RE: 5 trades worth less than..30 May 2023 13:47
Porky nobody vs Adam. I would rather listen to Adam. Previous post from Adam.
The other point to note, is that they only seem to take on an SPV when the formulation is right and the efficacy/pharmacodynamics look promising.
So, whilst any delays are incredibly frustrating as a SH, if any pass these, then they have much more promise than an otherwise lead-generated test material. It's essentially optimised, and to get to that stage in a large pharma could cost 10-15 Million quid.
VAL are good at cost-cutting in this, and seem to do it on a fairly narrow shoe-string.
So, ultimately, you could argue that CLX might be "valued" at 15-20p as is, all these months in, and that any additional SPV could be 10p each, at signature.
But I don't want to annoy the converse posters, so I'll just say that I *personally* think that 10p significantly undervalues the one SPV we have, without considering anything else like the lab; 301; 3M in the bank; the cost of the VAL "shell"; work undertaken with two more evaluations etc.
But I do strongly disagree with the line "it takes years for commercialisation", as that simply isn't true. There are other AIM Biopharma outfits with milestone deals in place for compounds at an earlier stage than CLX001 currently is, wherein formal drug development work had not yet started at contract stage (just concept).
PatientInvestor I also concur strongly with. I do not want to see a negative impact of 201 on any future good news, nor do I think that it is an appropriate time to dilute for growth. The reason for this is that there is a lot currently in the VAL tank, and this should be maximised throughout 2023 with the tools to hand.