The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring financial educator and author Jared Dillian has been released. Listen here.
Looking at the data again, only 5 of the 23 dosed were non ovarian, and we know that ovarian has in the past proven hard to treat with limited options and no CPI… so that means that in the space of a few months, 1 in 5 outside ovarian have seen a partial response, and 50% of head and neck (1 in 2)… all 23 had DTH responses… as another poster said - those T cells are going somewhere…. As LD said, “highly encouraging”. Have added a few more :)
And I have responded to the point on valuation. I have suggested that people consider what they believe is an appropriate Moditope chance of success. If they believe 12.5%, then the TD piece might make some sort of sense. But I suspect many - especially those who have listened to LD, Vulpes and the rest present - will likely believe the chance of success is higher than that. Consequently, that would support a higher valuation. Of course, the time to consider all this is before the news emerges. After the news has emerged and shares risen, it is a bit late.
Actually, I have no serious issue with TD. I have stated that I liked the company analysis they did recently, but not the valuation part. I have stated that the most recent update was little more than a regurgitation of the RNS, which it was, and failed to mention the DTH results, which it should have done… The reason the point has escalated to this level is because a number of posters refuse to accept the bleedin obvious - the note should have mentioned DTH. End of.
Bermuda - so you find the DTH results really interesting but repeatedly defend the house analyst, who failed to mention them, let alone value the impact…jolly good… On the valuation side, I am quite right. TD have calculated an NPV for each product, and weighted each NPV by probability of success. The probability of success figure used for Moditope is 12.5%, driving a circa 36p sum of parts… Reading this should not deter any new investor, because they can rest assured the typical valuation work undertaken by sell side analysts is a load of bwollox, especially in the biotech arena. I advise new investors instead to listen to the last AGM and ask themselves, does LD sound like she thinks Moditope has a 12.5% chance of success? The new investor should actually feel highly encouraged - as many here are quite happy to anchor around that figure, despite what they have read and heard over many years - it isn’t priced in… Yes - sell side analysis can be useful for identifying relevant considerations, except in this case DTH response! - but weighing things and sticking their necks out, very rarely happens.
Certainly agree on the brucie bonus, Chester. And as mentioned on the ADVFN board, I have picked up more. On the subject that everyone gets the point about DTH and TD, are you saying you agree with it? Because I don’t think others do.. The value of the DTH data is, to my mind, not on the psychology of a few day traders that might have taken the shares a few pennies higher… But on the impact of chance of success relating to the primary outcome, efficacy and commercialisation. Not much point raising your chance of success AFTER solid news - the shares will already have done their thing. ATB
Of course Bermuda… the house analyst not mentioning the DTH responses, and a number of posters agreeing that it didn’t need to mention them - including yourself, has nothing to do with why some posters believe the DTH responses have been talked down as a sideshow. You asked the question, and you’ve been given a very clear and salient answer. ATB
Valuation is all about the chance of success. Who remembers LD’s rousing AGM presentation? The confidently handled Q&A? The love for Moditope!! … now imagine she steps up to conclude this momentous event with.. “Ladies and Gentlemen. I can confidently tell you today that Moditope has a 12.5% chance of success! .. Yes… an unbelievably low 87.5% chance of failure!”…. TD vs LD…. Take your pick :)
Bermuda - TD are the go-to contributor, paid for by Scancell. They didn’t mention DTH. Not only that, several posters here including yourself concluded that was fair game. As stated earlier, rather than encourage people down this path, better just get on with your day.
Bermuda - with due respect, some posters just don’t agree with you. In terms of the TD note, DTH wasn’t even a sideshow, it just wasn’t mentioned. Not impressive. But rather than encourage people down this path, perhaps better just to get on with your day. ATB
Hi raypointer… bear in mind the primary endpoint of the trial is cellular immune response, using an ELIspot assay (and safety)… The DTH responses may be one of several steps required to achieve efficacy at the tumour site, but represent a much larger step in terms of proving a cellular immune response - the primary goal of the trial… GLA
Bojo2020 - the decision to pay for third party analysis is taken by Lindy and the board, not me. And presumably the reasoning is to add colour and credibility to the investment story. I think most of us agree the DTH responses were a material part of the last RNS. Do you think - having entirely ignored the DTH data - that TD did a good job adding colour and credibility there?
"So FWIW from my layman view - DHT is a very good sign that at least one of the primary end points is being met ..Cheers"…. Bang on, GMS… and it would be useful for us laymen to get more colour on it from a third party expert, one who is not the chief Investigator on the trial…… But TD - the paid for third party - fail to even mention it. Bonkers, lazy analysis… IMO.
Well first Bermuda, can we establish that the CEO/CSO and Chief Investigator including the DTH data in the RNS means it is the company that is suggesting the data is significant, not speculating punters? Can we also agree that by virtue of his personal investment in the trial, the expert opinion of the Chief Investigator may not be perceived as the most independent and credible by the market? Can we also agree therefore, that the opinion and perspective of an expert third party are important to give the story broader credibility? With regard to how they input the value of the DTH news, well they could start by mentioning it! Of course it is clinical efficacy and safety that will shift the possibility of success, though bear in mind the primary outcome measure in this trial is cellular immune response. I imagine the reason they included the DTH data - an indication of a robust T Cell response - is precisely because they believe it will translate into a positive primary readout, and ultimately clinical efficacy.
Thanks Roses. Yes, I agree. The Chief Investigator of the trial gave his expert opinion, and the Scancell RNS mentions the DTH data twice. It is significant. Strange therefore, that the update note from Trinity Delta - the company tasked to tell the story to the wider world - makes no mention of it whatsoever. Nor do they offer any independent and expert perspective on its merit. Nor do they apply any obvious expertise when reflecting its significance in their valuation model. Is the work of this paid for third party adding a lot of expert perspective for you?
I suspect you are correct AB124. Best practice will be to release the information by RNS as quickly as practicable. Clearly the DTH information was considered significant, and thanks to those who contributed positively to the discussion. GLA