Member Info for RayPointer

Probability theory Ruck.

They are based on industry statistics.

If tossing a coin, the chance of calling correct is 50%

Do your own valuations and by all means share them if you wish to

Could be Long Term as well

I would just use the Trinity method by creating a spreadsheet and plugging in your own figures if you disagree with Trinity's.

Instead of using the DCF method they use, you could just assume what each product would be worth if sold outright.
This is the method I prefer. But who knows what Scancell's deal strategy is. I suspect they are going to play if by ear anyway.

So
1) choose your own method if not DCF
2) create a spreadsheet
3) choose you own percentage chance of success for each product
4) if using DCF put your own estimates in
5) if using a sale valuation again put your own figure in

You could even add a share dilution factor if you think there will be further dilutions

You can then update the spreadsheet as trials progress (percentage chance of success will change) and new trials appear

Note: this will give you a fair share price based on your figures

Trinity's method and figures gives 21p at present,

In the nature article you posted

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep25182

Figure 2: Crystal structure of MAGE-A4 MHD (PDB ID: 2WA0).

I notice that this molecular structure, although mainly spiral, is all over the place with spirals connected by long strands.
I wonder if this also affects the avidity. It can't be easy for a cell (TCell or Mab) to connect to such a loosely connected structure

Also this from the article

"A small fraction (ca10%) of this MAGE-A4 mutant unfolds at physiological temperature. The decreased thermal stability coupled with unfolding at physiological temperature caused by E242K mutation may reduce the functional activities of MAGE-A4 protein in vivo."

I get your point. It is so hard to find the right targets expressed by a high %age of patients and also, at the same time, get a high avidity with those targets.
And then we also have the seeming ability of the CD4 killer to pass into the tumour with impunity without the tumour mounting an immuno-supressive response

I suppose if BionTech were to launch a Moditope TCR trial it may also cause Genentech to play their card

Yes and they do pride themselves on the TCR technology they have built but seemingly no targets.
Moditope must be very enticing to them.

I wonder how much money they have spent on TCR tech?
Possibly add to that money Lilly spent on their collaboration with BionTech

Have a look of the team members of the 3 winning teams

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/funding-for-researchers/how-we-deliver-research/grand-challenge-award/round-2-shortlisted-teams

It was definitely worth a shot, but I've come round to the idea that losing round 2 was a good thing.

We get to keep Modi3 all to ourselves apart from use in TCR (which is a bonus anyway)
So there's no squabbles over division of money and IP.

Maybe Lindy knows the makeup of Modi3 already. That is then the good thing that has come out of this.
Not that Lindy requires any motivation to look for the next vaccine.

"Nobody ever suggested this was the make or break of us"

Very true c7.
We have lost an iron from the fire, but quite possibly the least important iron.
As you said previously, "Onwards and Upwards"

I'd settle for your plan A

What they've binned it already!
Besides, TCell has ambitions to be head of HR, and you send him to root in bins!

But is it the 2 vaccines separately or is it a new vaccine that incorporates Modi1 and Modi2 targets?
I don't know.

You would hope that a plan B exists.
It may be as simple as developing Modi3 and adding it to the BionTech collaboration.
The sooner that collaboration bears fruit the better.

What we don't want is a delay to a deal because a new vaccine (Modi3) is still to be tested.
What would be ideal is to cut deal with BionTech this year either on Modi1 alone or Modi1 and Modi2.

Then deal with a possible extension to the deal as and when other Modis are developed

Specifically adding Modi3 to the TCR collaboration as and when Scancell develop it which would probably be after the Modi2 research is finished.

It certainly would be interesting to know if Scancell see Modi3 as part of their pipeline now.

I actually think that PBP in its GC format is now dead in the water.

It might be replaced with specific collaborations with 1 or more of the 3 other companies in the GC entry.

We already have a collaboration with BionTech so strengthening that particular collab may be on the cards.

Right at the end of the interview Cliff did say on the SCIB1 combo trial

" answers compiled and relayed back to the FDA"

At least that is positive.

Whether the FDA is still functioning currently is another issue.

Remember that Trinity's calculations were based on the following percentage chances of success

SCIB1 combo 20%
SCIB2 combo 15%
Modi1 10%

and then royalties

of 17.5%, 15% and 17.5% (SCIB2 lower since some is due to CRUK presumably)

They also say

"It is worth highlighting that this is a current valuation, based on the situation as we
see it now, and not a price target for some time in the future. Often such price
targets are expectations of what the share price should be, typically, in 12 months’
time as various value inflection points are achieved.
Such price targets run counter to our conservative approach; we strive to ensure
our risk-adjusted models capture the various possible scenarios, relative to both
upside and downside, and then we will update our valuations as the key points are
reached. Although resulting in less dramatic upside potential, we believe our
valuations are more realistic, attainable and, ultimately, credible."

What they don't do is attempt to calculate what price the company is worth on the open market if and when trials become successful.
I suppose that is something that is too subjective to put a figure on.