Member Info for PL75

Rah, I think the market struggles with valuing the platform. As Bein said the other day, who cares about AVA6k specifically - it’s the pathfinder. It’s a tech company, notoriously difficult to properly value. As for Gervais, I think he’s one of the ones that does get it, so they’ve been holding firm. Like long term holders as described by PAH, they have a low average and are willing to wait. It’s not like the moronic sealion said ie a choice of buying at 185 vs 125 when you already hold enough at a much lower average.

'lets all buy at 185p rather than 125p for instance'

What was your buy in on Harl again? Hypocrite.

Didn’t say that…I agreed with PAH. ‘All of us know the risk here but are prepared to wait it out for the end game. Risk vs reward, its Dacia that seems overly concerned about the current price. Most of us have accepted it and are prepared to wait.’

You’re thick as mince, as well as comically hypocritical.

Spot on PAH

Oh ok, so Harl is about funding, but this is different because it’s about funding. Not sure what funding has to do with TA, but that’s all part of your gambling problem.

No need for the essay, just agree you’re a hypocrite. Both have potential, both are viewed against that as being at bargain levels. So by that logic Rah shouldn’t receive constant tedious criticism from you for highlighting potential, unless of course you are indeed you’re a hypocrite. Here the science highlights the disconnect - It Works (tm). Over there, the govt contract underpins the potential.

Anyway, that’s enough, I’d best not encourage another essay, enjoy your Sunday.

As it’s Sunday… Is Harl priced correctly? As (it’s now) a long term investment, why did you pay 50% more than the market consensus? You wax lyrical about the govt contract (no mention of the associated costs and debt) but you suggest there’s a disconnect between the long term value and the current price. Is the market thick as mince valuing Harl at the current price? What does that make you, who paid 50% more? Have any comprehension of your hypocrisy? Draw some parallels - you’re ‘invested’ over there (because your gamble failed, but let’s pretend) because you believe there’s a disconnect between the current price and the future price due to the potential. Why not accept the same here and stop posting contradictory argumentative antagonistic nonsense constantly for the sake of it. It’s possible the market has it wrong. If it hasn’t got it wrong and it’s always right, the same applies at Harl and you should cut your losses. Oh… but that’s different… blah blah…

Let's gooo......!!!! Hype it up baby! Way less than the 50 sleeps I mentioned now! Whoop whoop, get on the train before the poster arrives - the rocket is fuelled and ready to fly!

Being 'in a position' doesn't mean that they have. That's an assumption.

Ooooops, wrong account

Hi Luke, I think if you’re capturing 100% of a market then it’s reasonable that you’ve been approved by that stage - it’s implicit. Not sure why you’re debating this given your offer to calculate scenarios…. Any chance of seeing those figures including a tripled market?

Hi Luke, if a drug captures 100% of a market, is it a reasonable assumption that it’s been 100% approved? Do you believe there is a larger market for AVA6k than dox given the safety profile / reduced toxicities?

'investments'

Good one

Hi eggy, my investments are none of your business. The grown ups were busy discussing the assumptions behind a discounted cashflow model... how's your play the man not the ball philosophy coming along? Twat.

Luke, you say you can't get over 371p with a discounted cash flow model - nonsense. You've laden it with assumptions including the market size and a 'chance of approval'. My post referred to alternative assumptions that multiply your answer by 18. You've chosen your assumptions, you can't dismiss alternatives.

Luke, so you can get to any figure, but not another figure, why not 371. If they're taking 100pc of the market then why apply 16pc chance of approval? So multiply by about 6 for starters… you've also assumed no increase in the market size. This could be 3x. That's gets over £7.

As it happens I think the broker valuations are fine and I'm equally fine with RAHs as well as yours. As progress is made, particularly given Dr Tap's remarks for STS the value will appear eventually and possibly sooner than imagined. 3996 is rattling along the pipeline behind. Lots of potential - hence RAH. Not yet unlocked - hence TD/Stiflel/Yours

Nope, I’m not, you’re just rattled as you’re an embarrassment. You wouldn’t be selling at a quid here, buying on a spike and then averaging down in Harl if it was such a winning formula. It’s proven via backtesting your pathetic ‘system’ doesn’t work. Past performance and all that. Google whipsaw and see how well RSI holds up - or alternatively just look at your trading record. If you got ten heads in a row, you’re the type of idiot that would bet everything on tails :-D

Come on, be fair, those entries were based on a single indicator, not stabs in the dark. Why hedge funds bother with data centres as close to the square mile as possible and pay quants millions to apply data science I’ve no idea when it’s as simple as comparing the recent price against the past couple of weeks. Stupid doesn’t come close.

*failed gambler

FIFY.

And assuming that Alan is more astute than Dacia and doesn’t accidentally sell prodox at a 10th of dox, the $1.5bn should be much higher due to the expanded market, so let’s round it up to £50

Yes…. Probably because some articles referenced biotech firms. Good to see it nipped in the bud. Unlike this thread.

Probably because some articles referenced biotech firms. Good to see it nipped in the bud. Unlike this thread.