Member Info for PepeLePewle

The first time I posted on here, I said that I had invested in Scancell because I couldn't see any red flags, and it presented a very good investment thesis. That isn't saying it doesn't have risk - any share-holding has that. It means there isn't any stand-out problems... That remains the case.

I have shares in other companies that I will trade. Those companies are subject to very significant speculation, and that means that even if there are red-flags, I can look at the market cap, and say "that's a good price", knowing that I am unlikely to hold for long, and there is some "fat" if the proverbial stuff hits the fan. That isn't the case with Scancell. I bought about 12/18 months ago, and I haven't sold any yet. This is a relatively large cap share that is, in my view, a long-term hold. I would say to anyone who finds it frustrating holding Scancell - just look at other companies to trade in the meantime... There are plenty of opportunities to do that, whilst leaving your Scancell holding intact.

MBUski - so you "got a response from Phil that [the Modi update] would be in quarter 1"... Can I enquire whether you are having it away with Phil and this was pillow talk? The only other suggestion is that you are receiving market sensitive information from Phil L'Huillier that self-evidently can only ever be brought to the attention of the public via an RNS? The latter suggestion is absurd - so I will assume you are using this site as an indirect way to announce that you and Phil are "going steady"...We've had a lot of things on this site, and now even some romance.

I should clarify: I said that this [soon-ish Nasdaq listing] was the "optimistic" view. I didn't mean this should necessarily be to the exclusion of other funding options for phase 3 of the drug trial for Iscib1+. There is no reason, at all, why direct external investment/part sale couldn't take place simultaneously with a Nasdaq listing. I meant that a Nasdaq listing, done as soon as reasonably practicable, would in my view be "a good thing" for the company - both in terms of general funding, and value maximisation.

Hi Botski,

David Schilanksy - he of the direct Nasdaq listing experience - got his feet under the desk on 2 April this year. My view, as you probably know, is that a Nasdaq listing is now more likely than not and I would date the start of the process to list from that change. It's a big listing, if it happens, and will take many months yet, but I would say we could be already nearly two months into it.

I would caveat that: it is, of course, the optimistic view. Also, it makes the assumption that the MHRA approval is secured en route (and also that of the EMA). Surely, even the sclerotic MHRA can't take that much longer?!

Are the beer goggles that big as well?

Marcus, you've completely anticipated a point that has been troubling me for a little while now: how on earth can it be fair to allow some people who are terminally ill to take placebos when the people administering them know full well that in so doing they are denying a clear opportunity to begin recovery?

Thank you.

I think that's right Burble. I think that Sath's departure is significant in terms of the overall Scancell agenda.

I think Phil H was saying that investors in the US can't invest in AIM, and that is why they are looking at the Nasdaq - rather than that they must necessarily invest in the Nasdaq to get any investor interest/funding. This is, of course, all speculation. However, it may be that a Nasdaq listing is needed, but there are also some other parallel options for funding stage 3 of the Iscib1+ trial. I don't know about the time taken for a Nasdaq listing (hence why I made previous enquiries if anyone knew much about Verona Pharma, which did make the switch from AIM). But Scancell aren't hanging around - as shown by what happened to Sath.

Well, is that the cat now finally out of the bag?

In my first message on the Scancell chat board, I talked about the possible importance of Verona Pharma's journey from relative AIM minnow to $10 billion pound Nazdaq titan. In further posts, I have pondered on the (in my view considerable) significance of moving Seth "departing" the CFO role, and tied it in with the RNS announcing it that noted specifically his temporary replacement's experience in leading another company on to the Nasdaq.

Now, just today, we have had Phil L'Huillier say explicitly that he has US investors telling him how interested they are in what Scancell are achieving, but being unable - for whatever reason - to invest in the AIM. He then, crucially, said that Scancell must now consider a move to the Nasdaq.

I think this makes complete sense. The liquidity in funding on the Nasdaq is vastly greater than what could be achieved in this country (again, the lesson from Verona Pharma, whilst being COPD drug development rather than cancer, is surely salutary). Phil L'Huillier is publicly ruing this situation, as it is forcing the company to head to America, but he is now also saying publicly not just that the company is considering this step, but that the pull is pretty much irresistible.

With regard to realising the full extent of this companies drug-development potential, and also it's value, a placing on Nasdaq is the next logical move. In my view, the company has too many moving parts to be capable of straightforward valuation meaning an outright sale is less than likely (though always a possibility). It is also possible that a "Genmab" style deal could be done to hive off one or more of the four platforms in order to provide funding moving into phase 3 of Iscib1+, but that is not, I would say, the main deal. The main deal is a move to Nasdaq, with or without dilution.

The end result will, in my view, most likely be a startling valuation.

No, that is clearly not correct.

Phil L'Hullier finished speaking at 12:32, and the price was approximately 27.75p. By 13:26 it had reached an intra-day high above 19.25p. In other words, it was climbing steeply for an hour after the end of his evidence. If anything, the market was extremely taken with his speech.

If you are concerned about any intra-day movements - and I personally am not - then look no further than a degree of straightforward profit-taking following an extended good run. In any event, we are up at the end of the day by a significant amount.

Berry Head. That's an almost Proustian place-name to me...Our family spent a year in Brixham from 1979 to 1980, when I was 7 years old...Then it was back to reality (and a suburb near the Smoke)...Halcyon days!

There's been some discussion about what's at the heart of the rise in the SP. The chart since the start of the year shows rises following 3 key RNS's: the FDA approval, the removal (and I can't see any evidence that Sath wasn't pushed) of the CFO, and finally the Fast-Track designation in the US. In the context of a company that is producing very striking improvements on SOC in a large addressable market with IScib+, and that has a number of strings to it's bow, any one of these news items could, in my view, have started a significant rise.

There's also been some discussion about what the value of Scancell actually is. For me, what is particularly remarkable is that Scancell is not simply offering "a better drug". It has four platforms - Immunobody, Moditope, Glymab and Avidimab. Furthermore, all four offer the company striking prospects.

If, added to this, you have an excellent Board, a world-class Advisory Board, and the very clear signs of an imminent shift in gear in terms of funding AND a current income stream, then the solid move up from 10p a share isn't really even a surprise.

If I were a betting man - which I'm not - then my money would be on a partnering, probably involving Glymab (more properly, "Scancell BioDiscovery") AND a Nasdaq listing. I think the clear references to both types of funding in the Sath RNS, the decision to go with a new CFO - and have an interim with direct Nasdaq listing experience, and the nature of Scancell's cornucopia offering mean that the Nasdaq probably lends itself as the ideal arena for Scancell to arrive on the international stage.

Ask yourself this: if you were Phil L'Huillier trying to decide how to place a value on Scancell, you would face a big problem: there are a number of moving parts that are all - at the moment anyway - successful. In my view, the only realistic way to do it would be to let the market decide. That is: Go West my son... Go to the Nasdaq.

Probably bests the 2026 South Lanarkshire Business Awards.

About to have my first post-prandial at 9.30 p.m...There's some catching up to do...Here's to getting carried away!

All the talk seems to be of a partnership/buy in/takeover. I'm not so sure it's that simple. Have a read again of the RNS announcing Sath's departure. Phil H specifically notes that David Schillansky, the acting CFO, has Nasdaq listing experience which Phil says will be useful "as we explore the possibility of a Nasdaq listing". He notes further that Schillansky led the Nasdaq listing of DBV technologies.

Phil H starts the announcement by referencing partnering in respect of Iscib 1+. Perhaps there is a dual thrust involving some form of partnering in respect of Iscib1+ specifically (with Glymab as the vehicle maybe?) alongside a broader move to the Nasdaq?

Hello Ex-Trader,

I've followed your posts over the years, and this one is as thoughtful as ever.

I should clarify. By "Big Boys" I meant the global miners...I think the identity matters to the extent that it is perhaps less likely the ROC would take back a licence from a multi-national than the industry veterans who as it turned out have bought in (I won't lie, I also think the terms would be sweeter with if were a multi-national).

On Glencore, I think we'll have to agree to disagree...It is true that Zanaga was just the flotsam and jetsom of a bigger deal that Glencore "inherited", and their heart wasn't in it. However, the project was more or less progressing during the Glencore period, just too slowly...The timing of the veterans coming in - so soon after Glencore's departure - was surely significant. It is, of course, up to shareholders to decide whether Glencore departing has "opened a vista", or enabled the knife to be wielded. I don't think the long-term average share price prior to the departure was hovering around 5p though.

I bought shares in Zanaga at £1.20, and saw them drop down to 15p. I then went back in at that level, and lower, and I managed to trade away my loss (I've still got a share certificate somewhere about the house with a few hundred shares on it, which I suppose represents some sort of theoretical "profit" - although I would struggle to get any broker to take them if I were so bothered).

At the point when I was trading away my loss, I was happy to hold this company as long as Glencore was still in the ring. With their departure, my strong conviction was that a safety net had been lost as I didn't feel Glencore would tolerate being linked to unsporting behaviour. By contrast, I felt that those replacing Glencore were perfectly capable of dispelling any personal qualms they may have had about arguably "questionable" personal conduct, and simply did not have the reputational risk faced by Glencore.

I bailed out, and I see that since then the government of the Republic of Congo have - rightly or wrongly - been vindicated in court over their approach of taking back a mining licence (apropos Sundance). I think that this development has hastened a process that would have happened anyway: i.e. the parcelling off of the bulk of the assets into private hands. I appreciate I am speaking with the benefit of hindsight, and that I myself to some degree got sucked in by the blarney. However, I think there was a point between perhaps late 2022 and the point when Glencore left, that it became more likely than not that "the big boys" just considered the Zanaga Project a risk too far, and passed on it. Difficult to spot the exact point, but beyond a certain stage I think it's probably fair to say: "no news" is increasingly unlikely to be "good news".

Not a particularly enlightening tale, but then history never does repeat itself but only rhymes.

My hunch is that the prospect of a Nasdaq listing is as likely as direct external funding of the phase 3 trial.

I say "hunch" because Nasdaq listings, unsurprisingly, are not straightforward. There is a panoply of questions that need to be answered by a Board - and, in particular, CFO - before it can be seriously considered: dual or simple migration? type of listing on Nasdaq ("Nasdaq Global " ,"Nasdaq Global Select", etc)? Go with a listing combined with primary capital raise (which could fund, for example, a phase 3 trial)? You get my drift.

The crucial point is the experience of at least one other bio-pharma drug development company appears to show this is a feasible, and lucrative option.

Couldn't agree more Cleaner. Add to that a highly capable board, the options provided by Glymab, a current and significant source of income and probably more than one funding option for the phase 3 trial, and you've summed up Scancell in a nutshell.

Dear Ratcliffewriter (I will accord you precisely the level of formality you have accorded me).

I understood your post in exactly the way it was meant to be understood: the snide comment of a European liberal who can't stand the thought of someone in power actually doing something, rather than insulting the electorate with meaningless, glib, speechifying. And no, I am not an American in case you're wondering.

Actually, it's you who has misunderstood. Your post told me nothing about "Knowlesi" beyond what is self-evident in a ramper/de-ramper. No, rather your post told me everything about you. It was the sneering post of someone who can't be bothered to work out views for themself, and cribs the hackneyed, leftist, bilge they get off Radio 4.

You see I'm not Simon, and my post wasn't some surreptitious attempt to hit back at you by "Knowlesi". It was a post about you, and the way this country is spiralling downwards because of the cretinous failure of people to think for themselves.

I shouldn't be picking on you really, you just happened to be the one who lit my fuse. But maybe that's the point...Too many people happy to shoot off without even pausing, let alone thinking.

I realise my mistake. My original post should have succinctly said: "KEEP OUT OF POLITICS". There you are, I've rectified it now.

High level Republican politics? What would you personally do about a nuclear-armed Iran? Or indeed tens of millions of illegal migrants and an abhorrent national drug problem? Perhaps shrug? Well, it's pretty clear which US party you'd be happy in then.