Member Info for Sorcerer

I think that the way the Avacta team are communicating the various threads of data from their trials is deliberately building towards a crescendo when they present the revised pipeline update. The recent presentations are very deliberately setting out a series of building blocks that each build on those that have been set out previously, underscoring how good the safety and efficacy data within the trials is, but specifically setting out what each additional facet means for the platform as a whole:

1. Confirm that the basic mechanism of action has now been proved beyond doubt through the 100:1 concentration ratio dox in the tumour versus plasma. This is a game changer, as the safety data alone means that the benefits of reduced toxicity alone should make Precision variants of any chemo drugs that are (targeting FAP rich tumours) the Standard of Care, regardless of any improvements in efficacy.

2. Demonstrate that the bystander effect works on tumours with low (or no) FAP expression within the tumour itself. This changes the game again by expanding the utility of the platform to a much wider range of cancer types.

3. Demonstrate that the combined effect of 1 & 2 above is that the Precision platform works, even in currently difficult to treat cancers (SGC), with the data just presented showing durable responses and a 90% disease control rate. This underscores the game-changing nature of the platform.

4. Demonstrate that the the platform can be further developed to provide even more targeted drug administration - for example by binding the warhead to the TME once the initial cleavage has occurred.

5. Demonstrate that the platform can be further extended to include dual (or more) payloads - either multiple chemo drugs or a combination of a chemo drug and a drug that targets the cancer's ability to develop resistance. This changes the game again, as it offers the potential for massively more durable responses.

7. Demonstrate that the Precision platform's massive shift in tumour : plasma concentration ratio means that warheads with much greater potency (too potent to use currently, without precision targeting) can be safely delivered directly to tumours. This doesn't change the game, it opens up completely new frontiers for oncology drug development.

I am in no doubt that the current sequence of communications from the Company is a highly orchestrated campaign building towards a crescendo when the pipeline announcement(s) come. I fully expect the pipeline to look radically different from what it has done previously, with all of the above featuring within it. I am also convinced that the commercial conversations that are taking place will be lining up multiple candidates within that pipeline and that we will start to hear about those in the very near future.

You can see why the Avacta team is so confident - I would be if I was in their shoes.

Bobby, I'm struggling with a contradiction in your analysis. You're basically saying that we need to wait until the insurance actuaries have some real evidence acquired over the first few years of experience to assess the long term benefits of Leakbot, but in the same sentence you assert as fact that houses that have experienced a leak (detected and fixed by Leakbot) will have fewer leaks in the future. You have not cited any evidence base for that assertion, nor do I think it makes any practical sense in the real world.

The reason that leaks lead to such huge claims is that they start slowly and typically get progressively worse over time - typically around a plumbing joint where the seal is compromised (through unintended movement of a pipe loosening a joint, or simply degradation of O-rings or other seals over time). Those things can happen at any time and the likelihood of them happening goes up with the age of the plumbing in the property (not down). Sure, there will likely be some properties that already have an undetected leak when Leakbot is installed and Leakbot will then immediately flag the leak and pay for itself before the insurer has paid a penny, but the real value to the insurer is the systemic reduction in risk across their portfolio that Leakbot can provide. All other things being equal, I would expect Leakbot-protected portfolios to actually perform better and better because the properties in the unprotected portfolios will be getting older too, and therefore more and more prone to plumbing failures, whereas the Leakbot portfolios will simply send an alert and get it fixed before there's a real problem.

Surprised by the market response to today’s news - this is a very sensible strategic move to accelerate the rate at which Ondo can expand its footprint and market penetration.

They have finite internal resources which they can now focus exclusively on the larger opportunities, knowing that they have effectively outsourced the market development for smaller insurers to an established player in that part of the market.

No different to the way that Costa operates. They don’t use the same model for every opportunity - the biggest opportunities get the full service outlet, smaller ones are run as a concession by a host that already has a presence in the locality and the smallest ones are simply a Costa machine in a petrol station. All selling ostensibly the same product, but completely different distribution and cost models.

One very obvious advantage that Leakbot has over Flume is that not all homes are fitted with water meters (only about 60% are in both the UK and US). You can’t fix a monitoring device to something that doesn’t exist.

………which would provide around $30m in recurring annual revenues. And if we are hitting that kind of number, then the run rate of monthly registrations would be getting close to the 40,000 capacity, so every month thereafter adds a further $2.4m in annual revenues. And we know that they already have the ability to add a further 40,000 per month in the UK if needed, before they even look at building units in the US.

That’s why this is going to be huge.

I’m expecting multiple RNSs announcing more contract wins. We know they’re in discussion with multiple US insurers and at least two of those are top 10. And with the number of LinkedIn views they’re getting, we can be certain that every top 10 insurer is very much aware of Ondo and considering what the tech means for them. They simply can’t ignore something that will allow their competitors a structural advantage with their claims exposure.

Backward looking financial statements are largely irrelevant for a business that is about to go through an exponential growth in revenue - and Ondo is a rare case where we can use the term exponential literally, not just figuratively.

Their historic revenues reflect a tiny fraction of what will be built through the expansions already announced - and that is a tiny fraction of the total market opportunity which will be progressively harnessed as new major carriers are added over the coming weeks and months.

If you crunch the numbers you’ll see that the CEO’s $Bn dollar valuation could come way sooner than the current market cap would suggest.

We’re not even at the end of the beginning yet.

I don’t think the market has yet appreciated the significance of the expansion announced by Nationwide in the US last week.

Insurance providers are heavily reliant on a ‘sticky’ back book of existing customers who simply renew with their existing provider every year. But when a competitor makes a move that creates a pricing advantage, as Nationwide has done, the playing field suddenly changes. The field becomes massively skewed against all the other providers. It’s a seismic change - Nationwide’s competitors will never be able to compete head to head because they now all have a structural disadvantage in the financial dynamics of their businesses.

Nationwide’s competitors only have three choices:

1. Cut their margins to try and defend against the lower premiums that Nationwide will inevitably start to offer.

2. Watch their market share erode year on year as their customers switch to the cheaper provider.

3. Pick up the phone to Ondo and re-establish a level playing field.

I think what we saw this week was the first of those defensive moves - and the speed of it seemed to even be a surprise to Ondo. And while the Nationwide expansion is a huge deal for Ondo, they are only the eighth largest carrier in the US. That means that there are seven bigger insurers all contemplating their response - and seven bigger deals just waiting to be done.

We’re going to need a bigger boat.

Snowball was exactly the term I thought of when I read the RNS this morning Steve - it’s not just growing much more rapidly now, the cycle time is reducing too, so it’s a double whammy.

The snowball is turning faster and faster and all that growth is paid for up front. A unicorn in the making.

As previously announced, the Company is in discussions with a number of large US insurance companies regarding new contract opportunities and significant expansions of existing partnerships.

Note that “new contract opportunities” and “significant expansions of existing partnerships” are BOTH plural. We can therefore infer that there are at least two of each, so expect a minimum of 4 significant US deals to be announced shortly, possibly more.

Had a further thought overnight - the extension of the half life must open up the possibility that either the dose, or the doing frequency, could be lowered significantly, as the chemo drug remains active in the tumour for days and weeks instead of hours, so doesn’t need constant topping up. And that could have significant implications for further improving the safety and efficacy of AVA6000 and the current pipeline, even before all of the other aspects.

Not long to wait.

I have to say that I thought that yesterday's presentation was pretty average, not because of the content, but because the delivery was so rooted in the science that I think the opportunity to land some really important messages wasn't taken. That said, I think we heard some very exciting things yesterday, that I hope will be confirmed when we get the pipeline news. I’m joining a few dots here, but I think we have to.

It is clear that there is now significant effort going into the next generation of Precision candidates and the next phase of Avacta’s plans for the platform will see it develop the chemistry very materially in a number of important ways:

Firstly, they are actively looking at completely new warheads - not much info on those yet, but it sounds like they will quite likely be the very latest generation of chemotherapies that are either orders of magnitude more powerful than existing drugs, or have (exquisite?) specificity against particular tumour types, such as pancreatic cancer or breast cancer, but which currently lack the mechanism of delivery to get them to the tumour (and so cannot be used at all currently due to safety concerns).

Secondly, the chemistry is being further refined to modulate the release mechanism, extending the time that the chemo remains effective against the tumour from hours to days (or even weeks).

Thirdly, additional binders, both chemical and biological, are being added to further influence the behaviour of the drug when it arrives at the tumour site.

Fourthly, we now know that the stroma cells continue to emit FAP, even when the FAP from the tumour is low (or even FAP negative). And we know that those cells are impacted much less adversely than the tumour cells are, because the chemo drugs affect the fastest growing cells more than they affect slower growing cells, so there isn't a risk of the FAP levels falling as the tumour shrinks.

So, what do you get when you join all of the dots on that lot? I think that maybe you get a platform that has the potential to not only deliver a highly potent warhead straight into the TME, but said warhead can then be bound to its target (the stroma cells), with the effective life of the warhead also extended from hours to days or weeks. If this is what is being planned, it would not only increase the impact of the warhead on the tumour cells (through the “bystander effect” that CC placed such huge importance on), it would further reduce the residual amounts of chemo elsewhere in the body (potentially to negligible levels), because the warhead is not simply cleaved in the TME, it’s then anchored within the TME when it gets released.

If that's what the pipeline looks like, then I can see why CC was so excited. And it would be ripe for a brand new collaboration with a major, to provide the endorsement and part of the funding that they are looking for.

Yes it could - hence the uncertainty. But that uncertainty is currently weighted in the SP as a racing certainty, which it isn’t.

Has absolutely nothing to do with the value of the company - how can a company with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of contracted revenue (not pipeline, CONTRACTED orders) be valued just £2m, which is less than half the value of cash they have, let alone their IP, cutting edge capabilities and the future value of those contracts (plus those yet to be announced).

The answer is uncertainty - the market, and PIs in particular, hate uncertainty and while the business has now likely turned the corner, the uncertainty about future returns to shareholders remains, which is why the SP is on its *rse. But sentiment is never a good way to value a business - fundamentals are - and that’s why, even with the shares now trading below 20% of what ROX paid for theirs in the placing (which BTW is considerably more than many PIs have paid if they’ve averaged down), they are still smiling. Why? Because they know what they have bought into here and they know that, even at 10p per share, it’s a steal.

The Company is one of only a few companies capable of designing and supplying the higher-spec chips built on the most advanced semiconductor technologies, selling into a range of hyper growth end markets such as high-performance computing, automotive, artificial intelligence, VR/AR, video analytics, image processing, mobile networking and data centres. Sondrel designs have enabled products by leading technology brands including Apple (iPhone), Sony (PlayStation), Meta's (Oculus), Samsung, Google and Sony smartphones, JVC (prosumer camcorders), Tesla and Mercedes-Benz cars.

Sondrel is well-established, with a 20-year track record of successful delivery, supported by long standing ecosystem partnerships including Arm, TSMC and Samsung. Headquartered in the UK, Sondrel has a global presence with offices in UK, USA, China, India and Morocco.

Isn’t this, and the $200m+ in CONTRACTED future revenues from the names listed within it, the answer to your question Jake? And ROX know it too.

I know how to read the accounts Kabba. As is made clear in the financial statements, the liabilities you quote include both trade payables and lease costs, both of which are normal for any business and will be paid for by future revenues received for the services they relate to (which inevitably lags the costs being incurred).

It is clearly stated in the accounts that net debt at year-end was £0.9 million.

Kabaa, I am taking into account the loss making position, which is expected to become positive from Q4, but what debts do they have? The CLNs (from ROX) have converted to equity, hence why they are now the majority shareholder. They have the cash they need for working capital from the CLNs and the rest of the ROX subscription and they expect to be profitable from Q4, so no need for further fundraise unless it’s to fund an acquisition, which would be value adding.

The SP is on the floor because of the delisting, but that’s not the end for SND, it’s a new beginning. The question is whether those PIs who hold beyond the delisting will see a return. I think there are material risks, but the rewards are material too. I’ve traded a fair bit over the last couple of months, but I’m holding onto a good chunk of shares in the private company as a high risk high reward investment. I already hold shares in four unlisted companies (only one of which has ever been listed), so I understand the risks.

Also worth adding what ROX say about themselves on their website, which is interesting

OUR APPROACH

Our approach hinges on forming strong partnerships with visionary management teams and co-investors to create substantial value by anticipating disruptive trends in carefully selected fields. Through shared financial interests, we build robust alliances, valuing these relationships as pivotal to our success.

We go beyond capital; we empower innovative leaders adept at navigating global markets. Our commitment extends to professionals who've commercialised their expertise and companies that have become indispensable to their clients.

Our partnership approach centres on collaborating with businesses that demonstrate clear leadership within their markets and the potential for global expansion. As partners, we encourage these organisations to invest in disruptive technologies, nurture talent, and champion growth initiatives.

We understand that the Return on Experience (ROX) is as critical as the Return on Investment (ROI) in our strategy. The value we bring extends beyond financial gains, encompassing the transformational experiences that drive our partners' and our own success.

BUSINESS STRATEGY

Our business strategy is centred on harnessing the transformative potential of technology to drive innovation.

We embrace the impact of digital technologies on enhancing the quality of life. Our innovation strategy focuses on investing in the value chain of tailored and innovative solutions, capitalising on leaps in technology, advanced data analytics, and the synergistic relationship between artificial intelligence and human experiences.

We actively seek out technology businesses, with valuations up to $25 million. By partnering with these businesses, we aim to facilitate their growth and amplify their impact on the ever-evolving landscape of healthtech and technology-driven solutions, including Employee Benefits.

In a bid to focus the discussion on something more tangible than what may or may not happen over the next few trading days, I've refreshed my previous post which I think sets out the investment case in terms of risk and reward.

In the short term, the only things that are likely to lead to any improvement in the SP are either a takeover offer from a party unconnected with current proceedings, or ROX offering to buy up any remaining shares before the delisting. On the former, that clearly remains a possibility, albeit unlikely now that the window of opportunity is narrowing fast. In some ways it would make strategic sense for a takeover offer to come when the SP is at its lowest, but it could also be argued that the current SP is largely irrelevant, as any offer would anyway need to be materially above 10p per share for ROX to accept it. That said, even at 10p SND is ridiculously undervalued, so it remains a possibility. On the latter, I can't see why ROX would make an offer before the delisting, as any such move would probably fall foul of the waiver (and in fact, I think I recall reading somewhere that they either not allowed to trade, or have undertaken not to). After delisting, both the above possibilities remain, but I think an offer from ROX immediately after the delisting is a distinct possibility.

While it's positive that a matched trading facility is being put in place, realistically I think there is unlikely to be much liquidity and trading on a day to day basis. That doesn't mean that the shares won't be tradeable, but it will be very difficult to determine a fair price, other than when we get the statutory information in the accounts etc. That said, JP Jenkins do publish the mid-point prices of the matched bargains that they strike, so any trades that do get made after the delisting should be visible, which might create some sense of a market value.

Beyond that, a takeover is always a strong possibility at any point and you would think that would become more likely over time, as the business grows and becomes profitable again (targeted by Q4 this year). There is also the possibility of relisting in the future, here or in the US, which is likely the most distant option for shareholders in terms of timeframes (likely 2-3 years minimum, I would guess). Presumably ROX is banking on one of these two options, as they will need an exit event to realise their gains, so a takeover or relisting probably represents both the most likely scenario and the one with the greatest returns, and I would expect that to be at many multiples of ROX's 10p entry point (so likely upwards of 10 times today's sp).

So, those are the scenarios as I see them - there is clearly risk in holding through into delisting (specifically that the minority shareholders get squeezed out by future corporate actions), but if that doesn't happen, the potential upside is very significant, and possibly huge.