Member Info for rhubarbmk2

Yes - please cut and paste the sentence Porky.

I can't see it, and IronMighty can't either.

If there's a genuine version that says it, please let us know. I'll still argue that it is very very likely to be incorrect (at least for wages), but it's only right that you aren't unfairly criticised if that's what it says.

I'll ask Suzy for clarification if you are indeed quoting it properly - to put both our minds at rest.

Please type, verbatum, what it says, and what version it's on.

The lab should pay for itself after a small number of preliminary evaluations, Hokkaido being on there right now.

What a bargain.

@Porky.

I never called you a liar.

You made a statement, and transferred a figure for lab costs (even more inflated) into a wage cost.

You omitted a detailed appraisal, in the hope that you'd get away with an off-the-cuff statement.

You were picked up on it, and I'm sure in retaliation will retreat to the adfvn chat forum, to state that "the ramping squad are at it again on lse".

Don't see any ramping squad.

Do see an agenda.

Anyway, that's how I see it.

Let's see how events unfold.

Well into 2024 I'd have thought, with many potential interim inflections, so very healthy.

As the Phase 2's could generate upfront payments of more than the current MCap, still an attractive play.

Don't let the facts get in the way of someone determined to fill their boots at 4p, son.

Not a cat's chance three staff (including two technicians) are costing 300K.

Unless, of course, you're including "housing", which is effectively running the lab to generate revenue.

Don't need confirmation for that, as I know technician and sales benchmark wages; even for absolutely top-shelf ones.

Looks like CENKOS are outdoing themselves even more now - quite a feat. I do wonder why they are still here.

And why are you still here btw?

RM would be very silly not to fund the continuing Phase 2 work.

Because if that works, then it would take some effort NOT to get a major pharma coming in for a sub-license.

And that would likely be for a 10 figure milestone deal, with a very hefty upfronter.

I'm actually a bit surprised that they didn't go down this route in the first place, but they now should IMO.

No way are they paying 300k wages Porky.

Absolute wind that post.

Zero budget for sales and marketing? How on Earth do you figure that?

Their most senior appointment is literally the head of commercial development, whose primary remit is to bring customers in.

I don't know what business you're in, but running a commercial lab isn't about printing "buy one, get one free" flyers.

Don't fall into the trap of being so desperate (as it appears you told another large holder) to buy in big at a low price, that you actually start making it up as you go along.

And, as I predict you'll tell me in response, "things have changed, so I no longer want to buy in..... let's see how it plays out.... see you in June", I'll also pose the follow up question:

If you're not interested, why are you still here?

So the market is down, not because of negative posters, because that doesn't affect sentiment. Okay. Get that.

But you make remarks "after the market is closed", so as not to affect the market, I assume.

Sorry to disappoint, but which is it?

With mean preclinical oncology partnering deals 100X the current MCap, I'm laughing with you fellas.

Recent oncology dealmaking trends provide insights on strategies for dealmaking in the current market.

Early dealmaking appears to be the norm in oncology nowadays, as 73% of non-acquisition deals from 2015 to 2022 involved preclinical ventures.

Mean preclinical oncology acquisition deal – 359M; mean licensing deal – 540M; mean partnering deal – 985M (all USD). We have a MCap of 10M USD.

The mean deal values of partnering or licensing deals occurring at phase 1 were even lower than those occurring at the preclinical stage, though the upfront payments were slightly higher. Contrary to the common belief, the data suggest that oncology ventures don’t become a lot more valuable once they enter the clinic. No evidence was found for the necessity to clinically de-risk a platform technology. On the contrary, about half of the platform companies were still preclinical at the time of the deal.

Given the fierce competition in oncology nowadays, big pharma can no longer afford to sit on their hands waiting for the next-generation technology to be validated in the clinic.

Atlas have recognized this and developed a different business model for 24% of their portfolio companies, which is called the special purpose vehicle (SPV) or LLC holding company model. In these types of company structures, there is a holding company that has the platform IP and separate subsidiaries (each an SPV) for individual programs that contain target-specific IP. This model is ideal for platform companies and has been successfully used by companies such as Nimbus, F-star and Teneobio.

SPVs can leverage the full economic potential of a platform, but also create tremendous flexibility. A company could progress an SPV to a bigger value inflection point when it has capital available to do so, or alternatively, seek a risk- and resource-sharing partnership to reap more of the commercial benefits. This makes sense when capital from the private and public markets is readily available. Conversely, in cases of economic downturns, like the bear market we are facing right now, a company can focus resources on its mission-critical SPVs and seek licensing or acquisition deals for non-core SPVs.

So, it turns out the BOD are two years ahead of the curve on this. Credit where it is due.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d43747-023-00002-6

And the same goes for 90% of the AIM Biotech outfits I can think of.

50-250M MCaps; with no, or very limited, revenue.

But no - let's keep banging on about a low price dilution, and the macroeconomic impacts to an 8M MCap bio, with 3.5M in the bank, so we can all jump in at 4p.

Where did I say that the investor base was similar to SAR?

Nice twist attempt, but poor effort.

I simply said that they are running out of money to do what they want to do, and will have to raise, but they're lucky in not having absolute planks plaguing the share, with the same generic points.

“Early dealmaking appears to be the norm in oncology nowadays, as 73% of non-acquisition deals from 2015 to 2022 involved preclinical ventures. Focusing on preclinical deals, for which sufficient data are available for analysis, the mean potential deal value of a preclinical acquisition ($359 million) was much lower than that for a preclinical licensing deal ($540 million) or partnering deal ($985 million). However, partnering or licensing deals were considerably more backloaded than acquisitions, as mean upfront payments for acquisitions ($130 million) were 2.5–4.2-fold higher. Biotechs and their backing investors likely prefer deals with upfront payments that provide good initial return on investments, rather than going for bigger deals that are mostly based on contingent milestone payments”.

But retail nerves need to be calmed, and it is time that they were. SHs do not want a constant threat of acquisition CRO-led dilution, without a track record of CRO capability. A four-fold drop in SP cannot be blamed purely on TX or on Market conditions. Vague assurances of acting in the best interest of SHs are obviously not enough to smash a message - that you genuinely care about the SP - through the hardest of retail skulls.

The BOD, IMO, are doing a lot right, but I would urge them, in the strongest possible way, to counter injurious rumours of dilution at these levels.

When the cat’s away, the doomsters will play.

Get the cat back; knock them on the head; and sort it - please.

Some of these drivers have business acumen, but they also can’t resist the smell of blood, Freddie.

And despite the fact that 70-80% of AIM companies have revenue/spend issues, potential raises for buy acquisitions are not regularly disseminated to their shareholders. Retail shareholders hate dilution; whether that is for “potential” or not. Institutional shareholders like them – for the right price.

SAR have enough money for a year, but none to run a Phase 1 study, which they aim to do this year. Some folk realised this, but their share price only dropped 2% with account revelation, as their board doesn’t have Porky and the like. And whether he is right or wrong, current strategy makes it hard to counter; especially over a chronic period.

People have different approaches. Stella, for example, realises the benefits of bringing in II’s, and I would wager that the BOD in general feel that this would bring some stability and modify share fluctuation. In my experience, this can happen, but it happens to a far greater extent in US and UK AIM biotech stocks, with II ownership greatly exceeding 50-60%. Even at 80% II ownership, you often get 60-70% SP drifts on newsflow stasis (the plague of biotech); so I’m not aligned that this would solve any issues at VAL.

I’m also of the view that a bird-in-hand is worth two in the bush; especially when you really need a bird, or else you have very little.

So, I’m very strongly now of the opinion that at least the short-term cloth should be cut accordingly. The new lab is absolutely terrific and what a team that looks to be. I think it should be built. We have plenty of cash. CLX001 also looks terrific, and I am assuming that we are about to get another fantastic prospect. Possibly a third in Hokkaido. 301 could be a fourth. That would be an amazing set of compounds – the best and most exciting preclinical cohort on AIM, if it happens. The SP will build with these, I am confident, as they progress. Can you imagine the excitement is CLX001 passes tox testing, for example?

The BOD have this spot on IMO. Might they need some overhead money for 2024 to develop them? – maybe. I don’t care, if they are progressing - but don’t take it from me:

Two days ago, Nature published, and I quote:

Think I agree there Fred.

I've always at least liked to think that if I'm totally fed up of a stock, I'd sell up and move on, rather than plague a BB and feel miserable, or fire shots at those trying to maintain a glimmer of optimism.

Each to their own I suppose.

I think PM is being a little pessimistic there with the old SPVs.

I'm going to hold for a couple of years, with 3-4SPVs, hopefully ultimately. Personally, I like my chances with that. They've started preclinical regulatory testing with CLX001 - so it's already technically "on the market", but I'd be happy to hold it, and any others, for a couple more years, as...

With milestone deals (PRECLINICAL ones), for the "right" cancer drugs, of up to 1.3 billion dollars, and upfront payments of up to 100 million dollars, only one would need to travel, in order to keep the lights on to about 2050.

Many might not think it now, but there's absolutely no reason why CLX, Barcelona, Hokkaido, or any others can't do this. In fact, given their very novel modes-of-action and potential first-in-class applications (cf. 201), there's more reason one might.

If anyone is interested, at least with HL, it will convert automatically.

Whether it represents a good price is debatable, of course, but getting the effective shell and cash, with associated IIs, probably makes it a fair punt in the long term (IMO).

As no one likes a moaning Minnie, here's something positive:

VAL can now claim all of the scientific staffs' time (including Cathy); all of the cost of any outsourcing; Mark's time; and any in-house project work, done at cost, towards the 27% rebate announced yesterday.

Has to be good for UK Biotech, at least in the medium term.

Lockdowns mate; is there any chance you might post something that somebody actually wants to read.

Your posts are literally mind numbing pal.

"Watching and waiting".

"Bought in".

"Watching and waiting".

"Teeing off".

"Watching and waiting".

And top tip. If you want folk to think you're a seasoned investor, change your name to make it sound like you didn't start two years ago.