Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Moneysponge, as a ballpark figure based on previous take overs and current TAM....
Something like £300m and £100bn as a TO offer range.
I'd just wait for any BP to offer what they think, doing this exercise constantly well end up in price creep and greater and greater expectations. Nobody can call the price as the actual markets and commercial value hasnt really been explored in full yet... (explained to us that is)
In with pure punt money here so not too disappointed having nothing left but for -70% loss you need 233% to get back in profit for those interested.
10 days Tick tock.
The Company has been an AIM Rule 15 cash shell since the disposal of its trading business on 27 March 2023. If the Company does not complete a transaction which qualifies as an AIM Rule 14 transaction by 28 September 2023, the Company's Ordinary Shares will be suspended from trading on AIM at 7.00 a.m. on 28 September 2023, pursuant to Rule 40 of the AIM Rules. Admission to trading on AIM would then be cancelled six months from the date of suspension.
Can anyone explain, I've not been in this situation before, I'm only in for punt money.
12 days before deadline.
So the idea is, Directors are fishing for a RTO, if they cant do it, then they dont get any payment for any work done and we lose our investment as the shares suspend?
Has anyone with real experience with RTO's? What happens with our shares vs the incoming company MCAP? If the "in" company is worth £1bn... and we are worth £1m pre RTO...
If you own 1% of £1m then you obviously wont own 1% of £1bn?....
So how do they value our shares? Do they purchase them off us? What then happens with the £1bn worth of new shares?
How do you know that even at lower levels of tumour FAP, 6K would still deliver more of the dose at the TME than straight dox? Straight dox being quite inefficient delivery in itself...
We are focused on high fap expressing tumours, but there is going to be a balance at some point because there will be some 6K being cleaved at the tumour even at lower FAP levels.
Once the data is out it will be really interesting to see the cut off from the return of using 6K vs Dox. In theory, what indications where there's not enough FAP to cleave vs dosing straight dox for a benefitted TI.
Avacta did have a table with FAP expressing tumours as potential targets, how far down that list will be interesting.
"Patients in Phase Ia will receive escalating doses of AVA6000 following a 3+3 design, commencing with a starting dose of 80mg/m2, once every 3 weeks (Q3W) starting on Cycle 1, Day 1 (C1D1), until disease progression, unacceptable toxicities, withdrawal from treatment for other reasons, reaching maximum lifetime cumulative exposure to doxorubicin (or other anthracyclines), or death, whichever occurs first."
https://www.drugs.com/dosage/doxorubicin.html
"Lifetime cumulative doses above 550 mg/m2 are associated with an increased risk of cardiomyopathy."
Will Avacta work with the current guidance of Lifetime Cumulative doses (LCD) or will this be re-written? Surely, once DLT's are reduced, reduced systematic exposure and targeted delivery, this guidance will need to be changed in line with the performance of 6000?
at current 310 mg/m2, 2.4 times "normal" the amount of dox it doesn't take many cycles to reach LCD, do you think they could already be exceeding the LCD with patients progressing through multiple cohorts?
I do find this interesting as the trial guidance is set on the very issues that 6000 is forecasted to resolve, could this restrict progress and discovering how good 6000 is having to comply with Dox LCD or will / do they have concessions to progress past Dox LCD?
Good post that RD, similar to posts from Hanoihank, I didn’t know about QALY so many thanks both for being this up. I have been thinking too much into £/mg for lack of anything else to measure against.
“Needs a QALY approach to pricing rather than £/mg compared to dox”
It gets funny tbh the more you delve into it, it’s not great to keep him going but it’s better debating and proving someone wrong than let him spout crap.
So you are cautious because the drug that wasn’t suppose to work on these patients seems to be working unexpectedly?
I think you will be even more concerned when we find out that the drug that’s suppose to work on certain tumours, totally annihilates them.
So Wyn, do you think Avacta are lying to us then with the comment below you just posted?
What Wyn says -
"I have never disputed it works, I am just starting to consider now its not as effective as at first thought."
What Avacta says -
The data continue to show a very favourable safety profile for the tumour targeted chemotherapy and several patients in cohort 5 and earlier cohorts remain on treatment as their disease has not progressed.
The emerging positive safety and pharmacokinetic data from the study support the potential clinical differentiation of AVA6000 over doxorubicin.
"DOX at 50 years old will not be the way we treat cancer in the next 50 years"
Exactly, now we have preCISION which might last another 50 years or until something better comes along... this is a stupid exercise because you might as well say APPLE isnt investable as the phone will eventually be replaced as tech develops.
You mention time, which i think is from frustration of P1a taking a long time, the drug has performed EXCEPTIONALLY well at this stage, hence increased escalations. We have already talked this through that this was not expected to be 2 years in... and still wondering to escalate again. Once P1a is done, timeframes should be tighter and more defined progress. We shouldn't be talking about this again...
the rest of the comments is really just moaning about wanting more data that hasn't been trialed yet. . . you like us... need to wait. don't get invested in bio if you cant wait.
Otherwise its a bit like my point of valuations, you cant value 6k because we simply dont have the metrics yet of what Avacta would get... could be $20bn per annum drug or $2bn per annum... its too complicated to work out yet and AGAIN, you like us... will need to wait.
Wyn, don’t agree with some of them points.
You are comparing straight Dox to 6k when saying it is likely going to retract in size.
Straight Dox possible, but we are no longer talking about straight Dox, but high quantities of Dox in the TME and reduced side effects on 6k.
The straight Dox rule book is going to be thrown out the window with 6k.
Ive had a good think over the last few days on this.
The banded amounts and ever increasing "Creep" that keeps going on with Dox MCAP and size of available market to Avacta for 6K.
We only know what the MCAP is now, the rest is good guess work without Avacta spending some decent time and invest in analyzing the market.
The only issue i have is there are so many variables that impact on Avacta's perceived success. Not exhaustible but listed a few below. Even if the total Dox market tripled it doesnt mean that all goes to Avacta.
1. The cost for partnership for P2 and manufacturing 6K. This can be divided so many ways, territories, flat % cost, other deals etc etc etc. But we all know we are going to need help later on.
2. Production cost vs sale cost of 6K. If they are using straight dox, are they buying it in at cost price or market price, will they make it themselves?
3. It might not be just 3 times more dox in higher doses (physically in quantity) but also being used as we increase the treatment pool, over 60's and other restricted patients expanding who can receive 6K/Dox , but what if 6K is 3 times more expensive than generic Dox?
I find the expected MCAP for 6K that circulates are quite rudimentary and would love to start seeing some metrics from Avacta on the commercial opportunity for 6K. Problem is, its so dependent on what happens on point 1. Do we (Avacta) own 20% of the total Dox market, or is it 80%? Values are so wide ranging depending on the deal. So to understand the market size available specifically to Avacta, and what the opportunity is, they need to understand how they get there and what that opportunity cost will be to partner.
Complicated stuff.
Lots to go still for those who bought in higher to just break even....
Can literally say any technology is a race, I bet you could say the same thing when Dox was being worked on... and hey presto 40 years later its still being used.
Its just fear... if you run your life on the fear that another company might beat you to the punch then it becomes a very difficult market to invest in.
Competition might actually be good for us in the end...
X company looking to bring out Dox "X" drug... Dox "X" when trialed isn't as good as they thought, and 6K is still the go to drug, highlighting that other companies cant replicate the success, increasing the value of precision.
See how easy it is to distort an opinion Wyn? Have the stuff you post doesn't pass first sniff.
Bit of science difference between the co's.
APTA - have Aptimers, AVCT have Affimers - Similar concepts and use cases. AVCT were looking to use their tech in Covid LFTs but unfortunately were too slow in bringing to market and pass the PHE validations. Avacta have since enabled a buy and build stratagy for their diagnostics side with a future expectation to use (Highly specific) Affimers in Diagnostic products.
Except AVCT have a therapeutic arm leveraging their Pre|cision platform with a new doxorubicin compound in P1 trials which looks promising with a potential of displacing a $3-5bn Doxorubicin market.
They also have a number of other partnerships for Affimers including working with LG Chem.
DTW,
Actually, it might not be as straight forward as that.
Besides some models and rat trials, do we really have an abundance of data of dox being delivered up to 3+ times the standard dose? What actually happens at that level? We assume, but i feel the data isnt actually there like you suggest. If we was similar levels then yes.
There is no data at this dose range because it would usually do serious damage to the individual.
I feel Avacta will be in unexplored waters here and could "re-write" the rule book on current understanding of Dox, due to the dramatically increased dose achieved with 6K