Member Info for StarBright

The wheels for this (much needed) raise were likely set in motion when the SP was a lot closer to the placing level. But it looks like some of the "serious investors" were only serious to the extent they could forward sell their 2.5p allocations at nearly 3-4p.... Actual serious investors tend to be happy with publicising their names and agreeing to some sort of lock-in.

Only small trades (largest 500k / £15k) printed so far today though. Would be good to see delayed reports of size trades showing up...

Interesting. Everyone loves anecdotes about excited drill crews... ;>

Pensacola is c.70km offshore? Eston Nab is 240m altitude, from which the horizon will be about 55km away. How high above the water level would any flare be?

Not much chance of a clear night this time of year though...

Price will drop to - or below - placing level of 2.5p.

Repetitive seafaring nonsense-posts will work as well for holders here as they have for holders at EUA....

£21k received by the company.

Whilst detail is aways interesting, I do think that ANGS has a habit of making itself a hostage to fortune when drilling. Investors (sane ones anyway...) are well aware that drilling plans and intentions can only be on a "best efforts" basis. Stuff goes wrong underground! This doesn't mean that success won't be achieved, but it does suggest that latitude in promised timelines is advisable. ANGS - perhaps because of history - come across as weak in the way they reach for risky promises. These self-imposed deadlines gives the rampers/de-rampers/traders etc an easy target to exploit. Perhaps a change of approach would be advisable, with more willingness to tough pressure out up front and create time/space for their drilling crew(s) to work within.

@Lastofthesummer - the problem is that you don’t own a share of a producing mine in Mali, rather you own shares in a company that has the rights to mine there. If that company has material liquidity and credibility issues then your shares may be worthless regardless of the underlying mining operation. There are many instances where shareholder equity has been wiped out despite apparently valuable assets. This is called “equity risk”.

Looks like brisk two-way trade following the RNS. Some large(r) buy trades just below 1.4p will be printed late. This I know for certain....

Stuff happens during drilling. Sounds like they have a plan.

I'll be interested to read comments by this boards resident drillers...

It is very unlikely that institutional investors will buy in the secondary market in price moving size. See posts in my history for some discussion as to why this is.

Volatility incoming in NatGas futures this week. Timing could be good.

There are many practical obstacles to the idea of a low “lifetime limit” on ISA savings. For example because many people are committed to using ISA savings as their principal mortgage repayment strategy. It is a general principle of (tax) legislation that you don’t create issues for citizens by undermining what were previously prudent decisions. If there is to be a lifetime limit I think it will be much higher than is being discussed at present, also that it would be applied to cumulative contributions rather than to account balances. There would likely be “grandfathering” provisions meaning that contributions made before the rule change would be excluded. This would still allow the government to claim they were making tax changes for the benefit of the many at the expense of the privileged few, thus relieving the political pressure that is evidently being applied…

So I don’t think that there is a meaningful threat (in the way headline writers are envisaging) to those who are sitting on ISA accounts with accumulated high(er) values.

Predicting tax policy is fraught with danger though…

It’s a valid question. Why do you think companies are listed if not to secure access to the capital they need? To preclude any discussion on capital raising by suggesting that it is an attempt to “”de-ramp” is to deny a basic reality.

Anyway… If AVA6k continues to generate exceptional trial results and II interest materialises, the company will have a key decision to make.

On the one hand they can look for a licensing deal with a weapons-grade partner who can properly fast track through to commercialisation. This might secure a material up-front payment and early access to 10-20%(?) of lifetime revenues with no capital raise required. It would ensure that all existing projects etc were well funded, essentially in perpetuity. A bird in the hand etc…

The other option is to take a very deep breath and go it alone, retaining development and commercialisation of AVA6k. This would permit the eventual capture of 100% of revenues but would take longer and require additional capital. II’s looking to get onboard will prefer this route over buying in the secondary market. The strong position AVCT has earned with AVA6k’s trial success to date could mean that such a raise is conducted at a level ABOVE the prevailing SP. It will all depend on three unknowns - II appetite, management preference and funding needs.

I will note in passing that the most explosive of the Twitterampers has persistently pumped the story that AVCT will retain AVA6k whilst leaving the existing number of shares in issue in his “valuation”. In other words that development and commercialisation can all be funded via existing working capital. This is - of course - pure nonsense. As were his claims that “…one of the most important RNS updates in AIM’s history…” would “…propel it to a multi-billion dollar valuation overnight”… No wonder he is presently trying to defuse himself ;>

Trial results and RNS are exceptionally strong, but posts here continue to reveal an underlying sense of surprise/disappointment that subsequent price action hasn’t been more favourable.

If ever there was a share pregnant with expectation and get-rich-quick PI’s looking for an immediate multi-bag, this has been it. When a share is ramped as hard as this has been - particularly on Twitter - it attracts the “wrong kind” of investor. Even @MrRipley (to his credit) has been pointing this out. Some of the errr…. more explosive content out there has been frankly embarrassing. When the promised riches don’t materialise on RNS as hoped, these investors exit. Not all at once, but in volume enough to damp price action over the following sessions - perhaps for a couple of weeks.

At the same time, AVCT has a battle on its hands with history and scepticism among the institutional investing community. It’s hurt by inclusion in the so-called “covid stocks” basket, and the LFT saga. The forthcoming science day looks like an organised attempt to take this on, a smart move by the company. If they get the right audience (a test for the company’s broker), they can make real progress. II’s are by nature sceptical and cynical. In many ways they fit the “concerned investor” profile that is so readily derided here… AVCT is not the first company to make bold claims early in a development/trial process. But II’s looking in see a £400m MCap entirely unsupported by existing cashflow generation. They will expect AVCT to be looking to raise money, and they will look first to buy shares direct rather than chasing the price up in the secondary market.

So there are a few potential misunderstandings to address via the science day. If AVCT can sell the underlying science and potential market opportunity to II’s whilst distancing themselves from the one-trick-ponies in the “covid stock” group, then there is every chance that II’s will change their attitude to the company and look to get involved.

So today we have a share that is up c50% since the start of the year, some selling by retail investors who expected to be millionaires overnight and reluctance/hesitation from II’s. Price action is consistent with this picture.

AVCT is taking the right steps, and holders need only hold and enjoy the ongoing journey. The possibility of an early licensing deal remains real. But treat with care the blandishments of those telling you that this is now “de-risked” (without risk you should not expect a return…) and don’t expect the science day to prompt II’s to drive the price higher in the short run.

Adding at this price level (now that some of the trial risk has been removed) may well make sense within a diversified portfolio. That - from me - is as close to a ramp as you’ll get ;>

That’s a textbook example of pwojection ;>

Interesting question/discussion re lifetime exposure limit.

I have no science/medical background, training or experience - so have a general rule of avoiding commenting on topics like this. But I’m going to make a one-off exception, caveated carefully by expressing my thoughts as a question ;)

I know (from family experience with cyclo not dox) that lifetime exposure limits can have real consequences for patients.

Could the physical accuracy of delivery with AVA6k mean that MUCH smaller dosages will be required, simply because the active drug will be delivered only to the target? If so, the concept of a total lifetime exposure limit might be unchanged in terms of mg/m^2, but rendered irrelevant in practical terms..? Fantastic outcome if so.

@Oneknows, @OAMOT, @EER1 - I have highlighted the possibility that AVCT (from the position of strength it has created in progressing AVA6k) may be able to conduct a raise at a premium to the existing share price. I have explained how/why this might be possible and discussed some of the many benefits it might bring. This is a positive prospect for the company.

I can explain this to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Regarding II’s so often discussed here… You have to look behind the veil of the phrase “Institutional Investors”. Not everything you will see there has the desirable characteristics associated with the name..!

At one end of the desirability spectrum we have those who are only Institutional Investors under the loosest definition of the term. Here we find - for example - the nominee companies holding discounted placing shares for the clients of the bucket shop brokers, and the “high-turnover” trading funds who perhaps lack the err…. process and compliance constraints of the high-end players. I think AVCT has now put itself beyond these.

Nearer the middle we find the specialists - eg the life science investors - who will get under the skin of your new science and help build your credibility with mainstream investors. Perhaps Susq here, although their interest is a deal-hypothecated convertible so a little different. The spicier (I wrote spivvier but will accept the auto-correct…) small-cap specialists also inhabit this space. Capital from these investors can be critical, but they are not always the most patient as they have hungry mouths to feed. Also somewhere in the middle are the indexers. These are price-insensitive investors, but they have a tendency to come and go en masse as a result of index reconstitutions. They also open your liquidity to the predations of the ETF Authorised Participants who are compulsive traders/borrowers/shorters etc; awkward passengers if you like.

At the other end of the spectrum we have the marque-name white-collar providers of long-term patient capital - inter-alia the pension funds and some established specialist/collective funds - that every small-cap wants to have on their register. These investors are valued because they have reputations for investment acumen and diligent professional process built over many years. They will stand their corner in fund-raising exercises, vote your resolutions through and provide long-term stability to underpin your share price. Their very presence on your register is a seal of approval for companies and their management. It’s a win to get these institutions on board; a win that can in itself propel a share price.

The [sometimes] conflicting objectives and activities of all of these help to make a market!

AVA6k *may* offer AVCT an opportunity to get some of the better quality II’s on their register. PI’s should welcome this if it can be achieved from a position of strength.

Yes - I agree that a licensing deal - hopefully an early one - is the most likely way forward. But I think they'll be tempted to explore whether retained development might be possible, partly because there are benefits from having proper II's on the register.

Placings can be inherently accretive in a technical sense (ie when executed above the prevailing SP) but if new capital is onboarded from II's it is necessarily true that the retained interest of existing investors is diluted in % terms. No-one should fear this - a placing at a premium is typically an excellent outcome for all stakeholders..!

Interesting question re next steps. Here's how I see it.

The science day - and subsequent follow-up calls by the company's broker - provide an informal opportunity to test institutional investor interest in funding retained development of AVA6k.

Whilst there have been endless discussions here about II's wanting in and driving the price up, the reality is that they will be very reluctant to build positions in the secondary market simply because they know they'll be driving price action against their client interests. II's generally look to build positions by subscribing for newly issued shares in placing rounds, and their operating assumption will be that Avacta is coming with an ask. The science day will be an opportunity to get them suitably tumescent for this...

If there's a licensing deal option being hatched at present (for which no funding is required) then there may no such subscription opportunity and some II's *may* be persuaded to buy second-hand.

However.... well-run companies operate on the basis of raising capital when they can, rather than when they have to. So there may be some temptation for AVCT to use AVA6k to support a raise.

TLDR; II response to the science day will help AVCT determine whether or not to raise capital for the development of AVA6k. If they decide to raise it will also allow them to develop the maturity of their shareholder base by admitting more/proper II's. If they decide not to raise then any II's looking to take a position will have to hold their noses and buy in the secondary. In the meantime, don't expect buying interest from II's to drive the SP here in the way @Hurst10 proposes daily...