Member Info for PhilBanks

Also referring back to this thread; the Edison note provides a good comparison at exhibit 2, which is what I was trying to explain a few weeks ago.

Great write-up, we wait (as always) with baited breath.

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.

Great rns this morning, a licencing deal is a matter of time, I suspect.

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.

The 52k share one was mine, buying in anticipation. . .

https://www.proactiveinvestors.com/companies/news/990670/reneuron-ceo-we-have-a-great-company-that-just-needed-a-shake-up-990670.html

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.

They absolutely should have been incentivised. Disappointing that they are not.

prospero - they would do all that, and it would spike in the morning, then in the afternoon WW3 would be announced and everything would crash. Its just the Rene way.

Why would shareholders agree to sell the company for £22 mil if they could get £25 mil upfront for an exosomes licencing agreement?

It comes down to whether you think they'll get licencing deals for exosomes or not. If you do, then it's extremely cheap and has the potential to make enormous gains from these levels. On that basis, you just have to grin, bare it and wait until that day comes, because I can't see anything else shifting the price properly until then.

If you don't think they'll sign licensing deals, then you absolutely should not be invested, as your patience will only therefore be rewarded with a further gradual decline.

My perception of the company was badly damaged by what happened with hRPC, but Ross pulling the plug on it (as opposed to running a further phase 2) was absolutely the right thing to do. They (previous senior management) took a chance with increasing the dose and modifying the bleb placement, and it absolutely did not work as expected. The cash drain of waiting any longer or trying to do another phase 2 would have decimated any residual shareholder value.

Ross is focused on monitising and valuing as much of the IP and expertise as quickly as possible. He's on record as saying they are going to raise 'dosh', through licensing deals and not further equity raises. His record for company turnarounds is exemplary, and on this basis I'm willing to trust what he says and have invested further.

Let's hope he's rights, as this company cannot now afford any more false dawns, and neither can I.

Yes, very frustrating seeing it fall back again. Director buys will help, but I think the bulls will only truly trust the company again when a substantial licencing deal is announced.

The actual full quote from Ross, with reference to the outlook for the coming year:

"Let me make it clear; we're going to generate data, we're going to do deals, and we're going to raise dosh. And I say that - in this particular market, raising money is not a particularly easy task - so we're looking at collaborations producing non-dilutive funding".

Lets hope he's good to his word, because that's about as unequivocal as it gets.

Comment about internal and external ceo recruitment process was noteworthy I thought. Perhaps Ross (and the board) have been impressed by what they've seen from Catherine Isted so far and looking at the possibility of moving her from cfo to ceo?

She certainly comes across very well and has the business focused mind (and contacts) that has been so badly absent in this company for a long while now.