Member Info for opti_mystic

I don't see the science moving this much. The posters may be good and/or a reiteration of pervious good news with updated data to see that things are continuing to go well with the science. Where does that move us though? It'll only show what we already believe to be the case based on the earlier disclosures. The company clearly states it is open to a partnering opportunity after the release of the P1b trial data at the end of the year when they are clearly expecting strong data to support the partnering opportunity. I can't see this doing much before that data and the confirmation of actual money/cash coming in. The market obviously does not see what is here, and however good the data is, it still won't. Even BG don't and they invested here.

I see the Baillie Gifford news but frankly it's total nonsense. The trial at this stage is a safety trial not an efficacy trial. If it is safer and they say it is, then that is because the peptide works and is delivering more chemo to the tumour (TME), less everywhere else. If it is doing that it MUST be more efficacious or at the very least as efficacious or normal Dox. They need to understand the type of patient being used in this trial too. You really have to dig down into this company to understand what it has. This is a very top level decision in my view. You can't have it be safer without it being more efficacious because of how it works; one begets the other.

That's interesting. CEO of Prometheus Mark McKenna says "We had no professional money in the early stages of the company, which is a good thing and a bad thing. The good things was that there was less focus on financial metrics, during the early days. The bad thing was it made it more challenging later on as the valuation grew to bring new investors in at some type of premium." "The other thing was we had acquired a diagnostic business to help support the precision medicine aspiration". but that later ...."It felt like it was a bit of an anchor" and that "Investors really struggle with mixed business models and that was really apparent as I was having dialogue with investors"

Strong parallels to Avacta.

The strategy I see is get a licensing deal to bring in some capital to see off the CLN going forward so as not to dilute further and to fund the company going forward. To get a Standard of Care for the not very commercially attractive SGC as a stepping stone for the technology to be fast tracked for other more commercially attractive indications such as TNBC and others. To then develop AVA6103 as the main prize. The main thing is the Pre|Cision tech works and they do not have any concerns at all about that.

The efficacy questions that have been asked are a joke. As are the safety questions and the FDA questions. These questions are not credible questions to be asking from anyone who has been on this board for any length of time, or has done any reading of the Avacta information for Corp deck or anything else, and those asking them clearly have an agenda. Those same questions or a slight variation of them have been asked here many times and answered many times. To be asking them over and over is not a credible position to hold for intelligent adults who claim to be seeking genuine answers to genuine questions. They are clearly disingenuous.

Sure but they know things you don't and there are reasons why you don't. There is another way of looking at it. I am of the opinion this is going to be a huge success story. Such a huge success, the magnitude of outcome is maybe not clear to some posters on this board. We are in too good to be true territory for cancer solutions, it's worth billions, that is my firm opinion. It targets the tumour in a particular way, whilst some people on this board seem to happily question the science with 'does it work?' 'Why haven't BP come up with an offer?' type questions. I think that is pretty obvious; it's blooming amazing, it's almost too good to be true. A deal will land, I think that's already been worked out for cash flow and then that will see them through the trials to a T/O. Some posters seem to think these people are a bunch of dummies running Avacta, I do not. The next few weeks' will be the making of the company and the foundation upon which it thrives. I see a strategy.

It may be a tenth of the price to manufacture but it doesn't have to be sold for a tenth of the price it can be sold at the same price and because it's better it is still a win. That means a lot more profit for BP when they own it. Which is why this company should be worth a big price tag to big pharma.

I'm already in, it'll take a couple of days to settle a sell, move/transfer the cash and re-purchase. I'm wonder if now is not a good time to be out for two days just for a bit of tax planning.

All western governments need to take a look at what's happened in Argentina and take heed.

Question is do I bed and ISA now or wait to see what's happening. I don't want to miss a bounce here.

I agree Ice. suddenly it's not mentioned and there is one thing for certain that is not because it doesn't work so it must be for a very positive reason, probably negotiating some sort of deal. It's a no brainer. Exciting times ahead.

Strategically, it is obvious the CLN has to be dealt with. We can't have it affecting the share price like clockwork whenever it's due it's just a mess that needs to be cleared up. It's the uncertainty that is causing problems. The new board have demonstrated a much clearer vision and strategy for the way forward and I am confident they will resolve this issue once and for all and that it won't be a piecemeal solution. It'll remove a lot of noise too. Clears the way forward.

I gave them the benefit of the doubt Saint and now there is no doubt. Good suggestion Ginge, I'll take that on board. Yes Watching yesterday's debacle was the last straw. Another post about something that had already been de-bunked and within 24 hours another post along exactly the same lines. Endless piffle.

I'm boxing three people today for endless factually inaccurate statements, completely unresearched criticism when the counter to the point being made is easily found and they should already know if investing here in my opinion. It like having to read endless gaslighting every day.

I should have listened to people who've been on this board much longer than me. Goodbye, you know who you are.

Unless the board has visibility of a likely payment for a deal of some sort and an expected timeline that has or is being negotiated. We don't know and it's pure speculation. I trust this board to make the right decision in the bigger picture and I am sure they have thought this through.

Well I guess it depends if you think the people that run the company are dumb as rocks or not. I think not. I think they're smart and I think they're thinking strategically. Choosing the right patients that are appropriate for what they're wanting to test and prove rather than any patient that happens to come along and be willing. The indications they've chosen, were chosen for speed and commercial value. They don't have any doubt about the science like some people on here do.

SGC gives you greater speed as there is no SoC and TNBC gives you a very big market.

You are assuming that AVA6000 is better than Dox but you don't know that.

"If it was better don't you think Dr Tap would know that too and be steering dozens? hundreds? Of patients into the 1b trial?

But that doesn't appear to be happening does it?"

Because he can't. It's in phase one which is about safety and that means limited numbers so if anything goes wrong you're not killing off hundreds of patients.

Can someone explain what it IS about if it's not about the science? The whole value is about the science. There may be dilution and there may not but at these levels with a proven delivery system I am with Ice on this it is an obvious and glaring mismatch of SP to intrinsic value. It's a matter of when this multiplies imho.

Exactly Ice, almost all of these timelines are confirmed in the various corporate deck documents and other documents issued by Avacta. None of the updates in today's RNS show anything other than exactly what was expected.

Hi Touk,

Let's play that game then as daft as it is. Do I need qualifications to form an opinion? I can read. I can listen to better qualified people and their opinion is that it works. This is not as complicated a thing as you seem to think Touk. Either the peptide cleaves when it hits the FAP or it does not. It's binary. If it did not you would not have had the results we've seen; verifiable scientific results Touk, of a median of 100 times the amount of dox in the tumour as opposed to the blood plasma than is normal. How do you think it got there by some massive happenstance ? I know critical thinking and logic are not prerequisites for posting on this board but some you have minds like concrete. There is a process to follow for the FDA. They are a disinterested third party. They simply say here is our process, you follow it, and we'll assess the data on safety and efficacy if we're happy with that we'll sign it off. The process is years' long. It involves several stages of trials and AVA6000 is at stage 1b. Of course they're not going to be convinced that it works yet, they follow a process. But they are paying attention and they are talking to Avacta. They don't say, " Well, this looks super interesting don't bother with the rest of trials."

Do you care to tell the board how you know BP aren't convinced? They're waiting for the results Touk. If you're going to spend a few hundred million dollars or more do you think they'll want as much evidence as possible? They will demonstrate an abundance of caution because prematurely jumping the gun has been costly for BP in the past. Not something any exec wants on their CV, so what's the hurry? Doesn't mean they're not sold on it. How many biotech deals get done at P1a? This deal is going to be big. It's worth billions in my opinion based on previous technology deals that have been done that is frankly not as good as this. Also Touk, you have to consider the disruptive nature of this technology. Many of the multi billion dollar deals previously done are going make someone look a bit foolish if they then have to be dropped because this one knocks them out of the park.

Roughly 60% of the company is owned by RIs. That means 40% isn't.

BP not making a bid does not equal BP aren't convinced enough yet. If you're a BP exec or CEO what exactly is the hurry?

When the P1b data hits assuming it is favourable, do you think that increases the value or decreases the value. If I'm CC I'm not selling now anyway because I know I create more shareholder value the longer I wait for the data to roll in.

We're here expressing opinions and not much more, sharing them and some data when it's available and highlighting what we think is relevant. You have an opinion and I really don't have a problem with the naysayers, the negative thinkers, the glass is half empty merchants, each to their own.

"Clearly that isn’t rue because the SP is 40p."

Err, No, it is true BECAUSE the share price is 40p. If the share price were higher it wouldn't necessarily be true. The disconnect is between the current share price and the true value of the IP assets within the company. It's being valued as if we don't know it works and as if the drug itself is new, neither of those things are true. If the current sp were an accurate valuation of what income and profit this company will make, why would anyone of us invest here? Sure there is a discounting factor because of the fact it is future income, delayed by the process of getting regulatory approval but that is true for all drug manufacturers of new drugs and this is a game changer.

"How do you know this? What if they are paying attention to the detail but have come to a different conclusion?"

I know because they're quant traders and they rely on mathematical models, statistical analysis etc not a detailed examination of the company and its product.

"My counter view is that BP already know all about this trial and AVCT. Its not a secret. So why are they not buying it out now if its all done and dusted? "

Wyn, you could say that about any deal literally right up to the moment before it's announced. If you're going to spend hundreds of millions just for a starter then it makes sense you'd do that on the best information possible. Why would you do it now if you could wait until year end and have a lot more data and de-risk it? If I'm running AVCT and they came with an offer right now I am pretty sure I'd get a better one at year end so I would not go for it now. It makes sense for both sides to wait.