Member Info for NickE

Can anyone clarify why there are variable figures for accuracy? The first link gives the generally accepted 94% accuracy figure for the PSE test and 55% accuracy for the PSA test? Although, within the text, they cite 93% accuracy for PSE rather than the 94% headline figure.

https://www.94percent.com/?gclid=Cj0KCQiApOyqBhDlARIsAGfnyMoSN7IcK5iwhloRsonaEk-Qb-iqAr_hrFXdpKccOeP26UtukA_eEB0aAqXTEALw_wcB

In this blog, however, they reference 33% (PSA) "sensitivity" compared to 86% PSE.

Is the 94% accuracy figure derived from a patient having both tests?

"The PSE test substantially improves sensitivity, raising it from the PSA test's 33% (based on results from the PROSTAGRAM study5) to approximately 86%. "

https://intheloop.oxfordbiodynamics.com/blog/time-to-rethink-prostate-cancer-testing-a-q-and-a-with-obds-cso-alexandre-akoulitchev-phd-frsm?utm_source=social&utm_medium=blog&utm_campaign=nov-post

Thanks Sajy, that makes sense and would be a very positive development if it emerges.

Interesting research Sajy. I assume if NIAID were to pursue a deal to fund clinical trials there would be a decent upfront payment involved as well. I wonder if they have an option on a licensing deal within the current Non-Clinical Evaluation Agreement.

Is there anything in particular that makes you think the results could be announced any day now other than the fact they are overdue and investors are due an update?

4) I was aware that he wanted to do a small acquisition and maybe one or two very small bolt-ons. A decent enough strategy if it allows the likes of Axisbiotix-ps to be rolled out significantly through an acquired sales channel. The scale of the acquisitions disappointed me and raised a lot of questions about the strategy. Generally, I don’t like growth by acquisition, as TW says 70% of acquisitions fail. Look at a stock like Totally who attempted that approach. Aside from the risks it can create overhangs and haven’t investors experienced enough of that with the annual share price demise when OPTI decided to sell?

So let’s see what this ‘heavily pregnant’ ‘so much news to deliver this year’ ‘transformational news’ that ‘nobody will see what is coming’ actually is. I will be delighted if it goes well for other investors and for the small holding I have retained. I will watch and may change my mind in line with the quote ‘if the facts change’. I don’t think Stuart is the devil incarnate – far from it – but on this occasion, he was morally wrong to hype the stock with at best massive exaggerations and it was a lesson learned for me. He also has 13 dissolved companies to his name which is a bit of a red flag. I’d also save your touching heart-felt empathy in the interview for more deserving causes than a CEO who has yet to deliver a deal yet takes 450k per annum out of a heavily loss-making company. Last post from me whilst I watch developments and all the best to you personally.

2) You asked him about funding in the first interview. He could have said we need to raise funds because we have the results coming and we would have the ‘going concern issue’ flagged up. He chose not to and gave an answer that hid the fact that he already knew a placing was imminent. Tom has clarified that Stuart was allowed to answer honestly and Stuart has, deliberately or otherwise, misunderstood, the rules and claims he would be breaching the law if he did answer honestly.

Yes, we all knew he had to raise funds at some stage but in the context of this supposed mass of positive news that is coming this year his phrasing of his answers suggested it wasn’t imminent and the sensible conclusion was it would come after all this transformational news which he hyped with phrases such as ‘nobody will see what is coming.’

3) He was in hype mode like he had never been before. He said he'd worked for multinational companies and been responsible for products with 100’s of millions of revenues but he’d never seen anything like what he had in front of him now. Really? So why buy a series of tiny cosmetic companies when one or two would do the job to roll out these potential hundreds of million revenue products he already has internally?

That’s fine and everyone wants a positive CEO but in the context of the imminent placing, I believe he was hyping the stock to get the share price up so it allowed for forward selling and discount from a higher base. Fine for those who didn’t buy based on his hype as it means less dilution (I think it would have been about 15p otherwise) but for those that added significantly his vague hype to pump the share price was an unethical way to behave.

Lric, thanks for the reference to me in the interview :-) It was an odd comment as you are an astute investor and to use Stuart’s style of phrasing you’d have to be the dumbest investor ever not to understand why, as someone who bought a lot of shares after his interview, why I changed my tune after the placing and the accompanying detail. “When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?”

You bemoan investors who don’t read past the first line of an RNS release but I have given detailed reasons for the change of view. As an aside, I think those investors are right and Stuart isn’t at all confident of early Croda commercialisation hence the 12-month extension and accompanying plan for numerous acquisitions with the inevitable convertible loans that will go with that. The commercial deal with Croda hasn’t even been formalised yet as I understand it.

I accept of course that it wasn’t some Machiavellian pre-plan and Stuart is generally an upbeat and excellent speaker but he overdid the hype on a monumental scale in the context that he knew a placing was imminent.

Let me spell out my reasons again.

1) The first interview said there would be transformational news and he didn’t exclude multinational deals or other news. I think we can be pretty sure it is solely related to the first on many acquisitions and he left the prospect of a multinational deal as a disingenuous incitement for suckers like me to buy in.

In fact, he used ‘transformational acquisition’ in a subsequent RNS release. He had already announced an intention to acquire a company in previous announcements so there is no reason why he could not have specified this was his reference to transformational. I even emailed him after and he was equally vague.

To me, in hindsight, it was clear he wanted to create pre-placing share price-enhancing hype and leave it hanging that there might be transformational licencing news when there is no chance whatsoever.

Note the change to ‘early stage’ negotiations with regard to multinational deals. He backtracks on that a bit in the latest interview but I’ll take what he puts in an RNS over that. His vague reference in the first interview clearly didn't even relate to ‘transformational’ results from the acne study because it looks like that has been delayed beyond investor expectations. He didn’t clarify that in the first interview and you added a footnote. His answer regarding the acne study in the second interview was far from clear and Stuart was uncomfortable and unusually inarticulate in answering it. Nope 'transformational' related to a whole bunch of acquisitions but he wanted to play games with investors by keeping a few other more enticing reasons up in the air.

Yes, a 20-minute blistering appraisal by Tom Winnifith of Stuart Ashman and his 450k salary package (including N.I. contributions etc), his acquisition strategy, his failure to do any commercial deals and his misleading use of language before and after the placing.

Tom points out that 70% of acquisitions fail and he, like many shareholders, can't understand why SA is going down this route on this scale when Croda revenues should start coming in early next year. He also believes SA could have preserved cash via salary and other cost savings and put off a placing until after Croda launch and royalties start to kick-in.

Despite Stuart Ashman and his acquisition concerns, Tom is keeping his shares and taking part in the retail offer. He'd like to see a restructured board to ensure SA is kept under scrutiny and a reduction of costs, especially salaries. He will recalculate his price target but it's still likely to be over 100p. It will be adjusted to take into account increased corporate (SA) risk but any reduction would be reduced if SA shaves off his beard.

Yes, I think Elric will now be the interviewer of choice and I don't see the prospect of endearing Christmas card wishes exchanged between TW and SA. It was quite a savage 20-minute assessment but my view is that Tom should be commended for being frank, expressing some concern at the new strategy and speaking up for shareholders of which, of course, he is one.

I believe the acquisitions will be a drag on the price but SA implies there will be abundant news this year and, although it isn't wise to be guided rigidly by his words given it was in the context of SA in pump mode. I assume, perhaps incorrectly, it's not all acquisition-related so I'll keep a significantly reduced holding for this year at least.

SA jettisoned the distributor approach which may well have led to breakeven because he stated he was getting multinationals knocking on the door to do deals. Clearly, he got that wrong massively.

Now he says he needs to buy in revenues to have a position of financial strength and this will assist in getting the multinational deals.

I think a better way would have been to have done deals with distributors outside North America, brought in decent revenues from Axisbiotix-PS and have a vastly increased source of reviews and positive retention rates to encourage the multinationals to sign up for a licensing deal in the largest market.

My feeling is that he knows he made a mistake and to go back to rolling out Axisbiotix-ps via distributors would be embarrassing so he is going down the acquisition route.

Why do this if the Croda launch and the building up towards £24m revenues are genuinely likely to start in say March or April next year? Maybe those who read delays into the 12-month Croda contract extension were right to do so.

Management is key in every company and Ashman has 13 dissolved companies to his name. That combined with his recent pumping of the stock prior to the placing doesn't inspire confidence or trust. One or two small acquisitions may be the right way to go but not the level he is aiming for.

He needs to come clean and say his decision to jettison distributor deals because he perceived he would get a reasonably early licensing deal was a mistake. I see late-stage negotiations have now become 'early stage' with multinationals. He also needs to come clean on the realistic launch timescale and 2024 revenues from Croda/Sederma. He must have a handle on this.

He doesn't need a mass of acquisitions to prove the in-house products as just one or two small ones would provide for that. The fear is that he has lost confidence in the prospect of 2024 commercialisation of the in-house products (including royalty revenues from Croda) and now wants to buy in revenues. Happy to be proved wrong but not convinced by SA, his morally dubious recent interview or the scale of his acquisition strategy.

Nick1978 - yes that's right. I tend to use that site more.

Elric, in the context of what has been announced I didn't like the way he worded his answers. It was disingenuous and misleading in my view as he left things like multinational deals as potential reasons when asked to define what he meant by transformational. We all knew he would have to raise at some point and clearly he knew it was going to do it shortly. So to answer your question in the interview about funding he said words to the effect 'it would be a foolish CEO who said he would never raise funds again.' That was a disingenuous reply in my view given he knew it was going to do it imminently.

In a nutshell he threw it out there that transformational news was coming and that there was a mass of news (with the hint it would be transformational) to be delivered before year's end. He knew investors would buy shares on the back of that and presumably was aware they would be out of pocket doing so in the context of his plan for an imminent discounted placing. I don't like that approach or his £20m debt-funded acquisition spending spree plans over the next 18 months. Stuart is smart enough to know that investors would assume he would get the transformational news 'nobody will see what is coming' released before funding. I feel it was tantamount to ramping before a placing which is not particularly edifying.

My view over from the 'other side':-

I can see the rationale for buying one or even two small acquisitions with a relevant customer base to use to roll out Axisbiotix-PS and hopefully the acne product but not the 18-month £20m acquisition via equity/debt plan SA has outlined.

SA wants to be in a position to get an optimal deal with a multinational from a position of financial strength. Well, my preference is for a slightly sub-optimal deal rather than taking on £20m of debt convertible or otherwise. An unknown funding package he still has to put together.

Why not just do a couple of small accretive and synergistic acquisitions and let Croda/Sederma royalties build up? I think in the TW interview these royalties were anticipated to grow to £24m (pretty much straight profit) and probably a higher figure with th anticipated premium pricing given the enhanced proven claims that seemingly are going to be able to be made.

Stuart speaks very well but he's yet to do a commercial deal (Croda was done by his predecessor) and he has 13 dissolved companies to his name as well. I am not convinced by his strategy here at all. Croda launch alone should mean the Company makes breakeven and a couple of small acquisitions could be used to grow Axisbiotix-ps sale to a level which entices a multinational to do a decent deal. If (and only if) he can't do that (and I don't understand why not given the reviews over an extended period) then perhaps the original idea to use distributors was the pragmatic approach.

Perhaps it will turn out to be a stroke of genius but I am not convinced. It suggests Stuart doesn't have confidence that Croda + a multinational deal or two will push the Company to break even within a year to 18 months. That alone would push the share price towards or above TW's 150p target price without the 20m of acquisitions. I can only see up to £20m of convertible debt (which is the most likely source of funding) suppressing the share price I don't doubt he will put forward a passionate well-argued case but I'll be dubious and I think there was a certain amount of hyperbole in his last interview with Elric.

Elric - SA should not have agreed to do the interview, particularly with the hyperbolic statements he used if, as you say, a placing or talks about a placing were underway ("a placing was in the works" ..."it worked better than expected" ... "some crooks bailed when they knew the price"). Placings are invariably done at a discount and it looks like SA lured investors in with statements he knew would inflate the share price at levels that inevitably were going to be a significant premium to the placing price. In fact, you seem to suggest the placing price of 19p was agreed at the time of the interview or perhaps I have misinterpreted your comments.

Tatty, just to clarify the reference in Sajy's post was to $750m in 'milestone' payments (not upfront) and a 'large' upfront payment for XF73.

It's a £2b market for XF73 nasal compared to the deal with Sebela for NTCD-M3 which is for a $500m market and could bring in up to $570m in milestone payments and is restricted just to North America. So that leaves a potentially lucrative license for the rest of the globe for NTCD-73.

As for XF73, the market is $2 bilion so, who knows, $750m in milestone payments might be a conservative figure. I am sure it would be if they decided to do a global deal rather than just for North America initially.

There is a case to suggest that big pharma might buy Destiny Pharma but it would need a very large offer. I think Chris Tovey is intent on building another billion $ company as he did with GW Pharma rather than selling early on for a much lesser sum. With a valuable late-stage pipeline and a highly impressive CEO it should be an interesting ride. There will be a mix of short-term and long-term investors but, for me, I want to resist selling too early.

Clio, yes it's an interesting conundrum. He also said words to the effect that upon the first bit of major news he hoped that the penny would drop with investors and realise what is going on. I think, in that sense, he means investors should analyse the acquisition and understand the synergy in the context of the products SBTX can roll out via the acquisition's channels. So my best guess is that the strategy looks like this:-

1) Buy one small but materially profitable company followed by two or three accretive small bolt-ons that edge SBTX towards breakeven/profitability.

2) Accelerate that fast-tracked profitability objective by either enhancing the acquired products with SBTX's technology or, more likely, rolling out the likes of AxisBiotix-Ps food supplement to the customers of the acquisition.

3) Use the acquired customer base for a variety of consumer trials for new products. Again, something that will help negotiate lucrative licensing deals. A fast and cost-effective way of providing proof to the multinationals. He did say one company asked if they were a one-trick pony. This strategy will enable him to prove otherwise.

4) Highlight all of the above to the multinationals to enable SA to negotiate from strength for top-dollar licensing deals.

I think all that to a certain extent is predictable and he has pretty much said as such but only in interviews and it hasn't been spelt out in official RNS announcements. I agree, the comment 'investors won't have seen what is coming' is intriguing along with his hope that the 'penny will drop.' Either it's just his excitement boiling over with a slight element of teasing or there is something left field that nobody, however much they have researched SBTX, has picked up on yet. He is clearly and genuinely excited so it will be interesting to watch and wait.

He said in one previous interview that he has friends and family invested and he takes his responsibilities to them and investors as a whole seriously. I know he has lower-priced options and a more than decent salary but the fact is he has a significant number of options at 80p and 120p so he's heavily incentivised to deliver.

As someone pointed out it was Dr Cath O'Neill who delivered the excellent Croda agreement so it's down to Stuart to deliver his first licensing deal. Just as he always says he won't overpay for acquisitions he also won't take a less than decent licensing deal so, in a nutshell, it looks like he is positioning himself via the flagged-up acquisitions to achieve that. Whether, based on his comments mentioned above, there is even more to it remains to be seen.

Combined with Croda's launch it should be an interesting coming year when no doubt all will be revealed!

That's an interesting point about the oral trial, Ferris. Does anyone know the specifics that measure success or otherwise?

Stuart covered quite a few bases when speaking with Elric regarding what could be 'transformational'. He had to do that and legally couldn't specify what it was outside of an RNS as it is material/price sensitive. So that has left a lot of reading between the lines.

His reference is likely to be a profitable acquisition but he also covered the potential for multinational deals in his reply in Elric's interview. On balance, it's probably not a multinational deal this year as SA clarified that one of the main reasons for acquisitions was to put him in a strong position to negotiate optimum deals with a multinational. A counter-argument is that simply flagging that prospect up is sufficient to pull off a deal as the other parties now know the strategy. They are not necessarily going to wait to see it come to fruition.

A further detail to throw in the pot is that in a previous interview, he suggested that a deal in the oral sector is easier (although I don't think he used that exact word) because there are only a few main players.

The other factor to bear in mind is his reference to the Company being 'heavily pregnant', with the expectation of a decent amount of news to be delivered this year and early next year.

So, I assume this year 'heavily pregnant' and delivery means, Oral consumer results, a profitable acquisition if the lawyers deliver pre-Christmas, results and an outside chance of a multinational deal. It just crosses my mind that Stuart as already flagged in an acquisition and we know the results and oral is due so there must be some more stuff due for him to use the phrase.

So oral care must be one of the things that is going to be 'delivered'. Personally, I think it will just be results rather than a deal but there must be other things going on for Stuart to make the 'heavily pregnant' reference. I suppose it could be a series of acquisitions"small bolt-ons" as he stated plus oral but, reading between the lines, just one acquisition is with the lawyers (if that is the thing that is with the lawyers). The small bolt-ons will follow next year I suspect.

I suppose ultimately investors just have to wait on Stuart's six-month projection that the Company will be 'unrecognisable' and 'few will see what is coming'. Aside from the likely accretive acquisitions, this period should also include Croda's launch with the scientifically validated skin enhancement claims. Accretive acquisitions that provide a sales channel for SBTX's product plus Croda's launch should mean decent profitability next year.

The market cap and, taking into cash held, enterprise value, are absurdly low. I do wonder if a bid could come in for AGL in the reasonably short term. The question is whether a relatively low bid of circa 30p would succeed. It would disappoint long-term holders of course and any interested party would only make a move after sounding out the institutions that still hold. Very rare to see a hostile bid in this sector. Either way, the stock just has that feel to it that it could go on a significant upward run

Yes, Mol, that's the most likely scenario for a licensing deal. I believe there is crossover IP between pillars but stand to be corrected on that. So in the event of a pillar acquisition, it might get a bit more complex.

The three limited companies registered are Medibiotix. Pharmabiotix and Cleanbiotix. I guess further companies can be created for specific product(s) or product sectors. Anyway, lawyers much smarter than me usually find ways and means. Given the size of the multinationals, I'd say the most likely scenario somewhere along the line is a takeover of the whole company. - that would make things more straightforward.

I

I did ask Stuart if transformational is solely related to acquisitions. As he pointed out it's a difficult question to answer as it would be price-sensitive information. I do note that they did use the words 'transformational acquisition' in the recent rns. Also, when asked the same question by Elric he covered a few bases not solely acquisitions.

There is also the point though that multinationals in discussions will know that SBTX are not going to sit still and accept an inferior deal and, as flagged in in the RNS release, are on the cusp of a transformational acquisition. So, with that knowledge, they may well come up with a licensing offer prior to the acquisitions. They tend to be slow and cumbersome with layers of management so I'd not bank on that but, if not this quarter, H1 next year looks very likely.

I asked a few questions and whilst it wouldn't be appropriate to copy the whole email and answers, other investors may be interested in his explanation of the various subsidiary limited companies that are in place. It all makes sense and it's smart management to plan ahead and probably an indicator to where parts of the Company may eventually end up:-

"These companies are legal entities that are prepared in a defence of strategy in the event that a multinational wishes to acquire technology specific to a sector. It allows us to divest a pillar rather than carveout IP in a complicated restructure. It is very much a strategic move. For example were we to do a deal with a multinational in medical devices and they were to pay us royalties for 4 to 5 years and then decide they wish to acquire the Science we can simply carve out the MediBiotix company and the IPO was licensed to it rather than disrupt the remainder of the group."

I did smile at Elric's very understated response of 'that sounds interesting' to this 'transformational' projection from Stuart Ashman:

"I’ve been slapped down for not being bullish enough, for being too bullish, for being neutral I’m not going to be any of those things but what I will say though is I am convinced enough by what I have in front of me to make the statement that the Company in 6 months time will be in a totally different place. It will be transformed. We will be moving at a pace that few will be able to believe.”

hxxps://open.substack.com/pub/lemminginvestor/p/skinbiotherapeutics-plc-64d?r=kcv2o&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Firstly, woth respect, you need to look at m/cap rather than "Share price." For what is likely to come the m/cap looks low (see CEO quote below).

Any acquisition will already be profitable and I wouldn't be surprised if the initial one didn't have a decent amount of cash that comes with it. Being acquired by SBTX is an attractive proposition for a seller as SBTX will add its science to acquired products which will result in a) higher pricing and profitability arising from a more appealing product b) it gets the science out there in the market and helps validate SBTX's tech to the multinationals in current negotiation c) Highlights that SBTX can go it alone and in effect become a small-scale competitor so licensing deals can be negotiated from a position of financial strength. It pretty much makes SBTX an acquisition target as well.

There were several interesting quotes from Stuart Ashman in Elric's interview and I hope he doesn't mind if I put one here given the interview is no longer a paywall. I'd put the Lemmings link but I think LSE edit out.

"We have a bunch of products in the pipeline. We are heavily pregnant, we literally are – so many things to be delivered and it’s kind of exciting, it really is. Through the course of my career, I’ve been responsible for transformational, life-changing products that have gone on to sell 100’s and 100’s of millions but I’ve never seen an opportunity like I’ve seen in this Company."

There will be bumps along the way but for long-term investors a hold here could be, to use SA's favourite word, 'transformational'. Please dyor though and I'd suggest a good starting point is listening to that interview.

Frankly, that's an inappropriate post Oleric, to put it mildly. To reference and speculate on highly personal health issues in a public forum is poor in the extreme. I hope and believe you didn't intend it to be as insensitive and inappropriate as the post undoubtedly was. Everyone wishes Elric well of course. As I said before, his interviews with Stuart elicit important clarifications and insights into general strategy without encroaching on price-sensitive territory.

Moving back to SBTX. Good to see the share price strength and the one thing the recent RNS release did was confirm that the 'transformational' reference was, as I am sure most concluded, specific to the anticipated acquisition. It was fairly clear as Stuart added that the timing depended on lawyers doing the necessary work (due diligence etc) - either by Christmas or in the new year.

He also mentioned that he wanted to negotiate licensing deals from a position of strength. One or more accretive acquisition with the synergy that enables SBTX to add its tech to the acquired products to enhance profitability puts the Company in that position. It also makes SBTX a small-scale nuisance competitor with a USP and the means to get that out in the market for which the remedy is a licensing deal or even acquiring SBTX at a price acceptable to shareholders.