Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
When comparing companies, SP doesn’t matter, MC does.
KOD shares a like confetti - Bernard should be thinking about a consolidation and share buyback scheme when revenue starts to flow to bring us in line with other producing mining companies (e.g. Leo).
The best case scenario would for the SP to reach the upper end of the channel, for the ‘funding received’ RNS to then drop. That would be fantastic - I have no idea where the SP would land in that scenario.
If NCM tell their shareholders that Havieron is tier 1, 20+moz, low AISC, etc. at this late stage, it’s much less likely that their shareholders will accept NEM’s latest (and final) offer. That’s the only explanation I can come up with.
Hopefully NEM will be just as unenthusiastic… and let GGP have the remaining 70% and Telfer for a reasonable price.
Production is likely less than 12 months away, and I’ll reassess then.
At full capacity, revenues will be massive - more than could be spent on exploration, drilling and plant development. Therefore, I suspect Bernie will use a sizeable portion of revenue on a buyback scheme.
AS needs to take Avacta to the NASDAQ; it’s evident that the UK market has a distinct inability to understand what is on offer here, never mind value it.
I’d say uplist to main market, but only marginally less backwards as AIM. Unless you’re an oiler or a miner, you’ll go nowhere in the UK market.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned over the years, it’s that companies with high % retail ownership do not have share prices that reflect the prevailing SH opinion regarding value.
The SD was clearly intended to bring IIs on board, so, as things currently stand, the day was a failure.
Surely the p2 will need to demonstrate efficacy relative to the current standard of care (dox). At the moment there is no evidence to say AVA6000 is more efficacious than dox. Clinical equipoise is a safe assumption, so a RCT with an AVA6000 arm and a dox arm, across multiple tumour types, possibly blinded, could be the best way forward. There could be different AVA6000 dosing regimes too, e.g. Small, more frequent for longer vs large, less frequent for shorter. The trial will need to be significantly larger to accommodate the latter, but would be significantly more expensive though.
P1a/b has yielded extremely promising information so far. If p2 continues this trend, and across multiple key tumour types, we’re talking about a breakthrough innovation here - with monumental potential impact.
I suspect the reason investors haven’t flocked to AVCT relates to policy/processes/risk appetites, rather than disputing that the data is “unequivocal”.
1. It’s on AIM - notoriously, it’s a cesspit, and most IIs and PIs steer clear. I suspect that if AVCT was on the main market or NASDAQ, we’d have seen significantly more inflows.
2. We’re talking about a still-to-complete P1a/b trial; there’s no real data available and there won’t be until late summer. IIs won’t invest based on the word of the CEO. When the findings and data are reported, we’ll we’ll see some major inflows; particularly major if P1b suggests a RP2D significantly beyond current standard of care dox dosing with lower likelihood of AEs.
If the reported findings of the P1a/b reflect AS’ recent comments, and if he takes AVCT to Nasdaq with a good PR campaign, I can see some of the numbers being bandied around in here being realistic.
“This led to 18x more dox in the tumor than the standard dox.”
I suspect IIs, the market, big pharma are currently waiting for this headline, and the underlying data. Hopefully interim numbers and data will be released on/after the science day, but, as a secondary outcome, we may have to wait until the study has been completed/findings published.
If efficacy can match that seen in mice; 18x more dox with lower levels of cardiotoxicity, it would be monumental.
This might be p1/p1b study but dox’s mechanism of action is well understood. Essentially, AVA6000 is a platform for delivering more dox with less risk of side effects so efficacy would mostly be answered at p1/p1b, p2 would probably just scale up and look at typical dox/cancer outcomes. When the trial reports in summer/autumn, IIs and big pharma should get all they need.
Yet another ‘mistake’ in a litany of mistakes. Farcical at best.
Argo has to go down as one of the worst managed publicly listed companies in history. Mistake after mistake, poor decision after poor decision, false statement after false statement.
I’m glad I sold my position around 40p, at a significant loss. I feel sorry for all those that were hoodwinked by PW, and may have lost life-changing sums of money.
“To reduce further cascading negative effects of FTX, Binance is forming an industry recovery fund, to help projects who are otherwise strong, but in a liquidity crisis. More details to come soon. In the meantime, please contact Binance Labs if you think you qualify.”
“…otherwise strong, but in a liquidity crisis.”
“…otherwise strong…”
That rules Argo out.
FTX was a top 5 exchange by daily volume; there will be implications for other coins/tokens/currencies.
I can see a significant fallout; some smaller exchanges will topple, other coins/tokens/currencies will be come worthless, lots of unmet obligations, lots of liquidity crunches.
I suppose we’ll start to find out within the next week or so, but I think the crypto sector still has some distance to drop yet.
Hopefully, people will start to shun sh*tcoins and altcoins, and look to Bitcoin as the only crypto worth investing in.
Also, I hope the huge amounts of leverage are flushed from the system and that it remains low - whilst leverage led to BTC’s massive growth in value during 2021, it also led to the following rug-pull.
Regulation of the exchanges is pretty much nailed on after this; which I think will be a positive outcome for Bitcoin.