I'm roughly of the same opinion. I think the smaller studies are needed before another case for a P3 is made.
When you say "hit the earn out clause directly linked to share price performance", can I ask what you mean by that exactly?
Unfortunately I agree with the more seasoned holders here. Last week was very exciting after we've all spent so long waiting but as we know it's all worth nothing unless we get news of substance. Fluctuations in the absence of this are therefore immaterial and very unlikely to be due to leaks. I'd be very surprised if there wasn't a massive sell-off from tomorrow as reality hits again.
I'm in agreement with your theory.
It's probably the only plausible one because the other theories of leaks or not being on this trial or that trial just holds no substance. We've never had such a leak come to fruition with this stock from what I can recall.
AJ316 hit the nail on the head - one of the only replies in the thread that actually makes sense. Also to DD - I'd like to extend my very best wishes to both of your parents.
Since Feb 21st we've done nothing but release news. Snippets here and there and nothing ground-breaking but surely more than others are doing that are trying to break new ground with therapeutics:
-potent antiviral activity against Delta and Omicron
-70% improvement in the respiratory-compromised
-accelerated viral clearance in COPD and HRV
The drip-feeding of news feels like an advertisement. How some people are implying this is going to go for around 25p I'll never know because being on the brink of a COPD pipeline alone would be worth much more than that. Whether it'll be news about a Covid trial, COPD trial, JVs for each or both, or any of the other viruses this clearly has a shot at tackling like HRV, the second we go through one of those doors the perspectives of each poster on here will change in an instant.
The numbers we were dreaming of are long gone as RM has dragged this one out longer than is now actually funny, but I'll eat my hat if this goes for 30p.
To expand on the multiple arrows comment - strong efficacy against COPD (exacerbations of which I both personally admit patients for, and treat, on a daily basis), and strong efficacy against Covid-19 in the most vulnerable.
Things couldn't be any more crystal clear for me. Synairgen are not going around with a begging bowl, and they will not be going around begging for trials. Instead I strongly believe we're letting the suitors come to us and there's likely a plan of action already in place.
Everything else is smoke and mirrors. Including the numpties that feel the need to grace us with their presence daily, as well as the show the company put on this week.
Thanks for your responses SNG2022 and Tommy, much appreciated.
So the first reply suggests 30% would allow them to bid the highest price they paid for a share within the previous year. The second reply implies the 30% allows them to settle for outside offers.
Does this mean that reaching 30% allows them to both table a bid but also give them the power to accept any outside bids?
I was under the impression that to buy the company after Feb 2023 for 30p then you'd have to have sellers at 30p and to force those sellers to sell you needed 90%. Therefore if they're never going to get 90% then why would they even bother bidding at 30% knowing nobody will ever be on board with that. Or am I wrong with this?
Long story short I'm just as confused as anyone as to what they're ultimately up to. What does TFG reaching 30% actually give them the right to do? I know this has been discussed ad nauseum on here but I could do with my memory being refreshed!
Just brainstorming any other potential platform trials that we could be eligible for in the coming months.
PANORAMIC to my knowledge is recruiting patients by the shed-load with over 20,000 patients already enrolled. The trial arms of SoC + Molnupiravir and now SoC + Paxlovid makes me wonder why a drug with proven efficacy of 70% compared to placebo wouldn't be given the same time of day given that they're looking for "novel antivirals" as they become available to be used "for many years to come".
It's the trial's partnership with the University of Southampton that catches my attention, particularly Professor Nick Francis of Primary Care Research at UoS due to his work concerning respiratory conditions - especially asthma, COPD, and now Long-Covid. He's spoken about IFN being used in asthma and COPD trials before but the kicker is that this is one of the guys that ran our home trial, during which he was recorded as saying that they were looking for people early in the illness to give SNG001 to.
The inclusion criteria of the trial are hit and miss and I'm probably clutching at straws with this particular trial what with the agents they already have and also with our efficacy being proven in a completely different setting and cohort, but the patient target for the trial leaves room for more novel therapeutics. I wouldn't necessarily rule this PT out as an option if ACTIV2 comes good - but happy to be corrected.
Doubt it. I could be wrong but as far as I'm aware UNIVERSAL isn't a PT (happy to be corrected). It's an observational study and probably not the PT that RM and co were hoping to use to further explore SPRINTER'S findings. Is this our UK trial we were hoping to be on though? Yeah probably.
Expecting further news on trials, but exciting news this morning nonetheless. Hello J&J and Astrazeneca!
Many thanks for posting.
Further evidence that Synairgen still have SNG001 as a treatment of Covid-19 in their crosshairs. If they knew what's good for them they'd know that time isn't on their side when it comes to other emerging therapeutics. So good news in my opinion if they're still aiming for that.
Rubbing shoulders with other very big names at the event too I see.
Reference, no. Relevance, absolutely.
Interferon use as an immune-modulator against viral illnesses is something I'm feeling the pharma world are now almost laser-focused on at the moment. It's almost palpable. It's why I strongly believe we hold more cards than some think we do and moves are being made on science's terms and not on the terms of PIs or even IIs.
I won't be getting carried away because as well as talking the talk with all the science, at the end of the day we have to eventually walk the walk as well and unfortunately we're still walking the plank. But this isn't a tweakage in the dose of a painkiller or antibiotic we're talking about. This is a brand new approach to therapeutics which could be a cornerstone in modern medicine just like penicillin and insulin were if it turns out the way we hope it will.
I had the pleasure of working in the very building that insulin was discovered and i could sense the grandeur of what must have taken place. Synairgen are taking their sweet time with whatever it is they're doing but if we have to run one more trial to be sure of our findings then so be it. We all saw how close we got to having our product in drug cupboards earlier this year.
70% improvement in the compromised isn't a laughing matter - a lot of eyes are still on us despite what a lot of people think, and our next move is critical.
Getting on on a platform trial such as STRIVE, having yet another additional positive ACTIV2 dataset, and potentially a hint of a positive effect on LC, should surely be enough to make a keen buyer/partner come along.
I've thought about this for some time and the question was recently asked that if that were the case and that's all a potential buyer/partner is looking for before they make their move then why didn't anyone come knocking before SPRINTER results were announced? Well I've thought about the answer to that too which was back then the circumstances were different and we thought we were fully in control of our own destinies and probably said no to anybody that did come knocking.
With the reality check firmly in place now that that's no longer the case if we want to get a therapeutic out there and commercialised before somebody beats us to it, I'd like to think a much stronger consideration is given to any offer that comes along over the next few months.
I'm choosing to end the ridiculousness of the argument that came before this post and I'll open the floor up to people's thoughts on whether they think the company will let somebody else take over the torch before the year end?
I'm of a similar mindset to Axe here. Surely them staying within the remits of the 25% mark should have been enough for them. The 27% being reached is surely a bit more than them wanting as many returns as they can get. It feels more like they're in so deep that they may as well keep going all the way and do something with it now rather than continue planning for the fruits of a future trial's result.
Thanks to those of you who replied to my question in this thread, I've only just caught up!
Good to know the general feel is that they're not up to no good and are in this for good returns as we are.
Am I right in assuming that if they're going to pass the threshold then surely it'll be a bidding war and a TO will take this out of everyone's hands, but if they stop short of 30% then it'll just be so that they hold a sizeable stake to give them just enough power to block any low-priced JV deals?
Cheers all.
Good post Brighty.
On another note, this is the third time I've seen someone suggest Poly may be waiting until next year so their bid won't have to be as high as 200p. I've always thought this was nonsense - just wondering what everyone's thoughts are as this keeps being brought up?