Member Info for RuckRover

Inan,
You are not listening at all.
"because you are a subscriber to risk ... "
I'm NOT. There is NO RISK in the calculation

"what is the point of telling people the share will be worth X in 2025 ,, ??? "
They may want to know what the POTENTIAL returns on an investment is. Those lucky enough to buy today have the potential to make 55% per annum compound if the share makes 68p. I don't think that is bad, do you?

"what they want to know is what is the risk of holding until 2025 ??? "
I can't tell them that, perhaps you can contribute to the discussion and fill that piece in for me?

"your information .. from a commercial perspective is Useless ... "
As an investor, I find it useful. Others may, if you don't, ignore it don't attack it.

"and now you struggle with risk factor ... despite being able to value from a "

I'm not struggling with it I'm NOT using it!
So without a risk factor I get a value of 68p for SCIB1 alone (by 2025)
If I WERE to apply a risk factor, this value would come DOWN.
So what risk factor would you like me to apply? TD think there is 80% risk of it failing. What do YOU think? I have already used zero risk so what are you suggesting - NEGATIVE risk or 200% chance of success?????

Inan,
You need to clear your head of this..
"what we have done is go way deeper .... trying to prove a point of failure in the model from a science perspective .."
"because that is what evaluates a risk profile in scancell not an "off the shelf industry norm""
And TRY to get your head round this....
In my model there is NO FAILURE and NO RISK. So bringing it up is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the discussion/valuation.

"the point of my posts is clear "can you generate a number that is sensible" .. and sufficient to make somebody like me agree with you ... ?? "

Yes I can. What number would you like?

have already posted the formula.

Check my history..

"so you see risk but cannot evaluate it ... ? "

No, I can see risk, and I can evaluate it. I haven't risk adjusted my numbers with a risk factor (as Trinity Delta).

So take Melanoma for example:
If it doesn't work or we unable to commercialise SP = 0p
If it does work AND we are able to commercialise it SP=68p (in 2025)

Trinity delta add a risk factor (20% chance of success), my model with risk SP=14p
Trinity Delta with risk factor using DCF SP=4.8p

So take your pick - 0p, 4.8p, 14p or 68p - you are welcome to pick the higher figure if you feel there is no risk.

"Time stops inside ...

not sure that would help you crumbs"

No but it might help us get the SCIB1 combo trial started on time.

Inan,
"i just asked you about this statement "

"" The only thing “wrong” with the science is your misguided belief that it is the ONLY thing that matters. It isn’t."""

No you didn't, that was a few posts back and the matter is closed.

I was responding to the LATEST of your posts where you said
"that failure mechanism drives posters like Ruck to be able to apply high risk "

I won't bore people with repeating my reply, but I did ask that you stop misquoting me. A fairly reasonable request I thought?

"so the point of your last post is Pontification"
I doubt you know what it means but I'm sure you can google and paste the answer here.

Inan,

"that failure mechanism drives posters like Ruck to be able to apply high risk "

You are not readings posts properly. My valuation model applies ZERO (0) risk. I have NOT applied a risk factor. If I have a risk factor parameter in the formula I have applied a value of ZERO,

So whilst I am not a paid up subscriber to the "No Risk Here" movement, I am a member of the "No risk factor in my formula" club.

You are free to post whatever you want but please don't misquote me.

Ray,
When I said "The End" I meant of series 19. 20,21,22,23 will be out sooner than you can say FDA appoval.

Inan,

Sorry, totally misunderstood your previous questions.

Isn't is an abbreviation of IS NOT.

Inan,

I'm not going to be sucked into one of your pointless arguments where you try to prove yourself right when you patently aren't. You back yourself into a corner because in order to prove that the science ISN'T the only things that matters, all I have to do is find ONE other thing that isn't the science and I have won. This will not be hard as there are several other things.

So to ease the suffering of the other BB members, let me curtail this with an abridged version of the argument and verbalise what I think you mean but have failed to convey:

This will ONLY succeed if the Science succeeds - True
If the science fails, this will fail - True
If the science succeeds, this WILL succeed - false (there are many other factors)
The science MAY see us through - true

so, to conclude the argument..

It's all about the science
No it's not
Yes it is
No it's not
It is
Not
Is
Not
Is

I give up!!!
** THE END **

Inan,
"You failed to reply to the post .. "

You definitely need those glasses, you obviously missed my 9:54, here it is again for your convenience......

Inan,

You really do need to make that specsaver appointment asap.

"if we remove the science from the equation "

NO ONE is saying remove science from the equation
(just as NO ONE is saying there is anything wrong with the scrience)

"I appreciate you are a genius .."
At least you understand something

"or are you blaming the FDA ? Ichor ? the peptide manufacture of modi1 ? CRUK ? Karolinska Institutet ? BioNtech ? Genentech ? ISA Pharma ? the discovery of homocitrulline ? Glycans platform ? "

No, I have never attempted to "blame" anyone, nor have I even complained about anything. I have merely stated where we are and where I think we can get to.

"I tell you why you are wrong, is because you have not followed the market. "

I DO follow the market. The market for cancer care is $100B per year and predicted to rise to $225B by 2025. (doubtless part of the rise is down to "new" markets where there is currently no treatment) Scancell is currently valued "by the market! at 5.3p.

If anyone is wrong, surely it is you? When you made your assertion that this would be £6 in the next 18 months (2 years ago) you either:

Grossly overestimated the value
OR
Grossly underestimated the time scales
OR
Grossly overestimated the value AND Grossly underestimated the time scales

Thanks crumbs, all fears allayed now!

Inan,

You really do need to make that specsaver appointment asap.

"if we remove the science from the equation "

NO ONE is saying remove science from the equation
(just as NO ONE is saying there is anything wrong with the scrience)

"I appreciate you are a genius .."
At least you understand something

"or are you blaming the FDA ? Ichor ? the peptide manufacture of modi1 ? CRUK ? Karolinska Institutet ? BioNtech ? Genentech ? ISA Pharma ? the discovery of homocitrulline ? Glycans platform ? "

No, I have never attempted to "blame" anyone, nor have I even complained about anything. I have merely stated where we are and where I think we can get to.

"I tell you why you are wrong, is because you have not followed the market. "

I DO follow the market. The market for cancer care is $100B per year and predicted to rise to $225B by 2025. (doubtless part of the rise is down to "new" markets where there is currently no treatment) Scancell is currently valued "by the market! at 5.3p.

If anyone is wrong, surely it is you? When you made your assertion that this would be £6 in the next 18 months (2 years ago) you either:

Grossly overestimated the value
OR
Grossly underestimated the time scales
OR
Grossly overestimated the value AND Grossly underestimated the time scales

Morning TF,

"the main factor for SCLP prominence in the 'Chat charts', is the number of prominent 'quabblers' who figure here"

There are a number of points if difference between posters, head to head or group to group. These include disputes over the facts, agreement on facts but different views on consequences/conclusions. Where this occurs, there will inevitably be "quabbles" as you put it.

I second your call for more blue!

Morning C7.
Yes, many posts raise more questions, or more accurately, make you think about the questions (and answers) you hadn’t previously considered. That’s what a BB is all about isn’t it. Keeps us top of the chat charts though!

Drac, maybe too many different baits on the hook is not appealing to any of them. Perhaps need to be a bit more targeted. Just a bit of spam for the barbel?

Hope you are enjoying your holiday. I spent 10 hours at Northampton general last night with my father in law. He’s ok thankfully.

“Show me what is wrong with the science “

There is nothing “wrong” with the science. No one here thinks there is anything “wrong” with the science. I don’t believe any of the clinicians involved with Scancell think there is anything “wrong” with the science. The only person around here who puts the word “wrong” and “science” in the same sentence is YOU.

The only thing “wrong” with the science is your misguided belief that it is the ONLY thing that matters. It isn’t.