Charles Jillings, CEO of Utilico, energized by strong economic momentum across Latin America. Watch the video here.
The most worrying aspect of the Chairman's statement for me was the following para which has heightened my recent concerns. I have been very conscious of what has taken place at Redx and others - delisting from AIM and, more specifically, doing so off the back of the market failing to recognise their very strong positions (including having done some very big deals and with much cash in the bank); If more advanced companies such as those do not see the point of being on AIM then where does that leave Hemo on the future fund-raising front? Contrary and sensible arguments only by way of replies, please:
"While we accept that recent market conditions have been very difficult, we have been disappointed by the successively lower price at which we have had to carry out our fundraisings in the UK market, in the light of the progress we have made and the view taken by Prevail Partners concerning our status. The capital recently raised will undoubtedly take us materially further forward and we are now looking at a number of strategies for the future development of all three of our current product candidates."
Prof Sir Marc Feldmann AC, FRS
MB BS, PhD, FRCP, FRCPath, FAA, F Med Sci
Chairman
PL, I might be talking out of my backside here but looking at one of a number of recent stories concerning AIM biotechs - the following concerning C4X in particular - 'deals' don't appear to be enough in the current climate? Apologies in advance if I've misunderstood different circumstances at AVCT.
https://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwest/news/2130947-c4x-to-quit-stock-market-and-seek-venture-funding-for-drug-discovery
"Thank fully, the CEO has secured a large European healthcare investor! But has said he can talk due to a 40 day blackout! If Jeremy Beadle was still with us would he appear on an Avacta video?"
I think back to similarly mentioned "NDA's" in previous webinars of years gone by: "(Sharp intake of breath) Can't talk about that, son. Ooh! No, sorry. More than my life's worth (wink, wink)."
Surprisingly, nothing ever came of them, despite some PIs clinging to their belief in desperation rather than belief.
"Mr I hopefully that's your thought for the week. Silence can have positive connotations too. Like, working away industriously, getting the job done and we'll announce something when it's tangible and there is something of merit to bring to our attention. I would implore you to rest on what you have said, be as patient as you can be and not let this be flavour of a daily or hourly post. News will come when it comes. GL you and all"
I think Chris0123 provided the perfect response to the original post in this thread and it's probably best to draw a line under it here. It serves no real purpose to continue commenting on an 'opinion' which adds nothing further towards understanding the actual prospects or the science here.
BasilAlderman: "“There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.” - Oscar Wilde.
Gotta be honest, Basil (and Oscar), I reckon the current hourly news bulletins kinda dispel that thinking.
In fairness, chris_g, there is new blood at the top, as opposed to just the previous talent:
"Wilson's replacement as chief executive is Ije Nwokorie, who only just became Dr Martens' chief brand officer in February and was formerly the head of global branding company Wolf Ollins and a senior director at technology giant Apple."
Aldebaran, as someone who's followed Avacta for several years, including the CEO's often "contradictory or goalpost moving proclamations" (an observation that many of Avacta's LTH's would no doubt agree with), rest assured that - if they did have the "holy grail of cancer care" - they'd almost certainly have been bought into by Big Pharma, and the SP would not be languishing where it now is. No offence but the fact that you place so much credence on the fact that "the CEO's told us" (so it must be true) suggests rose-coloured specs to me. A few biopsies aside, let's see more 'proper' AVCT "holy-grail" efficacy data (as opposed to wat has primarily been 'safety and tolerability' info to date) before believing the hype.
The one thing I agree with you on? You cannot compare AVCT with Hemo.
two points: i've said previously that the ****ging of wyndrum, for me as a visitor at least, suggests that many (but not all) of those doing so lack the scientific or investment knowledge to counter his views sensibly or with genuine conviction. thus, they resort to 'boot boy' / playground responses. he's entitled to his opinions as much as anyone else and only those who can counter them on a factual basis (rather than being seen to character assassinate) will help support the sp.
secondly, as far as the rns is concerned, i was impressed by the very specific outlook expressed by christina coughlin md, phd, head of research and development at avacta. i'll be surprised if the sp doesn't rise in the coming days by way of a delayed response to the rns.
I had to laugh at the post below, "What's the potential of this company?" That was the entire post, so good to see that the poster is keen to cut down the need for any of that pesky research stuff. "Billions" came the reply, which is potentially true but - for me at least - doesn't quite cover the whole story ;-)
This might make a good starting point for the questioner:
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/research/car-t-cells
Interesting how a quick glance at these boards - or at least the length of their posters' comments - can reveal a fair bit about the company they're addressing. Those boards with primarily short sentences and 'crystal ball comments' - rather than actual considered content - are usually populated by gamblers rather than well researched investors. Doesn't that tell you all you need to know?
I really don't want to get dragged into the conversation here because I'll end-up upsetting people, many of whom I've been in here with from the early days, people I like. However, something that often goes unconsidered (often because people just don't want to believe it) - including amongst investors - is stereotypical expectations. IE We often stereotype and wrongly associate academic prowess with other personal attributes such as integrity, a lack of ego and a duty of care to us. This may seem fairly obvious but all too often our hopes (Investments?) are based around totally unfounded expectations upon a "type" (academic?) rather than the individual whose "actions and outcomes to date" are the only real thing upon which we SHOULD BE measuring them and basing our decisions. The buck stops with us when it comes to our investment decisions but we often seek to blame others who have merely provided a mirror to our own poor judge of character.