Member Info for RuckRover

Inan,

OK, I’ll make it easier with multiple choice.....

What is the annual rate of return if you turned £1 into £10 (Up 1000%) over a period of 10 years?
Is it
A. 100%
B. 26%

Inan,
OK, I can see you are struggling so I’ll give you the answer:
It’s 1000%.
So here’s the part b.

If you make a 1000% in 10 years, what is your annual rate of return?

Inan,
Start with the £1/£10 question first.
We can work our way up to $450m later.
Any thoughts?

Chester,
Ok, it’s just that your figure was very close to the 10% I thought it was. I think NSCLC WAS 65%

Inan,
I’ll help you with the maths...
If you invest £1 and it increases in value to £10, what percentage increase have you made?
It’s not a trick question but there is a b part once you have answered this.

Inan,
“ Not out to prove anything .......”
I think you already have! LOL

Chester,
Many thanks for you thought out, on topic response.
I agree, it is not possible to forecast an exact price at an exact time. I develop forecasting software For consumer goods sales. No forecasting system can predict spot on where there is an element of randomness. The best a forecasting system can do is tell you the probability of a range. This is basic secondary school maths.

So I could predict with 99.9% certainty that the share price will be between 0p and £200 in the next week. That’s quite easy because I’ve given myself an enormous range and short time window.
What I was hoping to do was get a narrower range over a longer time period. So given we don’t expect SCIB1 to come to market for 5 years, what will it be worth by then?
It appears no one is getting the risk adjusted NPV calculation. The TD rNPV value of 3.8p equates to 34p in 5 years time. (20% success For risk, 12.5% for discount rate)

Where did you get 9.65% for Keytruda Use in melanoma?
I had in my head 10% but can’t find where I got it.

Inan,
So are you going to make the financial case?
You did say you could do it “easily”.

Inan,
“ I could easily”
Great, then Please either
Do so
Or
Don’t do so and prove to everyone once and for all you are just full of it.

Inan,
“but Ruck you keep telling us ... it has no value till its proven”

No, I have never stated that. Please don’t misquote me.
All I am trying to establish is how much this could be worth potentially?
All I get back is how great the science is, how synergistic it is, how terrible cancer is ( which it is) and how much in love people are with the share. I’m afraid your love affair will not add value when a big pharma decides how much to shell out if they ever do.
Is the NOBODY here able to make a FINANCIAL case?

Dracula,
The test kit is an example of supply and demand. If there was a sudden, unprecedented increase in melanoma or other Scancell targets there may be some upside. There is nothing to suggest this might happen is there?

“ .... how would the market receive this”
Well that would depend on
The amount of the upfront lump sum
The amount of the stage payments
The amount of royalties.

All of the above, in turn, depend on the “value of the Underlying asset.”

Which is why I “keep going on about it”

Berm,
Well yes, it cuts a calculation step out. SP is more comparable to an individuals investment so they can see how much they are up!

I think what Dr Mitchell is saying is that if you work out the underlying value of a pipeline (based on market size, revenue, profitability etc) there are still too many unknowns and risks to predict a future SP.
I don’t Think it means you can’t put an upper limit on the potential in order to rule out wildly inflated Figures plucked out the air.

Bermuda,
Thanks, I didn’t realise PG were still house broker, they have been very quiet.
They put a value of 79p on a Scancell back in 2012. Dr Mitchell also said in 2014, Scancell are on track to start MODI1 trials in 2016.
With that track record it’s not surprising he says you can’t forecast lol!

Inan,
You keep skirting around the issue, no you are completely ignoring the issue.
As I have stated before, there is absolutely nothing negative in my posts. I am very positive about SCIB1, there has been “compelling” data, the preclinical work on mice suggest synergy exists.
I’m not looking at my shares as cash in the bank, I appreciate that there may at times be a gap between the underlying value of a share and what it changes hands for on the stock exchange.
I know I’m in control as to the timing of an exchange back to cash.
I accept that once we have “great data” we are in a position to negotiate “great deals”. But what constitutes a great deal. Compare it to a pension/annuity. You pay an upfront lump sum in order to get paid a monthly amount for the rest of your life. An upfront payment of £1m will get you about £35k pa. would you pay £2M for the same asset? How about £8M? Of course you wouldn’t! So what makes you think a big Pharma would pay more than the underlying asset is worth?
No one to date has stated that they think the TD figure is wrong, why it is wrong and what they think it should be.
I’m only focusing on SCIB1 to make it easy(er).
Come on, let’s have some hard financial facts.

Wtp,
Please feel free to examine my posts. I have never criticised Scancell, the BOD of Scancell, their products or the science.
I truly hope they can cure cancer in many settings.
I am merely trying to establish what a successful outcome is in financial terms.
I am not a doom mongerer, just trying to be realistic. If you want to cling to the hope that this will be £8 any time soon, please feel free. Personally I prefer to stick to realistic projections based on the facts.

Ray,
I disagree, it is very easy to value Scancell. Today it is valued at 5.75p. If you don’t believe try buying or selling some tomorrow you will get a price quite close to that.
Don’t believe the market? Look at some analysts research - TD reckon the market is undervaluing it, they think it is worth 15p. Personally I think they are underestimating it a bit.
But £8? Come on, get serious.

Bunsie,
Well, SCIB1 is in the pipeline, TD value it at 3.8p. Is that your dream?

Ray,
Do you think TD have got the valuation of SCIB1 wrong then?