Member Info for RuckRover

Ee,

Sounds very interesting. They seem to act like a checkpoint inhibitor. Perhaps Scancell should do a combo trial with aspirin and save the cost of Keytruda.

Rats,

Could we cope without Ripley's in-depth analysis for 6 whole months? Tough call.

RW,

Thanks for the update.

C7,

Just wanted to let you know you are in my thoughts. We go back a long time and your courage and resilience have been an inspiration over that time.

I have found your views from personal experience and the heart far more relevant than those purporting to have expertise in various fields.

Sending you love and peace.

"Despite my age, I'd start doing cartwheels as 60p "

I'm getting on too but I'd join you on the beach doing cartwheels with my new hip and shout you a few Chang beers.

60p would have been a good price to sell at!

Rob,

"the irony being it reached 60p+ on a discovery and without the data/platforms we currently have today!"

Well, it's fairly obvious that Scancell is worth far more today than it was in 2012 given the stage of development, number of products, management team and cash reserves.

I'm not sure it's irony. I think the SP back then was as ridiculously high as it is today (low). Also, a lot of the 60p to 9p difference is down to dilution (224m shares back then versus 1000m today).

Dracula,

When it drops to .03p I’m going to make a bid for the entire company.

Now obviously it doesn’t work like that. Any bid would have to be approved by the majority of shareholders. The balance of power lies between Redmile, vulpes and PIs. I’d say it would need to be a bid of at least 60p to get any serious consideration.

What one small investor is prepared to accept from another small investor for an insignificant quantity is not really relevant.

TF,

Hopefully it's not too late for you to develop a sense of humour.

Perhaps the point was a little too close to home?

C11,

"What AI struggles with are social skills, emotional intelligence, and interpersonal relationships. "

So do 90% of the contributors to this BB. :)

Sorry, I think you are being a little harsh on AI. I don't think the article posted was AI generated. That level of shoddiness and laziness can only be work of an equallly shoddy and lazyhuman.

This is what AI comes up with:

Scancell is a UK-based biotech company specializing in immuno-oncology. Their pipeline includes several promising therapeutic vaccines and antibody platforms:

ImmunoBody® (SCIB1/iSCIB1+): A targeted DNA vaccine for advanced melanoma. The SCOPE trial has shown promising results, with an 80% disease control rate and a 72% overall response rate3.

Modi-1: A neoantigen peptide vaccine targeting solid tumors. Early data from the ModiFY study has shown prolonged periods of stable disease2.

GlyMab®: A platform focusing on monoclonal antibodies targeting glycan structures associated with cancer. Scancell recently signed a deal with Genmab for the development and commercialization of a GlyMab antibody1.

Scancell has secured two partnerships with Genmab, worth a potential £940 million ($1.2 billion). These deals highlight the potential of Scancell's GlyMab platform1.

The SCOPE trial for SCIB1 has shown significant clinical responses, with 20% of participants achieving complete remission.

The ModiFY study is ongoing, with promising early results2.

Scancell recently raised £11.3 million, extending their cash runway into the second half of 2026. This funding will support the advancement of their clinical programs3.

Scancell's strong clinical pipeline, recent partnerships, and promising trial results position it as a key player in the immuno-oncology space. With multiple clinical data readouts expected in 2025, the company has the potential for significant growth and commercial success3.

Burble,

It does, many thanks.

So it's all down to money rather than efficacy.

When the MODI1 trial was registered on clinical trials, four targets were listed:

Head and Neck

Renal

Ovarian

TN breast cancer

The 2023 year end statement mentions encouraging results in ovarian cancer. More recently, only head and neck and renal cancers are mentioned.

So what happened to the other two targets? Particularly the ovarian patient(s) who had promising results. Have there been official announcements from the company or have they just been quietly dropped?

TF,

"I am interested in the facts which is why it's a pain when that BB goes disfunctional, (with your able help). "

The BB is dysfunctional with or without my help. Inan will kick off against anyone. It's amazing that you haven't acknowledged where the true problem lies. Anyway, this isn't the place to discuss the functioning of another board. Take it up over there if you must.

TF,

"I tried to have a look at ADVFN over the weekend and just gave up. with 178 posts to catch up on. Mainly you I imagine. "

No, not mainly me, mainly you know who. Just shows that you have no interest in facts and accuracy only blind devotion.

Dracula,

"be as one Investor mentioned £8 a share"

I'm afraid that's just one solitary nutter.

I posted this on ADVFN following a debate on what the target market size for SCIB1/iSCIB1+ is. This followed some market size figures mentioned in the recent RNS and presentations/slides......

I have crunched some numbers based on revised market size for SCIB1 and iSCIB1+

The $9B figure did leap out at me when the RNS came out but there is a footnote "management estimate". This does tally with other sources that put the melanoma market at around $8.68B per annum. Note this is for the entire melanoma treatment market including all stages and all treatments. The portion of the market that Scancell are currently targeting (late stage, immunotherapy) is $3.5B dollars pa. They may well, in the fullness of time, expand into some of these areas - who knows, and if they did, who knows when?

So I thought I would update the TD model and see what would happen if we used the original TD $2B market and compared it to $3.5B and $9B. The first thing I noticed is that TD themselves have not updated their own model since January 2024. (They have published updates but not changed any of the important elements - hence their 33p estimate being stuck. The immunobody platform (exc SCIB2) part of this accounts for 5.5p (since then there has been dilution reducing this figure)

The first thing is, as they use an NPV calculation, the present value changes the nearer you get to fruition. So the NPV of an asset worth $2B in 2030 is today worth $1.026B (not 687B as in the last TD report Jan 2024). This is using the TD 12.5% discount rate.

This alone raises the immunobody estimate to 7.4p/share.

Then, there is the revised market size owing to iSCIB1+ - $3.5B. This increases the NPV to $1.57B. Plug that in and you get 11.3p/share (immunobody alone) and an overall SP of 35.5p

Now, if you want to hop over to CCL, here's what $9B does: 29p/share for immunobody, 53p overall.

These figures use unchanged (from TD) estimates for Moditope, Glymabs and Avidimab, the same probability of success factors and the same discount rate. Assuming that immunobody is successful, this would give a valuation based on market size of $3.5B of £1.50p/share (immunobody alone)

If you go with the $9B market size if this were to happen you would be looking at around £4 per share for all platforms.

So a bid of between £1.50 and £4 would be nice at this stage. Personally, I'd be more than happy with the lower end.

AIMO

"What has the company got to do to generate some positive buying interest? "

Float in the USA.

Burble,

Totally agree. Very confident, measured and pitched at the right level. I do think a too detailed explanation of the science actually puts off the majority of investors

Well even 19p is "derisory". The "conservative" TD valuation is 33p and if tomorrow's data is good then I expect them to revise that upwards nearer the 40p mark.

VD,

I'm reposting something I posted on 5th January. Perhaps you'd care to take note this time...

The other thing that gets on my tits is people moaning about BOD members not having "skin in the game".

The amount of money a director or senior executive wants to invest in their company(s) is entirely their personal choice. Their wealth management is no different to anyone else's and even though they may be a director of one company it is just as foolhardy to go "all in" on a single company as anyone else. They will undoubtedly have a diverse portfolio spread across different sectors like any other sensible investor.

The notion that a senior executive will do a better job if they have "skin in the game" is a complete fallacy. (As is the belief it will affect the SP). These are highly skilled professionals employed for their expertise in a specific area. Their remuneration is from salary, bonus and share options. If they fail to hit targets they do get their bonus and options. If they don't do a good job they will be fired.

The other thing people to fail to understand is the investments are relative. Lindy Durrant has 8 million shares - approximately 1% of the company. The CEO of HSBC has invested £1.2M of his own money yet this only amounts to 0.0012% of the issued share capital. Did LD buy these shares with her own money - yes. The money from share options earned as a result of great scientific discovery, hard work and commitment. In the early days of startups, founders raise modest funds from savings or remortgaging property - they take on ALL the risk. It is only right and proper that they should be rewarded, not at the ultimate end game but milestones along the way.

What I want to see is the CEO executing, the CSO advancing and proving the science and the CFO providing financial stability. The investment I want from investment funds who understand the investment and have deep pockets when required.