We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
20p to ATM and continue to hold. I think P1 results vindicate this - only lose or make if you sell and given the data the argument favouring eventual RoI from here looks better than it ever has and thst included the lft jam tomorrow promises
End of 40 day silence coming up. Turnip and no Hope have sight of comms. Share price......
From my persoective we have information coming out that shows the board made a mess of it and chose a path that destroyed value. This is why SP remains where it us despite what i think are fantastic P1 results. At some point sentiment about avct will change but only on rns that detail value being realised. Hard to take but ive been here across price of
Optimers direct competitor to affimers. Would be nice to have Unilver onboard.....
https://markets.ft.com/data/announce/detail?dockey=1323-16411110-6JKC2FR5UKO721KJSJ4RI687G2
I agree. Who cares what McPumpy writes. That includes those pointing out thatba monkey with a pin would have more success and those who insist on posting "Myles say..." post as if they were gold dust.
End of the day what he says and does are two different things and only the gullible would pay any attention and are funding any success he has through their losses - every seller needs a buyer. QED
Looks like Tx will be sustainable seperate from Dx - cash runway, milestones and potential partners. Precision not reliant on affimers - see latest presentation talking about Fc fragments.
Dx was more precarious until last year. However, acquisitions have made a sustainable company more attainable. Profits from the two new arms can fund the Avacta activity. Affimer tech might unlock more potential and new structure / leadership may result in shift in progress which to date looks minimal for at least a decade.
Therefore ebabling a future split into two companies may have been the idea all along - avacta Dx not viable on its own but has jam tomorrow promise.
Plus could reduce tolerability.
More likely is to add another agent in.
I get the short half life argument. Even if true the
1. Ava6000 enables more frequent dosing - dox does not
2. Normal dox holds disease at bay. Even with a short half life ava6000 may have a greater effect
3. At highest doses ava6000 results in auc very similar to normal dox. However, nearly all of this dox originates in tumour not the infusion site.
Simples
Obsession with ROCE would be more accurate. Both mine and Avactas. At moment some of the decisions hold real promise of excellent numbers. However, they are compromised by other decisions. Discuss.
Oh hang on.....
Not sure how the current situation can be positioned as more positive than negative. If CEO and chairman are delivering such a great strategy how does that genuinely align with the value of your shares now despite what can only be considered great Tx results.
If one way of raising money is better than another why has avacta done both whilst all the time saying no need to raise.
Happy to be here based on science. Not the management.
Im thinking a simole IRR calculation between the invest in Tx or Dx would provide the answer. So yes, cash coming in was needed, the choice of spend was a poor choice. I know this because we now have an SP of 50p and a shed load of dilution. Dont think that looks strategic genius to me esoecislly when they already had insight on Tx results and knew the costs of going alone.
I know what you mean. Hopefully AS will provide update next week on how actuals compare to forecast when they decided to go on a buying spree whilst short of cash.
Someone who attended the tea and stickies AGM event reported it. From what i remember AS promised a major update on diagnostics which was suddenly dropped on the day. Would seem odd a CEO avoiding a topic he promised to cover in detail - however given his inclination to only communicate with a chosen few i wouldnt be surprised if stuff got changed in translation.
On that note did McPumpy have another 1:1 not happen. Bit of a theme emerging.
My undetstanding albeit from third hand is that diagnostic division was bought to launch affimer diagnostics.
The company failed to do due diligence and had to cancel launch due to infringement of others IP. At same time as this was happening our uber strap of a Chairman was publically stating funding wasnt an issue whilst arranging a mega share option scheme for himself.
Eventually Avacta left with a diagnostic white elephant, a huge hole in the finances and a financial commitment to someone who appears to either live in fantasy land or has no regard for the truth.
Patients in 2 week study will all have high Fap, high dox sensitive tumours. STS would appear to be selected target and is the vechicle to reach commercialisation using the money from recent raise. Hence refering to cash runway.
Everything else requires either postponing or a licensing deal. That includes any other indication.
Simple.
AS founded the company along time ago based on affimers.
So far all that avenue has succeeded in doing in blowing cash. Yesterday he highlighted the use of Fc rather than affimers. If past performance is an indicator of future performance then Precisuion is on shakey ground. However, the clinical trial team goes from strength ti strengtg.
My own thoughts are why are we paying a chairman who to date sats very littke and delivers even less. AS has a day job at least.
Needs to be asked about his and chairmans options. They laugh all the way to bank if SP climbs. Laugh all the way to the bank if it doesnt.
No options should be available below £1.20 and id suggest ATH
There is an alternative way of looking at the data. Avacta chose mid and high FAP. However, the data suggets that conversion is still occuring in those patients. However, those tumours are known to be unresponsive to dox. To quote the pom pom shakers - dox will be dox although there is an argument everythung respond (even normal cells) if local dose is high enough.
Might be a mis-step by avacta to include mid fap in a trial that absolutely relies on fap conversion to achieve primary objective. However the results in dox sensitive patients, coupled with the more frequent dosing enabled by low Cmax and AUC at the mid dosing point had accelerated commercialusation. This will not move faster even if we cut and paste the poster several times a day. Timeline us 2 years, SP responds to licensing deal for extreamly toxic warhead that cannot be used systemically and is targeted at non dox sensitive, high incidence tunour type. Novartis pull your finger out.
Good point. Well made.
As posted last week and i think quoted in yesterdays presentation
From
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5647653/#SD1
Note W Tap study with normal dox.
Disease control rate was 62% with normal dox. Not sure of time point. Lots of other data points but read across requires standard warnings.