Member Info for semantic

Dmac's assessment is the most sober and reasonable I have seen here for many months (apart from my own).

Still this obsession with TB and nothing thoughtful about the underlying businesses, which of course are unaffected by who owns their shares. I noticed that Tom Winnifrith also has an obsession with TB, his piece on Friday was bizarre in it's frothing at the mouth about vaguely nothing of substance. - again no mention of the underlying business. Btw, for the 'mr marketistas' (where are they?) both shares moved up on separate volume after the announcement. A question for the market whisperers: What is the market saying?

When people are guessing, most here seem to impute negative explanations for events. What might a positive interpretation be? Being neutral means attributing equal weighting to negative and positive explanations. We none of us know for sure but how about: Consolidating the two holdings of the concert party in a single new place ends for ever the complicated and incessant considerations which flow from a concert party. Given TB's very advanced years, transferring his shares to an entity which will outlive him, ensures the holding isn't broken up or acquired cheaply and opportunistically on his demise. The sharper eyes here will have noticed that the transaction at market price has resulted in a significant loss the the sellers. The transfer price has been more or less available in the market for anyone to sell or buy, for months. A transaction like this would be possible only after regulators and the Nomad had scrutinised it.

Out of curiosity I did a search on valuation norms when using a multiple of sales to compare it with the current market cap of IQAI - £2.5m

"Valuing a meditech company often involves using revenue multiples, which can vary based on several factors such as the company's growth stage, market conditions, and specific sector within meditech. Here are some general guidelines:

1. Early-Stage Companies: Typically valued at lower multiples, around 4.5x to 5.5x revenuehttps://sharpsheets.io/blog/healthtech-startup-valuation-multiples/https://www.healthcare.digital/single-post/healthtech-m-a-multiples-current-trends-and-variables-driving-valuations.

2. Mid-Sized Companies: These might see multiples ranging from 5.0x to 7.0x https://www.healthcare.digital/single-post/healthtech-m-a-multiples-current-trends-and-variables-driving-valuations.

3. Large Companies: More established companies can have multiples from 7.0x to 9.0x or higherhttps://www.healthcare.digital/single-post/healthtech-m-a-multiples-current-trends-and-variables-driving-valuations.

Specific sectors within meditech also have different average multiples:

• Telehealth Companies: Around 5.5x revenuehttps://www.healthcare.digital/single-post/healthtech-m-a-multiples-current-trends-and-variables-driving-valuations.

• Medical Device Companies: Approximately 5.0x revenuehttps://www.healthcare.digital/single-post/healthtech-m-a-multiples-current-trends-and-variables-driving-valuations.

• Healthcare IT Companies: About 3.5x revenuehttps://www.healthcare.digital/single-post/healthtech-m-a-multiples-current-trends-and-variables-driving-valuations.

These multiples reflect the high growth potential and innovation within the meditech industry."

Have you searched using "What is the value of the Glioblastoma drug market" ?

Paladin, this was related only to the potential value of a successful series of trials resulting in an FDA approval for the drug, which IB could then sell exclusively for seven years. The value at the endpoint would presumably be a large number, however to get to that point, a number of risks would have had to be eliminated en route. To each of these risks a % probability can be guessed at and discounted, for example the risk of a failure in phase 2, the risk of a competing mediation being available and so forth. Using this approach you arrive at a NPV. This is a rational approach to the problem of valuation employed by pharma companies who are required to estimate value by their auditors, as presumably so will IB at some stage. I think you need to step back a bit and forget about parochial preoccupations like TB in this exercise. The NPV will have nothing at all to do with what happened this year or last, or whether the share price is 5p or 1p in last months. Or what TB did (assuming he is still alive). You can easily research to find comparable values of FDA approved drugs for various diseases and conditions. That's the relatively easy bit, the hard part is estimating the discount to a fair value today

The current market cap is £2.6m. This is equivalent to the net present value of £4m in 5 years time at 7%. So 'the market' is 'saying' that the expected price of the shares, assuming no changes in share capital would be 1.8p in September 2029. 7% compound isn't too shabby is it? It would mean the buyer of £4's of shares yesterday would be sitting on a holding worth £6.15 !

Https://www.cancer.gov/news-events/cancer-currents-blog/2022/phase-1-cancer-clinical-trials-benefit-participants

Https://www.alacrita.com/whitepapers/valuing-pharmaceutical-assets-when-to-use-npv-vs-rnpv

https://www.biopharmavantage.com/pharma-biotech-valuation-best-practices

"Valuation and Returns of Drug Development Companies: Lessons for Bioentrepreneurs and Investors" This is an open access piece of research which might be helpful

Bertie, try this

"What is the $ value of a successfully completed phase one trial?"

Geeforce, the point I was making was that 'the market' as a rational determinant of value as in 'efficient market hypothesis' is a myth for shares which are rarely traded in serious size and are virtually invisible to serious investors. Do you think 'the market' has used its favourite AI tool to explore the value of a phase one trial? ....Now all of you, please log in to your favourite AI and ask the question. You have 15 minutes from ....now. We can then collate the responses and discuss what if anything it might mean.

Something to amuse. Using your favourite AI tool, ask a question about the value of a phase one trial..

If the shares trade al all, this is a typical day, 5 trades averaging £4.42p each. Is this 'the market' that some people here refer to.'The market' that is allegedly wary of TB, the market that is valuing the Company after careful and considered analysis of the copious public information available, and after rational extrapolation of the interims figures ? Whatever others attribute to the significance of the market price and trading in the shares, to me it seems like trivial and meaningless randomness.

The fat lady hasn't even arrived at the opera house yet...

A few months ago I asked TB. "Why are there so few video interviews now compared with past years when so much more is happening?" The answer I got was that is that as nothing new or material can be presented in an interview for regulatory reasons, the only consequence of interviews in the past had been a flurry of activity by sort term traders leading to a short term uplift followed by profit taking and inevitable complaints by the stale bull traders stuck at higher levels and pressure for more news or presentations to bail them out. When I suggested the majority of longer term holders might be interested he said that there was sufficient information flow from RNSs and reports.

Today typically, there is a £15.01 consideration buy, following nunpence trades yesterday and days before....even those who blame TB for everything can't hold him responsible for this bizarre attention - does anyone have an explanation?

£84 worth of shares traded today, and you wonder why the directors seem to have stopped caring about the share price

Geeforce "a subset of patients have exceeded median life expectancy" - 'excellent' doesn't really come close to covering the potential significance of this.

I can only speak for myself but I think the current share price is irrelevant. The key variable is time. Many holders locked in will sell as news comes in and feel relieved My guess is that most posters here are just desperate to get out, are upset at their losses and are more concerned with blaming something or someone for their predicament. Assuming the share price drifts up, it is likely to be still in low single figures until and unless major news arrives. By major I mean approval for the drug or more likely, a collaborative deal en route to approval, wider acceptance of the new software/AI tools currently being developed, for the management of brain tumours and other cancers - this might come from the software becoming the 'gold standard' for treatment, further sales to major cancer centres, and other initiatives being currently developed. So to summarise, I have little interest in a share price movement of a few hundred percent, either this will come out right or it will not, the random walk of the share-price reflects nothing of interest meanwhile. So the question becomes, how long before this all pans out, none of us know the answer but it may explain why the board is not focussed on the relatively trivial movements in the share price compared with the locked in loss holding shareholders, who frankly just want to get out and have no interest in the company beyond that. The obsession in some quarters with TB is symptomatic of this perspective, do they really think that for example if the FDA approves the drug, shareholders are going to be concerned about TB (assuming he's still alive)?