Member Info for Sangijuelas1

Schroders don't appear on the FT list of institutional shareholders in MV

Or they are the counterparty in someone else's short.

They agree to buy at a certain price believing the stock will hold value

Schroders may be hedging their long position with puts

They haven't. If they had there would have been a rise not a fall.

This relates to derivatives trading - some form of options as the stock referenced has no voting rights attached.

See you at 350

I believe in truth Crusty. Regardless of feelings, facts matter.

People thought Google paid well over the odds for YouTube in 2006. The princely sum of $1.6bn.

At the time critics said they were buying a company that would be sued into oblivion for copyright breaches.

MV have applied a 25% discount to the last valuation. On top of that the current SP is applying another 50% or more.

Should get a better picture once get the 2021 FS. Otherwise we are going by 2020 figures.

Klarna lost $250m in the first quarter. Thought they could go for global domination.

Worth comparing with Affirm. Anticipate profit next year and have remained laser focused on the US and Canada.

Phil do you think investors need to make informed decisions?

Do you think limiting posts to those promoting the company and removing posts that point out flaws in the business plan and execution will lead to more informed decisions or less informed decisions?

I agree that MJ has been annoying but he did prompt me at one point to take a closer look at the safety profile of LBPs. For example, were you aware that there are theoretical safety risks in terms of LBPs leading to antibiotic resistant infections? I was able to look into this and conclude that the risks were sufficiently low for 0518 even though it is from a similar species to e coli.

But it goes to show that the issue of the LBPs safety profile was a bit more complex than the picture given by the Proactive interviews.

You sound like you would fit in very well in North Korea where anyone criticising the status quo would face harsh consequences. The ramping line must be the dominant truth at all times and heretics must be punished.

A bit pathetic, no?

And you say you could not see a scenario where the company went bust. In the worst biotech bear market for many years with companies shutting down left, right and centre and the company with just a few months of cash.

You gaslighted me with your comments about investors not having cool heads and being led by an emotional and fear driven response.

When in fact the rational choice was to break with the feeling of affectionate attachment to the stock, admit to a mistake, salvage what was left and move on.

I got lucky getting out when I did.

I think Oliveira sold because he didn't like the Oxford deal.

He started reducing from July onwards which was the time of the loan deal

They put the money in before they got the trial results.

They had 2 responses in Part A in RCC and 0 out of 20 in Part B

There were 0 out of 20 positive responses for 0518 /Keytruda.

4 had stable disease for 6 months which means their tumours did not grow by more than 20%.

It is unclear whether this is down to 0518.

I think the Oxford loan was there as a bridge pending a capital raise, also acting as a sign to potential investors in a placing that 4D might have other financing options.

That would explain the condition of needing a capital raise by the 1st April to be able to access the rest of the amount loaned in the 1st tranch.

Then the biotech bubble burst and placing options dried up.

They obviously were looking to avoid dilution and thought they would get to a place where they could raise at a higher price.

With hindsight they missed a trick not raising more when they listed on Nasdaq. They thought they could live hand to mouth with funding rather than doing a big raise to give them enough for 2-3 years.

It really does pose the need for questions to be asked about the suitability of such stocks for the average investor.

There is no independent evaluation of such stocks. The only broker notes 4D have had in recent years were from in house brokers plus Ladenberg Thalmann who have shall we say a a bit of a reputation.

Investors rely on management ramping and puff pieces and soft interviews from the likes of Proactive.

The low volumes mean the stocks are ripe for manipulation by pump and dump outfits and short sellers.

Mainstream funds avoid them as they don't understand the science and yet plumbers and retired factory workers are assumed to be capable of doing so.

Also being listed on Aim they have reduced disclosure requirements compared to the main index.

There's also a high rate of failure in the sector.

I don't think I was smart getting out when I did. I think I was very lucky. If it hadn't been for another poster highlighting the restrictive loan covenant I would have likely overlooked it.

If the price had not been getting manipulated down with the auto trades I would also have been caught out.

And Taverham if people have invested so much that a loss affects their health and happiness then they have invested too much.

I take no delight in seeing all this come about. I just believe in a reality based assessment of the situation rather than indulging in more wishful thinking.

Best case scenario here is that Merck buy the Micro RX platform, the assets they see value in and the IP possibly leaving 4D with one or two drugs like Blautix and some cash to get by for a year or so.

I wonder if any nasty terms were written in to the Keytruda supply agreement, like Merck being owed if 4D went bust?

Also 4D were in no rush themselves to get 0518 to patients.

At the time of the RCC data release they had only dosed 47 out of 130. By that point if they were on track they should have dosed much more.

Also 16 months after announcing the Bavencio trial they still hadn't dosed anyone. Is that the fault of "shorters"?

We all thought oh how amazing 4D are treating patients with no treatment options.

However, the reality is that such a group are the ones where many experimental treatments start as the patients are willing to try anything and the FDA are less concerned about toxicity.

The FDA themselves are trying to move companies away from this approach as early approvals from scant data have led to drugs being approved early and then having their approvals stopped once more data comes in.

To find more viable candidates for all patients the FDA want companies to start trials in earlier stage patients as you can recruit more quickly and get comprehensive data sooner.

Still living in the delusion.

There's no evidence that 0518 benefitted the patients in Part B. There was no placebo group to compare the stable disease outcomes to.

They could have had stable disease for 6 months without 0518 just from Keytruda alone. Also about 10% of the RCC patient group 0518 was trialled in would be expected to survive over 5 years without intervention so there is zero concrete evidence that 0518 had any bene?t.

That's why when they presented the results they said all they were good for was doing a trial in a larger group of patients and hoping that overall survival rates after 2 years could be demonstrated.

I honestly think Merck will not be interested in any of the 4D assets. Also I would imagine the vaccines agreement will now have been breached since surely one of the terms would have been 4D not filing for the equivalent of Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Strange that the drama queens here are screaming about mean and nasty shorters rather than addressing their own shortcomings in terms of misallocating capital to a company that was not capable of managing it responsibly.

4D is dead. Merck might buy it for pennies but they have bigger fish to fry.

Enjoy your delusions.

Looks like we will be trading at about a quid a share given the latest Klarna valuation.

Roughly 15% of their last round

If you read the McKinsey article it says they only anticipate 20% of revenue to come from banking services.

They earn money from subscriptions and trading fees.

It would be more sensible to discuss when they release the 2021 financial statement