Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
You missed the second half of that point.
“It either needs to be approved, or developed to a point where it looks highly likely to be approved”
As for that list, the big pharma buyers have made a judgement about the likelihood of being approved. And at least a third of the companies had FDA-approved products or had completed registrational trials, I suspect all of the remainder had successfully completed phase 3 and phase 2 trials. I was invested in one of those companies which had multiple positive findings from phase 2 and 3 trials across multiple products.
So, you’ve just created a straw man.
And highlighted why it isn’t possible to have a rational, intelligent discussion on this board. There are ~5 people who comment on this board whose opinions I value. I’m hoping you will stop with your asinine comments and not put those people off from making a meaningful contribution.
By “Commercial powerhouse”, I presume you mean Simon Bennett?
You can throw around all the superlatives you’d like, but one man in a relatively unknown, UK-based, small-cap is not about to commercialise Precision single handedly.
Precision can’t be monetised as it isn’t approved for use. It either needs to be approved, or developed to a point where it looks highly likely to be approved, before it can be monetised. The company has a long way to go before it gets to this point; the 2-weekly dosing trial is still in its early stages - and the primary aim of this study is to establish a safe dose/RP2D.
By the time that milestone is reached, and findings shared, the company will be in a very poor financial position (once again) and potential suitors will exploit this; offering pennies on the pound for the IP or waiting for the company to slip into administration before picking it up for peanuts.
It’s a shame as the IP seems highly promising, but the company is plagued by gross incompetence on the commercial side.
It’s a positive step that AS has been shown the door, but the company is still in a highly precarious situation.
I’m concerned the company won’t be able to generate sufficient funding to progress the platform to a point where license deals are forthcoming. I think Back to that (almost comical, in hindsight) article from AS in a Sunday paper re UK institutions being incapable of/unwilling to invest in UK biotechs, I fail to see where the funding will come from. If another placing was to be successful, it’d be at such a low price that dilution would be monumental.
Biotechs are loss making businesses, they burn through cash rapidly; CC is talking about a pipeline now, rather than one or two priority products, and the cost to develop this pipeline will be huge. I can’t see where the funding for this development will come from. I’ve stated this before but licensing deals and buyouts aren’t as common as many people on here like to suggest.
I think the 25% ownership of Affyxell and potential IPO could be the saving grace here, but I don’t think timelines are in our favour. Divesting the Dx side of the business - which is loss making - won’t provide even remotely sufficient funding.
I’m struggling to see how big pharma or vulture funds don’t pick Precision up for pennies on the pound late next year or early the following year.
I don’t think CC has the commercial expertise, experience or ruthlessness required to prevent this. As far as I’m concerned, the number one risk here is now funding (thanks to AS’ misguided leadership), not the science - and we have a scientist at the helm, not a finance or business professional.
I doubt we’ll hear anything new of significance. this is a time to steady the ship, and to reassure investors.
- Intention to enhance the board with strong pharma/biotech expertise
- Reiterate Tx strategy and timelines - I suspect CC has led this already so no major changes expected - maybe a minor update on progress of 2-weekly dosing cohort
- High-level summary of her views on Dx strategy and timelines, although I doubt we’ll get anything
I tend to agree but…
Simply put; the growing evidence that Precision works is continually reducing risk, the actions taken by management are continually increasing risk.
Two things make for a good biotech company; good technology, and good management.
Avacta will never realise true value with AS at the helm; the technology warrants a leader of far higher calibre. It’ll also never realise true value whilst listed on AIM.
I’m not investing a penny more until the above two issues show signs of being resolved.
It’s just a case of ‘Sell the news’; no need to fret.
It has been the case with almost all of KOD’s RNSs over the past 2 years. Just someone who isn’t a long term investor who bought in over the past few weeks on the anticipation of news, who always intended to sell on release of the news.
It’s not about the SP. I actually posted a few days prior to the RNS but it was deleted. In that post I said that very few early clinical stage biotechs are valued at £250m. I’m invested in late clinical stage biotechs which are valued similarly but have much more data, efficacy data, fast-track, ODD, everything that Avacta doesn’t have. I said that Avacta hadn’t even published p1a data and was overvalued. I presume one of the mindless, cultist rampers reported the post.
Once again, it’s not about the SP now, it’s about Al’s performance. It’s objectively poor, regardless of SP; he can’t even improve the company’s comms after repeatedly stating he would.
Where’s the risk management in taking the company to the wire from a funding perspective, and then waiting until the worst possible time to do a raise? His boosterist rhetoric suggests he put all his eggs in the partnership/licensing deal basket and forewent some extra capital at a much better time in the prior raise.
Very few biotechs get partnership/licensing deals, even fewer are bought out, even fewer at phase 1a, even fewer with unpublished, non peer-reviewed findings. Does Al not have the foresight to realise that the balance of probability is stacked against his views and thus he may want to ensure he has substantial financial wiggle room.
It’s awfully bad management. It’s the LFT debacle repeated a few years later. It’s abject failure once again.
I struggle to understand how people are so tolerant of repeated poor performance, behaviours and decisions from a CEO.
Al is a mediocre CEO; he can’t get a handle on the company’s comms, he’s proven that he struggles with balancing/managing risk and his strategic foresight is lacking.
IIs look at management when deciding to invest (most won’t touch Avacta as its AIM-listed anyway), and the recent debacle, when considered in the context of Al’s previous failings, will discourage them from investing in Avacta.
Al needs to go. It’s not bitterness about the placing, it’s that he clearly isn’t good enough - and he’s proven this multiple times now.
The science could be stellar but, if management is poor, IIs will steer well clear.
“Paradigm shift” = An oral presentation in the main hall.
Oral presentation slots are offered for much less than a paradigm shift.
We’ll soon find out whether the wider health scientific community shares Al’s views.
I’m sure the company know the best route to commercialisation, but I’m extremely unhappy at their constant changing of plans as it doesn’t fill me with confidence that they do know the best route.
We need a roadmap, all investors should be pushing for it after the recent debacle.
We need to know what the planned development pathway is, for AVA6000, AVA3996, Affimers, and rough timelines (indicative quarters will suffice).
Pretty much ever other biotech worth their salt publishes their pipelines and planned development pathways with timelines. This allows their investors to hold them to account. The events of the past week prove it’s high time Avacta does the same.
I’m of the view that the new CBO wasn’t brought onboard to out license Precision; he was brought onboard to make deals on the Dx side of the business - to make deals on LD products, or to sell it on (which I think is now more likely as they’re struggling to get any deals).
The LD acquisition has been one of the worst business decisions I’ve seen. Clearly, I’m not privy to the information used in making the decision to buy, but if they’re looking to divest already, and with the effect of the CLN on the SP each quarter, in hindsight it was a a tremendously poor decision.
I’d argue that the CLN is a major contributing factor the raise being priced at 50p - which, in turn, resulted in a reduced likelihood of a successful raise/sufficiently large raise.
Good management make good decisions, good decisions yield positive outcomes, in hindsight that decision has yielded negative outcomes.
The focus has to be on precision now, and on generating income from it - to fund further development, and development of other products/ candidates.
I still think Al needs to go as his words can’t be trusted, nor can his decisions.
Id’d like to see something more refined than a large information dump; some detail on Avacta’s strategy and a roadmap. That sets a baseline for us investors to track/assess the company’s performance against. We’re investors in the company, I don’t expect us ti be consulted, but we should be informed - and effectively.
Management’s credibility is shot - they need to pull their socks up, or exit stage door right.
Phase 3 would likely have always been needed. It’s a non-issue.
Many drugs are approved and widely prescribed before a p3 trial; the P3 aims to establish real-world effectiveness vs efficacy.
P3 hadn’t been mentioned until yesterday, and it didn’t need to be. Yesterday’s RNS was a huge dump of information re plans - mentioning p3 was not a great move.
If AVCT had a decent comms team, they’d have issues something much more focused with no mention of p3, covering only the highly relevant elements of the company’s plan.
The company needs to be laser focused on getting AVA6000 to market as efficiently as possible. That will mean ODD indications/indications with high unmet need (E.g. STS) which are more likely to be approved, and earlier. Everything else can come later and be funded by income from those approved indications (and raise at that point if need be).
It feels as if the company is flip-flopping between strategies, and has lost its way a little.
Had a very busy evening so I’ve only just gotten the chance to digest what has happened today.
When I say LFT 2.0 - it’s not the tech, it’s Al’s behaviour. It’s the exact same thing again; he promises the world, hugely positive remarks, it fails to materialise, he fails to deliver.
He has to go; it’s the second time this has happened. There’s no third time. If he doesn’t resign, he should be sacked - the buck stops with the CEO, and any other CEO would be history if they’d done what Al has done.
Al needs to be dragged, even if kicking and screaming, away from this company and this promising tech. It’ll either end in disaster, or it’ll be picked apart by the big boys. If AVA6000 and AVA3996 are as good as Al says, they’ll be brought to market, but I have no confidence it’ll be Avacta who does it (nor will they be appropriately recompensed for their involvement).
Trust in Al is decimated - for the second time. The pros/institutions will be amused by his ineptitude (and at our expense). I’m concerned about Eliot, he’s a jovial fellow and seems pally with Al but I hope he can be trusted to do what’s needed/act in the best interests of shareholders.
I’m starting to think AACR is key in the company’s strategy here. Assuming data is good (and late-breaker would support this assumption), I can see 3 possible outcomes:
- Raise before AACR, and be fully funded for phase 2 before releasing the data (short positions will be covered in the offering, but positive price action after AACR presentation as funding elephant no longer in the room)
- Raise after AACR, and hope some appreciation in the share price means the offering can be done at a higher price/with less dilution (probably limited upwards price action after AACR presentation, as funding elephant remains)
- Licensing deal/partnership(/buyout but highly, highly unlikely) or completed private offering/specialist investor brought on board and this is RNSd alongside AACR presentation (potentially explosive price action)
Absolutely. Although I don’t fully understand the obsession with the US market. Yes, there’s more capital, but that works both ways. The US listing would be played like a toy for purposes of arbitrage.
I’m invested in a few other dual-listed biotechs, and I think one of them is huge - it’s egregiously undervalued for its data/findings so far and the price action is horrific - it behaves incredibly strangely. It’s clearly algos playing with the price to optimise opportunities for arbitrage.
I’d like to see an uplifting to the main market; just get off AIM. We’d see much more domestic institutional interest (and retail too). A US listing can come when we’ve got a much stronger investor base.
To be honest, he does make some harsh criticisms of the company - almost to the point of ridicule - for getting into this situation, if an offering does go ahead.
I completely agree. If there’s an offering down here, with cash so tight after everything he’s said, Al has to go. It shows complete and utter ineptitude commercially.
He may be a brilliant scientist and academic, but I don’t think he’s so brilliant commercially.
Biotech is ruthless, we need a shark, we need a blockbuster CEO to take forward this (likely) blockbuster tech. Al isn’t a shark, he isn’t a blockbuster CEO, he needs to hand the reins to someone who is. Al’s a nice guy, he’s a brilliant academic and leader in science, but he needs to know when to step aside to let someone who can take precision to commercialisation without getting chewed up and spat out.
“1 of 2 things are happening.”
“The first is… a share placing at a deep discount, if you can get 60p at this point in time, you’d be kind of lucky.”
“On the other hand… they’re putting together a deal with a major pharma player, in which case, they are under a period of silence”.
Tell us something we do know why don’t you, Charles.
Not quite incisive analysis, much closer to a damp squib in my book.
Eligibility criteria for p1a was STS and a handful of other cancer types with high FAP expression. As CTSFO suggests, most cancer drugs aren’t tested on healthy people.
P1a aims to find MTD via a dose escalation study. P1b aims to establish RP2D via a dose expansion study. MTD hasn’t yet been found (or maybe has in C7, but we’re unaware). The new ‘arm’ of the phase 1 aims to establish whether the phase 2 should use a fortnightly or three weekly dose. It’ll likely be using a defined dosage (C5, C6 or C7, or all 3 as 3 separate arms) and testing it’s safe to administer fortnightly - for the phase 2.