Apologies! Post button pressed too soon :-)
Meant to have posted that Astra Zeneca "... has secured total manufacturing capacity for one billion doses so far and will begin first deliveries in September 2020." This is for Oxford Uni's "potential new vaccine" as per the RNS's headline.
https://otp.tools.investis.com/clients/uk/astrazeneca/rns/regulatory-story.aspx?cid=1343&newsid=1392202
Well, could it be that Scancell's access to manufacturing capacity that was reported the other day is not imminent but in response to its potential vaccine if and when it goes through a (fast tracked?) approval process?
has secured total manufacturing capacity for one billion doses so far and will begin first deliveries in September 2020.
Given that we have two major investors selling, RG and Lansdowne Partners, it's encouraging that the share price stands its ground - relatively speaking - and remains above the placement price of 50p.
Each of those investors appears to have sold for reasons unrelated to the performance of DDDD (though we can't be sure), and has done so more in relation to their portfolio's current underperformance or to seek alternative investments (RG has re-appeared in at least one other company, XSG). After all, DDDD has a number of horses running, each with potential and the current share price has already priced in unsatisfactory results from one - if the historical price is anything to go by.
There is one other investor - whose presence is just as relevant if not a lot more than the others: we should be watching closely that investor which is no other than Blackrock IM. It's not that they've forgotten that they are holding 10% of the company, nor it is by chance that they remain invested. I wouldn't be looking forward to an RNS whereby they reduced their holding.
Hi C7,
My sesnse is that it is easy to extrapolate from a comment like "oh yes we have one or manufacturers in mind [if and by the time our vaccine proves successful by Q2 2021]" coming from the CEO to the journalist. Probably, SCLP has even had some early conversations with manufacturers to start preparing the ground for such eventuality. It doesn't mean though it's happening this month. There was another thing in the article about high potential of licensing ... well that makes you wonder but ultimately ... it's hardly news, isn't it? ;-))
RayPointer, very helpful. Thank you.
Thank you guys for your responses.
Still not entirely clear on Scancell's competitive advantage:
Inanaco you said, "the advantage is you control how the adaptive response is activated" ... meaning? Is it faster, are the markers more specific? , can address more types of a virus? ... also do we know whether the patent covers it?
Thank you WeTookPelham & Inanaco for the posts.
A few questions:
- what does DC stand for?
- if the approaches are similar, where do SCLP's competitive advantages lie (if any)? As importantly, are such competitive advantages protected by patents?
- got a bit lost with Inanaco's 16:07 post ... broadly speaking, is the idea to get the virus stuck on the surface of a cell and not let it go inside the cell to destroy it?
- oh, and are the HLA phenotypes the places on the cells where the virus binds to something?
The above are probably fundamental questions, so if there was one to pick, I'd prioritise the one re SCLP's competitive advantage vs. the other RNA/DNA approach.
Thanks in advance.
... before entering human cells. Very promising antiviral protection ( up to 2 months) from SHARE Sorrento Therapeutics through antibodies. It's impressive how they screened the right ones. Needless to say the share price rocketed.
https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/sorrento-covid-19-antibody/
SCLP's vaccine would have the advantage of longer protection, but time is of the essence. And it's not good enough just being on paper.
Inanaco:
To address your points:
- FDA delay is a classic example whereby Scancell waited too long (close to 2 years?) instead of either suggesting alternative ways for delivering the vaccine or even starting anyway trials in markets other than US. Yes US may be the big market, but why not make it there through making it in the UK/Europe or even Asia first?
- Scancell to-date has most certainly not been a capital appreciation share for long term holders. Let's say the 15.7p materialises: it would still offer a meagre return per annum to the very few (are there any left?) who got in early before the meteoric rise in ... 2011/2012.) For most long term investors it would be a negative return from the share of a company that hasn't suffered any failed trials to-date!!
- So something's not quite right: companies should create shareholder value with time - not all the time, but certainly over a period of 10yrs. I'd suspect many of us have done short term trades to beef up returns and that's normal but it should be to enhance returns not the ONLY way to generate returns.
- Timelines re milestones are as appropriate for biotech companies as they are for anyone else (e.g. look at other listed companies management presentations of pharma/biotech firms): yes, they are not rigid and they can slip a little for some good reason, but at the moment we only have a vague idea for all the projects e.g. sometime in 2021 for some of the trials according to Trinity Delta. We also don't know about resource allocation or priorities among the various projects. That's not on!
You could ask why am I sticking with the share? Overall, I'm marginally in profit over the years because of certain relatively short term trades but have maintained interest through a core stake that I've been beefing up or reducing at times. Its technology still has huge potential, and hopefully we'll see returns (from here) much higher than the TD target price implies (the TD price is probability weighted according to their assessment of success). But I stick to the point that management and the Board should also put on a business hat from time to time in addition to acting like academics.
The point of the post? Worth delving into the past for the sake of doing things more effectively in the future.
Isn't the reaction of the share price today underwhelming following such positive publicity over the weekend?
Ten years ago Scancell was going to give the world a cancer vaccine: the following article dates back to 2010 and could have hardly been more optimistic about the prospects of Scancell's cancer vaccine:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1278836/Holy-Grail-cancer-vaccine-blasts-tumours-weeks-hailed-huge-leap-fighting-disease.html
"Trials will begin at hospitals in Manchester, Nottingham and Newcastle. If successful, the jab could be available within ten years. " The article is worth a read, as it is telling of the prospects of Scancell at the time and even today.
Over the years, even though Scancell has not failed any trials, quite the contrary, there has been significant progress. Nonetheless time isn't an infinite resource even in the biotech world, and serious delays have taken their toll on shareholder value. Even if you take as a starting point an entry point 10p ( instead of 30p or even 60p) back in 2011/2012 ... you'd still be in a loss today. So, despite important positive developments there has been shareholder value destruction. Unfair? Possibly so, but management and the Board have certainly its fair share of responsibility. As perhaps do investors that haven't question management sufficiently at AGMs.
This is a post that aims to convey a message to management and the Board as to why investors may have become wary of a company that could potentially make such a huge impact in one of the most important sectors of healthcare.
This is not an academic exercise: this is a listed company. Furthermore, the whole world would benefit from its platforms. Investors and the market are becoming wary of the company and its management for good reasons.
Perhaps this is the time to be more open to teaming up with bigger players and use best efforts to stick to timelines - and make ambitious, but realistic objectives. Some investment in shares by Board members as evidence of its prospects wouldn't come amiss.
As a minimum that extent of exposure is very helpful to get the company and its technology in the spotlight shed by the right entities: putative licensees, joint-venture partners, investors and committees deciding on grant funding. Then the Scancell's technology and the team can do the talking and the convincing.
And there a chance that there is some substance in the article. Yes, some journalists may be struggling with biochemistry concepts, but "licensing" isn't a scientific term.
Excellent news. Implication could be that we are a lot further down the path than previously thought.
"Potential licensing" referred to below would be from Scancell / research consortium to one of the big pharmas? If so, it would be a very smart way to proceed: it would mean Scancell would still retain a substantial stake that would tranform the company if vaccine proved successful. At the same time, it would be like a low risk option as the bulk of costs henceforth would be borne by the licensee and therefore effectively provide non-dilutive funding. Again, as others say, it would be helpful if Scancell commented, as this is the first time that licensing is mentioned.
"We can also reveal that a leading pharmaceutical company has already agreed to manufacture the vaccine which is being developed at Nottingham University, if it is ruled safe. There are high hopes it will be licensed because the scientists behind it have already used the same technology to develop an effective skin cancer jab. "
In any case, with this publicity the chances of receiving government funding are increased. How about a rights issue in conjunction with any other forms of funding that may be available?
Noix,
Good find, thanks. As we talk about biotherapeutics, I'm assuming that MRx-4DP0004 can be ultimately traced back to patterns of nutrition, so indeed it should attract progressively more and more attention as we go through trials.
Now, from the May 2020 management presentation on 4d's website:
https://www.4dpharmaplc.com/en/investors/reports-presentations
"MRx-4DP0004 modulates specific aspects of airway inflammation, including number of neutrophils,
eosinophils and activated dendritic cells in preclinical models. Mechanism of action not broadly
immunosuppressive, allowing maintenance of anti-viral response (Raftis et al., Scientific Reports 2018)"
Hence, if it proved to be effective in trials as the company expects it to be, the beauty of 4D's covid-19 and asthma treatment would be that it suppresses the bad side effects of waking up the immunity system whilst enhancing the right ones. In other words a selective, in the right way, wake up call of the immune system. And, to do that through a biotherapeutic with a very high safety profile and tolerance, means the treatment would be hard to compete with.
But even if it wasn't fully sufficient on its own, it can always be part of a combination therapy.
Looking forward to the start of those trials. Reasonably confident that the outcome will be positive but the question is, how positive?
It would be good to have an update re the preparation and progress of the study - especially now that the share is in oversold territory. Unless the seller has been aware of something that we don't which I'd like to think is not the case.
Thanks Bermudashorts. Looks like you're right:
"All options are subject to time vesting
schedules to ensure retention and stretching performance hurdles to ensure that rewards are consistent with
delivery of strategic goals. Examples of performance hurdles include progress in clinical development programs,
partnering and share price targets." ... well in that case a question we'd like to know:
(i) the performance hurdles that Board members (or remuneration committee) have set for themselves and in particular re the progress of the clinicial development programmes;
(ii) which of the performance hurdles have been ticked off as achieved;
(iii) if they were not achieved, why not and what could be done to expedite their achievement?
A question for the AGM if not sooner ...
Nomlungu, very good point! (btw does it mean long name? ... :-))
The directors have the following options:
Dr R M Goodfellow 4.5p 2,880,000 2,880,000 14/07/2010 14/07/2020
Prof L G Durrant 4.5p 3,850,000 3,850,000 14/07/2010 14/07/2020
I guess the least we can expect as an insiders' vote of confidence in the company is directors buying shares at 4.5p when the share price is close to 7p.
Though I hope they don't buy shares and sell the shares straight away. They can only sell some as they've had a pay cut recently :-)
Best,
MHB
Even if you had a compelling alternative investment would you be liquidating a stake in this "disorderly retreat" fashion? Unless you were closing a short position but have never seen RG taking short positions. Mystery will be solved in due course.
From one perspective (e.g. peer comparison, potential of technology) it is staggering how undervalued SCLP is .
From another it is less so: a key factor among the ones you highlight is management. They have been slow over the years sometimes: you're bout to see hurdles regulatory, financial or otherwise you try to get around them as opposed to wait until they get out of the way. The science is our strong point so that's not a factor for the low price in my view.
I have also been wondering why there hasn't been a deal with a big pharma with respect to SCIB 1 for example especially if our technology is synergistic to other immunotherapy ones - the only explanation is that the sector players are watching closely for any sign of further sucess and hence the Phase II trials can't come soon enough.
Inanaco, many thanks for your answer.
Roche is having noteworthy success with its anti-TIGIT cancer immunotherapy trials (had to google the term TIGIT :-):
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/05/14/2033188/0/en/Roche-to-present-first-clinical-data-on-novel-anti-TIGIT-cancer-immunotherapy-tiragolumab-at-ASCO.html
Without having in-depth knowledge in the area, the approach seems to follow comparable principles to those of SCLP. Back in 2012, immunotherapy was a novel area. Now it seems that the big pharmas are going after it. This could be as much of an opportunity (in terms of joint-ventures or ultimately even selling its IP) as much of a threat to SCLP (its technology could be superseded by other players who are throwing serious amounts at it).
One thing is for sure though: time is of the essence. Over the years, my impression is that valuable time has been lost e.g. waiting too long for the US regulator to approve the electrophoresis of delivering the drug intead of going ahead with trials in other parts of the world. If others are carrying on with their immunotherapy trials SCLP can not afford to "park" them in the interest of pursuing covid-19 projects but it should apply best efforts to carry on with them in parallel.