Member Info for wyndrum

NFT, you state a number of things as facts, but are they?

What is the current cash burn? Is it likely too increase with the 2 week dosing regime soon to start as well as starting P2?

you think that there is enough cash well into next year? When do you think? June? Sept?

When do you think it prudent to have a cash raise? 3 months before the money runs out? 6 months? longer?

How much money should AVCT raise? £20m? £40, 60? more?

You state as a fact that the DX could be sold for £40m or more? based on what? Has AVCT had an offer? Were AVCT in a bidding war to get the 2 companies recently purchased? Do you know if those 2 companies are increasing profits on their trading? Is turnover up or down?

Clearly you believe that a license deal is a "fact" of future financing.

I would ask why you think it has not happened already? (|If you say it was due to waiting for the latest update, does that not imply that BP were not convinced previously on the results?)

If you are making the assumption the next few months will show efficacy results to allow a license route to funding, then that's what it is, an assumption. And again given the typical delays in timelines, the results from the next tests (mid 2024 might not be in time for more cash to fill the coffers.

I ask these questions because what you think will determine your outlook as to what might come next and when.

BFD, it is just my musings and I whole heartedly agree that it is a (small) tower of assumptions.

To counter yours: BP already know all about AVCT. I mean they are all over it. (Linkedin likes, tweets, Novartis etc etc), there is too much money at stake to be caught off guard as can be seen by the multi billion buyouts for, on the face of it, less mold breaking companies.

If the data is "compelling" which I agree seems to be the case (but I am a layman so really, what do I know), then why is the SP at the same price as 2 years ago when the trial started? Thats Crazy and needs explaining to me.

I think your assertion that BP is a couple of months behind the curve is unlikely. They have had 12 months to decide if this update was as good as likely then they could/would move asap.

We can argue from the fairly thick fog of cash flow where AVCT really are. Thats fair enough.

My assumptions are predicated given the actual data seems V good, that money is an issue and BP/II play very very hardball.

It could be they are all waiting for the other to show their hands first and a bidding war will ensue, but at this stage its in all of BP's interests not to fire the first shot.

If my assumption is right then every month makes AVCT more "desperate" (with a small D) and allows that first offer to be lower which in turn might mean the final offer from whomever is less than it needed to be?

The only reason i think like this is that, how can a block buster new tech, that could change the face of cancer treatment that is going to plan, when they release consistent data of success, cause a SP to retrace 15%?

I am not a fan of interview body language, because it can be manipulated quite easily, but where was the AS enthusiasm? It did seem a bit downbeat.. but why?

I think something is afoot and it could simply be that behind the scenes a £10 per share buyout is being completed and AS wanted to see this be the next Pfizer. (and I think while that could explain his demeanour, it doesn't explain the SP reaction.

On balance, in the short term (3 months) my money is on some sort of dilution, but what that could be I don't know.

Anyway, time always reveals all.

BDF, thanks for the comments and yes its meant to be thought provoking.

when you say :

"Secondly, I think your suggested price for II investment is laughable and I suspect you know that. Most II's, if they believe in the potential, would invest at the average sp over the last few months, with maybe a slight discount. The BOD could also never defend the kind of discount you are suggesting."

If II's were not interested at the current price on the data release (135p) and were not interested at 111p, then it COULD be inferred that either the data is not compelling enough or the value is not worth the current SP.

Your conclusion is then that the data is not compelling and from that neither is the potential (from an II pov)

My angle is that money is tight (certainly in shorter supply than is generally thought here on this BB) Obviously I could be incorrect in that assumption. But if I am right then AVCT are not in the driving seat and have limited room to operate.

Its difficult to know what's reasonable and what's far fetched. But working on a £25m per annum cash burn and with at least 2 years but knowing this business a bit more, more likely closer to 4, to get to market how much does AVCT need to get them over the line. Will cash burn increase or decrease over the next 24-48 months?

(They can't go to the market every 12 months just to keep the lights on so the next raise has to at least look like its enough otherwise why get involved, just wait for the next, next cash raise hoping that will be the final one.)

Round figures: £100m is a third of the company so now the SP is 74p on a straight forward dilution. So 50p-60p to the II's gives them a premium for their commitment.

A large cash injection would solve a number of problems for AVCT. It removes funding issues for a number of years and allows them not to be held hostage over BP potentially trying to screw them, (which if anyone thinks isn't going to be attempted is imo niave).

This in turn with funding removed then the SP gyrations should be much less. The current state of these quarterly share issues is not the volume but the psychological effect. Why buy when its the weeks/month when the a few million shares are dumped on the market. This causes more sells and less buyers with the inclination to take them knowing the cycle will be repeated for years to come, which means they have to trade them to and so we have a bit of ponzi scheme going on.

For longer term investors this is a big deterrent because there are no dividends yet to allow them to be patient and endure the day to day ups and downs.

The idea is to buy low, and sell high not buy low and then get an opportunity every 12-18 months to buy lower again, and again

At least when progress is made the SP should rise to new levels to take into account the now greater chance of commercial success.

But who knows......more cohorts, more DE's, better and better results and a static/falling SP.

Don't make

Notrex, I broadly as do others I think, agree with your sentiment but to me there is a bit of a illogicality at the heart of this.

AVCT is in terms of its BOD reasonably experienced in all areas of a plc. They have financial advisors as well as the relatively new blood of a much more experienced commercial director too.

So why is AS the "face" of AVCT? He is enthused about the science (naturally) but always his choice of words or phrases when talking about the future constantly open him up to a point where ALWAYS there ends up being more questions than answers? And the result ALWAYS the same, namely a tanking SP. (Seriously, great confirming news on the update ends up with a15% reduction in the SP!) And that's just the latest in along line of investor missteps.

So why is it always AS with this past history of cause effect still wheeled out? There are others that surely could do better within the ranks.

One can only guess.

It could be he controls the company with an iron rod and what he says goes, end of story, but again I don't really see much evidence of that.

The weird bit was raising the money to buy DX companies and say that was a business strategy going forward (fine), but then almost immediately saying it could be spun off before value could be built?

fwiw, I think money is tight right now, and I think this is taking longer than expected to progress through trial stages from when it was first sketched out, and their options are perhaps more limited than we realise.

I am guessing AVCT's least favorable option (in their view) is to sell out now to BP. And at the same time I am wondering if that's the path they are being forced down. (The alternative's might be and this is just numbers out of the air, a cash raise at 50p a share to get II's on board, or spin off DX and take £10-20m hit).

A license deal? maybe but perhaps they can't get good value and if one license deal goes out at a relatively low price it then values (at this low price) the tech generally going forward, and potentially destroys the high value of the company

Anyway, it could be AS is taking the heat for limited options right now in their development.

(or it could just be, right now, there is not enough data on efficacy that we perhaps were led to believe or wanted to believe, would be released with this update.

But to me if that's the case, we are back to AS and his over enthusiastic mouth. In which case others should be allowed to chip in because in the short term he is from an investor's pov, a liability in presentations.

Just my musings on a weekend.

Yes, NY, and I was wrong....but at least I expressed an opinion clearly as to what I thought most likely.

(In fact there was a price breakout but it was to the downside not the upside, and had I waited for confirmation instead of jumping the gun I could have profited from it but I tried to be "clever" knowing there was to be a positive update due and thought I could get in a bit sooner....)

Yes, you were super cryptic about that and that we should follow Hurst's lead, but as he only tells us to buy and that we will never get in at below this price (137p I think it was then,) then it is difficult to know.

If you had said something a bit more straight forward like "my best guess is that no matter how good the results expect a 5-20% fal"l, then fair enough.

But you didn't.

You said we should listen to Hurst....

Tim, for someone who posts 400 odd times in one month, you don't strike me as someone disinterested in the day to day here.

If you want to wait another 2 years then that's great, but why post 10-12 times a day...every day...day in...day out, telling everyone to be patient.....

Ophidian, then why do you think has the stock fallen 15% odd, since the presentation ?

you list:

Try pseudo science FUD (tick)................................................Failed

Try Financial worry FUD (tick)................................................Failed

Try undermine the CEO FUD (tick).........................................Failed

Try a different angle on Financial worry FUD (tick)..............Failed

personally I think AS hinted at commercial interest last time round, also mentioned spinning off DX, which suggested (faitly clearly I think) that future funding was clearly an issue coming up and he was starting to address alternative solutions.

Now that much later, with less cash on hand than previously, can you, even if you don't agree with it, see why the market see's a RI as perhaps more likely than the other alternatives, given this was not mentioned in the update/interview and that therefore might cause some to reduce their holding?

"But that is just a question motivated by greed and self interest "

Indeed it is, but that's the price you pay for becoming a PLC and taking peoples money that expect a return.

Without the shareholder funds he would not have a business and therefore could not research and develop this novel therapy.

Plus lets not forget that AS has the potential to be a multi-multi millionaire if his company crack this with no risk to his personal wealth should it fail.

Its not some altruistic enterprise is it?

I don't know why analogies as obscure as this are introduced to a fairly simple scenario.

Since the update the stock has lost 15% of its value. That is not a coincidence which means the market has read the update and seen the interview. Which also means it is on their radar. You can argue they are all as thick as mince if you like, but that seems a ridiculous supposition to me.

Previously AS mentioned an up-tic in commercial interest. (which I did not believe for 1 second as that is text book AS BS. Unquantifiable, small in size, and vague.)

This would seem to be born out by no mention of any sort of outside interest this time around . (I saw that the old chestnut of "NDA's" was posted here. Have you really learned nothing since the LFT debacle?)

Data rich? many here think it wasn't which begs the questions why not, having said it would be.

You can howl as much as you like, but cash burn on loss making companies is THE big thing. Its constant and it never, ever goes away until the company is profit making.

No one here knows how the company is going to keep the lights on over the next 12 months. (AVCT have options but these options have different effects on the SP. )

So, the science would seem to be still on track, but funding and time to market is as vague as ever.

Time, it turns out, is still, money.

Remember the idea is to make money on investments. It might not be the pre-occupation of all on here, as some clearly only bought shares in AVCT to help them develop their tech, but the broader market is a bit more mercenary I'm afraid and with a SP at the same level as when the trial started you can see why some might be reducing their exposure here and funding other stocks with at least in the short term, a better risk reward.

Just my opinion, dyor etc.

Having missed every Q to announce the finance deal, does anyone here expect it to still be this quarter?

Sujood, its not about what might be but when purchasing, trying to get the best price.

Whats the point of buying at 136p at Tuesday's and then 1 day later seeing 15% paper loss?

Most investors try to buy in at the lows, why buy today? is this the low or is there more to come.?

Who knows? But we have got AS on record saying words to the effect of that the the company looks overvalued from a II pov. So, what's the solution to that if more funding is needed?

Its difficult with AS.

Clearly he is not stupid, not by any means. Maybe in the past his words got away from him in interviews, but with the kickback that those (potentially) loose words caused he must be very, very aware of not misleading or giving false impressions.

Which therefore drives me to the conclusion it is done purposely.

So I think this Jekyll and Hyde interviews are his attempts at balancing, on the one hand investor sentiment, with relatively short term promises and paradigm shifts etc but then, on the other hand, realises they need funding at some stage and he has been told that the company is over valued and therefore at the current Mkt Cap it will be hard to get II's to come forward, so comes out with SP depressing stuff.

Point is...where does that leave us?

My take from yesterday is that it was a really mixed confused message. He either has over egged the advances made previously and there is still a long way to go with nothing guaranteed. Or is playing down the advances made to take the heat out of the SP.

My problem is I don't trust what he says whatever his reasons are for saying what he does. Which ultimately does illuminate the course of action to I will take.

Hector, I agree, (although I think £500m is low balling it but £1b would be very approx 3 times this price and that would do it I think), but the fact that no offer has come in over the last 12 months suggests this is still too early a stage for BP to be tempted.

I think (and I am not sure if AS was being disingenuous in the interview) but he stated that they were just looking for lack of side affects in the trial on a "normal dose of DOX. He said that the DE had exceeded all expectations they had. (I thought the mouse trials opened up the expectations of higher than normal dosage but hey ho.)

So, I thought there was always the expectation of DE's (a minimum) of 4 and therefore was MTD ever a goal or not?

Given his now stated relatively "low" expectation it again supports my view why BP has sat on its hands.

I am sure they are keeping an eye on it, and this latest release of data keeps them interested but again, now we have had more info on the state of the patients the platform has been tested on the efficacy results are not robust enough for any sort of assumption to be made other that the correct word of "encouraging"

So its July onwards for more meaningful data it would seem. And thats when BP will, all being well get involved.

Whats another 6-9 months......

Mum, if you are not in it for the money, and the amount you spent on buying the shares never went anywhere near AVCT, why did you buy? why not just donate that money directly to AVCT if the aim was to help the development of cancer treatment?

This is not meant to be a critical post but simply your justification to help cancer care is not affected by buying already issued shares in the company, through a broker.

Everything is on track but phase 2 is 6 months at least from results and if successful would be a game changer.

So the inflection points regarding the SP that get promised routinely about to happen are always pushed into the following year.

This explains the SP reaction. So patience is needed for a while yet, now mid 2024 puts funding on the table...again.

All this is part and parcel of a novel therapy trial. so bottom draw time unless BP surprise us all. (Based on today and a clearer (to me) understanding of where we are, I see now why BP have not got involved yet.)

"all LTHs here have helped save lives now and in the future,"

how is that exactly?

(you know your share purchase unless it was the IPO or part of a RI never went anywhere near directly or indirectly to Avacta)

Jersey, you are conflating two different things.

The SP does not determine the research and scientific developments that AVCT are undertaking or the results that it generates.

And it is exactly because of this disconnect that the SP can remain static. The market still, after all this, is still none the wiser as to when this will actually come to market and what the profit margin or value this has.

If and when BP put in an offer or a license deal is revealed , will a value then be seen to be clear (or at least clearer).

2 bookends:

If AVCT go it alone then they need a big cash raise and we are years away from the market.

OR

BP put in a bid tomorrow for $5b and its all done.

Based on those 2 reasonable scenarios, how would you value the SP today, right now?

I don't know how many times it has to be stated that the company and the SP are 2 different things.

Talk about sorry being the hardest word.

I am glad you managed, (although you have read it from me and others routinely over the years here), to work out for yourself that the SP will depend on the finances of the company, you know, cash burn, income potential, profit margins, commercialsation date for the tech etc etc

I suppose on your logic, no one taught you to read or write either, you just figured that out for yourself too.

Strangy its not negative to examine what might be required to take re-value the company.

Although a higher SP is helpful, if the requirement is for direct funds to AVCT then the higher SP in and of itself is secondary and only relevant to current shareholders.

FDA progress is connected to the commercial side of the tech as it is the former will likely accelerate the latter.

It seems to me I have highlighted this for years and all you have ever done is be rude in your responses without ever addressing the issue in the posts.

Better late than never.