Member Info for wyndrum

So, it turned out to be dilution after all.... who knew.....

Sheppy, rather than spout insults and falsehoods, where is my thinking unreasonable?

I dare you for once just to give a thoughtful opinion about AVCT rather than your infantile abuse towards me.

Why do YOU THINK the SP fell for the duration of P1a AFTER the unexpected dose extension was announced?

If P1a has been exceptional why hasn't a license or some sort of deal already been done?

Do YOU THINK it was a coincidence that the shares rallied after the new funding, or DO YOU THINK it was new trial data?

I guarantee you will not attempt a coherent answer to these questions.

You seem very immature so i can only guess your IQ matches your age.

"We already know its exceptional " we really don't. And we know this because we have not had any licensing deals or bids for the company.

It looks to me AVA6k has not delivered in the way expected, that accounts for the unexpected extra dosing regimes and lack of deals and a falling SP while the trial continued, while at the same time throwing ever more data. All of that points to not working quite right as opposed to "exceptional" in my book.

The company has only rallied sp-wise on a new refinancing plan. Nothing to do with the trial.

As ever its always in the future.....

Saint, all a chart is, (every single chart, on every single stock and index), is the graphical representation of the buys and sells. Thats why its all sentiment. Its just a convenient way of showing where the current sentiment is between the 2 competing options. Its not smoke and mirrors and its not hocus pocus, its just exploring if the predictable science of crowd psychology can be transferred to stocks, and given its driven by 2 of the most powerful emotions, fear and greed, it turns out it is.

The reason you can't get it to work is because you are too emotional and cannot divorce your emotional responses from your rational ones, as can be seen by your stubborn headed approach to it.

Its also why so many fail at it. Its easy to read a chart, its much harder to have the unemotional mindset necessary to execute the principles.

"Anyone using charts on anything but FTSE100 or 250 needs to give their head a wobble. Absolutely pointless on AIM as it's mostly sentiment driven. We've had plenty here over the years and all are clueless chancers who flip flop to suit their narrative."

Its all sentiment driven, every single stock.....its not the index, its the amount of shares that are in issue.

The smaller the market cap so there is more chance of bigger moves that can then influence emotionally, the reaction of PI's. Also less II's get involved in trading these stocks which then exacerbates the predictable emotional response of the PI

Apart from the recent hiatus in the SP, over the recent past there has been a threefold increase in the stock. So I think the market has already priced in the expected improvement in sales from all the avenues.

As a result when the accounts appear probably later this month (my guess is Tuesday the 28th), then there will need to be a real surprise to the upside in sales to move the SP.

I think this is possible and this discounts any further news from the design wins being relayed, which again I expect to hear. I would also expect very bullish comments on the next 12 months going forward.

The chart it self is now in a trading range so is not offering much help (although it looks to me ready to break upwards, but I am reasonably sure I am biased. he only reason i mention the chart is because I think with the fundamentals it would support a likely break to the upside.)

The downside is obviously one of disappointing results but with the design wins, the LI posts, the distributors coming on Board, the stakes by shoot-em-up and other private individuals being taken, suggest that the odds are in favour of good news rather than not.

And just to show you how biased I really am, I would not be surprised at all if another rabbit is produced from this particular top hat come results day.

(Dyor etc etc.)

CJ, my point was not that AVCT would be trumped immediately but, that the direction of travel is not through developing Chemo.

Some years ago I suggested the analogy was that AVCT was making a more efficient car combustion engine while most were developing electric cars.

I am sufficiently assured that the next trial seems to be the one. I am not so sure about AVA6k in terms of breakthrough in terms of efficacy compared to treatments currently available. Ultimately it looks like its been a stepping stone. And thats great, Hurah.

My point is that to value AVCT on its technology has to be (obviously), compared to what else is available.

I came across, without trying, this latest breakthrough, so how far away is that? 5-8 years? (Sure it could fail but it seems on the headlines very impressive in the lab on the poor mice that seem to get the sticky end of the cancer trial stick.

So the valuation of AVCT will be, in part judged against its likely longevity within the market. To shut your ears to this in the way yuo remarked seems overly defensive.

"A 'super vaccine' could give people immunity against cancer before the disease grows and spreads.

Scientists in Massachusetts say their experimental jab prevents several aggressive cancers.

This includes melanoma, pancreatic, and triple–negative breast cancers.The 'groundbreaking' vaccine contains tiny nanoparticles made of fatty molecules that deliver two 'adjuvants' – substances that boost the body's immune response.

In lab trials, up to 88 per cent of mice injected with nanoparticles remained tumour–free, depending on the cancer type.

The vaccine also reduced – and in some cases completely prevented – the spread of cancer throughout the body. "

And thats the thing when you value it at $20-$40-$100b, we have no idea whats going on. so be careful if anyone is betting the house.

Sheppy my actual posting history has been to highlight the shares were a buy at 102p (more than once) as they then went up pretty quickly to 280p and when they fell back below 256p I said I was selling off (more than once) and continued to do so I bought into 50's 60's and 70's when they bottomed in to 40's. I have traded many many times and for quite some time alerted people here to what i was doing. It was transparent, not like some. It has been hard because I don't have the facility to short. Of course I change my views but thats because I trade and the timeframes I use are shorter. It does not make my actions manipulative or nefarious.

I react to new news. I am not content or comfortable in high risks stocks to be a blind LTH.

My "negative" posts, which have been the majority have coincided with a 3 year falling SP, so its pretty hard to have an overall successful reading of this stock without being negative.

Recently I picked up and posted (more than once), that 32p would be a potential good place to buy. (So not negative).

The stock has more than doubled since then.

You think I am manipulative and have some hidden agenda where I am assuming you think I say one thing and do the other. My posting history shows that not to be true.

I am sorry you are underwater but had you put your bias and misinformed opinion aside and actually listened and thought about what I said, you possibly would not be now.

Don't blame me for your poor judgement by inventing a reality that has never existed (other than in your head).

Ah Sheppy, do explain then how I can be so "Manipulative" if I am always wrong?

How can I make people think black is white?

Do you think people here are so stupid that they cannot read and reason for themselves?

Is it just people who you don't agree with you think are manipulative?

What about for eg. bella or Tim, or hurst or sujood or ice? They only have posted that the SP would go up on the back of every result and RS for the 5 years i have been here.

(Shall we gloss over the fact that some of those above also trade the stock so were selling while they implied the SP was aa bargain and why would you be out if the RNS dropped the next day as you would never be able to get back in?)

By all means make up stuff up but spread it around would you, otherwise people here might think you have an agenda to shut up some who actually have called this pretty accurately to date. And why would you do that?

I am pretty sure i mentioned the RSI 5 years ago here BV, and remarked at how reliable an indicator it was relative to the others available (Obviously i was ridiculed then)

I don't know, but perhaps the green binning is being over done here as sooner or later the consensus more often than not settles to what I try and reason through to, somewhat earlier in the conversation.

Cindercone, who we rarely see eye to eye on well, anything, sums up the next funding round very well I think.

I think the "solution" has been left as late as possible so as to release as much new data as possible to support a raise from investors rather than a license deal.

Although I think this most likely, nevertheless it will reflect poorly on CC as she quoted deals in the "not-to-distant future" which of course is the same as how long is a piece of string, but the implication was clear, and even now, I think she is stretching, timewise, what was implied if there is no substantive non-dilutive element to the new funds coming in.

"Once the market understands where this is going,..." oh good grief, we are back to the market is as thick as mince.....

Well bring on a .41p close....!! :0))

Chris, thats my point, its all about the money. The shares rose AFTER the short term funding repayment scheme was altered. It wasn't the science that got AVCT out of the do-do.

Had it not been it would most likely have gone the way of your example.

(They all care about their business! But when you have no cash you are not in control of your own destiny. )

And for goodness sake, listening to the market is what I have learnt to do, rather than the actual company.

Thats why i have topped up up along the route from getting back in at 32p

I am not sure what we are disagreeing about? I said and have said for at least 2if not 3 rounds of funding about the importance of money trumping the science. I have always looked at the SP to tell the "real" story of whats going on behind the scenes, given we don't get to have a peek. Its me that has said the market is unlikely to be forever holding the SP down, or manipulating it in illegal ways, or letting the shorts get out or whatever balmy excuse was routinely served up.

Look at the SP history, it always tells an accurate story of the stock. The market never lies because its not human or emotional. We simply overlay our feelings of fear and greed on to it to tell us what we want to hear.

Well, thats how I see it. But who knows?

Chris, every company in the world will tell you funding is not a problem. You do get that? (What else can they ever say). Therefore it becomes a relatively meaningless statement unless the market has reason to believe it might actually be true. RH would seem to be the catalyst in AVCT's case. However, RH was also involved with AVCT when the LFT came and went, so its not completely done.

The rise from the lows came AFTER the RNS about refinancing plans. So when you say my "whole narrative is based around the funding being more important than the science", well thats been pretty accurate would you not agree?

The science "works" (we can argue how well based on what has been reported but the latest poster did not tell us much we did already know), so why did the SP continue to fall all through the trial while funding was an issue and only started to rise in the last 3 months when the issue of short term borrowing was positively addressed?

(And not for nothing I did not "talk up" 10p as a placing but could easily see a scenario when the SP which was still falling and was in the mid high 20's that to get it away it could be at that very low point depending on how much money was required. That given the conditions at the time was still I believe a not outlandish outcome, but hey ho.)

as for H2 being the catalyst as sign posted that is absolutely true and is probably the first time a deadline has been kept since any AVCT trial started so again, its not unreasonable, based on the previous history to take a sceptical view on whatever AVCT says, and instead judge it more by results.

It turns out I was one of the "savy" ones getting in prior to the RNS but only through a chart interpretation.

Its still about the money but less so because the market has had proof that the old loan and the readjustment of future payments has been addressed.

The next bit is how the £13m plus will be raised. To see what good/great news the RNS today says regarding the science and the negliable effect on the SP gives me reassurance that it is still about the money.

It will depend on the next round of funding as to what the SP does next. How much will it be for? will AVCT go it alone or will it be short term (12-18 months), will it be a license deal or a RI, or a mixture or a ND?

There are various computations, all of them will have a bearing on how the market reacts.

Once the market knows and it buys sufficient time for avct, then the focus will go back to the science. The SP went to 185p when the market believed that P1a was about to finish. The subsequent delay caused a lack of funds to then complete it, and it has been downhill right up until July, whereby the very short term funding issue was addressed.

So yes, imo funding is more important than the science and I have said it for a long time and it is only now that the majority here seem to have grasped that. Perhaps if they had figured it out earlier they would have more funds to take

"...it’s why long term holders / those following closely have had an advantage this time, they’ve bought in heavily in recent months when outsiders would assume to sell and sit on the sidelines til funding is sorted."

Thats quite the statement chris although i imagine a number LTH's may have already topped up long before the lows this year on the exhortations of some LTH's previously.

It just comes down to risk. The SP is in fact in my experience, a very good indicator of the where any company is.

By buying ahead of a known fund raise , but not knowing how those new funds will be obtained is a higher risk than waiting to see how it is completed.

That (imo) is nothing to do with being a LTH or not, its just risk appetite.

Many who buy long shots are trying always to beat the market and prove something to themselves or others. What I have found since looking at AIM companies generally, is how many of the same posters here crop up on very high risk companies elsewhere.

That tells me quite a lot typically about who uses these BB's. What the majority are not, are investors in the way they wish to convey.

Your comment that I copied shows the self-justification bias inherent in the statement. There is no knowledge of who has bought at what price, but your which I take to believe sincere, statement that it was LTH's understanding that at 30p this was the low and the only way was up before the new finance statement was revealed, is to my eye, unfounded.

VS, how many small bio tech stocks do you hold? (or have you held)

Maybe a bit broader, how many loss making company stocks do you hold?

No I don't think it is Chicken and egg.

Without money you don't have a business and not for nothing we have heard this before about not worrying about funding.

We know personel have changed but the market my not be looking quite that closely at this stage or may simply wait to see the proof first in exactly how the funding gap is to be bridged.

There are several alternatives and each one would affect the SP differently.

So, until the market can see the direction of travel in a more clarified way the SP is, imo, likely to remain hampered

I think Russell, people here are coming round to the fact its about the money and not the science.

Once the finance is sorted out then they can concentrate on the science.

And although much has changed at AVCt the actual history of the company to the outsider is that they have made poor decisions in the past with beforehand, warm words of "not to worry about the funding" with smiles and winks etc. Once bitten twice shy .... And it is important as those past decisions led to dilution and a vastly reduced SP so as I say it makes the market wary of charging in as they might have done before.

CC has made comments some months ago about deals in the not-to-distant-future, but so far nothing has transpired.

It now seems that it must be imminent so as to close the funding gap that has been dated for January. If there is no deal then its a RI and indeed it may be a mixture of both.

This uncertainty will hamper SP rises unless the release of new news is so spectacular for the market to realise funding will not be onerous to buyers coming in at this level.

All this guaranteed success in a few short months does beg the question of how stupid do you think BP is? Why have or (did) they not put in a bid of a few $b and taken this $40b (and thats a snip), before?

CC has said they (BP) need more data and proof but apparently not many here agree, and further that the only ones talking money, in her opinion were so small that they would benefit more than AVCT from any "deal"

If CC and BP are correct in needing more verification that it does indeed work, or at least exactly how effietive it is likely to be, then does that make all here stupid?

Because you do realise both CC and interested parties have more data than us lot so as to make a more accurate estimation with.

And what exactly has happened to double the SP in the last few months?

Not the trial, but the way a fast approaching doom loop of a structured loan had been re-negotiated.

But yes ask AI the right questions and see exactly what answers you get back. Saves thinking through more than one scenario though, so thats ok.

the more AI does the less humans will need to do. It does not bode well for the future and/or the individual.