Member Info for Wigwammer

“Rinse. repeat.. etc”. That’s certainly the consensual view, hence the sub £20m market cap. But the frequency and size of deals in the autoimmune space suggests high levels of interest currently, immupharma have had multiple meetings under CDA - something they have not experienced for a long time, and they appear to have made material progress with the science, with new data which will allow them to consolidate their patent position. So perhaps not quite rinse/repeat… IMO DYOR

With respect, OSD, I didn’t say you were sceptical. But it is of course relevant that people look at the potential outcomes for when “the play has ended” - what does the share price do if things work out positively, what could they lose if they don’t, what probability do they put on each scenario. Consequently is the risk/reward favourable and what is the right amount to invest? I think the risk/reward here looks very positive OSD, so I’m agreeing with you there. GLA DYOR IMO etc

Plenty of scepticism this morning, as per usual. The company has ph3 assets in blockbuster indications and a sub £20m fully diluted market cap, yet people are surprised to find the story has uncertainties and lack of clarity. The point is - what is going to happen to the share price in the event we do get clarity and things progress over the next 6 months? And what is the maximum you can lose if we don’t? What probability do you put on each of these scenarios? This is how you formulate whether the stock represents good risk/reward. Simply regurgitating and embellishing consensual negative arguments is not how you make money in markets. GLA DYOR etc

Quite happy to let the market have the last word, nolupus. Over the 15 months we have had these exchanges, it has very much paid to ignore your scepticism. ATB

I see, nolupus. So if Lanstead wanted to remove their exposure to the direction of the share price, they could do so. But instead, they have not.

Keeping a very open mind nolupus, and trying to get your point. So if Lanstead wanted to aggressively divest its exposure to immupharma it could sell large amounts of shares upfront (early in the agreement) knowing their obligation exposure is covered by the warrants. Ok… So why haven’t they sold lots of shares upfront?

So when you posted earlier peter, that “it is totally irrelevant to lanstead what news comes out or does not come out”, that was clearly wrong, wasn’t it? Because Lanstead have 70m options with a 2p exercise price, and a clear interest in seeing the shares rise. And when you repeatedly claimed that Lanstead would force the price down with heavy selling, it turns out they constituted less than 20% of the selling volume. The other 80% would be PI’s, some of whom perhaps sensitive to your daily negative rants. Oh well, it’s only a promising biotech trying to stay funded.. IMO DYOR GLA

And thanks for reminding me, nolupus. In the event immupharma did go bankrupt, peter, Lanstead would lose all value in the warrants. ATB

Yes, let’s be open minded. Lanstead have not sold more shares than are required to cover their obligations, despite having warrants to protect them in the event the shares rise materially. We have been told on multiple occasions by the “open minded” sceptics that this was a big risk, but at least so far, it hasn’t materialised. Where did the sceptics go wrong?

We do understand the agreement, peter. Nobody has stated that Lanstead would lose a material amount if the company went bankrupt. ATB

Good posts, pebsi and oldsharedog. But it isn’t just about what you believe - it is also about how much the market disbelieves. The current fully diluted market cap is sub £20m - very small for a company with late stage assets in blockbuster indications, precisely because of this consensus scepticism. So if your belief turns out to be prescient we can expect a return many multiples of the 100% we are risking - the risk/reward looks highly favourable IMO. As with any equity investment there is evidently risk and you need to invest an appropriate amount. GLA DYOR IMO etc

Hi rookie. Sorry it has taken a while to get back to you - been away for a few days. Yes Lanstead had additional commitments to immupharma from the previous agreement, and these were rolled up and paid in March and April. Interestingly this involved rolling 6 months of payments into just two months (which would suggest tripling Lanstead selling volume over March/April assuming they pro rata share sales to funding commitments) but the shares held up pretty well. The latest holdings RNS appears to suggest Lanstead have sold around 240k shares per day since the last holdings RNS, well below the 350k that would be required for them to meet their commitments through pro rata share selling. Happy to be corrected on these numbers. Given current daily volumes, it is unlikely therefore that Lanstead have had that much influence on the price day to day, and - as I suggested - it is likely that PI selling constitutes the majority of any downward pressure. It also suggests that - contrary to the arguments of some here - Lanstead have not been aggressively selling their position and/or relying on their warrants to cover their position. ATB

Rookie - the Lanstead agreement requires them to dispose circa 350k shares per day, whereas recent volumes are running around 3m per day. So I suspect the largest contributor to downward pressure is simply private investors throwing the towel in. To each their own. ATB DYOR GLA etc

Hmm. I wonder if lollywally will be selling any immupharma shares on the back of this uproar? Or is it all just posturing..

Yes. The CRO was announced Dec 2023

Hi jimjam. The CRO agreement for the first ph3 was announced in January 2015. The next trial update was not released until November 2015. Patient dosing started in Feb 2016. It is a lengthy process

No lollywally, but a rational investor can argue about the relevance of the ph3 trial news to the investment case. Because if an attractive deal is announced in the not too distant future, the market is not going to give two hoots about your ph3 concerns. ATB

Tim evidently believes the priority is getting another partnership formed first, alongside establishing new patent protections. The exact reasons why he believes this are less clear. But it may well be that from the perspective of a management team navigating a small biotech through a complex period, that keeping certain information to themselves is intelligent. The last phase 3 involved a circa 12 month period of radio silence, this was is longer but perhaps that’s the cost of getting it right. As an aside, it is funny how peters conviction about these things only ignites after periods when the shares have fallen. When the shares are rising his conviction disappears and he goes quiet like a mouse.

Jeez tiger. Just paying the spread here each time must be killing you. Good luck anyway!

“Shorty” = child’s behaviour. “Still” is a time frame that includes the past AND the present. But what you stated was not true in the present = check mate… And you have been hanging on TM’s every word about the hypothetical ph3 for over 17 months now = one of the most naive mugs here. Bye bye :)