Ryan Mee, CEO of Fulcrum Metals, reviews FY23 and progress on the Gold Tailings Hub in Canada. Watch the video here.
Merry Christmas to you too, Sooty; to all; and even to George Morris (Valtree).
A small Christmas top-up of mine had to be split into two halves, as Metom was right - there's little stock, and that's the beauty of a lot of diamond hands in VAL, mine included.
The MCap may be low, but this Company is lucky, in that it has a lot of loyal LTHs who are sticking with it, through thick and thin, for the ultimate objective.
Let's hope there's some sticky Director purchases coming soon too.
No; just the semen.
We're all using it on CBs advice, as per below.
No; Alderley Park mate. 80s ICI lot are getting on now, and sadly not here in some cases, but that's the generation that taught me the trade.
It's a "crock",
Or, it's going to "mid-20's".
You're a smart fella, CB, so which is it?
Yep; point has been made, also by me, and it will be the punters who bring the price up in the short-term.
Spent yesterday afternoon getting rather sozzled with about 50 mainly ex AZ staff who set up a Company. I do their pathology consultancy for them.
A couple of them know Suzy, and one also knew about the lab. He thought it was a cracking idea, so I know it's not just me :-). They also set a small lab up and they literally have only one competitor in their sphere. They're raking in the customers, to the point they need a bigger rake. This will happen at VAL too.
Needless to say, scientists don't usually do the share thing, but I told him to buy some.
Like Suzy, I am full of confidence about the new strategy. To be able to develop others’ compounds, with a majority retention, is impressive.
To be able to do it with your own in-house development capability is fairly genius.
The BOD members should not be coerced into buying shares. In any case, it may be that with TheoremRx, they are in a closed period. It may also be that they feel that their boss has come in for some rocky grief over recent months, and have been reticent to dip in. They should know that “the boss” has the full and unreserved support of many LTHs, myself included, and that many have been buying in at these lower levels. So that should bring them some comfort of longevity for them if they are tempted.
Skin-in-the-game arguments have a lot of merit on AIM, and it is not the fault of the BOD that they do not have founding shares, which is quite unusual. However, it is important that BOD members do generate or acquire some “skin”, at a given stage.
We can keep a watching brief here. If people feel that there is not enough “skin” within the BOD allocation/purchasing of shares, then it is perfectly plausible for a major shareholder to bring that, by nominating themselves for a BOD position at the next election. Especially if they’d be doing it with a view to fully supporting “the boss”, and perhaps putting some more money in, where their mouth, to back up the exciting strategy.
Let’s see what transpires.
Must admit the 18-12p drop on the Hokkaido delay was a bit baffling, given that they've generated 4 compounds from it, as they have actually increased the chances of a successful candidate by 300%.
Porky; they already have one, so they don't need to find one.
Nor will accreditations be a preliminary concern. I don't think in their sphere they'll go for GLP accreditation. Maybe in the future, but not now. Not necessary for non-regulatory work, and they're more drug discovery than development market-aiming at present.
The time needed will be mainly for test validation, rather than accreditation. And getting 4 staff.
They'll likely do validation using their own formulations, along with commercially-available positive and negative controls articles. Relatively-swift.
So it's weeks to months, not months to years. If there's one thing Suzy is good at, it's that if something is in her direct control (which this is), she'll be a ferret out of a drain pipe, setting it up.
Any further lab questions, please ask.
Here to help mate.
Desperation and you'd see me selling Terrier. Which you won't, btw, even when I'm up, which I will be.
Well, we should rightly bounce, or else it defies the logic of anything put together with more than two functioning brain cells, to be frank.
Things VAL have done that are less than ideal:
1. Cenkos - woeful performance to date. Rectifiable.
2. TheoremRx - one-sided deal, with a perceived lack of foresight to provide appropriate counter measures/pressure. Rectifiable.
Things VAL have done that were less than ideal, but are currently being rectified:
1. VAL301 - patent/formulation issues. In process to be rectified.
Things VAL have done very well:
1. Stopped bankruptcy. Don’t forget - these lot could go off and do what they are doing elsewhere, without retail SH’s wetting the bed every time SP goes down 5%. Yes - I can say that, because I currently have a paper loss bigger than anyone else.
2. Assembling 201 into a package that was actually fit to partner, from a pile of unpaid for data sheets, sitting on the floor of the previous management.
3. KCTNBC drug - commenced the regulatory pathway to IND submission and/or partnering/sale.
4. Hokkaido - developed 4 NCEs - so that’s 4 shots for that one. Delaying it and doing it properly is GOOD.
5. Barcelona - within timescales to date.
6. VAL301 - watch this space for a new patent.
7. BC201 - watch this space for a new patent.
= up to 5 new drugs in the preclinical pipeline in 2023. Maybe they’ll sneek a 6th in!
8. Actually built a team, proper. Scientific expertise increased by 200%
9. Lab lease - revenue generation in 1H 2023. I confidently predict that demand will outstrip supply by 4Q 2023. Ultimately, I think that the lab will cover all operating expenses, giving an indefinite cash runway. Scientific expertise to increase by 500%. Drastically shortened timescales for development.
We were sitting fairly comfortably at a 30MMCap based on the TX/201 deal alone, give or take, 12 months ago.
Can you imagine if Suzy does actually stick it to everyone and come through with 201.
Triple re-rate IMO.
If the BOD don’t buying into support that in the coming months, I may very-well vote myself onto it next year, to do just that.
Ho ho ho.
Oh come on George.
It's a bit late to cover your tracks. You got over-excited. The twitcher's hubris got the better of him, and he stumbled into the car park, in full beam view.
LinkedIn: "Leading the decommissioning of the UKHSA community Coved testing labs and the repurposing of the assets for future use".
Aside from your natural talent to "decommission" things, the fact that you've actually spelt "Covid" wrong on your profile is way beyond a smoking gun isn't it. Unless you are decommissioning concave arches and vaulted ceilings, of course.
I see no issue with stating here exactly what you think, and fair play if you do. But don't do yourself the disservice of being a coward with it.
1. Speculation. See C4X/Sanofi. Il-17 inhibitor partnered for a 400ME package, at a stage barely beyond where we are at with KCTNBC. There's lots of others, too - look up RedX and AZ, and RedX and Jazz. All partnered with compounds months only ahead of ours.
2. Speculation. Name me three “significantly lower risk M&A” offerings, with “quicker returns”, and why.
3. Google Ken and Patrick. There’s a lot of previous M&A (including listed outfits) activity. I am not in any way defending their poorly-executed one-sided “deal” here, but you are materially incorrect with that statement about Ken.
4. The one point I agree with. Deal as above.
5. This is the right approach. You’d raise at 8p for an over-priced “Client list”, which you simply do not need in this sphere. I know this because I own one of a small number of GLP -certified, MHRA-accredited labs. Started from scratch. Capacity met within 4 months. Over-subscribed now for 10 years straight. Initial scaling will demonstrate to a potential II (should expansion be warranted – which I think it will), a growth potential for investment. It’s a no-brainer for me.
6. You have no idea how successful this will be in 2023. I have an idea, because I’ve done it. I know what they’re going to offer, and I know that they will, likely within the year, already be under-capacity. Believe me, is you offer a reliable niche service, Clients will literally “fall from the sky”.
7. If you’d raise at the lowest SP with a 8-10 month runway and potential inflection points, fair enough. I wouldn’t. I’d get the lab spinning 1Q 2023, which they are doing.
8. This is for the BOD to answer, but they may be in a closed period still, with 201/TX.
So, all in all, a good point in there Porky, which we agree on.
That was good IMO.
They'll clean up with the lab; should turnover a couple of million fairly sharpish. 100% confident with that, and they won't be paying silly money for something that can easily be self-assimilated. Glad they're doing it from scratch.
One of the SPVs will get partnered early in my view.
TX are evidently on a delay mode. If that can be resolved, one way or the other, then every piece of value accretion will probably have an exaggerated effect on the SP. But it does need to be resolved in the shorter term in my view.
301 new patent is still the dark horse for me, success in which could double the SP; especially if it means that the Japanese will take it proper.
Ells; out of interest, what are the charts saying now?
Also, when are they predicting that Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, or Takeda are going to buy, or pay for all the work of, Cytolytix.
Thanks in advance bro.
Honestly; reading some of these posts, anyone would think that we were going bust next week.
We have nearly a year of runway at present!
There's a delay on one of the in-licensed drugs, for good reasons (that wasn't even priced in), and half the shareholders have wet the bed.
Thanks Porky. VAL isn't my biggest holding, but I appreciate the investment advice. I'd de-risk if I was worried.
Good luck with your investments.
Thanks PM - that post sums up exactly what I'd have said.
Unfortunately for Porky, he wrote it himself.
PS - I'm not criticising others' investments, but I would argue that, although 4D had "11" products in development, they were pretty much all varying flavours of Actimel.
The IBD product results, as I recall, were so underwhelming, that they had to reassess if Irish women, for example, had responded better than English men, to try and prove that the milkshake placebo wasn't actually as good as Blautix. If it were good, don't you think that someone would have paid the modest debt off to get it? It had a good patent, no?
Now, the cash burn there was also absolutely horrendous, as in "I wonder of Actimel works in HIV". "Let's try it, Roger; get the cheque book out".
And as for commercialisation, you do know that these drugs will be sold off pre-IND? That could be two years; it could be next year. So it is completely erroneous to suggest those time-scales. We aren't running clinical trials anymore, and maybe we can thank 4D for not going down that route.
If you can post one time - any time - that you questioned the validity of this strategy, then I promise to read your posts with the respect they may otherwise have.
I'm just testing your idea Porky, that if I put something as a thread title, it might happen.
Thanks Cobalt. I noticed that their capsule formation only seemed to materialise after the pivotal IND studies commenced, so I hope that they tested the right (clinical) formulation in their toxicity studies. Anything else would likely be quite minor, I'd have thought, maybe just needing to rerun a study or two.