The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
As long as the news includes up-front and milestone fees, then the SP will recover. Like you say, it’s a slimlined company – around £500k a month to run – so a multimillion-dollar fee would be significant in this context. Stamp mentioned in September 2020 that the target was to land one of them in the first quarter of 2021. Well, that never happened – and therefore it’s understandable that investors remain cautious. That will change when (if) the first agreement is signed. Hopefully, a succession of licences will follow the first one.
The webinars help to get the message out to new investors and keep present ones in the loop. Some may see it as just more talk and, given the history of Midatech, who could blame them for taking that point of view? Though, it is important here to acknowledge that trials of its formulations only got underway in the middle of 2018. That’s not a long time ago and in the intervening period the fallout from the pandemic has been considerable.
Clinical data from the Q-Sphera formulation of Octreotide has been instrumental in attracting potential licensees for the other formulations. A bit more time may be needed before potential licensees become actual licensees. Stamp’s doing a lot of talking at the moment – but it can’t go on indefinitely. Sooner rather than later the words must be realised through tangible results.
Stamp has started both recent webinars with an acknowledgement that big mistakes were made in the past – especially the acquisition of DARA BioSciences. I doubt he would have been so damning if he didn’t have the confidence that his new strategy of ‘multiple shots on goal’ will work. What would be the point of the PR if there was nothing of value in the pipeline? Stamp isn’t the slickest of presenters – so the content must speak for itself. For a potential new investor there was a lot to take in.
I found the Q&A helpful. Secura Bio want Midatech’s IP. They must be getting a bit anxious because they’ve just had their FDA approval for panobinostat withdrawn:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/secura-bio-announces-us-withdrawal-of-farydak--panobinostat-nda-301434428.html
He cited competition from generics as the reason Novartis didn’t take on MTD201. I wish he would explain why a generic drug maker hasn’t come forward to develop it.
That’s on shares magazine also.
https://www.sharesmagazine.co.uk/events/event/shares-investor-webinar-011221
Much needed PR. The more, the merrier. A third of yesterday’s attendees didn’t own shares in the company. If would-be investors put Midatech on their watch lists – that can only be a good thing. If good news comes – then hopefully they will buy and hold.
The US dropped before the webinar started – so it was nothing to do with the presentation.
Stamp started with an acknowledgement of past mistakes. The slides and talk had that ‘Groundhog Day’ feel – most of it was a repeat of what has been said previously – with a few updates here and there.
More focus on glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) for MTX110. The Q-Sphera protein has aroused interest - along with disbelief that Midatech didn’t try it earlier. Still talking with interested parties.
Money won’t run out until early 2023 – and Stamp hopeful of a licence or two by then - purely on the number in the pipeline.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/nov/15/uk-firm-to-trial-t-cell-covid-vaccine-that-could-give-longer-immunity
Gold nanoparticles get a mention – but no specific reference to MidaCore.
Edison have tried to give a balanced summary of the present state of play:
https://www.edisongroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Midatech-Pharma-Pivoting-its-commercial-strategy-3.pdf
With regards to MTX213, it said the ‘partner requested proposal for expanded research collaboration’. That sounds positive even though they haven’t released any data.
The real important thing are licence agreements. It’s what we are all waiting for. I’m assuming that if the PK and PD profiles for MTX214 & MTX216 are comparable to or better than the already available formulations – then commercial agreements will follow. We don’t know the names of these active pharmaceutical ingredients. Does the partner require a first generation long acting injectable, or does it want to improve on an already existing one? This will have a bearing on how long it is going to take. Both MTD201 studies took 3 months for the results to be announced. This time Midatech are not in control of the timelines.
The recent presentation stated that the in vivo data from the partner for both MTX214 and MTX216 is expected end of September / early October. Both formulations were shipped to partner in June. Probably 2 to 3 months of data needed.
Waiting and hoping that a positive outcome will wake us from our slumber.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/04/petrofac-fined-bribes-to-secure-middle-east-contracts
It looks like the continuing SFO investigation is about pursuing former employees that don’t accept any responsibility:
Clare Montgomery, QC for Petrofac… told the court that the new management accepted responsibility for the corruption, but that a large number of former employees “don’t accept any responsibility and are not willing to be identified”.
After legal representations last week, Taylor ruled that a number of individuals linked to Petrofac could not be identified by the media.
The SFO said its investigation was continuing. After the sentencing, George Havenhand, of the campaign group Spotlight on Corruption, said: “While we welcome the fact that the SFO has successfully prosecuted Petrofac, it would be a travesty of justice if those who directed and most profited from the bribery scheme do not face a robust investigation and prosecution.”
The potential is massive, Sp28 – it always has been. The first CEO said he wanted it to become at a £3 billion business. At IPO the M cap was £74 million, and at that stage all 3 platforms were unproven. Since then, all 3 have been shown to work. Q-Sphera has shown huge potential. And yet, the M cap remains at around £20 million and does not reflect the substantial progress that has been made.
As for last week’s news, you can get a gauge of the Q-Mab performance from the graphs on the recent presentation. They show that the Q-Sphera protein retains functionality. Although early days - it’s a significant development. With a traditional emulsion process, the protein would be denatured by heat etc. and wouldn’t work.
Mabs bring in big revenue for the pharmaceutical companies (154 billion dollars in 2020). However, patent protection is running out on some of them. A Q-Sphera formulation of a long-acting Mab would allow a pharmaceutical company to extend the patent protection and protect revenues – it’s called evergreening. There would be benefits also for patients , medical staff and payors, and other cost savings. Big Pharma should be interested in this development.
I’ve not posted for a few months because there has not been anything new to write about. I’ve not lost interest and I have been reading the chat on a regular basis – waiting, like most long-term holders, for a signed licence agreement to appear.
The Q-Sphera Mab data looks really promising – it may even turn out to be the game changer we have all been waiting for. But I thought the same about the MTD201 (Q-Octreotide) data – and that has come to nothing so far. That’s the thing that I don’t understand. Why does Novartis stick with an inefficient and wasteful high energy reactor-based emulsion process to make Sandostatin LAR when Midatech’s Q-Sphera can (seemingly) make them a better product? Better for the patient, better for the clinician and better for the payor.
Stamp said at last September’s webinar:
“Our target is to land our first licence fee in the first quarter of next year.”
Well, it’s come and gone – and no fee. Come on Midatech, walk the talk!
The holdings RNS is not a concern. They appear to have reduced their shares and increased their ADRs. They acquired around 5.5 million shares (9.18%) in the placing last year.
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/MTPH/holdings-in-company-5ycjv7k90ef21re.html
They now have around 4.8 million (7.75%), but 3 million of them are now through ADRs. Also, the total number of shares has increased by about 2.5 million since last year – so that will alter percentages.
Stamp will appreciate that there is no point releasing news of progress if there are not enough investors to understand its significance. The share price just spikes. The recent PR will help to address the issue.
WTF2012, the comparison with a volcanologist detecting tremors is a good one. All calm, then:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCTu6_6hlCw
Impressive!
A good summary. I like the way he explained the importance of timelines for the Q-Sphera products. In-house formulations don’t pose a problem – but with the external ones – the partner is in control of the timeline. Was Dr Reddy’s not ready for the next step?
As for cash – he emphasised that the first port of call will be milestone payments from licensing partners.
Stamp said at September’s webinar:
“Our target is to land our first licence fee in the first quarter of next year.”
If he had the European partner in mind, then that is still in play.
Let’s be realistic – they have to become self-reliant. Are the tech and drugs they have worth paying money for? That question needs to be resolved this year. I’m holding until the outcome is known.
1 ADR = 5 ordinary shares.
Thanks for your considered reply, ColdBuffett. By not stating clearly why the collaboration finished, Midatech have left us trying to guess what the reasons were. And given the history of the company to disappoint shareholders – it is understandable to be wary.
I’m like you, I don’t believe it would be due to a fundamental problem with Q-Sphera – after all it is meant to be the next-generation microencapsulation technology, and the data for MTD201 supports that claim. Also, the European partner has increased the number of APIs to three – so they must be reasonably happy with developments – and new staff vacancies suggests something is going according to plan.
Sounds like you have swallowed the red pill, Geomtryony.
ColdBuffett, do you have any thoughts on why the collaboration with Dr. Reddy's would be mutually terminated?
They often don't work out due product failure or extreme market changes. But this collaboration only lasted 6 months.
The closure of Bilbao must have been tragic for the 42 employees and their families.
Was it shortsighted? The leadership will argue that it was necessary to ensure the long-term survival of the company. They needed to raise around £20 million to finish the MTD201 clinical trial and have Bilbao ready for commercial production. Stamp was brought in to raise the money – and I think he would have done it if the pandemic hadn’t happened.
They had one Q-Sphera formulation last year – and it was to be developed and manufactured in-house. Midatech would have kept most of the proceeds. Now they have seven formulations – which, if successful, should bring in meaningful revenue. The partners will be responsible for the clinical development and manufacturing scale-up. Consequently, they will keep more of the profit. Understandably, Midatech will only get a modest slice of the pie – but there are now seven pies instead of one.