Member Info for Rambo23

PL75 I didn't ignore your point I replied saying it comes down to ROI. Even if I retract the loss making comment to make this easier it comes back to capital allocation and ROI.

The first high level question to answer is would £20-30m invested in TX be a better ROI over DX? (the timeline could be pre DX purchase or now for me it is the same answer) If you agree the answer is yes then we need to remove DX.

Question 2 - Selling DX asap becomes an opportunity cost point. You either have £20-30m to invest in TX right now or you might have a little more in a years time from DX but that outcome is uncertain as is the timeline. What would you prefer? I would sell now as TX offers more ROI and the faster that can be deployed e.g pipeline the better.

Question 3 - Would you consider selling DX at a loss? Yes/ No? I would simply because the options to add value to TX right now across the platform etc are significant. Even if DX made a few million profit in a years time to spend it on paying the HCI dept is a waste of time and small fry. For perspective that same profit money potentially progresses a tumour agnostic asset 3996 towards IND filing immediately? Which has bigger ROI potential a DX business with £30m in revenue or a tumour agnostic drug that has multi billion TAM in its sights which also enhances the value of the wider precision platform being the second prodrug.

ROI every time on this DX debate.

Who knows Digitalman but given the vast disconnect between the SP and the value and reach of the tech a low bid has to be on the list of risks. Get the SP up, get the house in order etc and that risk reduces but the numbers for a TO likely rise. This is why I'm not interested in what DX looks like in a year or two's time. I think realistically when they have Q2W with first line patient data, further outcomes on the efficacy front and revenue generation from 6k not that far away (attractive vs new drug dev timeline that is likely much longer) it is a no brainer. The question is when and how much? I want the BOD at the AGM to really discuss the valuation opportunity here once and for all. AS likely had to downplay it to go as far as he could.

Digitalman, I think it is possible the assumption of SB being brought in to do a deal quickly is incorrect. Prior to this AS was doing much of this engagement himself and we don't really know what timetable AS was on to print a deal but I don't think it was quickly. Now the placing has happened they can afford to wait for Q2W data etc etc. My belief was AS wanted to go as long as he could before the PR or deals started. This backfired and he got removed.

As for SB being on £20k a month I think this is missing the key point. We care about him striking the right deal on the best possible terms. Any deals done should make his costs look academic given what he has to work with. I'm 50/50 whether we see a LD or TO first. If you were BP why would you do a LD and let someone else take the prize?

PL75 - The argument for selling DX over the last 18 months hasn't changed. ROI in TX is a no brainer. We can't reverse the dilution now but it should never have happened it has cost all shareholders hugely. HCI and DX have only led to dilution and we borrowed money to buy a loss making business many never wanted but will show little to modest growth.

Keeping DX now weighs on the SP along with HCI. If people are worried about a low bid we have to remove the parachutes DX and HCI asap and move forward. Waiting until next year and selling for a little more for a business not in vogue is in my view a waste of time and money. Sell it for £20-30m now (even at a loss), reduce / remove HCI and be taken as a credible TX business. DX and HCI have been drags on the business for too long, been a factor in the SP being hammered down here. HCI is a traders play-thing each quarter. They have to go. Lastly they might have prohibited investment from II. I'm here for the big prize TX not the DX side show.

In summary the opportunity cost of having that £20-30m now boosts the SP and mkt cap far more than waiting until next year for DX to be in the black and doing very little. It is a seriously unexciting business which is why we hear so little about it and have not seen any prod dev progress. It is an easy decision. AVCT likely don't have the luxury of time before a bid comes so they must go all in on TX to maximise that opportunity which starts with getting a decent value assigned to the mkt cap before that happens.

@Bella re affirmers I don't think we have the time to get the DX business to monetise that. Affyxell more likely but IPO 2026 so it will still take time. If you think a bid comes in the next 12 months or sooner DX and affirmers hardly get to play a part of the show hence my view. TBC when we see the first move but with MoA proven a long time ago, Q2W data accruing daily what else do you need? This is no longer about the 6k trial.

GMCC for me this isn't about whether DX works or not. It has been a misallocation of capital. The ROI of TX vs DX is chalk and cheese. Keeping it for longer doesn't resolve the wider optics on this. We have been heavily diluted as a result. The sooner DX is sold the better.

GMCC importantly Lena is the MD of Launch DX Germany....this was a planned expansion country. Is this progress on that front? I hope so.

Digitalman, hardly an 'odd omission'. That page primarily details the Board of Directors. Simon is not on the board. The only other person it has on it is the head of comms but that is a group wide responsibility.

If you scroll down and select 'Meet the Therapeutics team' guess who is there unsurprisingly....Simon! This is where most people would expect to find him in the company structure being a TX focussed employee not on the board.

To suggest it is an 'odd ommission' is frankly misleading.

Olderandwiser - I think it is possible but I don't think it is a good idea. We could get DLTs in one of these cohorts (they get 50% more cumulative dose over 12weeks than Q3W) and the purpose of Q2W beyond S&T is to see if a more frequent dose improves efficacy due to the lack of toxicity on the Q3W. To not complete this would be a massive missed opportunity. Then you next phases takes longer and therefore costs more and the outcome might not be as good as it could have been. I think there is zero chance they chance course as a result. The better data they have the more likely you replace Dox as SOC and get AA.

Hurst

Affyxell revaluation will happen but in steps. The IPO is now 2026 so before then it might be slow and steady. I don't personally expect AVCT to be here in 2026 to see that value play out.

Who would you like as a US Broker? I would like to see GS as Advisor asap but TBC as US broker.

It appeared there are two options here.

1. Sell the whole lot to party A

2. Do license deals with A.B and C.

AS was cautious on the latter to ensure option 1 wasn't made less attractive. Now he has gone what is the revised strategy?

Hurst would you US list if you had a £150m mkt cap that has recently more than halved? I wouldn't right now. They need to get the house in order that takes time.

There is a lot that needs to be done for a US move IPO/ Dual list that would take circa 6 months? Until we sign an advisor that clock doesn't start ticking. I think the SP needs to be north of £2 to consider that move personally but at these low levels the first sign would be getting a tier 1 advisor onboard. Start with GS. Why they haven't signed them already is beyond me it's a no brainer, boosts credibility, puts the market on notice and the SP moves up.

Other factors to consider here is have we missed the boat? US markets flying BUT a US election is coming in Nov. Will the market be flying post that (not so sure myself) and what is the M&A landscape looking like? Well it's great now but how long does that last. Essentially do we have time to do a US list before all this and my gut says possibly not (happy to be wrong). That assumes they want or need to bother with the entire exercise. AIM is the pits but it depends on what is the likely exit here is.

Great post Keith very helpful.

In your opinion and referencing this comment below from you, when do you expect roughly Mou5 to be drilled? There has been a lot of discussion on the SV-101 availability and if this drill is done as part of the 1st extension period there isn't any rush to do it near term. What is your take on the drill timing covering the rig and funding (inc for a deeper drill if required)

* MOU-5 will be drilled as part of the commitments under the 1st Extension Period - one of which is currently for one drill to a depth of 2750m, hence speculation about MOU-5 being extended into the Triassic and confirmation that SV-101 has that capability.

JT I agree with all that but the outcome is ambiguity from the company at a time they need to up their game on comms. RNS when the SDMC has met and then again when the 3rd patient was dosed seems sensible. That is crystal clear for the market. Sadly because we are a few weeks over the end of April signpost AS provided knowing the 3rd patient had been dosed and was on a month time line we are left to guess what has happened. Some will be ok with that some will want more info.

It is critical this Q2W completes smoothly now. IF and I say IF recruitment has been a general issue then why haven't they opened more sites? and surely they must address it going into expansion studies as a priority. The reason why this is important beyond the trial outcomes the time taken costs a lot of money and so far we have taken a long time. Have there been missed opportunities to expedite some timelines? Perhaps, one example is at the AGM last year I had a discussion on Q2W starting and here we are nearly a year later having dosed 3 patients. Let's hope for some good news soon. I wonder what the status of the UPS patient is given the last view was from Jan.

B2HS2L - That patient story is incredible and let's hope it continues. They had surgery and radiotherapy which failed to stop the disease and very limited options. The AVA6000 trial has significantly reduced his disease to a point where a complete response is in sight. This was all on the slides but the market is a sleep. Worth pointing out that as per Dr Tap STS is normally something they have to manage not cure so this is big stuff! What will this treatment do to first line patients!

JT great post. I think one of the biggest issues we have suffered from for years under AS is a lack of commitment on the PR front and an unwillingness to see the SP higher due to funding. It is as clear as day to me that his plan was to fly under the radar with the aim of building value, going through the trials before too many BP noticed. This has created several issues

1. Limits his options on funding which as we have found out has had very negative consequences and each of there last placings has been lower than the one before it.

2. Retail have shouldered most of the risk for that plan if indeed that was the case (I believe it was) and sentiment is shot and almost all are out of the money at sub 50p.

3. Lack of stability in the SP and a poor share register

4. Relying on the loan note to suppress the SP so funding could be achieved as he spent too long listening to the brokers in his ear

5. P1A has taken far too long with no efforts to expedite some areas ie why couldn't Q2W start at 160mg/m2 in parallel to Q3W dosing much higher cohorts?

6. This approach has cost him his job

Now AS is out the way a completely different approach can be taken. We absolutely should see positive reactions to newsflow, non dilutive options prioritised and striking deals. This isn't about the 6k trial now time to adjust the optics to think much bigger.

571k and 268k buys printed at the close......above VWAP as well. Ignore the noise!

@Bella....I don't see a 500k printed yet. Why do you think 500k out of interest?

@Bella, RE DX a problem arises if existing shareholders are given shares in a new entity it's likely the first thing that happens is a huge dumping of those shares to buy TX shares. I'm yet to find many people who actually want to hold DX. ROI for every £ in TX is a no brainer vs DX so they should realise the cash before any other non dilutive options are considered. Agreed they perhaps have more time now the placing has topped up the bank account but my concern is if the presence of DX is a show stopper for some II investment it should be sold asap.

Soleboy, I don't disagree. It's possible he thought he could get this to FDA approval on his watch going alone (a big ambition and there is no issue with that if you play the game well enough) and therefore a possible reason no commercial team exists. Sadly relying on bucket shop brokers has cost him dearly in that plan as at every turn they have milked the placings and we have raised at lower levels. The lack of cornerstone investors another issue along that journey that would otherwise added some protection. He has done his best but now is time for a change. A big week ahead but the science is solid so it needs to get to market in the most advantageous way.

@Bella we already know AXA Farmington Biotech fund took part in the placing. This likely represents the 'European Healthcare fund'. I would love to see some of the names you mention also added especially the ones linked to EF. If they didn't take part I would want to know why. It seems AVCT has struggled to bolster the register in recent years but have the contacts on the board to change that. How much is the presence of DX potentially putting off investors?

Gje306 - 194 posts in 30 days....never seen so much rubbish! In the bin you go.