Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
@JRDC "Even Al cant fook it up..." meanwhile Al sits there saying "hold my beer"... He has literally dropped the ball every chance he has had... Management at Avacta has been atrocious.
why bother buying Avacta if all they want is AVA6000? They could just license the AVA6000 molecule, as its not based on the Affimer technology. Why take on the baggage when all you want is a sublicense to a licensed asset...? Just taking the AVA6000 asset would be far more cost effective...
this has been recurrent for years... Deal with NEB, Siemens, Roche... Binders for complement C3, Zika, Vit D, fibrinogen, etc. You will notice all of these statements and press releases are scrubbed from their site now, yet 50 (yes 50) press releases since 2020....
An opinion based on decades in the biotech industry that doesn't align with yours and suddenly Im from a bot farm, what a joke...
Have you considered why this might be?
1) Cannot comment on BJ as he's an idiot and has faltered with every possible step along this path..
2) AS has made many bold statements over the years, and seemingly has no issue bending the truth, or flat out lying to keep the ship floating. You can compare the performance to all other tests already on the market (https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/default/files/preparedness_response/docs/covid-19_rat_common-list_en.pdf). Also, as Ndn71 highlighted below, the validation is scant (lacking >100 positive tests, lacking CV). This is a silly oversight and should come with heads rolling..
3) Is this really surprising? This has been the theme for a few years now.
4) Avacta was not a proper diagnotic company before covid, so not sure what point you are trying to make here...
One of the largest investors into Avacta is pension funds... Yes, unfortunately this includes my pension fund... Yes, I was keen on Avacta some 7-8 years ago when there were bold claims of disruption. However, many of these claims have come by the wayside. I see a company divided, lacking focus and trying to excel in both diagnostics and therapeutics (each challenging enough on their own), over promising yet under delivers on nearly all occasions. It is literally a company which cannot get out of its own way. Perhaps its a technology issue, perhaps its a management issue, perhaps both. Regardless of my views derived from decades of experience in the biotech industry, until my pension fund withdraws completely I will be here. I will also happily eat my words should Avacta deliver, but I wont hold my breath.
Avacta quick to RNS and slow to deliver. All of these deals and next to nothing to show for the nearly £100M invested... The lead Tx is not even an Affimer. The exclusive license for Anti-idiotypics for an extortionately low value (considering this was the only application that had any data - despite seeming background issues). Apologies, but we have all been around the block on this one and Im not holing my breath for the 'amazing breakthrough' we hear about on this board every 2 days...
bold statement with minimal data to back it up... a year+ on from announcing the test it seems everyone is still waiting.
yes, it seems that Leeds University is able to generate Affimer binders that work well in academic explorations. However, despite 7 years of efforts the Avacta team has generated a covid test and next to nothing else of commercial value (note how late to market the covid test was compared to many many other Ab based tests). It is clear that from a modality perspective Affimers MAY serve as a good Tx tool, however, for biomarkers Affimers are far from unseating Abs as the tool of choice.
@TripHop, your points are noted. You are correct in that I am by no means new to the industry or trading. Here is my rationale for only joining discussions recently. This technology first caught my eye several years ago ('15-16). I was a cautious observer, as many of the claims surrounding this technology are carbon copies of other technologies that simply have not panned out. Over this 5 year period of time I have watched as share prices continued to decline and there was no true progress with the technology, waiting and watching to see if the technology and market evolved/matured.
It is clear that in the last couple of months something has changed, at least with market perceptions (if nothing else). My questions were to try to understand this, as there was not much tangible progress to date in terms of data. The announcement of the Cytiva partnership is a clear indicator, and with the recent press release this was somewhat validated. However, I cannot help but wonder what has been going on for 5 years and why the technology has not translated into marketed diagnostic (or commercial) products previously.
In my research it seems the company not only uses separate business units to address the different Tx and Dx markets, but they apparently are using different versions of the technology. This makes sense from a valuation and encumbrances perspective, but further suggests that success with one version of the technology may not be a direct translation to the other (ie: success in Tx does not necessarily mean success with Dx, and vice-versa). Although I must admit this has come with confusion based on the information publicly available and on Avacta's website.
In either case, yes Im new to posting, but have been a silent observer of the technology for several years. My recent posts are to try to understand if things are actually progressing OR if there is a different kind of investor that is driving market valuation. The Tx approach is by far the interesting factor here, but again I am concerned that the lead compound does not even seem to be based on Avacta technology, but rather it is outside licensed technology (this does not speak well for Avacta's trust in its own internally driven programs in that they would prioritise outside compounds over their own, particularly with funding being tight in the last fundraises). The Dx side is also of interest, but again (up to the Cytiva announcement), there has not been much progress.
My comments were an attempt to validate my understanding, as the recent valuation shifts are interesting to say the least. I am also skeptical by nature, and we have seen time and time again that not all people in this space are honest with the marketplace.
I have no interest in controlling market prices, and Im certain my comments on this board will not influence that... What I do want is an understanding of the current situation that is based on fact and data rather than "good feelings and optimism"
Interesting responses, I posed a couple of questions and now Im a "troll". RorkesDrift seems to understand my concern and the point I was coming to throughout my analysis. Yes, I am extremely familiar with the timelines, cost, and process to bring a drug to market, and despite being under progress for 6 years (which is not a blink of the eye) the lead Tx compound is seemingly not an Affimer.
Regardless, this should not be equated to costs, timelines, and process to bring a reagent product to market - these are completely different games we are discussing. My point was that for a reagents company not to have a leading product on the market after 6 years of heavy investment seems odd and slightly concerning. I have spent a good deal of time reviewing the website and product list, apologies for my nativity but which product on their website is the groundbreaker and revenue source? I have also read all press releases dating back several years which mention collaborations and co-developments etc, but all of these seem to have just disappeared with no tangible result (that I am aware of - please correct me if Im wrong).
As RorkesDrift pointed, there has been some income via services, but the actual commercial output of this is unclear, and it is further unclear if this £0.8M is from said services or product sales (anyone have insights?). The services aspect will inevitably have lower profitability than product sales, and is not as scalable from a logistical standpoint. The majority of input into this equation seems to have been Tx milestones, yet is still below the forecasted revenue for the 5th year running. In terms of the Avacta product catalog, I would still question if any are profitable (that was the key phrase of emphasis here), as much of the catalog look very much run-of-the-mill non-Dx products.
RorkesDrift, thanks for your feedback in regards to the pivot to focus on Tx, this makes a lot of sense. I would perhaps even go one step further in saying that it would be highly beneficial to separate the 2 business units, allowing Tx to focus and progress and allowing the reagents to do as they will. However, what is not clear is the commercial trajectory for how reagents and diagnostics play into this and how much of the recent fundraise can be attributed to Tx progress or Covid hype? Surely a Tx asset and company valuation is only diluted by a RUO reagent manufacturer... (I am not aware of a single company that has parallel business units for Tx and reagents currently - there have been some in the past, but all have divested the reagents business - please correct me if Im wrong).
Apologies for trying to engage in a fruitful discussion and to ensure my analysis is accurate, apparently this is not appreciated by this crowd. However, these are thoughts that should likely be running through your heads as well... Not sure why everyone has immediately gone to hostility.
There has been much excitement recently, yet there does not seem to be much progress with this technology from a commercial perspective. It has been 6 years and there is seemingly no profitable commercially available product that incorporates an Affimer. Does this not seem extremely odd to anyone else for a technology being lauded as "technology of the year"? We have heard many times in press releases that they have found the next BIG thing, yet it never seems to pan out and there is still no significant validation of the technology. As stated by others, this certainly seems a higher risk category, and perhaps not one which should be invested in by pension fund managers.
It should be remembered that there are 2 parallel business units operating here, both a reagent (diagnostic claims) and therapeutic. For all intents and purposes there would be advantages if these were different companies. The Tx group appears to be progressing with significant deals, however, the reagents group has little to nothing to show outside of an evaluation of materials from Cytiva. There have been numerous announcements of collaborations and evaluations over the years, but nothing seems to have progressed beyond a press release.
Despite progress with the therapeutic program (although the lead molecule seems to not even be an Affimer), the lack of progress in the diagnostic space leads to large questions of either a technology or execution issue. With many announcements of commercial interest, yet no progress, it hints towards a concern. It seems that Leeds is making more progress than a highly funded commercial organisation.
How much of this is based on hype and hope vs reality and data? Its a nice story, although it begs the question, is this fact or fiction?