Charles Jillings, CEO of Utilico, energized by strong economic momentum across Latin America. Watch the video here.
Jamboian,
What large holding?
If someone had bought at 16p a few days back, a 25% profit in a matter of days is pretty good. So taking profit is never an "odd time".
Familiar pattern regarding the price though. Stock up with cheap shares and get a good mark up on Monday.
Konar,
"One thing I am certain of, after many years invested in Scancell, is they rarely do what you expect them to do"
Similar to when Dick Fosbury approached the bar I guess. And far from being a flop, set the standard for all that followed.
Krafty,
The BioNTech valuation is underpinned by actual sales of their Covid vaccine. Yes, they are competing in the immuno-oncology space but that is not where the market cap comes from so not really a fair comparison imo.
Ratty,
No. The revenue figures are facts. Vulpes use those figures and go through a series of what if scenarios. This is exactly what I have been doing for years. It is up to the individual to use the "what if" scenarios they feel are likely/possible.
So if you think Scancell will grab 100% of the market and make 100% net profit, you can easily get to some eye watering valuations. I choose to use more conservative estimates.
Ratty,
"Surprising that nobody has dismissed Vulpes' potential income forecasts as 'mad ramping', even though it is quite in tune with inanaco's expectations."
Tbh, when I started reading the Vulpes report I thought it was very Inanesque.
But I don't think there has much disagreement on the "revenue potential" - the market value of the Scancell targets is undeniably billions of pounds.
Interesting, Vulpes haven't attempted to translate this into an estimated share price. This depends on many variables that are impossible to forecast - market share, royalty, gross profit, net profit, further dilution etc. So rather than predicting a fanciful ยฃ8 per share, Vulpes have merely stated the improved chance of success and growing target market would result in a "tick-up" in the Sp or give a "Philip" to the sp.
Chester,
Yes, very positive but a more "real world" assessment than TD.
TD use a formula based on risk. So they only ascribe 15% of the value of Moditope as they only give it a 15% chance of success. Some of the other products have even lower chances (according to them). Combined, they come up with 29p (fully diluted)
Vulpes have taken a different approach: This is what Scancell would be worth IF SUCCESSFUL.
This seems to have caused a bit of a stir. Imagine what a stir there would be if we had confirmation of success!
Bermuda,
I too have reccd your post.
I do appreciate and acknowledge the tremendous contribution RG has made to Scancell.
My comment was tongue in cheek, based on a quote by I can't remember and not even for this forum.
Apologies for any offence caused.
Wild,
When patient information was first aired here, I was a little uncomfortable. I did look for myself but refrained from commenting myself or posting further snippets. I was saddened to hear the patient was very upset on learning of the sharing of data. Even then, I accepted there were two quite valid views. I think the saving of lives due to the publicity is a compelling argument for sharing but it is an individual choice.
My stance has changed since then, for the following reasons:
1) The patient has continued to post on the MM forum, presumably in the knowledge that this is being read and shared to a wider audience.
2) There is a real sense of "community" on the forum with fellow cancer sufferers, former cancer sufferers and relatives. This, as confirmed by posters here, adds real value and support.
3) If you read the tone of the posts from the patient, it is clear that they have become part of the Scancell community as well. As we too are part of that same (Scancell) community I feel justified in joining in a discussion involving them.
Bermuda,
"but please explain how it is relevant to now assume that this patient has an 80% reduction in the size of her tumour based on nothing more than speculation?"
That was not meant to be the assumption, if I gave that impression I apologise. The calculation was purely a mathematical one - what is the difference in area between a perfect sphere of 4 and one of 1.8? Answer: 80%
This figure cannot be assumed for an individual patient for several reasons
It is unlikely the tumour is a perfect sphere
We don't know what the 4 and 1.8 refer to
We don't know for sure what measurements are used to calculate "shrinkage". As you said earlier, the difference between 4 and 1.8 is 55% - a number that has been mentioned in this context before.
I think it has been a useful debate. However the shrinkage is calculated, "partial response" can mean a reduction in tumour size of anything between 30 and 99.9%
AB,
"RR so basically you're saying that the 90% quoted is an irrelevance?"
No I'm saying it's wrong. 90% is the reduction in VOLUME but shrinkage is assessed on AREA. The reduction in area is 80%.
Whether or not you think that is relevant is up to you.
What's the point of investing in a speculative share if you're not prepared to speculate?
AB,
"So what we're saying here is that the Tumour has shrunk by 90%?"
No. You have missed the point entirely. The medical assessment of tumour changes are:
Progressive
Stable
Partial response
Complete response.
Percentages are applied to these using the area of the tumour before and after.
Hypothetically, a perfectly spherical tumour that has reduced from 4 to 1.8 has reduced 80% by area. This makes sense to me - see my previous post.
This reduction (80%) is described medically as "partial response" since the next level (complete response) only applies when the tumour has disappeared.
Whether anyone would get excited about an 80% reduction is a matter for the individual. If it was me with the tumour I would!
Botski,
"there's obviously a reason that tumour size is measured in cm and not cm2 or cm3."
It is measured in centimetres as this is the easiest to measure from a scan. However, the assessment of change is calculated in area using two dimensions (centimetres squared).
This makes sense as I would think the tumour expands on the surface where it will have access to blood vessels for the oxygen and nutrients it needs for growth.
I did the calculation using the surface area of a sphere and the reduction (4 to 1.8 diameter) is 80%
If only tumours grew as perfect spheres we wouldn't have an issue!
WTP,
"... mentioned on the other forum RE reduction percentages. Talk of approximately 90% reduction."
You need look no further than this forum - the 90% reduction was posted by moonparty yesterday (17:05). This is the reduction in volume. The reduction in area is 80%. Area is used to report tumour shrinkage and determine category - partial response, stable, progressive. A 90% reduction in volume is classed as a "partial response". Rather understated imo.