Member Info for rhubarbmk2

Due diligence. Either in-house, or 3rd party driven. I have no clue which.

L2 6:1 35:5 is interesting.

Seems to be a fairly smart bit of house-keeping. The patent consultants obviously know what they are doing, which is good to see. What has caught my eye is the patent regarding 301 and its use in "other" hormone driven hyperplasias. I wonder of that includes the prostate, or is restricted to female repro. Either way, looks like the portfolio is being well managed.

Yes - I believe that they partook; hopefully to spin out their hot property for all and sundry "not to miss the boat"; "loads of interested parties" etc. I'm hoping that Mark Treharne (who I like) was doing a smooth sales pitch. In all seriousness, I don't know whether they presented anything formally, as some companies like to do.

"Spurs, if you're out why are you still here???".

You wrote this today on the ODX forum.

It's good advice.

Yep. The sentiment is spot on as far as I'm concerned Bouncyman. Nailed on in fact; in my opinion too. Let the day traders have their day, because the LTHs will win out with this one. Again, all in my opinion. DYOR and all that...

Well, I wouldn't necessary use the term idiots Bouncyman, but you do make some germane points; namely, I agree in full with the spikes vis-a-vis sustained SP adjustment with a solid partner/co-investment. I think the BOD may well be partaking in the virtual 39th Annual JP Morgan Health Care Conference at present. I am not, but it is likely that the goods are being further touted as we speak, so, hopefully, let's watch this space.....GLA.

...or at least 2.37 anyhow.

Not me to be honest, but I know 2 or 3 holders who have sub-TR-1 but very substantial holdings and they have VERY sticky hands. That's another thing I like here - the stickiness. Look at oldbaldy. You'd need pliers and a crow bar to get his shares off him :-)

For me, the best thing about the current ?rerate is that it will strengthen the BODs hand in any negotiation. There are some Pharma wide boys around with no concept of how stocks operate and who can't conceive that a Company's IP could be worth more than any current MCap. "Well I could just buy the Company couldn't I". Of course in practice, this isn't in any way practical, because "Big Willy Biotech" would have to buy shares on the open market without shareholder approval (which wouldn't happen IMO at <100p per share at least), and at >3% incremental holding would have to issue a TR-1, with immediate upward trajectory by the SP. Nonetheless, it still acts as a psychological ceiling and some characters like to use this approach in a ****y and demeaning fashion. I do believe that the BOD stock response to these types of approaches, however, is along the lines of "go on then, start buying shares", which is pretty amusing. I do like that. GLA.

Well thankfully I don't think the board would recommend that to the shareholders. They know the SP is well below as per justified by the IP. And if they weren't paying themselves three pence halfpenny, then we'd have seen it with some Director deals, I think. Unfortunately, it is chicken and egg, because if they pull off the hopefully anticipated scenario, then the SP rockets, but their benefit is limited from a financial perspective; harder to then buy in. So I reckon they'd deserve some wedge parity with biotech peers if that were to happen. Let's be honest, I believe we'd all be happy to support that, because, from my experience here, most of the LTHs seem to play with a pretty straight bat eh RB. Now wouldn't that be a win win. And my brother bought me a good Cuban for Christmas, so hurry up Suzy, because I need a good excuse to vaporise it...:-)

I think that any established name for a potential JV will form that long-awaited stability for the Company, but I myself would be tempted to gamble a lesser ultimate royalty in favour of an upfront payment, with milestones. The reason being is that this would still gift the Company with "future payment" potential revenue, to tempt more longer term holders to stick around, but also provide some much needed short term stock for the coffers. I think this is important, because it would abrogate the need to raise for the immediate projects that will arrive in house this year, either through investment vehicles, or via asking shareholders for another raise. I think the later would be helped greatly with an established name, if they were to do that, but I'd also like to see what Suzy and the team could do with a few quid from an upfront payment, combined with some diligent in licensing.

I know that Suzy is very choosy about which entities to bring in, so am very confident in the new strategy, and we've seen with the front runner Covid vaccines that dynamic biotechs and uni establishments are a good way to proceed, but we will need shorter term funding to do this.

Of course, it goes without saying that it is easy and refreshingly pleasant to sit in an armchair, on the sidelines, with a wish list, but I suppose this is the beauty of this forum. GL for 2021 all.

Happy New Year all from me too. I also hope that those who've had the insight and patience to hold will get a cracking 2021. Right, I'm off now to enjoy a big party with a load of mates.

Only joking of course; it's Tier 4 warm ale and some stale digestive biscuits :-(

I wonder how many took up the "open offer". At least the Company saw fit to offset any dilution, but I am disappointed that, as below, this was not done at a discounted rate. You'd be 10% down or so since last Wednesday, so I would predict that this hasn't significantly impacted the "open" free-float, or raised anything significant from non-institutional shareholders. I recall that up until this month, dilution was not on the cards as alluded to in the last podcast, and I would very much like to know when and where any milestones are due, notably from Jazz, as this would surely offset the need to raise in the shorter term.

Everyone investing in VAL is "claiming" to be thick.

I've seen many ways to trick the mm's into lowering the price, so you can buy more, but this is the most deliciously deviant one yet.

Nice.

Nothing wrong with that pal. I like old baldy too, and the fact that he has invested with his "gut" instinct. Science-aside, I think we all have to an extent. But your guts are determined by what you see and experience, generally, so they aren't really your guts at all; they're your brain - and I suspect most here have a good one.

But with your messages to old baldy last night Rightback, I though I was amongst like-minded folk, no? :-)

I'm gauging that the shares are becoming concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. We'll have a really small free-float at this rate; but if you like a good swing, hold onto your hats when any RNS's are then released. :-) Morning all.

I'm afraid that it is the ill-fit of Pharma with the AIM. I don't really buy into the MM theories. A large percentage of AIM is short-termism; looking for quick gains. You can get sharp doing that if you have a keen eye on reporting dates, interim poster presentations at conferences etc, but it's a lot of work and very high risk. I've personally always viewed any investments as longer-term in this sphere, preferring to buy into Companies who have good IP/strategy, but have lost their way somewhat, perhaps due to poor financial acumen, or following the introduction of a newly-changed and refreshed management. I don't buy into new Pharma IPOs, because I've yet to see any consistency in maintaining the initial SP to any comparable level, several years' down the line. At least that's more of a "less to lose" strategy I feel. I think several have taken the "no JV news before Christmas" and thought, oh s0d it, I may get an RNS in the next couple of weeks over at 4D, or SNG etc, so I'll wade in there. All very well, of course; different strokes for different folks...

I'd have to agree with SamBar and Rightback. Whilst I like programs such as Proactive Investors, and the positive momentum that is gained from them (and would like to see this in time), it does come at a not insignificant cost. The Company, let's be honest, is currently being run on a shoe-string, and they are spending pennies very carefully. I don't think that they really care about shorters here, and therefore the day-to-day fluctuations as sellers move one, especially following on from the Headline VAL201 experience. I tend to agree.

They have clearly taken a view that actions speak louder than words. This will only be achieved with a comprehensive JV deal in place, preferably, in the case of VAL201, with a Company with the resources to trial deep (substantial patients), far (multiple indications), and wide (multi-centered - i.e. faster). My personal preference would be to do this with a very visible and established partner (although sitting on the sidelines, without having to do this personally, is easy). This would drive a cart-and-horses through the media, at no extra cost to the Company; get this compound to those that need it; and finally, and permanently, lay to rest the chronic malaise that, despite the complete overhaul, unfairly still plagues that ValiRx brand.