Member Info for wyndrum

I understand that Steve, again playing DA, how many times have we been told or expected that the soon-to-be-released data will be transformative?

As I have said previously the market has already priced in very good data. It needs to be much better than that and I accept it could be, but the dampener for me, is that if we on this trial ava6k have not knocked it out of the park yet I am not sure what this latest data will provide other than more of the same.

And its not that I think, more of the same, is anything but good, but the market has already priced it in.

Anyway, not long now.

Steve, when you quote CC "“Our strong financial position, having raised £32.5 million over the last 18 months, provides us with a cash runway into early Q1 2027 and through key value inflection points. This promises to be a transformative period for Avacta and our patients.""

I will play devils advocate (who knew and saw that coming?)

It is not a strong financial position to have a matter of 6-9 months of cash before the lights go out. (I don't think at this stage money will be hard to raise but it is also true that it is unknown where it will come from and if it is to be shareholders as usual, then how much will the dilution be?)

So for CC to highlight this as a strong position is disingenuous.

She could have said "we have raised enough money to easily get us to a stage where a license deal is the most likely future form of funding given the very advanced talks we are already in with a potential partner and the quality of the data already out and the latest data that will be revealed in the coming months."

It might be argued she is saying that, but seriously, how many times have we specifically and every other loss making company stated their company is at an "inflection point"? it just sounds so "we have been here several times before" and as a result loses its impact.

My scepticism is around this not to distant deal remark. Either again she was being misleading, knowing it would be jumped on but is suitable time-vague, or there was a glitch in the data that put the talks back/on ice/terminated.

I highlight this just to show that there can be different interpretations.

fwiw I read them with both optimism and then scepticism and then decide which is most likely to try and balance out in my mind what is most likely.

Lda how can there be "a concrete update on a partnership" if there isn't one to report?

Always remember there is no need for co's to issue ambiguous statements unless they want to give a false impression.

Once that obfuscation is played out then silence ensues and the matter is never brought up again.

Well done cj,

",,for all the potential there is a lot of market expectation already in the price and that the market typically looks forward 3-6 months, so whatever news comes through in the next few weeks it needs to genuinely exceed market expectations and to a degree, most here too. Just being "omg isnt this great it does what AVCT said" is not likely to cut it."

its almost like you have caught up when you say ".. I am hoping for a bit of robust data not just saying it works as designed but with resulting efficacy shown to a degree, call me optimistic !!"

Yes Stuart, it was me alright.

Of course back then we had design wins and the promise of a multi national producer of head phones to get the stone catapulted downhill.

But as events change so i change my view.

I have never known so much "imminent" news promised with the longest shut down in comms to shareholders. Its disgraceful.

Now, if it turns out it was all ndas then fine, I am wrong but I can only go on the info to date available.

I don't understand how linkedin can be a repository for all manner of titbits and not an official word for many, many months.

My view in "investing" is we should not have to try and read between lines, make educated guesses or any of it.

I thought (again incorrectly), that I had timed my purchases reasonably well over a year ago now and expected by christmas at the very latest (6 months ago), that all details of the design win would be available.

So now my best guess as I posted earlier this week is that there is going to be a very, very low ball takeover and we are going effectively be shafted. (and thats the best guess scenario).

ho hum...

Thats the trick though isn't it? it won't get to 10p. It will be bought out at probably 2p or less (nearer 1p) before the public know that it is successful.

The only route for us is that the tech is potentially so revolutionary that it would cause a bidding war. Trouble is thats what we always say on ground breaking tech and is much more wishful thinking than a likely reality

And of course that assumes capxx do have something others want.

I think (fwiw) the lesson here generally is, is that these companies rarely win for shareholders.

The idea is the PI does research and comes across a small company with ground breaking tech that if developed successfully will transform said company and the sp will be dramatically rerated.

but these are the the two common things that occur:

either the company after many years and shareholder dilution actually fails with its tech or, when it is obvious they are onto something they get bought very early and although the PI might get a premium it is nothing to the risk and time they have been involved.

It is rare indeed that a small company becomes a large company and the ones that do take many, many, many years.

Well, I am still waiting for the not to distant deal.

I am waiting for all these companies we are in advanced talks with to do something to the SP.

Timelines for shareholders are not the same timelines for trials. They take years and years and years.

6 years and not only are we not in P2 but we will not take it to P2.

Now we are just starting another trial and then a further trial is on the horizon.

If this is worth what in a best case scenario it is, then we will be bought out but at a relatively low price (I am guessing a few bill (2-3ish?) and BP will take it forward over the next few years and ultimately reap the reward.

CC's aims might not be ours. She just might want to see it through with fantastic stock options from the new owners. Who knows. So many different paths, who is to know?

Still a great return from here but whether or not it will justify the time spent is another matter

Chris I am sure it is as tedious for you and others as you say.

But please at put in the context of constantly being told I don't understand anything, I am stupid, I have an agendas I spread fud I should be reported/banned/filtered/cancelled and thats before we get to the actual abuse.

This happens every single post I make. Every single one. And then weeks/months years maybe later, a number of my concerns are proved reasonably accurate. So please find it your generous personality to cut me some slack if I refer to what is now the past, to justify the comments i made at the time.

So at last chris are you acknowledging that there have been problems? How long have I and others been saying that and constantly shouted down.

As for p1b its now all about sgc, nothing else. and sgc was never an original candidate and seems to have made the cut primarally because there was no standard care available for comparison as opposed to the original candidates.

I don't know about you but i don't believe that guff about the other candidates that were meant to be used in p1b at the time (those handpicked ones remember), being now, too expensive to continue with. That would have known that before they started wouldn't they?

I don't know if my guess work is accurate or not, but you tell me. If I said to you at the start of 6k it would be 6 years before the latest data was out with further recruitment still happening, truthfully you would have given me both barrels, wouldn't you? Yet here we are.

"Because a tiny biotech with limited resources trialling their first drug in human had to proceed with caution "

I thought dox was dox and we were not a new drug?

Why if the above statement is true were 3 more unexpected cohorts demanded when doses were already historically high in cohort 4 with safety proved?

Its all historical now but its this point blank refusal to ever acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, there were hiccups/problems, call it what you like.

I know at last we are about to get the full picture except it won't be because they are still recruiting but 5 odd years to collate the data? really? no deal remember on a system that beyond doubt? is safe and improves outcomes, apparently.

None of that gives anyone pause for thought.

I am not as argumentative as many assume its just the refusal to examine potential gaps in what we are told and what the reality is.

Maybe it is all nda's but that reason/excuse has been the fallback position to every query like this to date, and yet it has NEVER been the case.

I would remind some here that for all the potential there is a lot of market expectation already in the price and that the market typically looks forward 3-6 months, so whatever news comes through in the next few weeks it needs to genuinely exceed market expectations and to a degree, most here too. Just being "omg isnt this great it does what AVCT said" is not likely to cut it.

And if it is just very promising and pushes avct a bit further forward then funding which has been standing in the wings, will then become centre stage.

Well the spread has closed which suggests to me that stock is tight hopefully that could/should result in a rise today.....

(Got my new rose-tinted glasses from spec savers yesterday)

Thanks D. Uncertain time now. money is perhaps not centre stage but has moved on stage left.

won't be a problem raising it, just who will bare the cost. (that assumes the data is better than the market expects because a lot of expectation is already priced in, As we all know the market always looks ahead and at the same time don't like uncertainty.)

Anyway, onwards and ever sideways!

As for here 6 months and I am still waiting for all these orders to be signed off

"Nobody assumes this is nailed on"

how many "positive" posts ever, ever caveat it with any risk at all?

You and Pedro and watching and ice and BV and CJ and yeboa and all the others only want one view to prevail. only want one view to be heard.

Well, how has it worked out so far? How much money has been wated on years of SP decline? Is that the purpose of an investment BB? Just chase rainbows? Where has your balance been?

You say you understand the risk, and everyone else does, so why is it never discussed unless I or maybe a couple of others bring it up? Manipulative? Look in the mirror

If we do come good I am going to buy you all books on how to read.

Clearly you can't.

You assume this is done and will come good. I for balance, highlight the still considerable risks, while acknowledging if they do crack this very very complex science then as an investment it will do very well.

Every time I talk about finance and funding you all go off the edge.

Yet, it is a fundamental and integral part of any loss making company. Your refusal to ever accept the balance I put in my posts is just deliberate provocation. (I admit the balance is not equal, but I reflect my view which is as valid as anyone eles and your abuse is shameful.

read the room... for goodness sake, this is a debating forum

"If Wyndbag had a family member with cancer and Avacta was a solution, he'd rather see it fail so he can say I told you so."

you moron, what a terrible thing to say. God almighty.

Who am i I manipulating pedro?

Nothing that is posted here affects avct at all.

So please who am I manipulating? you? all the others that routinely just trot out childish abuse?

So, BV, all these specialists have no input to any investment houses? Or to put it another way are you saying that investment house that specialise in this sector of potential ground breaking tech have either not heard of AVCT or simply don't understand it?

That was a pretty fatuous answer if i may say.

Chris I understand the science as from what I have been told. there are others here clearly have a more intimate knowledge of bio chemistry but they have no idea on how avct are managing to do what they are given this is ground breaking.

Its a bit like a knowing a car can go 100 miles an hour due to more cylinders and better fuel etc etc. What fuel is used and how it is administered and all the rest of it would not be known and what difference does it make? the car still goes a 100 mph so what good to us in this example to know the constituents that MAY be contributing to this breakthrough.

All the "smarter" ones here can show off that they can keep up with amore technical discussion but to what end?

You think that only bio-chemists know whats going on? in which case why is the SP 80p?

I know lots more about investing generally than many here. But how does that help with this stock?

I think so too D, but no company I suggest, deliberately delays trials. I was more referring to the unforseens, (as per the AS 4-7 cohorts example)

I am simply not convinced as so many here are that this is done and that it "WORKS".

I think it has an excellent chance but what do i know? Verry little. but it as much more or less as everyone else here. It is however coming up to crunch time.