Member Info for RorkesDrift

If they had done all this magnificent comms and the SP was at £2 would you sell.

If not then you are probably like most of the significant Share holders and are prepared to wait months rather than expect each and every day the sun to rise and a new Avavta RNS.

If you want to trade on the rise and fall in SP and pump and dump on the back of them then of course you need more rns to do this. Steady progress and rns when something meaningful is not in your interest

If you are between these two and need an rns like some sort of comfort blanket then bounce up and down on twitter and pretend you hang out with all the big boys. I doubt they have Avacta comms anywhere near their concerns at moment and their timelines (just for PL75) are different to anyone who needs an rns every Thursday (or is Weds)

If the science is "proven" then what exactly is it you want them to tweet. All the info you have is in the public domain much of it highlighted at SD. The SP hasn't reacted to it hence the company's conclusion that an rns not needed being on the money.

I look forward to the next rns. It will probably be significant and worth waiting for.

Thx

Myles - when you say proven do you mean that Avacta can now move to submitting for regulatory approval or do they still have to go through all the tedious steps other biotech companies have to such as publishing pK data from a phase 1 study and treating some patients in a well controlled study.

Good point BV. Well made :-)

If (when :-) ) ava6000 hits market I suspect normal dox would be withdrawn. Lots of arguments for that but principle of "do no harm" is one. Sounds harsh given the comments that do put everything into perspective but patients without side effects or progression are also on right side of health economics models.

Feeling a bit subdued but thank you for bringing it home better than all the SDs and posters can.

I predict the SP will go up and down or down and up whilst twitter will have elliot waves and waves of pseudo science to catch traders in repeated 10% pump and dump.

Expect phrases such as "I am reliably informed...", "my calculations show.." and "proven" to be slung around like donkey cr4P at a wall.

AT SD they presented some of the data showing equivalent tumour effect and a much better tolerability profile. The mice in the study control arm had to suspend treatment due to weight loss.

What isn't clear is the mice data on "efficacy" and tolerability the same as the 6x dose. Suspect Avacta want to keep us in suspense. Not a problem but ava6000 had a better efficacy than dox at higher doses but the two drugs have very different therapeutic index.

What seems clear in mice models of high FAP xenographs is the Precision platform enables high tumour conc and low systemic. Need to repeat in humans. Frustrating it will take a year to get into P1 trials given ava6000 data but hey that's biotech. Suspect need other animal models.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/17/breast-cancer-treatment-life-health-chemotherapy-drugs-side-effects

Yep gje everything you said. Not sure why the abuse of someone who
A) was replying to repeated request to explain the disconnect between market valuation and *** packet
B) is invested here and therefore believes SP will go higher (otherwise sell and move on)
C) offered to amend the input numbers to all who asked.

Suspect it was orchestrated by those who wish for an alternative view to dominate and are frustrated by the limited impact of the self gratification Telegram circle. That despite new packet of biscuits being ordered.

I don't agree with lukes final number. Lots of reasons but jeez I appreciate the work that went in.

1. Market expansion- longer cycles and higher doses. Plus aging population
2. Premium pricing
3. Rapid penetration of market - indeed pre-marketing would emphasise old dox should be taken off market
4. Ava6000 is the spearhead of precision. Hence portfolio should be included BUT at a time cost of money discount.

I could go on. On the downside oncology is a competitive research driven market. How many here can actually identify and understand potential new entrants and impact. The word proven is thrown around a lot. If you substitute ready for regulatory submission and you come to same conclusion that would be great. Until then we have to follow the same course and hurdles every other drug does. I believe we have a better than normal chance but not 100% Angle and 4D were tipped by the same people in the same tone and now look at them *suspect pump and dump brigade actually lost money in that this time

The value of precision in avactas hands is different from its value in say Pfizers hands.

Somewhere between those two values is the TO price

My gut feel is £2.4B but only after P1a complete. More data = higher price. SP to rise on each set of data until then and bump along in between.

As I say gut feel and nowhere near as rationale as luke or even rah. Would I tell my friends a 8x return is nailed on.

Hopefully I'm wrong and it will go fir much more but genuinely I think that will require time and more data

I'd agree on milestones and have also put other factors in that boost the valuation from £90M.

I'd agree that lukes methodology is more in line with professionals than the others presented here and on twitter

I think the defensiveness comes because he is being attacked rather than the model. He was asked to present the model and actually there is a lot in there that will be new to many on here. Worth stepping back a bit.

As PIs we can use that modelling and adjust it as we see fit. I take mcpumpy model which contains a lot of source material and info reflecting a level of graft I don't do and then just ignore the financial modelling cause it is so clearly flawed. That's my choice. Like has put the hard work in to present an alternative. Not sure you can have a personal pop at one and not the other - especially when those having a pop don't understand either model and just rely on the final number. Fir them I am writing a 120 page essay- let me know what you would like the number to be. So far I have had offers of £1.87 and £200 ex China

I'm guessing it's one of those "what you don't know you don't know scenarios" For some it just comes down to not knowing how valuations are done in the investment community hence trying to fit a PE or revenue multiple from established stocks to a high risk, future revenue scenarion such as Avacta. Not necessarily mean harm by it

I wouldn't fret over it - quite clear that the most popular valuation quoted on here makes multiple assumptions (to be fair often highlighted) and then goes to build a model that comes up with a big number. Difference being that the payback on that is as you say probably something to do with trading. The professional analysts are disparaged but a) they are employed to do this for a living b) there reputation and future earnings depends on them being good at it.

I expect professional valuations will change on publication of P1. Indeed I expect Avacta management are quite happy with that. What they won't do is revalue of part of the results of a partly completed clinical trial. Frustrating if you want to sell tomorrow. OK for LTH and anyone wanting to buy now

3. The point about valuation has to address what asset we are considering.

For me it is the Precision platform. If ava6000 falls over so does the whole platform. If Ava6000 succeeds I don't think anyone would attach £0 to the platform. That question really is difficult to value due to the time it will take to realise the full value of the platform. A bigger company would have several compounds completed preclinical - avacta don't have the money

If Lukes valuation is higher than TD then surely he is supporting some of RAH argument. Not sure his motivation can be questioned - RAH has repeatedly asked someone to explain why his valuation is so far out from TDs - luke has tried.

I also believe TD employ specialist in this area. At SD the steifel rep asked questions which showed her understanding not just of the tech but of the whole therapeutic area. They will be familiar with approaches such as DCF, IRR, etc etc that seem to be ignored on the back of a *** packet calculations. For jnstance £1.5B in year X should not be directly used in calculations on value in year Y without a discount.

One area I would modify Lukes model is

1. I think the royalties of 10% would also ne accompanies by at least one significant milestone payment.
2. Both the royalties and the milestones could reflect what I perceive to be a different risk profile
A. Active is dox a well understood drug and therefore ava6000 may just need to show limited efficacy - if you like power study for pK equivalence or better. Not announced though so assumption will be full program
B. Due to (A) a potentially shorter lead time to licensing - see FDA
C. Established market with discrete target. Should support rapid penetration.

There are differences of opinion. That's cool isn't it?

One

I'm presuming anyone who invests in single stocks values them all higher than their market price. Otherwise you may as well stick a pin in newspaper or buy a tracker. Gambling involves risking 100% of your bet - investment is different since going forwards you are continually presented with opportunities to change your punt.

There is a level of risk with each stock. There are also levels of potential return. I believe all shareholders here accept that even of they don't understand it or try and measure it. Accepting the potential loss is the otherwise of the hoping to be rich coin but that is not gambling. Not sure why anyone on twitter needs to present Avacta in any other light unless of course they hope to trade off peaks and dips at the expense of others. I'm starting to believe a couple of them including his lordship work out what they are going to post and then pretend it's all off the cuff. Great soap opera stuff but onky early for the gullible.

Any relationship with the much more even and longer term discussions here is coincidence.

What I find odd is that if we use past performance has a guide to future performance we just have to look at the "timeline" fiasco and the September visit to his sauce in McDs. Both of these were fairly critiqued by reasonable posters here only for Widow T****y to exit stage left.

As for Elliot waves thus had been compared to pre-Copernican astronomers trying to explain all observed planet movements even though their underlying theory of an Earth-centered universe was wrong. Dress it up in a pseudo expert tone and amplify it through a congregation of believers and it becomes gospel rather than the joke it really is.

Touching that he has adopted the LSE theories on AACR and posology adjustments though even if he needs to pretend he git there on his own two weeks after everyone else.

I miss the little fellah

I like the way he uses spreadsheets the donkey to give an illusion of credibility. Data needed to arrive at her conusions is not available. Then takes the most sensible posts from here and presents it as their conclusions all the while encouraging others to buy buy buy. Did the same with BMV claiming to have SA mining experience (I kid you not) and then 4D amongst others.

Daft thing is Avacta doesn't need a the house of sticks built on assumptions and biased interpretation. It is where it is whi h is the start of a well known trial and regulatory pathway. Our feeling is the risk is worth the reward - it just needs patience.

Relax and hold

You too. I admit I check rns each morning to see whether the licence deal has arrived. Then I start googling car choices again;-)

I think we agree but just express it in slightly different ways. The process of clinical trials and regulatory approval reflects the many times we got it wrong. The hurdles are big - avacta look like they will clear them but the race still has to be run.

Baffyman. Adds nothing. Again. Keep smiling and try googling scientific method for dummies. Good to see congregation still active if a little subdued by 4D etc.

Hi RAH.

Don't take this the wrong way but many of the things you state as if they are facts are built on assumptions and interpretation

I'm I'm conplete agreement that the share is undervalued and/or the market doesn't have the same attitude to risk. I'm happy to wait to see it play out.

There is limiredcardiotoxicity shown in the results to date

1. 19 patients. That is not proof.
2. Twice the dose. The drug is inert so cannot compare the dose with active dox. The number you need is converted dose - calculated by the auc of the leaving group. We don't have those numbers yet. The tumour conc at 24 hours is promising.
3. There are side effects. This is not chemotherapy without side effects. The dose is going up. The side effect profile will likely increase too. The profile is and is likely to continue to be better than standard dox.

I'm guessing your frustration with the market not understanding what we have is in reality the market not making the same assumptions and interpretation as others- myself included. If we are to call out FUD because we are motivated to help others then probably need to be equally vigorous calling out whatever the opposite of FUD is. You shouldn't be misled by people who proport to be x sports and basically make stuff up. They have been wrong more times than right and have been shown to be pump and dump. Doesn't affect me cause my end game isn't based on trading- I don't think yours is either. Have faith - hypothesis not proven in the sense regulators understand or accept. Even SD didn't go that far. Hence price will increase if and when that happens

Is there a word meaning the opposite of FUD. It is difficult to talk about the huge returns possible with Avacta without accepting there is also risk - the two things are different sides of the same coin.

This should be celebrated - without the risk there would be no return.