Member Info for sadoldgit

The finance agreement does not allow further drawdown if the total amount outstanding exceeds 10% of the market cap.

1.3 million owing so a further drawdown of 1.4 million would make 2.7 million. Our market cap would have to be around 27 million plus and with an SP of circa 30p giving 21 million we could not drawdown. The SP has been suppressed.

Sareum were aware of this outcome from when agreement was written up and as stated in their RNS at the time they would be looking at alternative means of finance.

Effectively on satisfactory data and completion of phase 1b data looking at 100 million plusxand we have market cap of 15 million.

Draw your own conclusions

Regards

It would not be unreasonable for the BoD to keep us more informed as in detail.

What exactly are Sareums plans

How much of a cash runway do we have

Are you going to accept the first offer you are given and at what stage,

Are you looking to partner, on licence or open to a company buyout.

Potentially hundreds of millions the Sareum pipeline are worth.

A company could purchase half our shares for around 7.5 million.

Regards

What difference in outcome is there between the below and not having a sufficient market cap value to draw down further funding? Surely the same outcome no available funding.

1.3 million outstanding is 26 miillion shares at current SP

If the resolutions are not passed, the Company will not be able to draw down any further amounts under the Facility. This would materially and adversely affect the Company's business plans and severely impact its ability to meet its intended timeline for the development of SDC-1801 and SDC-1802.

I interpret from the wording that if no more shares are issued for drawdown then what ever shortfall RF have is not due to Aug 25.

Not sure how much of the original amount of initial drawdown still outstanding as sure this was exempt from Aug 25 maturity date as no interest added.l may be wrong.

Will look in depth again later

Regards

Funnyguy, you state

'We are not too far away from confirmation that Sareum have failed the tests and will not pursue. Use your brains.'

From what factual data relating to SDC do you claim the above.

It is false and deliberate misleading information you have stated.

What is the objective of your post?

Regards

Funny guy

'

Good evening PC1954, your thoughts are good on this, a very constructive post and the best we have by far.

I don't believe any problem raising 300k which ought to take us to the end of phase 1a

Raising up to 2 plus million is possible but would have to look at who is prepared to invest and how much.

On the negative side we will see an element of dilution around 15% should we take options into account on 2 plus million raised

The positive side is the reverse spiral caused by RF finance agreement.

They have reduced an already deflated market cap of approximately 80 million now down to 15 million. 65 million.

if and when funding is raised with the non reliance on RF should not only recover the 75 million but also allow SP growth due to the progression and optimum time to licence 1801.

Looking at around 150 million during progression of phase 1b. This is a tad on the pessimistic side.

Edison price target not far away at 3 pounds a share approx 200 million market cap.

If we take these valuations as a ball park figure it does not take into account any licence deal.

Pessimistically we are looking at minimum upfront of 400 million. This 10% of Deucravacitinib takeover. This is the arena we are in. Current financial climate may dictate a little less. On the plus side our Dual inhibition of Tyk2 Jak1 has been postulated to have greater efficacy

So it is feasible that the 1801 compound at late stage be worth similar if not more than Deucravacitinib. Certainly if we take 1802 into phase 2 trials this is certainly achievable. But for now we can take a very realistic 150 million MC at progression of phase 1b trial. If we take 80 million shares , then this equates to around just under 2 pounds a share.

More than happy to recieve feedback from.the genuine Long term holders here.

Just to add there will also be a requirement for the BoD to reduce their salary. All funding and resources must focus on 1801 similar to what Sierra Oncology did with Momoletonib which GSK purchased for 1.9 billon.

Momo much further down the line and was taken on by SO for upfront 6 million 3 years previous.

Regards

300k is not a sticking plaster

If it were a sticking plaster Sareum would not have negotiated this drawdown amount at this time from RF.

What is I.portant is we have funding to complete phase 1a trial and obtain data results.

In addition 300k was mentioned as an amount that could be raised via investors here.

It all has to start from somewhere. Far better to start low and develop interest as opposed to look at it from the view of 300k is sticking plasters and 3 million required.

Maybe finance 600k here and that would take us to August when the final amount would be required to complete phase 1b trial.

I have sent an email as you have suggested Billy Bunter.

Regards

BB can you inform us here should you get a reply from the BoD?

Regards

1.2 million shares at 25p each with options. Sareum will have no problem with takers here. More than enough willing.

At phase1 b l would put a ball park figure of circa 400 million on SDC 1801 alone with satisfactory data. That being 400 million upfront.

We are in the same league as Deucravacitinib but not as far forward. In theory we should prove superior to Deucravacitinib in Psoriasis as we have dual inhibition.

The critical bit here is safety profile as we inhibit Jak1 and are associated with the old Jaki black box warnings that the NDA hand out like confetti.

We are late generation kinase inhibitor which has selectivity magnitudes of zele tidily higher than the all Jak all conquering compounds attempted before.

Selectivity is important as is safety profile with optimum selectivity you will be master of an indication or two as opposed to not enough selectivity where you will be nothing more than Jack of all.

Enough from me.

Regards

On 200k a year they should be able to raise 300k between themselves on a bank loan.

14 million market cap we have previously gone up more than that in one day.

Agree their Pots.

Dilution of some degree is inevitable as new share issue.

I think someone should give Tim a buzz. He can have the money this afternoon.

The SP is ridiculously low.

Regards

A smallish 5k was 23.9.

I have a slight inclination than some mms may be forward selling.

I keep adding. To buy at moment is 23.9 via HL.

Yes Aber we are much further ahead but funding needs resolving at very least to take us to end of phase 1a.

Fearg mentioned 100 investors here at 3000 each. I don't have a problem with that.

Regards

Not even tea break yet and half a million traded.

Mms making a few pennies me thinks.

I see no reason as to why there should be resignations. A reduction of salaries yes.

They need to resolve the funding issue.

Sareum plan to licence at end of preclinical to early clinical. We sit right in the middle and await data results.

If the data is not get then end of Sareum

If the data is topline ie good safety profile and biomarker data then put a value on 1801

You cannot realistically assign a relevant value until you have the data and its in depth analysis.

You need assurance of satisfactory safety profile and to further enhance biomarker data

The SP had declined drastically with the knockback from the MHRA

Most likely and indicative of this is the cautious start of 5mg per day and ascending dose up to 300g per day. Based primarily on Jak1 Jak2 inhibitors which have far greater unwantrd off target effects.

I did read a comment regarding maybe extra testing to establish an MTD

That is most definitely out of the question as cannot be established in healthy human beings.

300 mg per day is less than a third of the anticipated maximum therapeutic benefit.

Preclinical testing and safety data carried out dosing at 30 times maximum treatment level.

No serious side effects were observed to indicate that a MTD had been established.

Although normally a requirement to have an established MTD before any clinical trial of 5his nature can be granted however it has been such that in the past the attainment of reaching 30 times therapeutic dose was considered acceptable in the absence of a non established MTD.

The big boys like everyone else will need to know what they are buying. This can only be achieved by the data results generated by the clinical phase 1a trial.

Regards

That should read 'assess' and not 'access.'

Apologies. Predictive text!

Regards