Member Info for RuckRover

Just to add....

Inanaco could contribute a lot to this discussion but he can't see it.

Tommy, Ray, Inan,

Surely efficacy will only affect market share? So the more effective the treatment is the bigger the market share will be.

I too am willing to try and arrive at numbers. I have also offered to build in "new" market potential. Unfortunately Inan has so far refused to contribute any numbers. He prefers to spit his dummy out and run off when a topic he doesn't understand is discussed.

Ray,

"Lindy is looking to increase the current figure of 20-30% to 50%"

Could you just explain what these percentages are please?

Inan,

"who are you posting to ? Tommy .."

I think Tommy is being inclusive and posting to all on this BB.
Who are you posting to? Your dwindling fan club?

Ray,
"Correct me if I am wrong Tommy, but doesn't a DCF come into play when Scancell are planning to carry a product all the way through to sales?"

I see Tommy has responded but could I just add.....

Scancell have a worth, I've used the word "intrinsic" in the past possibly inappropriately and if not inappropriately, in way that hasn't got through to a few. What I am talking about is that Scancell's products have a market and a sales price. These generate revenue. I am using this to see what Scancell might be worth if everything (or something) comes off.

It does not make a difference to this future value whether Scancell go it alone, license or do a combination of the two. They are the same products with the same value in the same markets. This underlying "value" is unchanged. The cost to get to that point is also roughly the same.

There are of course differences in each of the approaches. It may be that a big pharma is able to best capitalise on the products and gain a bigger market share. It may be that with their financial resources they can get the products to market sooner. On the other hand, if Scancell go it alone, they may retain a bigger slice of the cake. If may be less risky to go with a big pharma (less likely to run out of cash) . Maybe the cost to get to the end point is less costly with a big pharma (economy of scale). You could argue this either way!

The biggest impact is on TIME. Time to market and time for an investor to get see the expected returns.

Let's say the value of the Scancell pipeline, once developed and being sold equates to £4 per share.
The slow way would be to wait for Scancell to do it all themselves. The SP would probably languish in pence for a number of years. A faster return for investors might be if a pharma bought them out. Why do I say MIGHT? Well they may wait for years before doing a buyout. If they were to make an offer today, it certainly wouldn't be £4.

So that is the big question. What would someone be willing to pay for an asset that MIGHT be worth £4 in 6 years time? This is where DCF and NPV calculations come into play.

The way I look at is this: I will have invested over 12 years at an average of 15p. If it makes £4 by 2025 I will have achieved a return of 31.5% per annum. Not bad if it comes off. If you were to invest today at 6p and only have 6 years to wait, you will make a 100% return PER ANNUM. At 20p (over 6 years) it is 65% pa.

Tommy, I'm not trying to put a figure on what I think SCLP is worth TODAY. I'm merely trying to project what it might be worth and some future date if all goes as expected. So, for example I reckon SCIB1 will be worth 68p per share by 2024/2025.

Whilst we can make some reasonably educated guesses as to market share, royalty % and profit % the BIG unknown is dilution. I have gone with 100% (ie another 388M shares issued). As you quite rightly identify, the raise price has a big influence on the projected SP so a raise at 20p would suggest an SP of £1.19.

This is why I am putting it out there, so people can challenge and contribute to the refinement.

Thanks for the replies, not sure where it went but I did see it.
Take it easy, don’t let anything wind you up, you have far more important battles to fight.
I think you are right, we all have more things in common than differences. We are all invested in Scancell and want it to succeed. We only argue about when and how much lol!
Keep punching

Yes C7 I can confirm you have consistently posted some very realistic expectations as far as the SP goes. Not a million miles away from mine and as it turned out today with Rays. It is quite remarkable that my valuation of SCIB1 5 years ago was £1.44. I reduced this to take account of the various share placings to 72p. Today I value it at 68p so very consistent over many years. Can’t say that for the actual SP!

Tommy, my valuation is an attempt to predicate what SCLP would be worth when the products are selling and revenue being earned (around 2025) I have made no attempt to try and equate this to a value today. I have not applied a risk factor (the figures are based on the assumption of Success)

So using the TD forecast of $324M as royalty of 17.5% a 60% GP a PE of 20 and 100% dilution I get 68p for SCIB1

If we apply the same to SCIB2 using TD sales of $842M and a 15% royalty (CRUK will want 2.5%) I get £1.50 for SCIB2. If it were sold today outright, you can knock off the dilution so £3 per share would be the future value. Using a 15% chance of success risk factor this would be 45p per share (£174M in total)

How that would equate to todays price using DCF or NPV I don't know .
Anyway, something to ponder.

Ray,

OK so with revenue at $1B and 100% dilution we get to an SP of £2.08
Applying your risk factor of 50% = £1.04

Not a million miles from my 68p based on the Trinity Delta sales forecast.

(for SCIB1 only)

6 years ago you mean?

Inan,

Let's put it another way.

Do you have ANY data, figures, references, formulae, assumptions, projections, forecasts, analysis on which you have arrived at £3 for SCIB1?

In addition, what dilution factor have you used (if any)?
What date do you think we will see £3 - when sales or royalties start coming in around 2025/2026?

Inan,

Do have any figures or not?
I suspect not, which puts your £3 figure in the "plucked out the air" category.
Maybe scooby wasn't far off.

It's far more environmentally friendly!

Inan,
Why don't you just post your numbers?

Ray, I get the NHS cost saving angle but this becomes REVENUE to Scancell or revenue to Scancells licencee from which is paid a % royalty.

Give me some numbers! I've already got some extra columns waiting.

scooby, you can get to £3 mathematically, just need to show the workings out so each parameter can be justified.
In fact, you can get any figure you want. The sense check is when the number of patients exceeds the population of the world and the revenue is twice the GDP of the planet we KNOW we are in fantasy land.

Inan,

I found your £3 post, I just want to know what revenue you based this on and whether you have factored in dilution?

Inanaco, questions for you when you are around:

Your £3 valuation of SCIB1.....

What sales revenue have you based this on?
What dilution have you factored in?

Tommy, not sure how relevant these figures are. As they are cumulative, they assume you buy and hold. Who in their right mind does that on aim? It is interesting that the buy and hold strategy makes a loss in all of the periods analysed and highlights the benefit of locking in a few profits.