Great post Adam5 Jan 2023 15:28
Evening.
Good grief, I’ve read some tosh on here today.
Nick Slater with inside information; absolute nonsense. VAL in my opinion are, if anything, overly conservative, so whoever thinks that is well and truly shooting at a very wrong target. This is precisely the reason that I felt the role of “shareholder rep” was somewhat fruitless.
Nick can defend himself, but I can tell you that, as a man whom is vocal in his opinion, sometimes he simply didn’t rub so well with the BOD and, as a result, felt that he wanted to reduce his holding. It’s as simple as that. A shame, as he made many germane suggestions, and continues to do so. Some folk with differing approaches don’t mix so well, and we are where we are, but I can also tell you that although he wants to make money, he also wants, to the same degree, every other genuine investor to make money at the same time, in addition to the BOD. He was a firm supporter of the bonus scheme and I’d wager, in fact, he’d have had it higher. Lots of experience in the markets, and always worth listening to in my opinion.
Aside from that, as Nick has taken a proverbial back-seat in his professional offerings, plus, as everyone in pharma loves “stretched” targets, here are mine for 2023:
I’d like to see one of the two remaining evaluation projects locked into an SPV (obviously two more would be most welcome!), with potentially two more entering evaluation. Out of five SPVs, I think that two could go all the way. Big pharma still has very deep pockets, and I’m seeing some fairly average compounds going through to meet numerical targets, currently. Some are even pushed through, even though there is no indication that they will afford greater efficacy than competitor compounds, which are often further on. KCTNBC is unique, and has, as far as I’m aware, no competition. It would truly be a first-in-class, so hopefully the conversations have commenced. Value accretion occurs over two years, but this could generate early interest, at least in my view. VAL have just published a superb piece on the website – this needs to be communicated via social media, far-and-wide.
I’d like to see a resolution regarding 201, before Spring, either way. Beyond this stage, it may materially impact the momentum built from the new compounds, and I don’t want that to happen. If 201 is signed over, I will doth my cap.
I’d like to see 301 with a new patent or indication, and perhaps bring a resolution to the Japanese partnership. Partnering 201 and 301 was a three-year target by the BOD themselves, as of 2021, so I feel aligned with them in this.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
