Member Info for Thompi

Ice - as an example, I asked AI this theoretical question: If a company’s share price is 31p and they receive a takeover offer of 200p, what is the percentage difference?

The answer: The takeover offer represents an approximate 545% increase over the current share price.

On paper, a 545% increase sounds fantastic - and it certainly is compared to where we are now. But if you think the current share price doesn’t factor into negotiations or into the mindset of many investors, you are seriously mistaken.

“One is driven by real milestones, clinical data, and long-term value creation. The other? Pure sentiment and the short-term dopamine hit of instant gratification.”

Dopamine hit of instant gratification - ICE, I think your version of AI has been reading too much Jilly Cooper. And for the record I do think the SP is important, especially at 31p. As is the board’s ability to maximise all the potential of the platform.

I have the utmost respect for CC but I think she needs help on the commercial side of the business, in addition to SB.

Cj62, if that is the case I apologise. That was not the intention.

Goldie, I think it’s worth pointing out that Baillie Gifford’s disposal may have taken place before the March corporate deck was published - we don’t know exactly when during the quarter they sold, as the BG fact sheet covers a three-month period. That said, selling on the grounds of underwhelming efficacy seems like a questionable rationale, especially given that Avacta only relatively recently commenced Phase 1b and the initial SGC data has been positive.

I agree Tim - it is odd. The sale could have been any time during Q1, but we still had the 16 January RNS: Avacta announces positive new data from the AVA6000 phase 1 trial demonstrating clinically meaningful tumour shrinkage in patients with Salivary Gland Cancers.

And there was also the January corporate deck with the slide regarding the gent with the “Complete Regression of Large Skin Metastasis in a Patient with a Minor Response”.

I’m surprised Baillie Gifford sold their AVCT position in the Global Discovery fund, citing underwhelming efficacy. That feels premature, especially considering we’re still in the early stages of Phase 1b and the SGC data to date has looked encouraging. It’s disappointing - Avacta should be gaining institutional support at this stage, not losing it.

Hopefully we’ll get a firm date for the preliminary results soon - and ideally, it lands early next month rather than later. If there is the usual results presentation, the Q&A session will be particularly interesting.

Ref the fund factsheet 31st March 2025, Ballie Gifford sold their holding in the Global Discovery fund. Disappointing.

https://www.bailliegifford.com/en/uk/intermediaries/literature-library/funds/oeics/global-discovery-fund/global-discovery-fund-quarterly-update/

VS - I think that is fair comment:

“A medical professional of his [Virgilio Sacchini] international standing is not going to go out on a limb (mentioning Avacta by name 13 times) without it being sanctioned by the company itself.

No way.”

It does beg the question where is AVCT’s media & PR in all this? If it wasnt for X this really interesting interview would have gone largely unnoticed.

VS, how do you know the board actually sanctioned the Virgilio Sacchini interview?

Avacta didn’t even tweet about it. The interview was only picked up by an eagle-eyed poster on X, and because of his post it gained wider attention. At the time, it felt like a missed opportunity for the company to promote some valuable independent validation of AVA6000.

Wyn, I have no doubts about the science. If there were any issues with efficacy, I’m confident the Science Advisory Board would have stepped in - they have a duty of care to patients. I also don’t believe they would have recommend progressing into TNBC without being fully convinced. It’s a highly respected panel, and I’d expect them to be extremely cautious if there were any serious concerns.

The three selected indications are all known to be doxorubicin-sensitive, and Avacta is focusing on first- and second-line patients - those most likely to respond. My concerns aren’t with the trial data, but rather with the board’s lack of commercial acumen.

I really hope CC knows what she is doing and, other than selling DX, they have other options that aren’t going to depress the fragile SP further.

Someone posted this on X last month and I have come round to that way of thinking myself.

“ChatGPT on the Avacta situation - “In biotech, momentum matters. A less-than-perfect deal can still validate the technology, attract further interest, and boost investor confidence. Waiting endlessly for the “perfect” deal can do more harm than good, especially when the share price is already in free fall.

A shift in strategy—focusing on securing something tangible rather than just talking about ongoing discussions—would likely help. Even a smaller licensing agreement, collaboration, or non-dilutive funding deal could change the narrative.”

Panmure Liberum has issued a broker note titled “Healthcare: A ‘safeish’ haven from tariffs.” HVO is highlighted as one of the stocks with zero expected impact from the introduction of tariffs, and the firm has set a share price target of 24p.

I would have posted the article - but sorry I can’t get the link to work.

Chris, if your post is directed at Thorn - could I strongly recommend binning him. I read Wyn’s and Touk’s but I draw the line at Thorn. He is not and never has been invested, he is out to goad. Filter and forget would be my advice. It works for me.

EbbsandFlows, I get the frustration, but just to clarify - it’s not “just 42 patients” that that have been treated. The number according to the latest corporate deck is: 44 (Q3W) + 13 (Q2W) + 6 (RDE cohort) = 63 patients.

44 (Q3W) + 13 (Q2W) + 6 (RDE cohort) = 63

“The Scientific Advisory Board runs this show and they would have pulled the plug on pre|CISION® if it hadn't worked perfectly in roughly 150 cancer patients. That's the Holy Grail BP spent billions on and decades looking for.”

VS agree with your post apart from the quantity of patients. If you look at slide 11 in the corporate deck I think the number of patients are:

44 (Q3W) + 13 (Q2W) + 6 (RDE cohort) = 63

https://avacta.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Avacta-Corporate-Presentation_March-2025_.pdf

Good spot LLP and thanks for posting Ben’s post on X. It’s an interesting theory on the possibility of a two-step dosing regimen.

Evening LLP, I think the major changes were made in the previous version of the clinical trial on the 13th December last year. When Pancreatic cancer, colorectal cancer & NSCL were deleted (presumably because non-sensitive to Dox).

Head & Neck cancer was revised to SGC

Bladder cancer was revised to Urothelial Carcinoma

Ovarian cancer was revised to Ovarian Carcinoma

It’s hard to tell what the most recent changes are because I can’t compare the side-by-side history with the most recent version. But from what I can see I don’t think it’s anything major?

Sol, I don’t know anything about TLY, but fair play to the Medical Director - £150k is still a tidy sum

Sol, it has no relevance to HVO, but you need to do your sums again re the TLY Medical Director’s recent share purchase. It was not “ £1 million of his hard earned money!”

LDA, I don’t quite understand Ice’s reply to your question about STS: “Been dropped from Phase 1b, didn’t you see the RNS…?” I assume that it was meant facetiously.

Just out of interest this is what the recent PL note said:

“The expansion phase consists of three cohorts, enrolling salivary gland cancer, triple-negative breast cancer, and dedifferentiated liposarcoma patients [STS], with each cohort expected to recruit 20-30 patients. However, due to a desire for increased focus and funding constraints, we expect the latter to recruit only slowly.”

It looks like the compelling SGC data has made that the priority, alongside TNBC.