Member Info for RuckRover

I’ve been reading back some of the posts over the weekend, I just wanted to clarify...

When I said I do not expect “ dividends” until 2025 I used the word dividends in a financial context. That is, Scancell are generating income making profit and retuning some of those profits as “dividends”. Personally, I don’t see Scancell ever being in that position, certainly not by 2025, there are too many developments in the pipeline. If it is dividends you are after, this isn’t the share for you, try some FTSE 100 companies.

That isn’t to say investors won’t get a return in terms of share price increase. Trinity value this at 21p TODAY. News of the SCIB1 trial will give it a boost. News of a “deal” will get it up to 21p alone.

I’m sorry if I came across negative, I’m not, I’m positive but realistically positive. Or should that be positively realistic?
Anyway, all the best, news has to come soon. The longer the silence goes on, the more epic the news will be I’m sure.

Inan,

I was looking for an SP estimate for Scancell rather than a price per patient for a different treatment.

Inan,
Assuming efficacy IS king as you attest, what price do you think it will set?

Afternoon crumbs, I think my reply to C7 addressed a couple of your points.
The global oncology market is currently worth around $100B. Where are the “emerging markets” worth $100s of billions?

C7, been busy today, just catching up.

No, I’m not saying there won’t be a deal. Even if we need to raise funds before a deal, there has to be a deal at some point. The alternative to a no deal scenario is several cash raises each of which is highly dilutive.

I think SCIB1 is the most likely to succeed first as it has already been proved in humans. I think the market has trouble valuing the diverse portfolio at different phases of development. So although I think SCIB1 is the nearest to commercialisation I think it is Moditope most likely to get a deal first.

Nom,
I’m not expecting dividends until one of the Scancell products is being sold and generating income. Optimistically, this will be around 2025.

The only thing that influences the price long term is whether the products are successful or not. If none succeed, Scancell will be worthless. If just one succeeds it will be worth many times what it is now. The current share price is irrelevant, a good buying opportunity if you believe they will succeed. The volumes are insignificant.

As regards missing the boat:
In my experience there are many opportunities to climb aboard. If you miss one there will always be others. I considered buying more when it dropped to 8p but decided not to. I probably won’t buy more until it is back to 10p and moving up. Further fundraising is of course inevitable, doesn’t worry me at all, it is a necessary evil.

C7,
I think we can all agree it is worth more than 5p if even one of the treatments finds it's way to market. We all have different expectations, targets and get out points. Some will see it through all the way, wherever that turns out to be.

Have a good weekend yourself.

“I have never considered the cost of walking to a bank with a Royalty cheque at $400m .”

And perhaps, therein lies the problem - there are so many things YOU haven’t considered.
Maybe C7 has got it wrong and there aren’t two clever people in this debate.

Sorry, it was on ADVFN - doesn’t that count?

Inan, which bit of sharing ideas do you not understand?

I put some numbers out as a starting point for debate. I solicited comments, suggestions in order to refine the model.
We have already debated PE, and agreed on 20.
We also debated gross profit. If Scancell do the sales and marketing, advertising, support and training their net profit will be low. If they sell through licencees there net profit will be much higher BUT ON A LOWER SHARE of the proceeds. It doesn’t make a lot of difference either way.
In the model I changed this from 20 to 60, mainly to keep you happy, but on lower earnings (17.5% royalty)

We have already done this, there is no point wheeling out the early prototype when we have a much more defined model.

Inan,

We did debate the PE at the time. I had used 10 (being very conservative).
If you read the post carefully (as you have reposted it twice now):

PE Ratio 10 (could be higher if there were other products on the way)

Note:COULD BE HIGHER IF THERE WERE OTHER PRODUCTS ON THE WAY
I had already calculated the average PE amongst Pharma was around 20%. The 43% of Pfizer was due to a tax adjustment, so not really a PE you can use as a benchmark.

After this discussion, I revised the PE on my spreadsheet to 20.

I also said (again, thanks for reposting)
Just trying to apply some science to the numbers rather than pluck a figure out the air. If you want to throw some of your own numbers in I'll recalculate the price.

So please feel free to throw in some numbers. I assume you are now happy with a PE of 20?
What is your latest estimate?
I did pose a question last night.....
When you made the comment "green light to a £120B market" when do you think this market can be serviced using Scancell products?

Inan,
You wrote:
"Please don't compare my posts of values to Ruck"
"Nothing has changed he is still boring me senseless "
"Ruck you are boring me senseless .........…"
"i really don't need your help"
"had not even bothered to research .."
"i really am not sure what you are trying to achieve "

It may have escaped your notice but this is a public bulletin board. It is for the expression and exchange of ideas. With contributions from people with different backgrounds, experience and skill-sets, we may ALL learn something.

It would help greatly if you got into the spirit of this and gave due and respectful consideration to posts made. If you don't agree, point out the specifics of your disagreement and cite alternative sources. This would possibly get your point across better than just being evasive, sarcastic, abuse and insulting to not only posters themselves but their lineage.

If you have a numeric disability, it would be better not to involve yourself in the debate. That way you can avoid looking stupid.

Inan,
There is no way you can get 3000m valuation from 300m earnings UNLESS you have used a PE of 10. It is, as a matter of undisputable fact 10 times earnings. If you are not calling it PE, what are you calling it?

Ray,
“I would suggest that all we need to know is that we are looking at science that is worth pounds rather than pence”

How do you know the science is worth pounds unless you do the calculations using revenue streams. You may have brilliant science that works On an affliction that only has 10 cases a year. This would not be worth pounds.
Seems to me that a lot here have got excited about the “science” without trying to understand what success will ultimately be valued at.
I have done the sums and happy to be invested without getting over excited.

Nom,
No I wasn’t aware of this organisation.
Only 6 companies with cancer treatments in their portfolio. Why is that? Surely it’s a lucrative and profitable area?

Ray, I’m not convinced additional complexity will get a more accurate result. There are so many variables that the margin of error is huge. You saw earlier how just one element in the equation (PE) could double the SP (using 20 rather than Inans 10)

Inan
“Rather than trying to pass all this off as your own work ? would you like me to posts your garbage from ADFVN ..”

What is it I’m trying to pass off as my own work? 300 x 10 = 3000?

I’ve plenty of my own work. Thanks for showcasing it.

Ray, very relevant thanks. I liked this:

“The first place to start when valuing biotechnology is at the end—the projected revenue stream”

Which is exactly what I have done!

Nom,
Not particularly. I have merely attempted to quantify what Scancell could be worth if their treatments are successful and are being sold. Advance royalties just mean we may see some value in the sp sooner (than waiting til 2025)

Inan,
When do you think the whole £120B market will have a Scancell treatment available? (Realistically)