Member Info for Size82

Docdaneeka, you have to remember a global trial was chosen to make sure the trial actually finished. RM always said the biggest risk was not finishing because of a lack of patients. I accept mixing developed and developing countries as a bad mistake. Still India and Brazil for example are big markets (potenially).

Agree on Parexel not delivering the consistency they should have. Polygon probably want Synairgen to sue them lol. Maybe the silence is because a law suit is being prepared behind the scenes. Lol, who knows....

I also accept your point on the trial size being signed off by the board.

As mentioned below, the communication post readout was non existent so perhaps more will come out at the AGM on the trial flaws. However, the trial was deemed fit for purpose at the half way point and assumed to be on track for success so difficult to know how they would have known to extend at that point or after without unblinded data (until too late). Given the opportunity at the AGM I hope the futility test is probed and the impact of steroids use raised. It does appear that those in the 70% efficacy category weren't effected by steroids given the high percentage, but maybe they were....

Don't disagree with any of your comments on bonuses.

Axe C, Re. Moaning about the company taking 20 years.

Basically we just need to face facts on the Sprinter trial, probably a 10% to 15% risk materialised. While perhaps some blame can be attributed to the board there are arguably more culperable factors at play, namely: administration of SoC accross jurisdictions, not all doses given in a timely fashion if at all, overall improvement of SoC, watered down trial size from c.a. 1000 (apparently) to 600 influenced by the FDA which hampered statistical significance, possible impact of weakening of variants - although lab work suggests otherwise, vaccinations...to name a few.

To be critical:
1) I do apportion blame on the choice of primary end points. This seems far too cute.

2). Undoubtedly communication to share holders should have been better in late Feb / March, but I guess the team where trying to figure out what had happened. After all they had enough confidence to raise a lot of money to run the trial - pretty big decision - so a small team were blindsided by the result.

However, on risk... this investment is in a drug research company so even strong scientific evidence might not translate to commercialisation.

Despite all of the above we have 70% efficacy in a pretty important sub set of hospitalised patients with a virus that appears to be endemic. Not a bad outcome after all perhaps.....

Funding has clearly been an issue and the need for trial redesign, but I just don't get how this hasn't been fast tracked by the NIH given the lack of alternatives and the continued rate of hospitalisations and sadly deaths. Doesn't seem rational.

Manifesto, I should have added. When you think about all these different permutations / uncertainties / risks it is easy to see why Fincap (for example) have sat on the fence and simply stated SP Target under Review! GLA

Manifesto, in terms of the Covid market the deep dive showed SNG001 is only needed for those really struggling (c.a. 1/3 of the trial) and not all patients admitted to hospital. Maybe a platform trial will show all patients admitted to hospital should receive it (I.e. efficacy 40% to 50%) and the 'trend' shown to be statistically significant.

The bigger question is whether or not hospitals should stock pile the drug for variants that are vaccine evasive and / or other respiratory viruses. Probably, but needs more evidence.

In terms of fair valuation we need to think about future cash flows and who will receive the drug. Taking a conservative view you'd limit use to those who really need it as per the deep dive. Lower income to discount back. Then think about a discount rate to use.?!

However, SNG001 could still be used in the home setting subject to Activ 2 phII results. This would significantly increase the future earnings. Further more how far out would r&d capex for COPD be cash flowed and what would the future COPD net income look like. I have no idea. These are all valuation scenarios which would likely be assessed by any bidder. Also complete failure would be added and assigned a probability in determining a fair price. Certainly, the closer we are to possible commercialisation (getting on a platform trial would help) the lower the probability of failure.

To answer your question I have no idea what a fair market price should look like, but if we get on a platform trial and see good Activ 2 data it's a lot more than the current sp. All food for thought.
Good luck all

Well said Axe C

Also with a US funded trial it might stopped early so the timelines could be accelerated.

It is worth remembering as well that the regulators want SNG001 to succeed (as stated by RM).

Your following description is my base case scenario on assuming what will happen.

"If the Activ-2 data is good and we are included in a clinical trial AND the US continues to support anti-virus measures".

We already know the activ 2 data is good (enough to pass whereas all others failed), we have been told discussions to be included in platform trials are live and we know the Biden administration wants to be pandemic prepared.

If this all happens then I won't be surprised if Synairgen try to commercialise themselves.

They'll only be a T/O if the price is right and Polygon agree. They won't want to see too much value left on the table IMO

"220 for inclusion on a clinical trial when the potential sales are much smaller than before The RNS?

NO."

I agree with you. I don't think we'd see 220 gbx as Numeris write for getting on a trial or doing a jv.
As you state the market will want to see positive platform trial results / authorisation.

However, this isn't just a covid play. Pandemic preparedness could see huge stock piling of SNG001.

"They will have to pass the endpoints of their clinical trial before authorisation is granted"

No sh*t

Thanks Doc, very helpful. So the target sp of 220 gbx is for getting a new trial underway by whatever means asides from funding it ourself.

Aether, my interpretation of the Numeris sp target is not the sp after a successful trial has been conducted, but just to get one started.

IMO a successful outcome of such a trial will result in a serious return.

Doc, don't disagree it's out of our hands though...

Also Aether the last Numeris note I saw with 220 gbx price target was pre Sprinter DD results presented at the ATS. Have you seen a more recent one and did they mention what is required to happen in order to achieve it?

Hi Aether, I read the Numeris note. I also read the Finncap one from the 25th May. They have the sp target under review but "see substantial upside" should Synairgen be included in a govt. Funded platform trial or undertake another trial in JV.
IMO, either will lead to authorisation and sales which will result in many multiples on my investment. I stand by that. I also think 12 to 24 months max is a realistic timeline.
GLA

Doc, depends on your definition on long term investor!! If you mean those that invested for COPD pre Feb '20 them I'd agree with you, but they've had the unexpected opportunity of covid and probably in for free if still holding . I've been invested since early April '20 and don't consider myself a long term investor yet. I do have a long term view though. That said, I expect (hope) to receive many multiples on my investment within the next 12 to 24 months (and hopefully sooner). I have been able to take advantage of the sp collapse to trebble my holdings and massively lower my average price, but have huge sympathy for those who haven't been able to so. I have even more sympathy for those that had to sell at a loss like big johny. Good luck all.

I don't disagree with any of those five points (although I'm less concerned on competition), however, I think risks 2-5 are manageable especially targeting those that specifically need SNG001. As an investor that's prepared to sit tight I can stomach those risks and would prefer to see it out rather than see the company sold on the cheap.

As previously stated I do think a licencing deal (jv) with big pharma could work, but would alter the risk / reward profile. It would obviously reduce the upside from commercialisation though. Aether & all good luck.

Aether, I disagree. The very reason (and to quote you) "Big Pharma are aware of SNG and how lucrative it can be" is exactly the very reason why I don't want a takeover on the cheap. Why would would an investor want to "extricate [themselves] from this share" so quickly. Everyone seems to be in a hurry. The initial sprinter trial results were a major set back (and resulted in massive paper losses for many), but as you succinctly write below there is a clear path forwards with caveats on US funding. However, there are other platform trials that have been mentioned on this board. I think a big dollop of patience is required and we might all end up being surprised. IMO, this looks a serious opportunity especially at current sp levels.
GLA

Hi Aether, Polygon are in for the big bucks. I just don't see them selling out on the cheap if there is half a chance of sng001 getting to market (which there clearly is). If they thought this was a dud they'd have sold out at a loss by now. They'll be seeking many multiples on their investment even if it means holding for a couple more years.

I'd take 2 years for full commercialisation whilst retaining independence. The combination of both would result in a multi billion market cap. That said a platform trial won't take two years to complete, especially a US one as they'll just stop it of the results look good. Andy just crystallised a loss so feel for him, although at times i have taken his posts with a large pinch of salt. Sold his shares on the cheap. Good luck to th new owners.
All eyes on US covid funding.
GLA

Definitely agree on Polygon's position. I really hope we can remain indipendent and commercialise SNG001. I will be bitter if we are sold for a few £ (or less) and the drug goes on to be a blockbuster for one of the big pharmaceutical companies. I certainly agree the direction of travel will be revealed sooner rather than later, but I don't think its the end if we don't end up on a US funded programme for a further trial. I think we will though.
GLA

Licencing deal with big pharma could still be very lucrative. I suspect Synairgen are on the radar of more than one - especially after the ATS. Competition is a wonderful thing...... in terms of running out of cash that ain't going to happen as large share holders could aways inject a few £m to keep the lights on.... I don't think it will be necessary though.

Granted Activ 2 data will help in the short term, but if the US funding dries up and the programme is officially cancelled then I'm sure we'd get the data any way to then leverage.

It might not seem it but I don't think Synairgen are in a break or make moment. The fact is we're sitting on what will be a very lucrative, multi viral use drug. IMO now is the time to buy shares on the cheap but realistically we could be talking at least 12 months until commercialisation. That said, you never know. Platform trial could start this summer and be stopped early due to positive data.