Member Info for Toukankahmoon

Yes AVA6103 is going to be mighty, but AVA6000 has to deliver first

Interesting new approach by the blatant rampers using pages and pages of calculations based on over optimistic figures.

I think I’d rather they stayed with the predictions based on wishful thinking approach.

At the end of the day they are wrong because the SP is at 40p and only great P1b results will change that in an upward direction. And then it’s dilution time one way or another.

As of the latest available data, Avacta Group plc exhibits the following financial performance metrics:

Return on Assets (ROA): -21.80%

Return on Equity (ROE): -73.02%

Return on Invested Capital (ROIC): -25.26%

I feel an inscription for a headstone coming on🤣

WINDRUM GONE BUT NOT DELETED

Icecool

I know that you feel the urge to argue with me at every opportunity. My ChatGPT analysis was a rebuff to Swazers nonsensical posting and his figures for ROA etc

It’s been so quiet on here and now you turn up.

An example of good use of ChatGPT::::::

The fact that Avacta is not profitable yet has positive ROA (Return on Assets), ROE (Return on Equity), and ROIC (Return on Invested Capital) suggests that these metrics are being calculated based on accounting measures that may not fully reflect the company's cash flow realities. Here are a few possible explanations:

1. Non-Cash Adjustments in Financial Statements

Companies often report losses but still show positive return metrics due to non-cash expenses like depreciation, amortization, or stock-based compensation.

Avacta may be capitalizing certain expenses or recognizing revenues in a way that temporarily inflates asset or investment-based returns.

2. Use of Adjusted or Expected Earnings

Some financial analysts or data sources might use adjusted earnings (e.g., EBITDA) rather than pure net income, which can make return metrics look more favorable.

If return metrics are based on future earnings projections or non-GAAP adjustments, they could show a more optimistic picture than reality.

3. Negative Equity Distortion

If Avacta has raised funds repeatedly and accumulated negative retained earnings (because of consistent losses), then its book equity could be small or even negative.

ROE = Net Income / Shareholders’ Equity. If equity is low due to prior losses, even a small income figure (or reduced losses) can result in a high or misleading ROE.

4. Short-Term Asset Efficiency Despite Losses

The company might still be generating revenues or asset turnover, even if it’s not making a net profit.

If revenue or gross profit is decent while operating expenses (like R&D or expansion costs) push it into losses, ROA and ROIC can still be positive.

5. Impact of Large Fund Raises

Large equity or debt raises can inflate total assets and increase capital available for investment.

If ROIC is calculated using adjusted invested capital (ignoring newly raised capital in the short term), it may appear higher than it really should be.

Conclusion: The Numbers Are Misleading

While the ROA, ROE, and ROIC look positive, they do not necessarily indicate profitability. Instead, they are likely influenced by adjustments, accounting treatments, or distortions from funding activity. Given that Avacta is burning cash, investors should focus more on cash flow, debt levels, and how long the company can sustain operations rather than these return ratios alone.

LLP

So spill the beans, how many have been recruited so far?

Flippineck

Fair enough

I was waiting for IceCool to tell us what his mate ChatGPT sees as the main difference between a gambler and an investor, but I think that he may still be trying to work out how to pose the question to ChatGPT in a form that gets him the answer he wants 🤣🤣🤣

After all the practice he’s had getting calculations and analysis out of ChatGPT, I wouldn’t have thought it would take him this long

Wyndrum

The point I’m trying to make is that people invest in profitable organisations to take a share of the profits. People buy shares in immature organisations gambling that their potential will at some point boost the SP.

I certainly realise that the money I have in Avacta is a gamble. I certainly don’t expect to see any decent dividend for 10 years or so, if ever.

Fliippin

I agree that buying into an IPO directly supports the company.

But the guru has told me that the SP doesn’t matter so buying on the open stock market is doing nothing to support it. All you are doing is hoping to deprive another shareholder of the capital gain that a rise in SP will bring. I can pay my friend money to tide his business over difficult times but I wouldn’t call it an investment.

Flippinhek

Your view only applies to a company when it is profitable. What return have you got on your “investment “ so far?

The only people to have made any money here are those that have top sliced successfully gambling on SP movements. They have made money at the expense of other shareholders. Please refer to my definitions posted earlier.

Watching

Except our investment guru

Icecool

Here’s a helping hand;

Investing supports businesses, innovation, and economic growth, creating value beyond just making money.

Gambling does not create value; it's a zero-sum or negative-sum activity where one person's gain is another's loss.

Icecool

Ok. What is your definition of investing?

Icecool

Sorry missed this.

If there was a fund raise tomorrow with appropriate evidence that it would taker us through the next 12 months - then I would take part.

Regarding what would be the point of investing if all shares were perfectly priced? That essentially shows the difference between us because most of my investments are made to yield dividend and if dividend yields are good then generally there’s an upward drift in SP over time. It’s called INVESTING whereas what we are doing here with Avacta is GAMBLING

Icecool

Since you bring it up. I spread my money such that it is across property, Classic vehicles and precious metals in addition to shares. One thing I’ve learnt is that very few things have a calculable intrinsic value and all are at the mercy of various events outside my control. At the end of the day something is worth what someone is prepared to pay for it. At the moment for Avacta it’s about 40p and no amount of complex calculations can change that.

Cue for IceCool to change subject and bleat about no one can dispute his valuation calculations🤡

Perhaps they cannot start it until they show they have enough funds to take it to a meaningful conclusion. If so we are stalled waiting for cash from DX sale.

If we are convinced that there can be no lack of suitable patients and AVA6000 is readily available then what are the other possible delays?????

“There's an awful lot of people without medical insurance and no realistic treatment options too?”

Which probably means the oncologists don’t know about them.

Given the poor sentiment and low SP , I cannot imagine Avacta not telling us when the first cohort start dosing. It would be unbelievably poor investor communications.