Member Info for SocialistB

@TakingMyTime

Thank you for your input.

I have always enjoyed your comeback and comments.

We had some good discussions/conversations years back.

So it's good to see you back on the board again.

Hope you're enjoying the new chapter of your life, that you started quite a while back now.

Regarding your input.

You're absolutely right to point out that GGP can and will get a high return on the capital it invest these years, with everything that lies ahead of the company and maybe in surrounding tenements.

When I am in favour of dividends, I am not advocating for paying out most of the money to a degree that leaves the company in a precarious situation.

It is purely the difference in philosophy or approach, take your pick of how to get money out of the investment.

My preferred option, is to keep all my shares and get dividends and do as I please with that sum of money.

Is it the best way, the highest return?

I have no idea, but it is my preferred one.

Even if it was a couple of percent lower in the long run.

If it was 50 percent lower, I would have to reevaluate my stance (and probably way sooner)

So for now, let Mr Day, save up and invest as he pleases, that is currently the best company builder and hence per definition the highest ROI.

Having said that, a small dividend would not go amiss.

I know exactly where I would invest the money, to get an expected multi bag in the near future:-)

@speedymeadie and Dozer77.

Based on my at times bad experiences with using AI, I cannot disagree with the Crux of your posts.

I have experienced Ai getting facts wrong, relying on the wrong set of facts for the purpose of the task and worst of all, making up stuff to appease me or complete the task I had given it.

The last bit was the worst.

But basically, you can expect the same kind of mistakes from So, as you can from a human being.

So, NO, you cannot trust it implicitly.

You must always have your wit about you and some common knowledge.

Otherwise you can easily be fooled.

Just like you can be fooled by another person.

However, it does not change the fact that it does make my life easier.

I give it some sentences, had a bit back and forth with AI, and the result is better then anything I could ever have come up with on my own.

It's more concise, it's less emotional, it's easier for people to read in many cases.

So it is a valuable tool.

But nothing more then that.

Because I have my biased view, it is always good to publish it and hear the counter arguments.

I have had the discussion about dividends or not with JerrySpanial since December 2019.

We disagree on that specific point.

I think this was my clearest input and it was the one that took the shortest time to compose on a line for line basis.

The points in this particular post is more about preference then facts, well that is how I see it anyway.

And Ai can build a good argument for you on your and its own biases.

Good to then publish it and get it tested by people with a different point of view.

Good for enriching my knowledge.

@MH01 and Kent_Man

You're most welcome:-)

Ai is fantastic, glad you spotted it.

A post like that would have taken me several hours in the past to research and compose.

Those days are long gone now.

My brief was why dividends was good and preferred from the points if view I mentioned.

If you have other points, please run it yourself and post it, it's good for debate.

Or upload my post and test it with Ai.

No longer do we have to spend hours on a task, so not really an excuse for not doing so anymore.

Good counter arguments are always good for debate, however they are produced.

Why Dividends Could and Should Matter to Long‑Term Investors.

There’s a common argument that companies shouldn’t pay dividends because shareholders can “just sell a few percent of their shares each year” if they want income.

In theory, that sounds neat. In practice, many long‑term investors value dividends for reasons that go far beyond simple cash flow.

1. Dividends let you keep your ownership intact

Selling shares to generate income permanently reduces your stake. Dividends don’t.

For investors who want to build and hold a long‑term position—possibly for life—this matters. Dividends allow you to enjoy the return without shrinking the asset you’ve spent years accumulating.

2. Dividends give flexibility without forcing hard choices

This is something I’ve felt personally.

Over the last couple of years, I have sold a meaningful number of shares in GGP to increase my position in another opportunity I believe will multi bag.

I’m happy with the new investment, but it still hurts to have reduced my original holding.

If the GGP had been paying dividends, I could have used that income over time to build the new position without selling a single share.

That’s exactly why dividends matter to me: they let you act on opportunities without cannibalising your core holdings.

3. Mature, cash‑generative companies should return capital

In the early growth phase, reinvesting everything makes sense.

But as companies scale, they eventually reach a point where:

not every dollar can be reinvested at high returns

excess cash risks being wasted on poor acquisitions

large institutional investors expect a yield

the business becomes stable enough to support a regular payout

This is why virtually every large, long‑life mining company on major exchanges pays dividends.

It’s not a sign of weakness—it’s a sign of discipline and financial maturity.

4. Dividends don’t stop growth—they give shareholders choice

A sensible dividend policy still leaves plenty of cash for expansion, M&A, and de‑risking. The difference is that shareholders get to decide what to do with their share of the profits:

reinvest

buy other opportunities

or use the income

One policy, multiple outcomes.

5. Dividends align with long‑term wealth building

Some investors want to maximise internal compounding.

Others want to build a stake they can live off and eventually pass on intact.

Dividends support that second philosophy perfectly.

They provide a real return today while preserving the full ownership for tomorrow.

The essence

Dividends aren’t about being “in love with income”. They’re about ownership, flexibility, discipline, and long‑term alignment.

They allow investors to keep their shares, act on opportunities, and enjoy the rewards of a company’s success without slowly selling down the very asset they believe in.

Funding has been secured for roughly 6 months and maybe even longer.

The RNS' state among other things:

"In parallel, management has undertaken a concerted effort to significantly reduce the Company's burn rate."

How low?

Who knows (other then management, of course:-)

Point is they have public stated that message again, and I for one, rightly or wrongly, put a lot of significance on that information.

With a monthly low burn rate, and the major main expense being the trial costs when HG-CT-1 is produced and in the initial part of the treatment of a patient, then these 2.5 million, can reach far, if administered smartly.

A smart move would be to let TIME do a lot of the heavy lifting.

Would it be nice to treat half a dozen patients straight away? (More about that later)

Sure.

But it would also be expensive for HEMOGENYX to bear that burden alone and it would cause significant dilution to raise the funds to do this in a FDA approved trial in the USA.

Talking about time, that leads to TIMING.

Perfect time to raise the funds.

The 1 year anniversary for Patient 1 is right around the corner.

It ought to be a value infliction point.

An overhanging funding issue could potentially had hampered a share price rise.

Funding is now sorted for the foreseeable future., so that issue will not be able to hold back a potential rise.

If, as I suspect, the funding is more then sufficient to stretch beyond 6 months if applied frugally and in a smart way, then we have funding to take us beyond the 1 year anniversary of both Patients 2&3.

Remember Patient 3, no detectable original blast's after 28 days ( look up the RNS' from 17-9-2025, yourself)

What a set of DATA points we will have then.

Talking about which, the MADE SCIENTIFIC, transfer is almost complete, Patient 1, has their 1 year anniversary, with that in mind, I expect progress on the ESTONIA deal.

It will be self funded, I assume, maybe even cash generating.

One thing that is for certain is it will generate DATA and it will prove up what MADE SCIENTIFIC, can do, can they deliver, are there still some fine tuning that needs to be done.

And this is where we come back to the issue of treating half a dozen of patients straight away. (But for free and without any form of dilution)

All is value creation.

All sets of data elevates our position of strength when negotiating.

So here is a HUGE thank you to today's investors, from the bottom of my heart.

On the 24th of February 2025, it was announced that:

"Hemogenyx Pharmaceuticals plc (LSE: HEMO) is pleased to announce the administration of its first-in-human dose of HG-CT-1, its proprietary CAR-T cell therapy, for the treatment of relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (R/R AML) in adults. This marks a major milestone in the Company's clinical development program, demonstrating progress toward delivering a potentially life-saving treatment for AML patients with limited therapeutic options."

"Dr. Vladislav Sandler, CEO & Co-Founder of Hemogenyx Pharmaceuticals, commented: "We are thrilled to take this critical step in advancing the development of HG-CT-1. This milestone not only validates our years of research and development, but also brings us closer to providing a transformative treatment for patients suffering from relapsed or refractory AML."

It has long been argued that the injection most likely took place before the 24th.

It means, we now have less than 20 days until we reach the fantastic milestone that 1 year post treatment is.

We will probably first get the clinical data a few weeks later.

But all that matters not to me.

1 year is a milestone for Patient 1 and for HEMOGENYX as well.

Add to that, that Patient 3 showed no signs of the original blast's 28 days after their injection.

Any cosmic justice available and this company and it's share price should be going somewhere.

(Upwards, just had to add that for the doubters:-)

Maybe Bed and Isa

@Saint68

You are probably right.

A special dividend might not be paid.

For instance because:

The deal we make does not pay enough

Mr Sandler and the BOD has learnt the hard way how difficult it can be to raise money on the open market, and for that reason thinks every penny in the coffer is the best option.

But, I'm a dreamer.

I think it would be lovely with both an increasing share price and a special dividend (if it can be afforded effortlessly:-)

I would not have to sell a single share to benefit from the company's good fortune.

Strategic it could be a smart move by the BOD and Mr Sandler to keep as many shares in sticky hands as possible.

I doubt, I'm the only one who wants to get a bit of cash in my hands from this investment.

So the argument is, it would be a smart move of the company to get me to hold onto my shares by rewarding me for doing so.

As long as it is a financial sound decision to do so.

@Moorscloud, Saint68 and HereforHemo.

Mr Sandler has proven that he can develop a product on a shoe string

If we get enough money in the coffer, then there would be a posibility of a special dividend

lets say 10 pound a share.

That would cost Hemogenyx in the region of 60 Million quid.

To me that does not seem a problem if we get 1 Billion for HG-CT-1

I'd argue it it would even be possible if we only got 500 Million for HG-CT-1

But I would always listen to Mr Sandler and the BOD, if they say better not, then I accept that.

Even 2 ponds would not be a bad sum, it would still be a good percentage interest for many.

@HereforHemo, yes I think you are onto something, it makes sense it all have to come good before a deal is announced

although not all of them are equally important.

If you are expecting a RNS' announcing a JV or license deal or outright sale of HG-CT-1 with a big foreign pharmaceutical company, then I think it fair to assume that an RNS' will most likely occur at a time of day where both stock exchanges are open at the same time, or depending on the time difference, relatively shortly before the start/finish of one of them.

I do not think it will be announced on one continent while it is dead in the middle of the night on the other.

Not saying it cannot happen, just that it seems like bad bedside manners.

All other kinds of RNS' could easily arrive at 0700 any day.

Like the completion of transfer to MADE SCIENTIFIC, for instance.

To me it makes complete logical sense that a big pharma are not announcing a deal with HEMOGENYX until that bit is sorted.

Just imagine the potential negative reputational damage of signing a multi billion deal and then later having to say that it is not technically possible to produce the product the way it was originally thought.

It would make any buyer look like a ............?

When the tech transfer has been sorted, I expect a deal to be announced in relatively short succession.

What kind of deal you ask, I got no clue.

(But as long as it gives us enough money to pay a special dividend and develop CBR, I am most likely going to consider it to be a good deal)

I think today's RNS' at 0700 was housekeeping exercise.

Back then the number of shares was announced to be 6,041,255.

The exact same number as in today's RNS'.

When nothing have changed, why release an RNS' ?

I think we can soon expect news.

What kind? What kind of fundraising will we get?

Who knows?

But I expect it to be anything but the company is about to go bust.

There has until recently been a lot of scaremongering going on, based on words in a prospectus from November 2025.

I'll argue that the doom and gloom has been a wrong assertion the whole time, from the very beginning.

2 trading days left of January 2026.

And not a hint of a placing to raise money on the market.

I doubt very much more then 5 million can be raised today and tomorrow and that we will go bust come Monday.

Had we raised around 6 million by now, great, fully funded for 2026.

The absence of that fact, should tell you a lot.

A BOD has a responsibility to run a company in an orderly manner.

So, as there has been no official attempts to raise money on the market, no official fire sale of one of our candidates, and a heavily reduced monthly cash burn compared to this time last year, we are not in an immediate need for more then 5 million to get through the whole of 2026.

I do not know what the BOD and CEO have lined up, but I am sure it is not nothing.

If you think nothing good will come over the next few days, couple of months, you better sell into the recent share price rise.

Me, I am still staying put.

@GB1875

Thanks for your reply.

This is just a bit of pastime, while we wait.

In my layman's view, based on what I have read in various RNS' and heard from Mr Sandler and the logic underpinning excellent posts on this board, and the events taking place, with HG-CT-1 being allowed to progress to pediatric trials and dose escalation after data from just 2 patients we can't really discuss the merit of the science of HG-CT-1.

It's simply downright fantastic.

End of story from my layman point if view.

If I have understood Mr Sandler right, then a big issue he had with CDX, was that no doctors wanted to use it on their patients, didn't dare to sign up for clinical trials, it was simply to novel, to new territory, to risky, when you do have medicine that does work.

Medicine that might only give the patients a few months extra, it might have side effects, but none the less, it works, it buys time.

Years back, to jump on the CDX, wagon was simply to uncharted territory for a responsible doctor, when there was known working alternatives present, however bad the side effects might be.

It's my understanding that, this was also one of the reasons behind the shift in focus from CDX, which was once our lead product, and over to focusing on Car-t and what have now become HG-CT-1.

And what a fantastic choice that shift has been.

It's s my understanding that HG-CT-1 is in theory proving up not just itself as everyday goes by, but also CDX.

So from that point if view your suggestion that HG-CT-1 and CDX, must go together makes perfect sense.

And, I am not saying that Mr. Sandler can't pull a rabbit out of the hat and achieve a fantastic deal that involves both of these products.

Doctors, scientists and big pharma might now start to believe in CDX, based of the fantastic merits of HG-CT-1.

So as someone mentioned earlier on this board, why not sell, license, jv - anything, whatever brings money into the coffer and minimize our risk and exposure.

A good deal, is a good deal.

My view is that if we had 2 successful products in HG-CT-1 and CDX, then those are worth between 5-10 Billion in themselves and over time. (Conservative estimate, depending on how broad a spectrum, CDX ends up having)

Any deal that gets us up in that region, is a good deal.

Only bad deal, is one that involves CBR and were we do not get to achieve it's full potential.

@GB1875

You said: "I can't see a scenario where Big Pharma would enter into a deal for HG-CT-1 without CDX as part of that deal."

I agree, there is a lot going for that argument.

My point is that if we sell 10-20 of HG-CT-1 to a VC today and get 30-40 million.

Then it's a good deal for both parties.

More clinical data on HG-CT-1, equals higher value.

Proving CDC, better then the evidence we have today, will also increase the value of CDX.

Currently a buyer of HG-CT-1 will hopefully pay a good sum for that very product, but be less inclined to do the same for CDX.

I want a good sum for both.

Get some money in the coffer with no other strings attached from VC, that a deal is made in regard to HG-CT-1.

And we can better increase the value of both candidates.

Cleanest way, less risk of disagreement in court and so forth with a major pharmaceutical company about royalty and various payments.

Over the weekend I thought about the best deal possible and went back and forth in a debate with Ai and got some interesting suggestions.

And I have come to the conclusion that unless we get a deal that only involved HG-CT-1 alone, we are risking selling us to cheap as any demands for access to CDC, will not likely give us fair value as it has not been proven up enough yet.

It will though one day, but we need to get there first and to do that we need money.

I suggest the best deal possible is to sell a small slice (10–20%) of HG‑CT‑1 to raise ~$30–40M. That cash lets us stop constant fundraising and actually build value and is more then enough to progress HG-CT-1 according to last year's prospectus.

Why it makes sense:

We keep control — only a minority sale, so we still run HG‑CT‑1, and CDX is out of the picture for the time being, allowing value creation steps to be taken.

A VC buyer will want quick progress — they could more than double their money in ~2 years and will not have a share in CDX.

We keep developing CDX and CBR ourselves, preserving the big upside.

When HG-CT-1, one day is worth BILLIONS and CDC, had been proven up, then they can both be sold to the same buyer for a good price.

Bottom line: a minority sale of HG‑CT‑1 gets real cash now, accelerates development, and keeps the big upside with us. Thoughts?

@mornington-oz

100 Pound a share, sounds like a joke.

I agree.

HG-CT-1, ought to be worth so much more.

@100 Pounds a share, it would be a pricetag only in the 600 million category.

If we go by the "years and BILLIONS" statement and assume it was made for HG-CT-1 alone, well then at 2 BILLIONS, it should amount to more then 300 a share (around 6 million shares in issue)

Some are dreaming of HEMOGENYX being sold as an entity, with CDX and CBR.

I don't.

Especially CBR is to valuable to me. But I don't diss CDX, in any way, form or shape, CBR is just were my heart lies.

If Mr Sandler says he is tired of all the games he has witnessed over the years, regarding funding and decides it is better to work for a Big Pharma and sell up, to gain that protection that comes from such a situation, then I kind of get it.

I don't like it.

I don't want it.

But if the price is right, then I'll be able to retire early.

There will be some comfort in that, while bawling my eyes out in despair of the missed opportunity.

Because until I am told that, CBR is dead in the water, it has infinite value in my mind.

A product that so far has shown promise to some cancers in the brain and elsewhere in the body.

Shown to work against several deadly and severe viruses.

In theory should be able to be configured to be effective against disease X, in a short period of time (read virus X)

The value is immense.

Until proven it does not work on these issues, then based on what we know from various RNS', they do work in my mind.

If an offer of 12 BILLION came on the table for the whole of HEMOGENYX, I'd say it still to cheap.

BUT with an intrinsic value in the region of 2000 Pounds a share, even I would have to accept it is an undeniable gateway to riches beyond belief.

But I'll rather stay the journey, so I hope only for a sale of HG-CT-1.

Which would kickstarte CDX and CBR

@ConsDoms

Hear hear.

I second that.

From Lost pound's post:

"A death does not automatically trigger an RNS if:

- The death is expected within the disease population (e.g., oncology, late‑stage conditions).

- The event is assessed as unrelated to the investigational drug.

- The trial continues without regulatory action.

- The event does not materially affect the company’s prospects.

In these cases, the death is still reported to regulators and ethics bodies under clinical trial rules, but not to the stock market."

It's there black on white, perfectly explained why it is NOT sensitive market information and not something that needs to be announced by a RNS'.

Bearing in mind that with Patient 3, after just 28 days , they could not detect original cancer cells, if I remember correctly, is something very tangible to rely on in my view.

Hopefully PT 1 is doing well.

It would be the best and nicest for everyone.

Based on history, what is the doubt that Hemp can raise capital.

The BOD has always been able to raise capital.

(I am not claiming that it has always been on favorable terms)

But they have always managed.

With a track record proving that, is there anyone who doubts they will be able to raise enough cash to see us through to April for instance?

That will be well beyond injection of Patient 1.

At which point, I expect the world to be our oyster.

I'd argue that even if Patient one should not make it to the 12 months anniversary, HG-CT-1 has already proven it's worth.

But let's hope Patient 1 does make it and way beyond, it is in everyone's interest (unless you been shorting this share)

I do not know how close we are to be running on fumes, but if we are just assuming that for arguments sake, based on history, HEMOGENYX will be able to raise cash to get us through to April.

They have a proven track record.

If you don't believe this.

You better sell up

@HereforHemo et al

Thanks for some good posts this weekend.

There are thoughts there that has not occured to me at all.

HereforHemo, I follow your logic, you make it clear.

My favorite has been the usual ones like Gilead and Eli Lily.

Eli Lily, in particular, because of history.

They know HEMOGENYX.

Might not be the most obvious choice some we could say, but diversification for a big company is a good thing in my view.

Better not to only rely on one area, if you can afford to hire the right people to run a different angle/source of income.

@Drutor

Thanks for the clarification.

Then it is unlikely there is connection between that post and the fall in the share price.

Just leaves the question if there still is one between the post that raised a question mark regarding funding as mentioned in the prospectus and the 4 percent fall this morning.

Does not have to be, I guess can be expected in a small share like ours.

We will see, how much it will be driven down throughout the day.

I am hopeful that Mr Sandler has had a fruitful week, last week.

But I do not expect a deal to be struck in days or weeks.

That stuff takes time.