George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. Watch the video here.
Is it that hard to understand. Avacta has more risk that established pharma companies. It potentially has more RoI than those companies.
Risk : reward
The collective sense of the balance of these two factors drives share price. If you believe the market has it wrong then buy more shares or sell what you have. Twiterring about you don't understand it means you don't understand it. I think most share holders here know its not risk free but yesterdays presentation was positive and jeez I very nearly bought more. Rejoice that the imperfection of the market enables PIs with high risk tolerance to make a profit - otherwise go and buy glaxo. Don't tell others its a nailed on cert. It just isn't. Looking good though😬🤔😁
Timster - don't jinx it
Thank you. I was worried we were going to miss the daily post on a large buy - just need the one about my buy showing as a sell and all will be right with the world.
Oxygen makes a good point. There are 1000's of companies that have reported as having an oncology product in development. They all claim the same revolutionary advance. Added to that Avacta are on AIM which is one step further than the wild west. Prudent and by that I mean people who are paid to be, investors are waiting for hard facts rather than promising snippets and pom pom waving. Have to ask why a small group of people who presumably have a shed load of shares and state long term horizons need to pump out the same half cooked treats over and over again. What us their motivation given the company website has all the facts that they are putting through the magic calculator.
If they don't understand why the market values this dufferently to their £B valuations then fine - just accept market has different calculator and attitude to risk or just go on and on and on and on posting and posting. But I think we all know why they do it.....
Money sponge. I guess most of your answers can be found by considering WHY pharmaceuticals a HAVE TO undergo a REGULATORY approval step as opposed to a vote on Twitter. Inconvenient and time consuming since it requires company to produce ALL data derived from clinical trials which has lost investors in companies such as 4d pharma £millions (billions).
I know the reality button on the calculator is missing but there is enough there to build an investment case without having to make it up
The news last week was incredibly positive and reassuring. Everything is on track for ava6000 to be entering a straight fight with dox - a compound we know has significant tolerability issues but is the most effective choice currently available. Indeed most avenues for sts are focused on dox + something new rather than replacing it. Most. Not all.
I'm reluctant to adopt the pom pom shaking happening on X but looking forward to comment from more informed commentary - once we get clinicians telling us ava6000 is leading the pack then I suspect BP will follow. However, those guys will need a n > 1.
Until then I continue to hold but with slightly more regular checking for the red dot
I'd be happy with £119
Interesting thought that about taking drugs that failed to get through trials rather than just drugs that got over the line. Lots of patents being reignited.
To be fair if they pull finger out and go down the on-line route then it could be shorter. If you go for top journal then risk delay due to rejection or significant rewrite. However, if accepted you get max kudos. At this stage Avactas audience isn't the clinical community but potential investors and they will want the info as quick as possible and with ability to see the data files during due diligence. Avacta have most of that in place now and probably the phone numbers of who they need to speak to. A Nasdaq investors pack though........
Calm down....
Sorry.
Your friend should already be under the care of an oncologist. Could try going through them rather than GP to try and secure referal.
Once you submit a paper it needs to be reviewed and normally amended. It then normal joins the back of the list to be published. If data available in Jan and given c6 time that would be tight, paper has to be written and submitted. So looking at sometime in 2025 for high impact journal but if what they wantbisva reference still June 24. So decision to release key info in Q4 is driven by commercial rather than academic priority. My thinking is they will try and achieve both which is a change in emphasis to the AGM info.
Yep but my last paper took a year.
Did you see what I did there
My belief is we have a product that will get to market and be worth £Bs. Thats with a huge amount of faith rather than fact. Until we see data from the other 34 patients then we won't know what that market is or how ava6000 changes the approach. Pass me the calculator - looks like I found a piece with a steering wheel on it but cannot work out if its a Lotus or a mg metro badge
Market has been given some pieces of the jigsaw but cannot work out the bigger picture yet. Lets be honest and accept that AS has given us a couple of key corner pieces he is holding onto most of the info until xmas. Whilst twitter thinks it can see the whole picture the market will wait until AS reveals what's in the box when he publishes P1a - that approach has changed since last time he said formal publication. Suspect someone more commercially minded said nope - we are not a university and we need to sign up partners.
She hasn't put on the Brunhilda helmet and ginourmas basque but I think she might be tuning up for a New Year Special
Best one yet. This one comes with a free toy calculator, some graph paper and an enormous sense of desperation.
My view is the acquisitions were part of a strategy that leveraged the affimer IP.
However, someone screwed up and didn't check patent position before handing over the cheque. Therefore left with an expensive couple of assets and less cash.
Current measure of efficacy is progression free survival. Puts brakes on tumour. Ava6000 has found reverse for one patient.
My thinking is that STS is a diverse set of diseases and some will be more sensitive to Ava6000 than others - AS said something similar. Probably related to FAP levels in tumour. The less variable the response is the tighter the stats, the fewer patients you need, the quicker you complete the study, the sooner you receive approval. Hence I think the new study and the P2 will zero in on a very tight diagnosis and entry criteria. IF so we have gone from non-dox suitable patients to STS to specific patient group in a year. Licence could be any tumour with those FAP levels (Does FAP-PETI have a roll) because presumbly tolerability is readable across all tunour types and is also correlated with FAP expression.
Get in magic calculator 😬🤔🤫
P1a out at end of year. Why would they raise before that.
Did someone say Nasdaq and $multibillion