Member Info for StarBright

A cancer treatments specialist spun out of the University of Leeds has unveiled safety study data showing a reduction in the severe side effects of a common chemotherapy.

Avacta, which employs 30 people in its therapeutics business unit in White City, London, is developing a technology platform to modify chemotherapy so that it is activated only in the tumour tissue.

The company has today released detailed data from a three-weekly dose study of doxorubicin, involving 40 patients with various cancers, showing the chemotherapy was released to the tumour as intended, limiting systemic exposure to other parts of the body; it reduced the severity of toxicities; and showed early signs of reducing the size of the tumour.

Alastair Smith, chief executive of Avacta, said the study showed a “dramatic reduction in the severe side effects of doxorubicin so that the quality of life of those patients, whilst on that treatment is significantly improved”.

He added: “Even though it’s a safety study and these patients are in an advanced stage of disease and have been heavily pre-treated with other drugs, we do have cases of clear activity. So one patient has a really significant 65 per cent reduction in the tumour volume, and that’s been for more than six months now.”

Avacta now plans to explore increasing the dose and frequency of doxorubicin.

Shares in Avacta had closed broadly flat yesterday at 135p on Aim, the London Stock Exchange’s junior market, valuing the company at about £383 million.

@beinthelead - there are actually some wrinkles in reporting requirements for (foreign) fund managers, where the limit can be 5% not 3%. This depends on how the relevant securities are held. That may explain what we’ve seen with Conifer.

Either way, Avacta itself has a duty to update its rule 26 info if there’s a material change in the holdings of anyone they have previously identified as a significant shareholder.

Probably far enough down this rabbit-hole for today. The more important point is that the constant speculation about “the seller” is un-evidenced, as is the equally constant speculation about “the buyer”. It’s far more likely that ordinary PI’s are driving price action here. The RSP’s will be loving it…

@JerseyCrew’s info on TR1’s is accurate.

Occasionally there are instances where TR1’s aren’t filed, where someone (typically a “character”) takes the risk of not filing to cover their footprints in the market. But that doesn’t really happen with professional investors like BG and Conifer, both of which will have proper systems and processes designed to ensure compliance with the holdings disclosure regs and significant regulatory/reputational issues should these processes not operate properly.

Thank you @PL75, one last try…

Prints today (over 400 trades less than £10k) suggest the more likely explanation is simply that some PI’s are selling up. Likely disappointed that the uplift implied so assiduously by Avacta’s coterie of magic-calculator wielding TwiX pumpers may not in fact arrive before Christmas.

The repeated nonsense posted every day on this board in recent months regarding “size buyers”, “the persistent buyer who won’t take no for an answer”, ooh la la more late trades, we know what you’re up to” etc should be seen for what it is.

Perhaps it’s not institutional or trade investors that are “as thick as mince”…?

Last try…

Prints today - over 400 trades

Weird - my post was truncated twice. I didn’t think it was that long-winded… Here (hopefully) is the missing bit:

Prints today - over 400 trades

The notion that “the seller has been here for a longtime now” is popular on this board. But looking at the rule 26 information there are only two holders with significant holdings - Conifer and Baillie Gifford.

If Conifer has sold more than 1.1m shares or Baillie Gifford more than 2m, then TR1 notification is required. As we haven’t yet seen one there is no real evidence to support the notion.

Prints today - over 400 trades

The notion that “the seller has been here for a longtime now” is popular on this board. But looking at the rule 26 information there are only two holders with significant holdings - Conifer and Baillie Gifford.

If Conifer has sold more than 1.1m shares or Baillie Gifford more than 2m, then TR1 notification is required. As we haven’t yet seen one there is no real evidence to support the notion.

Prints today - over 400 trades

My central prediction is that we’ll have a few very silly hours tomorrow. I’m (sort of) looking forward to watching it all unfold.

Better for Asia too. Just pre-close in Tokyo.

Of course I agree @Timster.

I was just raising an eyebrow at the popular reaction to the unqualified conviction expressed by @Moneysponge. If only the situation really was that simple!

Oh how the readers of this board lap up simple conviction…

Having perhaps sailed quite close to the wind regarding the statement that “No material new information will be disclosed..” ahead of the Science Day, they may take the safe option and release something ahead of the briefing tomorrow. It would cover them against any potential accusations of selective disclosure. Boards and their advisers are very risk averse nowadays. I think there will be an RNS (either after close today or 7am tomorrow) but it may not contain a lot of detail. Particularly not clinical/trial related data in detail, they can cover that better in a briefing.

@greedo76, I think the way they are approaching this is very normal / reasonable. If they release the data (which is likely complex and difficult for investors to interpret) without an accompanying briefing they would increase the risk of unnecessary volatility. What they have done allows investors to prepare by scheduling time to hear directly from them. I think Avacta have got this right.

Thank you - that's a great contribution.

It would be interesting to know whether they have other capital market facing activity planned for tomorrow. I suspect we'd have heard about it by now if anything was booked.

Agreed re Seagen deal as a positive comparator for Avacta.

As always if you can put your company in the right spot - between multiple interested parties with deep pockets - then competitive tension can stretch expectations. Let’s hope that can happen here.

@DonaldTrumpsWig, Seagen went for a premium of 42% to its undisturbed (taken as 24/2/23) share price. See slide 13 in Pfizer’s deal announcement deck: https://s28.q4cdn.com/781576035/files/doc_presentation/2023/03/Pfizer-Seagen-Analyst-Call-Slides-Final-03-13-23-_Update.pdf

For a £20/share takeover to be a credible proposition a lot of value will have to be built first. That is hard commercial value - revenues and profitability - not just great science.

Here’s some information on M&A including takeover premiums paid in the sector during the last 5 years: https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/biotech-pharma-deals-merger-acquisitions-tracker/604262/

While there are examples of >100% premiums, these aren’t frequent in large (say >USD5bn) deals.

“M&G’s flagship fund has invested in GFO-X, the UK’s first regulated bitcoin derivatives exchange, on signs the crypto regulatory landscape has matured.”

https://citywire.com/new-model-adviser/news/prufund-pours-20m-into-crypto-platform/a2432276

@jive_turkey, I don’t agree regarding the impact of the social media pumpers. They are a net negative for investors and companies because of the volatility they create. The SM pumpers are episodically effective at channelling the speculative capital of naive investors. Whilst this has no effect on price/value discovery in the long-term - serious investors can and should look past the spikes - it does exacerbate volatility. A consequence of this is increased cost of capital for companies, especially early-stage businesses pre-profitability who need to raise capital periodically in order to develop. Story-shares with large PI% on their registers are structurally unattractive to institutional investors, to the extent that register management and shaping is a material challenge for listed companies. A couple of examples of how this plays out in practice:

- Institutional investors don’t want to see what they might consider a welcome bid at a premium of (say) 250% frustrated by activist PI’s whipping holders into a diamond-hand frenzy in expectation that a 4000% (or whatever) premium should be paid. As a result they are less likely to maintain positions.

- Corporate actions involving votes (eg TopCo type reconstructions requiring a scheme of arrangement) are fraught with risk when PI’s have the ability to effect outcomes.

My view is that the four prominent mountebanks pumping AVCT on social media are a problem for the company. Whilst their intent is to be supporters, their particular brand of breathless unpaid volunteer IR “work” is undirected by the company and entirely devoid of the professional and regulatory constraints attendant on retained advisers. The net effect is that they deter institutional investors and frustrate any plans the company may have for increasing the maturity of its shareholder register.