Member Info for rhubarbmk2

Agreed. Second for me with the baseball bat.

Evening Valtree,

I, too, have bought a boat. The Mary Celeste.

I'm renaming it "G+M".

The inspiration was that it was filled with goodies and potential, but, through "apparent" mismanagement, was left to rot.

Luckily, that's where the similarities with VAL come to an end.

It's already returned a decent bounty. 200%.

The lifeboat on the Mary Celeste, no doubt filled with reprobates and life's losers, had left when I made the acquisition, so that was an added bonus.

So, all in all, a good purchase I think. :-)

Thanks Novice, but I've never met another pathologist, without a guttermouth, so there you go ;-)

If you were a trader, of which I ain't, we are in very interesting territory, chart wise.

If you run a 6 month plot, and overlay the Bollinger Bands, they've sharply dissected and now lie between the Keltner bands, so we've fairly swiftly entered a classic "Bollinger Squeeze", indicating very tight stability.

Plot that against the Parabolic SAR, which has been speeding down towards our current candle-sticks, at a rate of knots, from the 60's (currently in the 40s), and you have a second signal.

The third is the Bollinger band width itself. This is the tightest it has been in three months, and the second tightest in 6 months. And it is getting tighter.

When all three signals last aligned, it was early August, before a step-wise increase to treble the then stable SP (around 20p at the time I think).

As I say, I'm not a chartist, so DYOR research, but what I am saying, if you're reading this Suzy, is that the next couple of weeks are absolutely ripe if you would like to drop some good news. :-)

It's a fair point fella, but I don't think that many SHs would particularly mind (well, I wouldn't anyway), if II investment was for a material reason that would enhance capability and potentially generate revenue, in and of itself. The SP increase would likely more than offset any dilution.

4 compounds a year, each with a chance to multibag the SP, in and of themselves. Other AIMs have one or two preclinical assets, albeit with great potential, but they sit at 100/200+MCaps.

Worth thinking about for a proper investment IMO.

No idea if it will be a blue afternoon, but, JHC, I'd say it's going to be a blue 2022.

MCap if 20-oddM. Pardon my French, but WTAF of a no brainer is buying VAL shares. And I can't be the only one thinking that.

That's an excellent QandA piece. Really thorough.

Gives comprehensive scope and a direction of where we are heading.

Very excited about this company.

I'd definitely leave my keys with Suzy if I went on holiday.

For a muso too, he's made some top notch contributions.

And then there's Nick of course. So you can add another: "Nick". Comes with no description required :-)

An opera singer. I sht you not.

What a bunch.

Suzy probably just wants a normal shareholder base of gel-haired broker types, and we've given her a bunch of eccentric freaks.

Poor lady.

OK Badsterman. Micro needling 201. Sure I mentioned that to Suzy once, but it's a massive market!

Many a true indication said in jest :-)

Not my place to comment on OB's hairline (he's my favourite poster btw, after yesterday's comment ;-)).

But I'd recommend, from the literature of course, giving topical regaine/finasteride a go, combined with daily derma rolling or micro needling.

I talk about VAL, and don't give medical advice, but if it's a concern, I can't help but get involved :-)

Hi Badsterman,

It is an excellent question; can I swerve it? :-)

Maybe they have a patent edge on it - this I don't genuinely know.

Regarding "tox issues" though. They wouldn't know that, unless they already know the results of the two-species tox studies that they are currently running (which they may already do).

Only after this time would you claim not to have significant and dose-limiting tox issues.

On paper though (and in publication), it may well be a low-risk tox target, but I'd be surprised of they'd made the tox statement without the word "likely".

The tox studies can be swimming, but I'd never claim the absence of a tox liability before these pre-IND studies were signed off.

All I'd say is I'd be wary of such a groundswell, before I'd submitted an IND for a second drug in the portfolio.

GL to you, though - you're well-researched, and that's top banana.

SARs a funny one. Good luck to them and all that, but they are a few months off getting to IND stage with their preclinical great hope. And they seem to be reformulating it into, I recall, a capsule, which makes me wonder about problems with absorption. They haven't read out preclinical tox yet, either, so it is a gamble (as everything is). 301 is about at the same stage. It's obviously potentially got a bigger market than 301, but we may have up to 4 shots a year at getting a drug to the same stage, starting in a couple of years. If it's really exciting, it may be sold/partnered before.

Their clinical candidate has had it's heels dragged, but realistically seems to have a potential final milestone value that is similar to 201 (I'm assuming two indications); so I'd say the two clinical deals are broadly similar.

VAL looks likely to generate near-term revenue from the new strategy; SAR may raise. in fact, I'd be surprised if they didn't - large overheads and HNWIs can only inflate it for so long, with no sale.

I've said it before; SAR has 10X the MCap of VAL, so it will do OK, or it will suffer an unholy drop next year. A lot of holders also think they have the only candidate in that pool too, and for that defined target. There are others in development, and quite targeted variations too. As a betting man, I'd say a drop next year. The Executive Chairman bought a couple of days ago, to stabilise the price, and it has worked well (maybe we need to learn from that). But that tells me that they are not currently negotiating, so read into that what you will.

Ah well; we all place out bets in this market as we see fit. All IMO, and good luck to both Companies; I don't mean to slate SAR in favour of VAL, to current holders, just mainly to draw attention to VAL's seemingly inexplicable MCap (to my mind).

What did you expect, Jenny?

Solid financials; they aren't going to raise for working capital (so very rare on biopharma AIM); they have a novel strategy; they have a novel preclinical candidate for TNBC ($$$); and they're also a jolly nice set of people.

The market, unfortunately, is dominated by folk who don't really take the time to gauge some nuance, or take the time to delve into what the above generally translates into, in the longer term.

Fine by me; I'm in no rush. But you may wish to find a share with a little more hot air, if you need a rush of excitement, or perhaps someone to top your empty glass up :-)

Just a reminder to email me if there are any questions you'd like to be asked tomorrow, but are unable to do so in person.

Details given yesterday.

RB - welcome back son.

I wish you were still in charge, George.

We'd have so much competence to look forward to.

Hi All,

BOD enquired if I would ask any questions at the QandA, on the behalf of anyone who may not wish to do this in person.

They're probably conscious that they cannot fabricate questions, based upon some of the posts made on the various forums, even though they're very open to answering everything (within reason).

If anyone has a question that they'd like to be asked, but doesn't want to do it in person, and would prefer me to do that, please send me a mail at adam dot hargreaves at pathcelerate dot com.

I won't divulge any names.

Please don't put it on the forum, because I'm not here much at the moment, due to work commitments.

Cheers.

It's a strategy that's going to deliver several RNSs per year, with potentially multiple significant and ongoing inflection points. It's perfect for the AIM.

Don't let anyone tell you that VAL don't know what the punters want.

It's a brilliant piece of work, that is. Strategy masterclass.

Whoever has compiled that has got it absolutely nailed on, IMO.

.58p; 1.14p; 2.57p.

"Medical Dosage Calculations for Dummies" is actually now out, old sport (see online).

May come in useful for your next role.