George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. Watch the video here.
Safe to say it's been attritional. I remain hopeful, but it has been a shambolic investment to this point. Haven't had the stomach to put more in recently, best of luck to those that have. Still got around 200k shares, average perhaps 30 or 40p, massively down. Sign a licencing deal and landscape changes beyond belief - many multiples possible with any sort of respectable licencing terms or asset (hrpc) sale. In the meantime, just nice to see a few blue days.
Another RNS for another director share purchase. I make that around 750k worth of shares they've bought in roughly last 6 months. If they do end up signing some lucrative licencing terms, we may look back at these buys as a pretty obvious signal of intent. If they fail to secure a licencing deal, then its just another Rene red herring. . .
I'm still licking my wounds. Nothing constructive to add at this point - remain confident that they will secure a licencing deal before the lights go off, for what its worth.
Got 200k shares now, badly underwater obviously, but if they deliver a licencing deal (not sure where any of these rumors are coming from - suspect nobody knows anything and the pump and dump brigade have perhaps taken an interest in us), then obviously the upside could be absolutely ridiculous from these levels. We live in hope.
Some fair comments here.
I would echo the sentiment about how they can publicly state 8 months ago that they would not be raising money through new equity, then release the RNS the other day which opens with 'we've tried and failed to do the thing that we said we wouldn't do'. Absolutely shambolic.
The only conceivable explanation I can think of in their defense it perhaps that as a 'going concern', there is some regulatory obligation to state what steps they have taken to ensure there is adequate funding to avoid them being a going concern. Anyone know if this idea has any credence?
Clive, to refer back to your original post, I haven't really attempted to answer that directly as I don't think I know enough about it to offer much of use.
My understanding is that LNPs work very well at delivering vaccines, and have already been used for delivering cancer vaccines prior to them becoming better known during their covid-19 application.
They are well suited for that kind of purpose, but less well suited for lots of other purposes. I would imagine exosomes would work well with vaccine delivery, but are currently less well studied than LNPs, so probably not a major clamour for them in that area.
I'm not aware of reneuron using their exosomes for addressing any cancer targets, with codiak and others seemingly leading that field.
I think we have an excellent shot at neurological disorders (of which there are many to go after), so presume that's where the focus will remain for the foreseeable future.
Further to my earlier message, see this link below...
https://youtu.be/ckPhx6phs_I
The whole video is interesting, but skip to 10m10s for discussion on LNPs.
In brief summary:
- key advantage of exosome based delivery system
- its the most advanced nanoparticle delivery system out there
- they've tried to reverse engineer LNPs to make things that look like exosomes, but found to be inferior
These mRNA vaccines use liquid nanoparticle (LNP) technology as the delivery mechanism. I think LNPs are basically synthetic versions of exosomes that are easily mass produced, stable and ideally suited for things like vaccines.
I've looked into it before, but can't fully remember all the ins and outs. Essentially though, LNPs are developed to basically try and replicate what exosomes do, and they are effective for certain applications, but exosomes have far greater scope for all sorts of other applications, just less studied and less widely adopted at this stage.
I think some of the more recent presentations by reneuron (or perhaps some of the research notes by the brokers?) have included some tables comparing LNPs to exosomes, so worth looking into that.
I'll try and find some links when I get time.
Those are collaborations, not licencing deals. Should the ongoing collaborations generate the data that the third party seeks, then they will result in licencing deals. The licencing deals will be on lucrative terms, fully publicised and with named partners.
Suprised2 - I the distinction we can make between the two set of circumstances (when you first invested on the back of promising pre-clinical, and where we are now) is that back then I don't think there was any ongoing collaborations with big pharmas (correct me if I'm wrong). The intention was for the company to take the products to market. They were shooting for the stars and it was going to take significant sums and time to get there.
What we know now, and is very much the investment case, is that there are a number of ongoing collaborations, and there is a precedent (codiak and evox) for pre-clinical POC data to be out licenced for huge sums. Rene will not take the products to market and will not have to pay for it either - indeed they will make money from milestone payments etc as the products advance through the trail phases. The upside for the share price from these levels is not dependent on the product even ever making it to market. That's what I like about this model, and what I think makes this a distinctly different investment case.
I think the first type of investor you have described clearly has paid a high premium for what has not turned out to be a good investment, for a number of reasons. The second type of investor, from these beaten down levels, has a genuine chance of making some significant gains. If the company can secure a licencing deal for it's exosomes, then the upfront fees would likely eclipse the current MCAP substantially.
There are no guarantees, clearly, however 5 of the 7 ongoing exosome collaborations are with much bigger partners, some of them global pharmas. These companies are not collaborating with Rene out of sympathy, they are genuinely exploring the possibility of finding the next generation drug/therapeutic delivery system. If the data generated in collaboration with Rene is what they are seeking, then they will do a deal to licence it. As we know from Evox and Codiak, these deals can be substantial.
There's also a chance of licencing legacy assets such as hRPC or CTX; although I think the focus and expectation is very much on exosomes.
Thanks, hopefully my timing is good. Been watching the charts for a while and it has retested previous lows a few times and looks like it could be breaking out on the 6 month chart, so we'll see.
Director buys are always going to attract interest, so might be enough to give us some momentum after what really has been a disappointing year so far. Plenty of potential bits of news in the pipeline, so we live in hope.
Thanks Clive - I'm not sure I fully understand the dynamics of what you are describing, but seems like you are knowledgeable of the process and it's useful to get your insight into what the strategic purpose of this may be.
The management team is now strong (for a company of this size) and I trust their judgement, intentions and ability to execute the strategy.