The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
I made a comment earlier today. I was making the point that not too many conclusions can be drawn from the small sample of data that was reported in the RNS. For example is "stable" good or not?
At the end of my post I put:
"Stable" means anything from a 20% increase to a 29% reduction.
I had taken figures I had read somewhere from memory but before posting thought I'd better check it out. I couldn't verify so I meant to delete the line but somehow it slipped through. No one picked up on it at the time though.
On checking further, the figures in my head had come from Chilltime on ADVFN:
"The 4 cancer terms.
Complete response no trace of of the tumours can be seen.
Partial response shrinkage of 30% and more.
Stable not growing more than 20% shrinkage of up to 29%.
Progressive over 20%"
I sought to verify these figures and they appear to have come from here:
"Cancer doctors use the term stable disease to describe a tumor that is neither growing nor shrinking. Specifically, it means that there was neither an increase in size of more than 20% nor a decrease in size of more than 30% since the initial baseline measurement."
? Stable disease also means that no new tumors have developed and that cancer has not metastasized (spread) to other parts of the body."
hTTps://www.verywellhealth.com/definition-of-stable-disease-2249195
This is an article written by a doctor and peer reviewed by another doctor.
I have been unable to verify this interpretation of "stable". In the light of a patient being "stable" who was previously "partial response" I wondered if anyone had any light to shed on this. It may be that the term "stable" is loosely applied and means different things in different circumstances (or in the USA). I did read some of the RECIST guidelines but they do not express things in simple percentages.
Henry,
I'm not sure anyone is criticising the RNS. It is what it is, a report of early results of the Modi trial - scientifically and factually accurate. It can't state what hasn't happened nor can it draw conclusions as to what might happen in the future. I know this has caused some frustration among a few investors but that is not the fault of Scancell or the wording of the RNS.
If Scancell did want to hype it up, the media would be the place do this not through the medium of an RNS. Maybe Scancell don't want it whooped up in the press. What would be the reason? They don't control the SP and is largely irrelevant to the progress of the trials. These depend only on the skill of the personnel, the products and funding. It looks like Scancell are fairly relaxed on these fronts.
LL,
Redmile will go over the threshold when they convert the loan notes, so that issue will need to be addressed anyway.
But as you raised the issue it made me think. It would be better if a NEW investor came in. That could dilute Redmile enough to keep them below the 30%
C11,
"To those who Rec’d Crackin’s 09:41.
Why are you invested here?"
I am invested as I believe these shares are worth at LEAST the revised TD estimate of 30p (fully diluted) , preferably 80p and possibly £2.
If you consider £2 a possibility then you must also consider 15p a possibility. What if there is a hiccup? What if extra funding is needed? In this case, the funds will likely come from Redmile. I can't imagine them been too happy having to pay a lot more than they already have (10.6p average)
I was initially disappointed at the MODI RNS. But once you begin to understand the circumstances and terminology you realise that in reality the news could be a lot better (or worse) than it seems. Until more data (more patients, longer time period) is available we won't know just how good (or bad) it is.
So make you own judgement as far as investing goes. Ask yourself, can I ride it out if this goes to 15p? Because it might.
"Stable" means anything from a 20% increase to a 29% reduction.
GF,
Yes, I thought the response was "muted". Didn't like to say for fear of being called gloomy!
You are right - 11 years ago we hit 60p on Modi news. Now, 11 years closer to market with really positive efficacy data from human trials we are a third of that. I was expecting 25-27p today at the very least. Nice to see TD getting closer to my 40p valuation though :)
Yes I was trying to be helpful. It would help the board if the title of your post bore some relevance to the content rather than always posting under "incredible news for Trish"
Whether you accept the advice is entirely your choice of course.
You state:
"Likewise I have made mistakes reading posts here ."
But not half as bad as the mistakes people have made reading yours.
Ripley,
It may be an idea to respond to a current thread or start a new one of your own with an appropriate title.
You may want to look at the difference between “thread view” and “message view”. message view will show you all latest posts regardless of thread.
Violindog,
". I have slowly built up my holding over many years and to finally see a handsome profit evaporating is disheartening."
Sadly this is a story I have seen numerous times in the 13 years I have been invested here. You could included my own story in this. I have seen my investment drop to virtually nothing when we were at 3.5p. Fortunately, along the way I have taken some profits and used them to pay for my wedding, a honeymoon and new car.
What I have found is that in order to make informed investment decisions there are a number of popular (on these boards) myths that need to be recognised. Some of these are:
This is a no risk investment (it isn't)
Buy and hold is the best policy. (It isn't, buy the lows and sell the highs)
It's about the number you hold (it's not, it's about the difference between what you buy at and what you sell out)
The science will see us through (there's far much mor too it)
This is worth £8+ (maybe but many years and much more dilution)
Those are my thoughts - they have kept me sane the past 8 years. So take them or leave them - your choice.
Personally I wouldn't set a fixed time period. If they hit £1 sooner you may consider selling (or a portion) if they are still languishing at 20p in a year you may consider holding longer. Consider the facts and act accordingly.
Whatever you decide, I wish you the best of luck. Hopefully, for both of us, there will be a bid of £2 in the next 12 months.
Empty,
"The reason that the valuation is irrelevant is very simple: Scancell aren’t selling the company in 2023"
The TD "valuation" isn't a price tag inviting big pharma to purchase. It is an indication of what the share may be worth in the next few years in order to help potential investors to decide whether it is something for them. It sets a range of values representing possible outcomes 27.4p being fair value today, £4.72 being a possibility if everything were to succeed.
Surely, at 18p this is a good buy even at 27.4
Bear in mind, not one single variable that goes into the formula can be predicted with accuracy so it is as stated an "estimate".
Earlier in the day I asked:
Who was it who said "you can never guarantee results in mice will be replicated in humans"?
Crumbs correctly answered Lindy Durrant. Obviously crumbs HAS been paying attention.
It struck me that many on the board either don't pay attention or pay attention to the wrong people. It seems that the views of people with relevant knowledge (burble, Bermuda, ivy and Prof Durrant herself) are largely dismissed in favour of the more palpable but erroneous views of self proclaimed "experts"
Just an observation and IMO.
Wiggy,
"But it is not what Scancell think they are worth."
You really are confused today.
There are multiple "worths" - what they are worth today (current SP) , what they should be worth TODAY (according to TD), what they will be worth in 3/6/12 months (depends on results, data, sentiment and takeover bid), what they COULD be worth if all goes well at an undefined point in the future.
Honestly, my personal view is that Jean-Michelle and LD would consider 33p what SCLP are worth TODAY. That doesn't mean they would sell the company for that TODAY, they would much prefer to sell at £2 in the future or £3 in the further out future. I also don't think they would want to hold out another 6 years for £4.72. They will want to monetise assets for the benefit of themselves, shareholders and patients.
AIMO.
Wiggy,
"I think we are in danger of mixing TD’s view with Scancell's view. Would LD recommend a 33p offer today?"
Of course not!
As has been explained, the TD valuation is what they estimate SCLP are worth TODAY considering the risks.
Any PI, has the opportunity today to buy at 18p. It appears, there are people willing to sell at this level. There certainly wouldn't be enough idiots selling at 18p for a company to buy the lot. Most PIs would no accept 33p either.
This is NOT a price tag for a company wishing to buy the lot. Even the most grumpy, pessimistic holder is hoping for more than 33p.
Kash,
You make a valid point. Regardless of the scientific merits of the different companies, they are all chasing the same market. 20 companies (21 if you include Scancell) can't take 100% of that market each.
"Until those phase I/II results are in, nobody knows, not even Scancell to what degree the unprecedented results in mice will be replicated in humans."
Here's a question:
Who was it who said "you can never guarantee results in mice will be replicated in humans"?
Just to see who's been paying attention.