Member Info for StarBright

My view is that AVCT is simply a highly-traded share. The usual BB rhetoric about diamond hands etc isn’t supported by facts. The market turns over the entire shares in issue roughly every 200 days or so, making it one of the more highly traded components of the AIM100. In fact it’s up there with the other TwiX/meme shares - Greatland Gold, Boohoo, Yellow Cake etc

So I am (to say the least) sceptical about all of the posts from the usual suspects here referencing size buyers and sellers, algos and all the other BB cliches. I don’t see anything concrete to indicate that there is “a seller” other than HC unloading quarterly. There are very few truly meaningful trades, just a constant two-way flow of punter-sized bargains. Perfect conditions for the market makers to sit with little capital exposed whilst clipping tickets. The absence of TR1’s supports this picture.

As my earlier post says @jive_turkey, it’s probably possible to sell about 250k shares a day without materially moving the price so it would take Heights 2-3 weeks to shift 3m shares. Outside of that period (perhaps plus a week for MM’s pre-positioning) I don’t think Heights can be isolated as driving price action.

Back-of-an-envelop… Heights have been getting about 3m shares per quarter. That’s about 2 days average traded volume. A common (ie not accurate!) rule of thumb is that trading >15% of ATV will move the price, that’s roughly 250k shares. At a measured pace looking to manage their own impact therefore we might expect their shares to be absorbed over 2-3 weeks each quarter following issue. It is likely (inevitable…) that MM’s will see them coming each time so perhaps reasonable to say they weigh the price down for about one month each quarter.

…the “most important day” since…

- the last “most important day” (Science Day)

- and the “most important day” before that (“Early January”)

- and the “most important day” before that (“Jawdrop Summit”)

- and the “most important day” before that (“Theranostics Summit”)

…repeat ad infinitum…

Yes, but they don’t only purchase (or sell) at the point of the rebalance. They will have been purchasing GGP during the period in proportion to inflows. But yes, the end-of-quarter true-up this time is likely to generate a rebalancing purchase.

Flows into/out of an ETF are the main driver of its need to purchase (or sell) securities, not changes in the value of the underlying securities themselves.

GDXJ is likely (I haven’t looked) seeing inflows due to increased coverage/interest in the sector, so it is probably a net purchaser at this point. Any rebalancing is likely to be a net positive, you just need to remember that it’s existing holdings will already have benefited by recent positive moves in the SP.

At the risk of stating the obvious, if GGPs weighting has increased by 50% AND the share price has also increased by 50% then no new shares will need to be bought in the rebalance. The increase in the weighting is a consequence of the increase in the share price if you prefer…

In practice of course the changes won’t be perfectly matched so some relative adjustment may be necessary.

Timetable has been built around the needs of NY @Timster.

1630GMT Tuesday [after close UK time] release will be 1130EST, affording NY size traders max opportunity to analyse the data. And (as one of our resident trading experts explained recently) deals can transacted in the US through the OTC marketplace. So all the upside has been effectively reserved for US investors, who will transact the buying of the shares then make the sale by holding off until the price goes up.

Or something.

@Wyndrum: “But in any event, if the data supports what AS has said then it is HUGE (and the SP will react accordingly”

There is a step missing here. The SP will react if the data supports what AS has said AND INTERESTED PARTIES / MARKET PARTICIPANTS CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOURS AS A RESULT.

The rangebound (essentially 125p +/-25p) price action of the last 24 months indicates that existing “believers” have taken their positions. Only if there is data good enough to attract new investors and their capital in material size will the SP react accordingly. This could come all-at-once in the form of a takeover, or over time through trade and/or institutional buying. The licensing deal route also looks viable. So many accretive realisation possibilities are on the table, but today’s equity markets feature fewer participants who will commit capital on a speculative basis in advance of value realisation events - see AS’s letter to The Times.

TLDR; the actual commitment of material new money by new investors will be required for the SP to re-rate.

@MM, I enjoy your investigative posts on ZIOC. They are interesting and engaging. But made up nonsense like your post on options just makes you look gauche/naive, and undermines your credibility as a commentator. I’ll spare your blushes by not setting out just how far from the shore you’ve swum.

Post makes no sense at all. Maybe stick to topics where your base level of knowledge is better?

I think it is important for investors to distinguish between what we know, what we believe and what we hope.

Looks like they were aiming for £5m. Someone forgot to edit the original RNS properly…

It’s a slow Friday here, so I dug for some detail to fill in some of the gaps and guesses in my earlier post…

Here’s the relevant proxy filing: https://fintel.io/doc/sec-point-biopharma-global-inc-1811764-sc-14d9-2023-october-13-19643-6024

Centreview were (as I suspected) the retained financial advisers for the board of PNT. They gave their opinion on fairness/valuation back in early October. Here’s the opinion itself:

“Based upon and subject to the foregoing, including the various assumptions made, procedures followed, matters considered, and qualifications and limitations set forth herein, we are of the opinion, as of the date hereof, that the Consideration to be paid to the holders of Shares (other than Excluded Shares) pursuant to the Agreement is fair, from a financial point of view, to such holders.”

For this opinion Centreview were paid USD34.4m. USD1m at the point the opinion was rendered, and USD33.4m on completion of the transaction. They considered four dimensions:

1.DCF analysis [USD11.15 - USD13.80]

2. SP history [USD5.72 - USD10.86]

3. Analyst SP targets [USD11.00 - USD27.00]

4. Comparable premiums paid [USD10.35 - USD13.70]

On the basis of that + other undisclosed considerations (no doubt entirely unswayed by the prospect of their USD33.4m contingent fee….) they concluded that USD12.50/share is fair to the holders of PNT’s equity.

Obviously the Biotech Value Fund’s advisers disagree!

We should know the outcome by 10pm UK time this evening. It is likely that Biotech Value will be unsuccessful. If they paid USD13 VWAP for the 8.3m shares they added in November they’ll lose USD4.15m on that tranche of their holding. Fortunately for them they have gains on their earlier tranches that will more than offset this. However, surprises are possible so it will be interesting to see what comes out today.

This one is an interesting story. Over half (8.3m shares) of Biotech Value Fund’s holding was purchased AFTER the deal was announced. Price paid was above the USD12.50 deal value, so very much a “conviction trade”.

US regs require PNT’s board to file a proxy statement including a supportive valuation opinion produced by an independent expert third party. The purpose of this is to protect the target board from subsequent claims that they recommended the offer at an undervalue. The usual provider for these opinions on large pharma deals is Centreview partners - I don’t know whether they have been instructed here or not. They charge huge fees (USD90m for the last one I looked at) most of which I assume ends up with their own professional indemnity insurers!

So… Centreview (or whoever is doing the valuation opinion for the proxy statement) will be under massive pressure from all sides. From LLY & PNT who will want their deal done, and - very publicly - from Biotech Value Fund who are looking to inject as much “concern” as they can into the process. Whether this deal is completed as is, or subject to terms improvement will likely come down to the valuation opinion. Once this is in, everyone’s behind is covered…

Definitely one to watch.

The last time I made shapes in NY I was asked to leave the dance floor…

Which books? Who is balancing them? Why? And why is a “wink wink” needed?

Recent trading is being driven by a seller….!?

But the forum (& Twitter) experts have been telling us it’s a buyer behind the volume… You know - the “work through”, the “persistent size buyer who won’t take no for an answer”, “shapes” etc etc etc

IKSYDK is a staple forum game. A few non-specific hints followed by a retrospective claim of prescience or insight. Big news coming, hold onto your hats etc is just bulletin board bullsh*t. It has no information value beyond what it reveals about the poster.

Useful prognostications generally share a few characteristics; they are qualified/flagged as the views of their authors, they are clear in what they claim and they offer some insight into reasoning.

@Sportstrader is correct that there are fund managers out there who are interested. But they are not keen (as intimated by Alastair Smith) on supporting a raise at the current level never mind buying on the open market. They will sit tight and wait to see what the company does. My view is that any forthcoming data release is unlikely in itself to unlock fund buying as a source of positive price action. It will take a license deal or a trade investor to move that dial meaningfully. Patience has been - and still is - required.