRx-4DP0004 proves only moderately successful... perhaps interest will also be shown before phase II results.
- Whilst SNG is not only focussed on covid-19, it does not have the breadth of DDDD's focus vis-a-vis the various programmes. Yesterday, SNG went up a few leagues in terms of valuation. So we can imagine what happens when one or more of DDDD's programmes begin to announce further positive results.
After all, because of the hints / statements about the early successes of such programmes we could be forgiven for being a little optimistic!
The following two key findings suggest that SNG001 brings very positive results to most patients except for the most advanced cases where there is an improvement but any positive impact is non-statistically significant:
1. "The odds of developing severe disease (e.g. requiring ventilation or resulting in death) during the treatment period (day 1 to day 16) were significantly reduced by 79% for patients receiving SNG001 compared to patients who received placebo (OR 0.21 [95% CI 0.04-0.97]; p=0.046)."
That is an impressive result and should give serious hope for the ones who begin to show symptoms!
2. "Patients who received SNG001 were more than twice as likely to recover (defined as 'no limitation of activities' or 'no clinical or virological evidence of infection') over the course of the treatment period compared to those receiving placebo (HR 2.19 [95% CI 1.03-4.69]; p=0.043)."
It's been a very nice surprise given where the share price has been heading recently.
The excuse about not providing updates on progress of projects or other aspects of the business has become a very general cliche among the companies that are making insufficient progress with their projects or not much to update investors on (e.g. what happened with SCIB when SCLP went into silent mode). NDAs may address detailed terms of agreements with partners, IP information that has to remain confidential, information about a trial as it carries on (even though an interim statement may be issued. Sensitive details about discussions with the regulator may not be appropriate to reveal to the general public. However, it is misleading to say that a company can't give selectively generic project updates (e.g. when SCIB 1 is to go ahead) or information on how partherships with third parties are going. The recent example is Modi-1.
Hi C7,
nice to hear from you. I hope it wasn't my posts that sent you to sleep sooner that you might have done. Thank you for your comments. And indeed, the idea wasn't to give a conclusion, but to let investors draw their own. It was also to gauge to what extent people want to raise similar issues in the context of the AGM though hoping for good news beforehand which will reduce the agenda. Quite pleased with the responses it generated.
Agreed spiceyG, might the recent relatively large purchases be "the sign" for having turned the final corner? All other possible signs i.e. very positive RNSs, Acacia going to zero, piercing through moving , LT averages didn't make a difference.
In any case, never thought that a bid of 39.6 would be remotely ... satisfactory or good news. It seems so today after yesterday :-))
Inanaco,
Blimey, I really hope for you that Scancell will develop a vaccine about attention seeking eventually!
As I said, there's is life outside this bb.
Inanaco,
I partly understand your irritation. Who are you by the way? As far as I can tell, you spend hours on this bb, almost on a daily basis, to pose as an "expert". Are you that territorial? It's only a bb.
On one hand, it's great that you show such interest in my posts. On the other hand, you tend to spin other people's posts or even tell outright lies, frankly (the false "quote" re professor Durrant for example). That's not on and it says a lot about you. If in (genuine) doubt and you are misunderstanding what one is saying, try to re-read their posts in full context.
As for your claimed scientific knowledge, you remind me of what a teacher used to tell us at school: " in certain matters, half-baked knowledge is worse than no knowledge". Half-baked would be generous in your case as far as I can tell from the answers you gave the other day since you forced the point - unless you are unable to articulate scientific concepts. Also, you don't know my background. If you ever come to the next AGM, you might find out.
Try to calm down. There is a life outside this bb :-)
Hello RuckRover
Re your 19.43 post of yesterday: first, thank you for the polite tone of your post. The comments in my post at the origin of this thread, were referring to the overall management style of SCLP and the whole of the management team and were by no means specific (only) to professor Durrant - I also take on board what you say about her re PR (of substance) and we can't deny the credit that is due to her re the IP credentials of Scancell and, very likely, in other respects too.
In the post, I asked a few questions and highlighted areas where SCLP is lacking, mainly in the operations arena. Hence the significant delays in projects, the disjointed RNSs that aren't followed up on time, the lack of sufficient commercial progress and adding to that the irregular investor updates ... is it a wonder the valuation is at comparable levels to that of a startup or even below? It is possibly telling that the company has a CEO and a CSO but not an obvious COO (chief operations officer) to make sure tasks get done across areas of responsibilities. If it is mainly the CEO that has taken over such role, then he needs to up his game. There are also 4 NEDs, possibly too many for the size of the company (i.e. many chiefs and not enough resources on the execution front).
Could it be that the responsibility for the operational tasks lies among the CEO, a part-time CSO and possibly the Development Director? If so, is it a surprise that project management and the execution of any follow-up tasks related issues related to timely progressing of trials, product development and other fronts (as we have seen in the past) appear to be very delayed or even falling between the cracks?
To summarise, the company certainly has credentials to demonstrate in the research arena, but it is the follow-up on those that matters in the commercial world. Creating and developing / perfecting valuable IP is essential, but ultimately, it's how you manage that IP that will determine success for a company. And yes, success is not only about the profit line, but it certainly is related to bringing benefits to all stakeholders (including first and foremost patients that might benefit from a final product). Maybe a few topics to raise at the next AGM?
Inanaco, I have answered but you obviously didn't like my answer :-)
Inanaco
It's public info who's on the board and, in particular, who the executives are.
The aim of my post was to see to what extent other investors had similar thoughts about issues related to the overall management style in order to bring them up at the AGM in a concerted way. There seem to be a decent number of PIs who have similar thoughts. In any case, even if people keep quiet in here, the market is speaking so loudly that is impossible to turn a deaf ear. So you may also want to question the market why it values the company at this ludicrous level.
By the way, there is no need for PR to address the issues raised in my post which are mostly about susbtance and less about form. You only need a good PR if you are not delivering the right results.
Best,
MHB
£25m market cap?! This is below the valuation level of a number of startups with shorter track record and IP that hasn't been developed to the same degree as that of SCLP! However, they may have impressive management who are keen to lead an IP-based venture to commercial success and are skilled in attracting and keeping engaged different types of investors.
Now, it would be easy to blame the market and yes, there are a lot of investors with a short term focus.
But, on the other hand, Scancell hardly gives a sense of continuity and follow up on its own RNS. What's happening with SCIB1 after the February announcement? Could we ask an indication of next steps and timing? How is the sourcing of funding with respect to the Covid-19 vaccine coming along? Any progress with respect to the team-ups with third parties that have been announced? It is not just once or twice: by throwing RNS that enthuse the market for a short while and then either not following up or doing so after a long time, the company can only encourage short-termism among investors that are drawn to the share.
We are not backing a group of academics who are keen to publish papers on their area of expertise - such contributions are essential too in medical fields or biotech and wouldn't wish to underestimate their importance. However, those more interested in academic research or not keen to be more communicative, should stay in research rather than be part of the management team of a listed company. Or maybe they can change their style of management and engage more with the market. After all, they do have the duty to report to shareholders on a reasonably regular basis. Maybe the above would be topical to raise at the next AGM?
This is exactly the time to stay put and not sell - unless there is something we don't know and some do. I wouldn't think that the latter possibility is the case. Looks like those sellers have still got "stock" whilst buyers have exhausted their ammunition. Also, whilst the two active PhaseI/II trials may well produce the type of results that would transform the business in different ways including in terms of market capitalisation, we are probably at least a couple of months away from even an interim type of announcement. Two months is a long time for fire sellers. Of course there may be another type of announcement e.g. re the collaboration with Merck or one of the other programmes.
The current SP has gone even far beyond what would be justified even with the expectation of a placement and has even priced in a number of failures. So how much further down can it go? Also remember that the market can stay irrational longer than one can stay solvent ... assuming it is irrational.
O&W
Assuming PI/II is successful, how to carry on and fund the last phase will be a nice problem to have! The chances are that PIII will not be in the hands of DDDD as either the company or the IP rights of the programme will be well sought after. Big players are always on the look out for medium or small sized biotechs/pharma that are more flexible and innovative than they are to act as their extended R&D departments.
But for the moment best to focus on the current trial which is starting with some strong credentials: "Of the 12 patients enrolled in Part A, five remain on study including two patients with best response of partial response, one patient with ongoing stable disease for over six months, and two patients with ongoing stable disease currently for less than six months"
Duncan's confidence comes across well in the video and is consistent with the tone of the RNS. Success in addressing hyperinflammation in the lungs (at least one can infer that from the video and the RNS) places us well in trying to achieve the objective of preventing a hospitalised case (or even one at a prior stage) becoming more aggravated. After all, our drug or perhaps better called our little good bacterium is to work in conjunction with the current standard practice, so all the better chance to succeed. In fact, it should be able to work with most, if not all, of the standard practices to emerge in the future because of its safety profile. And then, there is also influenza which is a more perennial issue.
So our starting point is that MRx-4DP0004 has some capability of targeting inflammation in the lungs and hence a decent probability of a positive outcome:
Dr. Alex Stevenson, Chief Scientific Officer, 4D pharma commented, "Reducing hyperinflammation, particularly in the lungs, is key to preventing the exacerbation of symptoms associated with more severe COVID-19. 4D pharma has shown MRx-4DP0004 has the ability to target inflammation in the lungs, potentially reducing the respiratory issues central to COVID-19. ... "
But, a successful outcome, will open the door to further trials aiming at addressing other, very signficiant, medical needs which are more endemic (notably influenza). That's assuming that covid-19 is not here to stay as hopefully, covid-19 is not here to stay for long:
"Following positive data from the COVID-19 clinical trial, 4D pharma intends to explore the potential utility of MRx-4DP0004 in additional viral infections like influenza."
By the way, is it only me that was under the impression that enrolment had already begun? Was a bit surprised to see that it's starting only now.
Even though there does not seem to be any headline type of news, some soft, progress-related news is now overdue across the various programmes or, at the very least, re covid-19 trial and even, perhaps re the Merck partnership.
The seller(s) still seem to be around Lansdowne Partners and Hargreaves Landown may be the two parties still associated with signficant sales but ... can't be long before they are out or, through the sales.
If you think there is no deal that's going to take place under no matter what terms, then the answer's yes. There are signs of prioritisation of self-interest over company's interest (let alone that of shareholders), but they have done farm-out deals in the past. So let's not rule out some kind of deal. However, as it stands, they certainly take their time and given the recent remuneration deal, it would be in their interest to do so.
Also there is the option of putting the company or even Lixus for sale ... after all Anchois is valued at 59p unrisked (by Finncap). In my view that would be by far the best option given management's disappointing performance to-date. Re the performance, it's not what I think, the market says that through a loudspeaker.
On the positive side and despite their thick skin, it would be very difficult to face shareholders at an upcoming AGM without some kind of positive news. For example, and that's just one issue among many others, how would they begin to justify a valuation below cash value?! Hence, I suspect something is likely to be announced beforehand.
To that excellent set of questions let's add the one about conflict of interest re the partial payment of salaries at 2p whereas timelines can drag on and on. The lack of institutional investors may well have to do with the fact that the last thing the CHAR board would like is someone to challenge their performance (or the lack of it).
donnoderT
It looks that some feathers have been raffled. It's not difficult to see why.
Anyhow, asking the CEO why he thinks there is no conflict of interest between:
(i) issuance of a significant amount of shares at rock bottom prices to pay for salaries and
(ii) the fact that directors have a significant degree control over the timing that any conclusion in the negotiations for any type of deal (already timelines appear to be extending further and further),
can simply not be answered by "we can't reveal market sensitive information." He can answer so if you ask him the date that a deal is concluded.
Also, at an AGM will people vote in favour of the issuance of additional shares to pay for salaries through shares at 2p?