Member Info for StarBright

The raise was announced on the same day as positive results for PRA023's Phase II trial, with the SP jumping from USD40 to over USD100.

They raised USD500m to pay for Phase 3 trials of PRA023 and PRS052 plus the usual "general corporate purposes". Initially they were looking to raise USD250m but this was revised upwards, presumably on investor demand.

Big numbers.

Yes / agreed. There's no need to s-t-r-e-t-c-h valuation metrics/multiples here. 3x to 5x potential revenues is the right range; the upside is in the addressable market size as I have been saying...

If $3bn of annualised sales is a possibility then so is a full-fat transaction value between $9bn and $15bn. But interesting to note that RXDX was valued at over $6bn PRIOR to the MRK offer - as we know Nasdaq affords higher valuations for biotech companies...

@RAH0084 said: "2022: full year revenue $6.8m. Take over price: $10.8Bn. Can anyone help me out with the ratio?"

Prometheus (ticker RXDX) is developing a pipeline/platform for the treatment diseases like ulcerative colitis and Crohn's. Their lead candidate (apparently the one the Merck is paying up for) is known as PRA023. It's in Phase II trials at present.

As the RXDX board are recommending the deal to their shareholders, US securities law requires them to release details of the valuation (multiples, comparable transactions etc) in this case conducted for them by Centreview Partners. This to demonstrate that they have taken professional advice and aren't giving the company away etc. It will be interesting to see what the Centreview opinion says when it is filed.

In the meantime, Barclays analyst Carter Gould said in a report: "...if PRA-023’s phase II data can be duplicated in phase III, the Prometheus drug would offer Merck “a compelling foothold” in the space plus a good source of growth “into the back half of the decade,” with a launch likely around 2026 and sales by 2030 of about $3 billion." https://tinyurl.com/52fwes2f

On that basis the implied Price:Sales ratio is about 3.6x, possibly a little lower after adjusting for RXDX net cash position.

* aptly-named “dummy trades”, sorry….

@Jamesthesecond - that may well be a result of limitations of the RSP panel used by your platform/broker. Some have moire RSPs hooked up than others. RSP’s rarely make their best offers available for online trades.

In general, “NT to buy” etc posts are a staple of the LSE forums typically based on aptly-named “dummy posts”. They are nothing more than a rampy attempt to infer that shares are in demand etc. In reality these are pointless posts. No useful information on market depth/liquidity can be gained from dummy trades via a retail platform. All you can learn is the best offer available for online trades via the particular platform used. Better offers may be available elsewhere, particularly for telephone or committed limit orders, The only way to test liquidity/depth is to place a limit order and see if it is filled…

@Jamesthesecond - trade size above or below EMS (75k)..?

@jamesthesecond - What do you mean by “Can’t buy any”..?

It would be great if AACR coverage prompted one (or more!) US Insto Investors to engage and start buying…

ANGS year end date is September 30th. Accounting rules required it to disclose the POTENTIAL liability under its derivative contracts at that date. The spot price for Natural Gas then was approx 3.5x what it is today, and the associated potential liability was £87m. The rules required ANGS to recognise the full liability without allowing any theoretical “credit” for future gas sales on the same basis.

If ANGS were to prepare a set of accounts today, the potential liability would be much lower simply because the price of natural gas has fallen. Perversely, the fall in this liability would be reported as a “profit”…

Investors in ANGS should focus on its ability to generate net positive cashflow (£££ left after payments under the hedge/derivatives contracts have been met) and its ability to service the debt it has incurred paying for the drilling etc at Saltfleetby. Cashflow is fuel for companies, and ANGS has been running on vapour at times during recent months. We’ve seen this in the onerous terms they’ve had to accept for short-term funding. If/when the eagerly-awaited additional production from the sidetrack is realised, the company will move into a comfortably cash generative state, from which it can pay down the real debt it’s had to take on. Equity holders can expect to benefit accordingly.

Halfwits on Twitter posting about “£110m debt” can be safely ignored. They have no clue what they are talking about.

Thank you. To summarise, your hypothesis is based on stabilisation in the calorific value of output. Also that the clean-up process associated with the sidetrack had impacted the calorific value of gas from the existing production well(s).

When do you expect to see increased output volume? Will this increase happen as a single event, or will it take place over a period of time?

@Singhie - I don’t understand the raw data. Specifically I have no idea what 41.xxxx figures in your table represent.

But if output for 15/4 was 59,295 therms and the average per day is 57,129 therms, how can you tell that there is additional/new output? Is the 2k increase outside of the usual daily variance? In simple terms, I thought we were looking for output to double which would suggest c. 114k therms daily.

Can you help me to understand this better please?

Interesting speculation @Singhie. I suspect that any/all insiders operating on the fringe of compliance were already fully loaded before today. My take is that the MM’s tested the strength of the market today by lowering their quotes and were met by firm buying.

Will we get news in two parts? The first being the factual matter of connection, and the second when a sustainable “full production” run-rate is reached? Or is it possible - given that this is an existing connection and a known reservoir - that we’ll go quickly to “full production”?

RNS 7th March: “Accordingly, we now expect first export during the week of 7 April.”

RNS 3rd April: “Connection to the plant for gas processing and export is planned directly after the clean-up and we expect to realise the combined flow rates of all three wells later in the month.”

Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other. Not sure if the RNS are carefully written or carelessly written…

It looks like “…first export during the week of 7 April” hasn’t been achieved. I don’t think that really matters though.

ANGS should be above playing spivvy games with the timing of releases. Outcomes for day traders etc aren’t their concern.

Friday afternoon releases are generally reserved for bad news (remember Jo Moore..?) so I will be nervous if one appears, especially if at close of business.

U are commenting on being glad u didn't buy watches. Why comment on a watches that u don't own? Weird or what?/

Try this one then: https://www.barclays.co.uk/smart-investor/news-and-research/investing-for-beginners/the-story-of-a-trade/

The role/actions/objectives/motivations of market makers are widely misunderstood and misrepresented on retail investment forums like LSE. Much of what you read here every day regarding market makers is uninformed nonsense; empty fallacies that have somehow gained widespread acceptance through repetition: “…they can see your stops”, “…they reported my buy as a sell” etc etc etc

It is human nature to blame one’s own misunderstandings and mistakes on the malicious acts of others. Or to blame “the gods” as was the norm before science started to provide better explanations for everyday misfortunes. The market makers perhaps perform a useful function for inexperienced investors in this regard…

Here’s the current list:
https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/documents/market-makers-authorised-primary-dealers.pdf

And an article that may help you understand their role:
https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/81/idiots-guide-to-the-london-stock-exchanges-setsmm-0379.html

Take a look and post any follow-up questions here.

@Tygra: “…the market is controlled completely and utterly by a handful of groups who own all the stock exchanges on earth.”

Thank you for this insight, it is very revealing. I will accord due attention to your future posts.

@Tygra - the market makers won’t have a view on valuation. They are price-takers not price-setters, content to set their nets wherever the two-way flow of trades is strongest. They really won’t care whether that is at an SP of 1p or 3p…

It isn’t the market makers who need to be convinced by the case for a higher valuation, but other investors with capital to commit. When they are motivated to invest, the price will move.

Classic dog-in-a-manger-ism….

I’m sorry for your losses in HUR.