Member Info for StarBright

That disguise won’t work in 2023. I advise wearing an organic dress (colour matched to your beard), a collection of minority cause ribbons and carrying a copy of the Guardian. Fund management nowadays is at the forefront of contemporary social mores.

With liquidity thin, enhanced levels of exogenous risk (Putin) and a sharply increased cost of short-term capital, my money would be on MM’s across the market running as thin as they can on inventory this week. In which case their positions are unlikely to be a factor.

@13thmonkey - I am hopeful that low multiples of the current SP might be achieved within the next 6-12 months, so I am very comfortable to be invested at this level. I’ve been a holder for several years, and have no plans to sell. I don’t have what posters here refer to euphemistically as a “trading pot”, I’m very much an old-fashioned buy and hold value investor.

Whilst there is enormous upside potential the reality is that there are many hurdles to clear. Some of the popular valuations advanced so repetitively and determinedly on this ‘board should be seen for what they are: cynical appeals to inexperienced investors indicating that AVCT offers a sure path to short-tern riches because “we know” etc.

It isn’t that simple. It never is.

The little “up to” in that sentence really matters. The reality is that Novartis have secured it for just $50m with a chunk of conditional deferred consideration if it’s a knockout success.

“Up to $700m” is technically correct but in reality a deliberately misleading representation of the deal economics. I would say the same to anyone who said the deal was done for “at least” $50m…

“Colorado-based Clovis said it has entered into a stalking horse agreement with Novartis Innovative Therapies AG to sell the license rights to its pipeline clinical candidate FAP-2286 for an upfront payment of $50 million and up to an additional $333.75 million after achieving some development and regulatory milestones. Clovis will also receive $297 million later, when it hits certain sales milestones.”

Of course you could observe that it’s easy to spot the traders here. The spike they were counting on selling into hasn’t materialised in the way they hoped, despite their heroic ramping efforts, and they are stressed/defensive as a result.

After all - manipulating the many inexperienced investors here is usually an easy gig. Their “bait and gate” tactics work as well here as they do on other LSE boards.

“bait and gate” is one of the basic FOMO strategies beloved of the charismatic mega-rampers found all over the LSE ‘boards. All you need is to hammer away with some juicy bait “SP will do 10x/20x/whatever …” and a crude gate “the NEXT drill assay / drug trial result / contract award / whatever” is the big one that will unlock the multi-bag. Both the “gate” and the “bait” will be false dichotomies. Their purpose is to exclude other credible outcomes. In reality the next assay/trial result/whatever will be just another step in a long-term process, and - in similar reality - the relevant SP may move up on positive news but not 10-20x. But these edge-cases are always presented as black-and-white inflexion points by manipulators out to provoke FOMO, which we all know is a uniquely powerful influencer. Deploy your “bait and gate” doggedly with a high-energy / high-post-count style and you can turn ripples into tradable spikes. Take your 10-20% by selling into the spike, rinse and repeat on the next gate you can create.

Look on almost any LSE board where there are inexperienced investors and you’ll find cookie-cutter versions of this narrative. Sadly, it seems that it works.

We are going to be told that no further testing or trials are required. There are no outstanding questions regarding efficacy, dosage, side-effects (short- & long-term), tolerability, dispensing format, interactions with other conditions or treatments etc. “It works” and that’s the end of it. Anyone suggesting otherwise is thick, or a trader - or both.

I understand why you choose always to paint a binary outcome. But the real world is somewhat more sophisticated/nuanced. That the trial hasn’t been stopped is - of course - great news, but it’s misleading to suggest that the outcome here will be a simple unequivocal “it works”. The results will be more carefully qualified than that.

I look forward to learning more about the results from the trial. What they have tested, what further testing there is to do. What they feel confident they “know” for certain, and what the testing to date indicates but is not yet known. What their plans are for the next stage in clinical and commercial terms etc.

This week is going to be a “Jo Moore Week” for AIM companies…

Companies work hard not to leave themselves in a situation where they have to RNS significant news over the Christmas period. It’s not always possible for them to control their news flow in this way - particularly with respect to exogenous events - but linear processes (for example the timing of research output) will generally be scheduled to avoid holiday period announcements.

Why? Because during those holiday periods companies functional ability to convey narrative is greatly diminished. Both their communicators (retained brokers, IR/PR providers etc) and their intended audiences (existing and potential shareholders, trade and mainstream media etc) are affected by staff being out of the office or err… concentrating their energies elsewhere. Institutional shareholders in particular do not welcome news in quiet periods when liquidity is low. So companies work very hard not to annoy them by dropping significant news.

Occasionally we see companies trying to “Jo Moore” bad news at close on Christmas Eve, but this is a desperate tactic and insto investors have long memories for anyone involved in trying this.

If you have powerful positive news you want to take it to market at the time when you can maximise its impact. This means having your full comms machine ready to roll - your house broker fully briefed and ready to target their call lists of existing and potential investors, your IR and PR teams ready to hit their audiences and promote secondary coverage, your own executives ready to do press interviews with key journalists - both trade and potentially mainstream news - who aren’t out of the office etc. The “golden hour” from RNS time at 7am until market open at 8am is a flurry of pre-planned activity, orchestrated with a minute-by-minute schedule. This is the way the system works, and it requires everyone to be on-deck.

You want to drop your news into a market where there’s plenty of liquidity to support those who want to buy (or sell) as a result. You want - as a professional outfit - to work with the system not against it.

Much of the curious eco-system that disseminates corporate news in the City will be off sick, “working from home” or affected by train strikes this week.

There will be exceptions - and I’d be delighted to be wrong in AVCT’s case - but I don’t expect many companies to be releasing big news items this coming week.

@Culpepper - as I pointed out, the IG definition omits the critical detail that trades via MM’s are (also) reported as “Off-book”. In GGP’s case, this means that 99.x% of the trades execute are “Off-book”.

Here’s a more detailed explanation for you https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/81/idiots-guide-to-the-london-stock-exchanges-setsmm-0379.html

@Culpepper - that definition omits a critical detail! The overwhelming majority of trades in GGP are “Off-book” in that they are transacted with/by the market-makers. In this context, Off-book = a trade through a market maker.

Trades that aren’t executed via MM’s go through the order book. They are - as I have explained above - both buys and sells. These can be described as “going through the book”.

“Off-book” sounds like some special mechanism that isn’t open to retail investors. But in truth it is almost exactly the opposite of that. A confusing nomenclature I agree….

@Benrumpson1 - the idea of identifying buys and sells by referencing them against the quoted spread is entirely irrelevant here. These trades went directly through the order book, each print representing a transaction that was a buy for one participant and a sell for the other.

I don’t know who sold the shares, but there are over 5bn out there so it is (evidently) easy enough to find some sellers given a weeks notice. Perhaps some of the un-named “institutional investors” onboarded at 14.5p in the Nov ‘21 placing have lost patience as they are almost -50%?

The transactions that went through the order book in the closing auction today should be understood to be BOTH buys and sells, because that is what they were. In each case someone sold and someone else bought. You can’t look at them in the same way as you might a £500 trade via HL - the RSP’s (MM’s) were likely uninvolved.

With rebalances scheduled transparently as they are, it’s not hard for market participants to match their needs - provided that the volumes involved aren’t too large. This rebalance hasn’t created any particularly anomalous prints

ETF’s can be awkward passengers, but In the end these transactions are irrelevant to investors with any distortion they create proving transient. They attract too much attention on boards like this.

Some observations on this topic (referencing GGP) here: https://www.etfstream.com/features/liquidity-risks-increase-across-vaneck-s-junior-gold-miner-etfs-as-demand-soars/

IG has 51-250 client accounts with long SB positions on AVCT. No short positions.

@DTW: “… It is inconceivable that the company is not already in possession of significant P1a data that is SP sensitive and under normal conditions should be disclosed to shareholders.”

Is it not inconceivable that not using multiple consecutive negatives might not make this sentence not easy to understand?

I *think* you are trying to say that corporate activity (eg a takeover or similar) is the most likely reason for AVCT’s current silence on P1a results. I would say this is possible, but - on balance - unlikely. It could be that the P1a results haven’t yet been finalised, or that they aren’t perhaps as conclusive as hoped/expected so not “significant” from a shareholder perspective.

It’s too great a leap to say that the absence of a results announcement must be down to corporate activity. That said, I’ll be happy to be proved wrong!

I don’t think that the Vonk shambles is relevant now. Different people involved, different projects. It’s not Trigger’s broom..!

The market is looking for hard commercial progress, with potential being converted to reality. Not just for ANGS, but across more speculative shares generally. The Covid loose-money induced retail ramp/hype bubble is largely deflated and more normal conditions/expectations are being re-established.

It will take Angus a little time to provide sufficient proof-work here. All to play for imho.

Looks like decent progress to me. Carry on….

Agreed Tygra. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see a small fund taking a punt here. 90m shares, approx £1.8m for a TR1.

Perhaps it’s not your job to manage it, @RAH0084…?

Do posters here understand that Trinity Delta isn't a broker..? Rather they are a comms agency ultimately paid for and instructed by Avacta. It isn't that they have "consulted Avacta" - they are working for Avacta! I know their output looks like broker research, but it really isn't. That's why TD themselves say: "The report should be considered a marketing communication for purposes of the FCA rules. It has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research..." etc. Companies like Avacta hire TD to help tell/simplify their investment story for PI's. There's nothing wrong with that, but their notes should be seen for what they are.