Member Info for RuckRover

Inan,

From your Monday post..
“ we are all here waiting for a deal ... which could yield a £3 share price”

Are you forecasting this just for SCIB1 or does it include any of the other drugs in the pipeline?

PS.
I'll need a few extra columns on the spreadsheet.

Inan,

"and that is what is missing"

Also, what's missing is your valuation.
Put a number on it. I won't mock, quite the opposite, I will try to justify it mathematically.

crumbs, we are all entitled to see as we want. I hope you are right!
It's just that when I ordered my new car and villa I didn't want to over-stretch myself. Anything over £4.50 can buy champagne for everyone I've fought with on here over the years. I'll need a lot of champagne!

C7, I hope so! :)

Crumbs, I haven’t attempted to value kite and Juno so cant answer that.
It may well be someone is prepared to pay over the odds. If like if your house was worth 500k but was a one off and someone wants it so badly they offer you £1m. Daft not to accept but there is no guarantee that is going to happen here.
I have based the numbers on sound financial parameters - so long as trials are successful. If someone made an offer now, they are taking the gamble from us to themselves.

I’m not sure what people are moaning about, £4.50 from 6p isn’t bad is it? I suppose if we start trading at £2 on a daily basis I might revise my forecasts!

Inan,
Put a number on it, I have.

Inan,

I would suggest my posts on valuations are as good as yours on the science. Neither can be proved or disproved, time will tell. Paradoxically, my valuations are based on you being right, ie the science works. So how do you reconcile that?

Would like to hear your valuations. How far apart are they from mine?

Ray,
Yes that’s the one. I’m an RPG man myself.

M4 wasn't it?

Inan you posted:

"this is my post ...... No yours
a succession of License agreements and collaborations developing into a Research Power House
funded by potential royalty stream's that would dwarf "Arm Holdings"
what is your post ?
nothing"

You still haven't quite got the hang of the game. This is a BB for the exchange of ideas, views and opinions related to investing in Scancell. Most have got it, some minor transgression of the rules on occasion but all playing the same game. It is not the "who's made the most contribution to the BB" competition. I think a few have tried but as there was only one judge who put themselves forward the idea was scrapped.
Thanks for trying thou(gh).

oops, did I post that out loud?

Mrs Brown?

Ray,
"Does "develop and license" in this context mean develop a drug until it is approved and then license?"

It could be either.
Scancell could license the rights to sell the developed drug. It would be up to the licencee to fund the development (as is the case with CRUK and NSCLC)

Scancell could raise (a lot of) funds to develop it themselves and then license the finished drug. They would need to raise more cash themselves but would charge a higher royalty.

"My preference has always been an outright purchase of Scancell"
That was the original plan. Take it to phase1/2 with modest funding, cash in, use the money to fund the next venture (MODI). Unfortunately, MODI appeared too soon.

The options are finite:

1) Outright sale
2) Licensing
3) Go it alone

To date, the pursuit of none of these has been successful. So all options are still on the table. It may be a combination of all three - sell SCIB1, license MODI, go it alone with glycans (or any permutation of your choice). In the end it may not be Scancell's choice, the choice may be made for them.

What I have tried to do with my attempted valuations is to focus on the underlying or intrinsic value - this doesn't alter significantly dependent on which of the three options are taken. The biggest difference is in the timing of returns for investors - 1 being the soonest, licensing the next and go it alone being the slowest (and probably needing more money pumped in before a return is anywhere close)
AIMO

"David Evans never understood the principle "

David Evans was chairman of about 70 companies. He turned many of them into commercial successes. I'm sure he understands the principle of licensing!

Inan,

"he is not relevant ....... "

If he's not why were you so eager to get his opinion. It was in response to your question that DE responded as I posted earlier:

inanaco
4 Feb '19 - 17:39 - 19307 of 21381

NXC i asked you a question back in 2013 ...

Do you think we are looking at "Arm Holdings" scenario

you replied probably not under your watch, age etc was mentioned ...

what do you think now ?

outright sale

or

a succession of License agreements and collaborations developing into a Research Power House funded by potential royalty stream's that would dwarf "Arm Holdings"

Ray, you are right, very amusing when on full tilt. I agree he one of the most well researched as far as the science goes. If only he could sort out the fact from the fiction and leave the latter un-written it would enhance his contributions no end.

Well some years later when he hasn't any axe to grind he still thinks it is unviable do o the enormous amount of money required to do it. Where do you think the funding is going to come from?

You come out with some incredible rubbish:

"David Evans has never reject that ... indeed he stood down because of it"

This is what he said:

"Someone raised the analogy between Scancell and Arms Holdings - whilst I recognise that Scancell has two technology platforms in Immunobody and Moditope and in theory it could be licensed out across the different forms of cancer the reality is that the monies required to exploit the platforms in this way would be vast and as a Company we have generally struggled to raise funds and the timescales demonstrate to date the challenges of even securing one licence."

Inan, you've dragged your ARM holdings analogy into the fray more times than Theresa May'2 deal, despite it being rejected by David Evans (former Chairman, Scancell)

"every discussion has to be based around the science "
No it doesn't

"Sensible Funding is only available to good science "
So you are saying VAL has good science as it always manages to get funding?

"Sensible deals are only available to good science "
Ditto

"progression through trials is only available to good science (regulators block rubbish) "
True. The more they progress, the more data is gathered and the more valuable the company. This then gets reflected in the SP. Unfortunately, Scancell are not progressing through any trials at the moment. This is possibly why we have a low SP?

"speculative posts based only around the SP which is not the science has no value "
Value is in the eye of the beholder or reader. I would like to make my own assessment as to the value of posts and not be dictated to by you or anyone as to whether they have "value" or not. Personally, I find little "value" in your posts but I appreciate that others might and that is entirely up to you.