Member Info for rhubarbmk2

Does anyone know the process of partaking in the merger - i.e. how to go about it with the broker (HL)? It seems incredibly complicated.

If anyone has done it, would appreciate hearing their experience.

201 has been horrific. If we’d have canned it on Day one, we’d comfortably be in the twenties at least now, as we’d have the lab, probably two SPVs (time saved), and another incoming. VAL have been horribly let down here. It’s damaging still, and the SP, in my opinion, will not materially change until it is resolved. I would say that if the current funding attempt is not fulfilled, and this should be in the short-term, then it has to be drawn to a close. If it is signed, I’d be ecstatic and it would be total vindication for the BOD. I’d buy more shares. But if it isn’t, it represents the hardest of lessons. We’d then have to deal with it, in the full knowledge that it could be worth “zero”. That’s life.

VAL is obviously at a critical juncture here. It has huge potential and, for those very financially-minded, a good crack to multi-bag from here. But everything costs money. Should the current 3 million or so not meet the demands of an expanding lab/pipeline, so be it; these can be financed as has been done over the last three years. But we’ll have news of CLX this year; hopefully scientific data, and this builds momentum. SAR have a MCap of 75M (has been 250M), based on one big compound, with no revenue stream. We will have at least one compound per year having a chance for this; each after a 2.5 year development course, potentially. I expect a deal for an SPV in the next 1.5 years, as Cathy is excellent.

Me; I’m of the firmest of mindsets that the best way to ensure a full return, of 100% backing, is to focus on building THE lab; buy in equipment/infrastructure as is required; get the contracts and customers in; and get those SPVs in, as smoothly as possible, within the constraints of scientific rigour.

At the end of the year, if much has failed, which it won’t have, we will be 10p. If we are, we raise here for wages, overheads, and projects.

At the end of the year, if things go as I see, we have a proper Company, and a materially higher and stabilised SP. Then you go to the II’s with full confidence; demonstrate what you’ve done; show them the SPV; show them the lab; and ask for 3-4 million quid to do more of the same next year. Much lessened impact of any dilution. I’d back that too.

Essentially, I’d back Suzy to do either.

Good day to all.

Okay; here’s my current take.

Last night’s interview was very competent, very positive, and, at least by me, very well-received.

I believe that many LTHs liked a lot of what was delivered. However, I’ve had several communications today about raising. Suzy emphasised the “build-and-buy” strategy. Buying appeals to II’s. But it doesn’t appeal to retail shareholders. Well; actually it does, but only on a SP base which is above current levels. Many retail shareholders feel as though they love half of the strategy, but can’t love the other half until they see some evidence of the first half generating momentum, at least. The historical nature of VAL raises; seeing a perfectly respectable 20p drop to 10p before it, has left scars which have not yet healed.

If you want my unabridged opinion, instead of telling you about others who’ve spoken to me, it is this:

I absolutely love CLX, and I will absolutely love any new SPVs in these therapy areas. I’ve long given a valuation myself, to an SPV, of 10p per pop. And this is on Day 1, because they’ve already have a couple of years with the researcher, and a vigorous year or so with VAL (a premature peer review, if you will).

There’s a lot of work gone into that lab set-up, and I fully expect it to be a success. I feel that they will have too much work for the numbers of lab staff that they currently have, and will need to expand in the shorter term. The costs for this will be offset by increasing revenues. The BOD at VAL will be helping, and they are in a unique position of understanding the drug development process, in full, which other labs of this relatively small scale simply don’t. Customers will flock; I genuinely believe that.

It's easy to focus on raises and forget the huge amount of work producing the really good developments that we’ve seen in the last 6 months. This is the blind-eye of the retail investor. But equally, seeing a frequent stream of “acquisition targets”, despite the welcome change in tone, is unsettling, and the BOD, I hope, are reflecting on the need to strike a balance here.

CLX, as I’ve said above, is absolutely top-shelf. Seeing it on the Powerpoint, with its logo, I imagined what a proper drug Company would look like with two more SPVs on there. Along with Inaphaea tCRO™, it would be absolutely smashing.

Here you go Metom;

CLX001 is going to the BIOEurope conference in Basel in two weeks, with its shiny new brochure, to introduce itself to Big Pharma for the first time as a novel first-in-class potential mono and combination therapy.

There's something positive.

I'm still struggling with the logic of wanting a 15p SP to get out, but then spending a significant portion of the day ripping the stock.

It's kind of like smashing your own teeth out with a hammer, to make yourself look more handsome.

Spot on Bermuda.

It was never expected to show meaningful efficacy as a monotherapy, but information from single dosing was fairly vital to understand the test article, in and of itself.

Well I guess that rules out pretty much any new business then. Ah well.

I'd expect contracts to start coming in late Summer, possibly earlier.

https://www.insidermedia.com/news/midlands/valirx-plc-confirms-senior-appointment-for-subsidiary

New team.

To be completely honest, I was tempted to tuck in a bit more recently, but - and I won't lie - the lack of Director buying probably stopped me, at least at this juncture. I'm probably not alone.

The reticence to buy in may be down to the fact that, as Porky might allude, a further raise in future may be an opportunity to buy in, and at the point when revenue is generated, proper, and expansion is justified.

I'd argue that there may be reticence due to the fact that the BOD haven't felt the sensation of a comfy chair for a while. And given some of the public posts, I wouldn't blame them.

My take is that, following the recent RNS, the chair should start to feel somewhat softer, and that any Director contributions would only be met with greater general support from shareholders.

Good weekend to all.

Fair enough.

I find TA like chocolate teapot here, personally; 90% down to fundamentals IMO.

Essentially, price action fundamentally governed by the actions of the BOD.

Which is good, as they tell me that 201 will get done; we'll have a good tCRO(TM); and lots of SPVs to look forward to. I'll also be watching and waiting, but staying in for the weekend.

Good luck with it fella.

That's a good idea Lockdowns.

But to be fair to Suthy, you need to tell him when you are buying and selling, as, IIRC, you only seem to divulge selling activities in retrospect. And always, astonishingly, after the SP has peaked and then dropped.

So are you buying or selling now, may we ask?

This issue, incidentally, with anti-ageing drugs, Burnley gargle-factories aside, is that it's so hard to run a clinical trial, regarding both risk:benefit, and how to measure the "internal wrinkles" on old Doris, for example. So these drugs really need to be positioned to target something else, and then be repurposed.

Nonetheless, reproductive health in Women is not a million miles away from senescence, in a way, as both aim to achieve proper, or prolong, human function.

I do think that targeting Women's Health is a fairly genius move, and it does capitalise on current expertise, so I'm very happy with that.

And if we can get at least two more preliminary candidates in, in this area, or in oncology, this year, I'll be even happier.

Staying positive, there seem to be some real green shoots surfacing in Pharma in-licensing again; Stateside at least at present.

In that about a year and a half ago, they were starting to get a bit idiotic with smaller outfits with an attitude "don't expect lots of money from us, but we might help you in other ways, such as helping you develop your drugs, instead of giving you cash upfront".

It's taken them this time to realise that 1. Some of these potential smaller partners went pop, and 2. They still aren't actually very good at discovering their own drugs.

So I think we are going big back again to "fishing" for preclinical and early stage candidates, externally.

This will bode well for VAL I feel.

There's also, as it happens, too much money around for drugs targeting ageing and senescence, and I've discussed this with Suzy, so any chance to deviate anything into this area seems to find smooth finance. Maybe we should be oncology, Womens Health, and anti-ageing.

It's all from Silicone Valley, the latter stuff.

"hoosierdaddy, i will buy you a land so you can grow my Fruits. As you know the more older you get the more you will spend time in my fruit garden".

Is that Corinthians or Matthew? - can't quite put my finger on it.

If they'd dropped their own drug development, the statement would be bang on.

But they haven't, and they are getting more.

The lab still weighs in on a fraction of the overall strategy.

In a short time, if there's two SPVs; a revenue-generating lab; more compounds (including 301) nearing SPV completion; and an even outside chance of a two-indication 100MUS 201 Milestone deal, then we are in danger of being invested, finally, in a "proper" Company.

Folk may wish to wait for the 3.5p raise in June. I won't, personally.

There's five other AIM Biotech Companies, with no revenue, and none guaranteed - indefinitely - with MCaps of up to 100M sitting out there. And that's off the top of my head. They will all have to raise - just to keep the lights on.

We may have to raise at some stage, but we won't be raising for technical acquisitions at these levels.

Maybe we'll raise for CLX001 and another SPV at some stage - who knows. But we will know, at least, if one of those may be cutting the mustard for a potential game-changing partnership, by then.

And with milestone deals North of 400M for preclinical oncology products, I'd hazard a guess that we won't be at 12p for it.

AIM Biotech stocks are not for the faint-hearted. Big risk, and big reward. DYOR. Avoid a million pound per month cash burns, with Companies that can't get probiotics to work in diarrhoea, for example, and look at Companies targeting niche therapy areas, such as Women's Health, and also Oncology - always Oncology. Low MCaps also attractive.

There are other FTSE stocks available for those with more aversion to risk.

I should add that the scourge of VAL has always been the fact that it is "virtual". Predominantly because IIs don't like floating outfits.

Come on Cenkos - get an II in on the open market. It's virtually a guaranteed return here for them.

Got a big asset?
Causing stress?
Put it in,
The Greek Goddess.

I should be in advertising.

I have to admit, that's the best-written RNS the team have produced to date.

It's an ambitious plan. Also love the "Greek Goddess" name (beats ones like "Swinton Molecular" and "Leyland Bio").

There's actually no labs that I know of in the UK with that specific remit, so I am actually 100% convinced that this will work, and work very well.

They will use the compounds already in-house to validate their methodologies, which not only would allow (much) swifter development; publication for public eyes; and save a raft of money, but this will also act real draw to any new top-shelf Clients.

I'm really happy about this. Happiest I've been in months, in fact.

I'd put a bet on that it will have Customers trying to come in by 3Q.

If VAL take Barcelona's KRAS peptidomimetic inhibitor (series), then it has passed some crucial preclinical milestones, and has designated suitability for commercial production; this would be great news.

One particular area of use would be in pancreatic cancer, which is probably the least-treatable disease in oncology, currently.

VAL have a license option for this therapy area.

I would be rather excited if it has "passed", as this would already double the potential clinical oncology indications within the VAL preclinical portfolio.