Member Info for wyndrum

I'm not trying to be awkward Max, but i did not understand your last post.

is it a necessity of PLC accounts that you must have 12 months cash in hand before the accounts can be signed off or recognised practise or just a rumour that that's a requirement?

Cheers

Max, is there a link to your statement " and the auditor will not sign off the accounts as you need 12 months cash. "

I can't find one and 3 months of cash seems to crop up but I am struggling to find anything remotely definitive.

Thats interesting Max.

Maybe it will be revealed next week on the Q&A

You won't read this Digi, but lets assume you are correct and AACR blows the doors off. Its certainly a possibility.

(Although quite how you interperate an almost all time low as proof of something brewing is quite the contrarian stance.)

Given AVCT had £16m in the bank there was no immediate pressing need to do the raise last month, given they will already have known what info and data they have to ready to release at this event.

That begs a question of SP manipulation between AVCt and the funders of the raise and certainly NOT working in the Share holders interests. I think many here would be pretty peeved (coupled with relief) if it turns out that info was available but held back.

(Remember what AS said about releasing data at a more advantageous time?)

Or, there will no revelation per se and its going to take its own sweet time with more data released in Q3/Q4.

I don't know what the answer will be. but on the face of it there is evidence (sp raise at 50p) that there will be no shock/surprise good news.

And based on the latest timelines of further regimes of testing, no evidence that this will suddenly reveal great data that has been deliberately held back.

Why is it no longer allowed to discuss the merits of AVCT as an investment here?

I think it is indisputable that focussing just on the science is a redundant and backward looking exercise that does not inform, remotely reliably, what then transpires.

All you can do regards the science is to look at what has already been posted and said. There can be no insight as the people with the potential insight (the chemists and Dr's at AVCT), have already stated what they know.

Any poster here that then joins the dots further to what has been posted is guessing. Its not based on the science, I repeat, its just guessing.

Thats why the posters here who rely on the "science", have so far been incorrect. Their guesses have proved fanciful and wrong.

I don't have a problem with this and never have done. All I have in fact EVER questioned, is the certainty that some posters frame their guesses, alluding to them as facts.

As the whole point of buying stocks and in this case AVCT, is to make money through SP appreciation, then a question to all the LTH's:

Has this panned out the way you expected with regards to the SP? Its not a trick question . And i also completely acknowledge that it could still be a success. but thats for the future and none of us know how that will unfold.

So, if the SP has not performed over the years as expected then surely it is reasonable to discuss why without getting so completely over the top about it?

"It’s fun to bounce off ideas etc from people that are actually researched and like minded. "

yep I am sure it is, thats why they call it an echo chamber.

All this ignore me, I'm a troll, etc etc.

What has happened to the SP over the last 3 years since the trial started?

Are you saying that the only point of this BB is to discuss the one single thing none one of us have a clue about?

(Clue: that would be the science)

Who saw the LFT being unlikely to be a commercial success?

Who saw the LFT would have an antibody in it.

Who thought BAMS and ELISA would be successful

Who saw the current trial taking far longer than AS projected?

Who said that the DX company would not include manufacturing when it fact it did.

Who saw 2WD coming.

So all this research about the science has simply shown that it gave you zero insight into what actually occurred.

Does that not give anyone here any pause for thought?

Whats the point? the glaring contradictions in his post will only result in the post being deleted.

Thats the problem.

If you accept the assumptions without any potential counter argument why would you not buy and basically over commit, because clearly you can't miss?

And it is in FACT all to often you see other stocks with huge potential on Aim.

Well done, all those questions you have asked me that I have answered will now no doubt be asked again in the future with the same replies and yet more wasted time by all.

Brilliant.... every thing I posted was about AVCt. the same can't be said for the posters who got the thread deleted, who by the way, were the same people who started the thread in the first place.

(Anyway, shops are open now...)

Possibly Ice, but the example of AGL is now in my experience.

The perhaps more fundamental issue that we see differently is you assume FDA approval is coming whereas I am not making that assumption. Maybe it gets limited approval subject to more tests, trials etc which leads to time delays and mass commercialisation?

Whereas you see the science as the be all and end all, to me its the commercialisation that is the be all and all. I can see various scenarios where the science is brilliant and works fantastically but current AVCT share holders dont profit from it.

Who knows? I am just looking at different scenarios. If I knew what was coming I would either bet the farm or sell up.

Thompi,

There is no need to ask the questions.

This either works or it doesn't. Really penetrating questions that might throw up real doubt, will not be addressed.

Really good answers to those type of questions will occur because the data is there to prove it, and AS will highlight them anyway.

I think that humans have turned out to be a lot more nuanced that the rat trials.

I think the results in the early dosing levels produced intriguing potential insights but not the actual results expected or forecasted from the lab.

I think (without any knowledge of whats going on) that its a lot, a lot more complicated than just increasing the doses. I think the whole science of amounts used, length of time in the system, why some patients react differently to others, etc etc has led to head scratching and a certain amount of trial and error. (To me this explains the "unexpected surprise" of more cohorts causing more tweaking before the 5th level started causing the 3 month delay before it got going along with the TWD regime that basically came out of nowhere.) It also explains the time slipages and all the rest of it. I am not at this stage convinced that Dox works as Dox, as was quoted. I bet again its a tad more complicated than that.

I think this, (if I am right) patchy, inconsistent reaction amongst patients thus far, is the cause of the delays and why its always another year or two away form any definitive data release. This is not a criticism per se of the tech, but forever raising expectations via AS as he has done forever, leads to disappointment. (Its always better to under promise and over deliver.)

Still no peer review, and a suprisingly low cash raise at 50p suggests to me that this has not failed by any means,. but perhaps the promise of the tech might not be as universal great as first thought.

We shall see.

Thompi,

If you were so desperately ill, and you were told that the trial to date minimises side effects, has exceeded expectations and there is tumour shrinkage, exactly what do you think you have to lose by not taking part?

Like everyone keeps saying, Dox will be Dox. Its the side effects that are the problem.

So, I think its patchy, and I think they may be side effects that do surface on some patients depending on their condition or maybe the type of tumour they have?

I don't know but I think logically given we are where we are, its not the slam dunk as expected. Its more complicated.

Because originally, I thought the returns could be spectacular, (although less spectacular now, due to how events have unfolded).

When I buy a stock I expect it to go up, thats why I bought it, so when it does there is nothing remotely remarkable in that occurence.

Its when it doesn't that it becomes more interesting. What did I miss? what didn't I account for? Was I over optimistic? Did I misjudge the competition.? etc etc.

This stock although on paper being high risk seemed to have/has technology through the platform that minimises the risk of failure and at the same time being a platform, accelerates the time to market.

I was advised to look at AVCT when the pandemic broke and the LFT was going to be the saviour of the world. So the returns looked good (to put it mildly).

Since then there seems to have been a lot of wasted time and money and a lack of direction, or maybe more fairly, AVCT tried to do too much too soon and lost focus, resulting in the wasted time and money.

My personal problem with the stock is that AS keeps saying it will be soon for the great results and its always gets put back and its always the "next 12 months" that it will be proven. So I hang in, but now being introduced to this type of stock and reading and visiting other similar BB's they all seem to have identikit CEO'S. Basically its hard to believe what they say.

So I have waited this long, I have trimmed my expectations and therefore my holding to try and balance how events are unfolding.

Will April release the data we all want to hear/see? Well, it should do, just because of the amount of data available to be released, but if is were so good surely the cash raise could have waited and coincided with these results? In which case I am expecting a steady as she goes type event. ie, "encouraging, more work and testing needed" etc etc.

fwiw, I think, that all this "exceeded expectations" is a load of crap and typical AS BS to keep interest up. I think the market thinks so to. I also think that if the data was as compelling as we all have been told, getting patients for the trial would have taken, oh, |I don't know about 5 minutes?

So I think it clearly has promise, the platform works, but can it be commercialised at a cost and speed to market that makes this worth while. If it can then the returns will be great, but thus far it has behaved like every other high risk Bio Pharma. Lots of talk but little return. Therefore I have a holding commensurate with my perceived risk.

"the risk profile to potential returns far outweighs the potential to lose all my investment here."

That's interesting because I imagine that's what a lot here think too.

Its interesting because it leads to the obvious question of, what return are you expecting?

And that will differ for most of us because it depends on the average price we all have have bought at.

And here's the thing: We have no idea and never have done, what the stock is worth.

We don't know what the profit margin is, we don't when it will come to market. We don't know if there will be more dilution. (If AVCT are going it along they will need more money.) We don't know the further cost of getting it to market. (by my admittedly quick calculations its close to £200m so far). We don't know the cost of the next one in the pipeline. We have no idea about competition and no idea how long the tech will be used for.

I am ignoring the risk as I am assuming you have only invested what you can comfortably afford to lose as you stated you realise you could lose everything.

(I remember a while ago now there was a "balls deep" thread where lots here admitted they were over committed but happy knowing that the LFT was going to be wildly successful. Plus AVCT had so many strings to their bow they could not fail to hit the target. Since then the animal division has been sold, it seems the DX is up for sale, the LFT affimer route has proved uncommercial and now rests on this one last throw that has taken more time to than we were led to believe from the CEO thus far to get to this stage. I digress.)

Anyway, what was your entry price and what is your target exit price and over what time frame?

If you can't answer these basic questions then how can you or could you have ever decided what the potential reward was for the risk?

Ice, nothing is the same I know, but AGL were trying to get their tech approved with the FDA. The holy grail.

One, it got delayed and ran late by over a year having taken longer than anyone predicted based on what the CEO said.

But, obviously it would open all the doors once approved. The shares were about 150p. Now, with approval they are 12-15p. (thats a 90% fall)

My point is when do the delays mount up to be a critical decider for you?

I understand the projection but based on whats gone before why do you believe it?

It would seem to me you have given the project 2 years. So what would happen if its not commercialised by then?

What would you do?

Its not about believing or not, its about having plans to cope with if things do not go the way you expected.

What will you do if it does not get approved?

You get hung up on the word trader or investor. You come across to me as someone who wants to be taken seriously as the next WB. But you don't seem to have a plan B.

Given the ONLY point of buying AVCT was for the stock to appreciate, how has the plan gone so far?

Did you expect this many raises and this amount of dilution since you bought originally? Have you managed to buy the stock when offered? Has this caused you to have a greater holding then you oringinally expected?

These questions need to be answered honestly all the time as otherwise you can start to fool yourself that you know what you are doing when in effect, none of us do.

If you honestly believe the difference between investing and gambling is whether or not you believe it will be FDA approved or not you are delusional.

Investing is minimal risk with predicatible, projected returns. ie profit making companies with dividends.

Throwing money at a small bio tech with a BoD that have never managed to meet one commercial promise is trust me, quite the gamble.

It would seem the difference between you and me is that I at least recognise what I am doing.

Ice, you have to start stretching ideas to see when or if they break down.

"If you are not concerned on timelines or need to sell up, waiting to see what the FDA does is the catalyst, hence I said investment case not the trading case."

So you are not concerned with timelines?

Say it takes 15 years? too long? If 15 is too long how about?10? still too long? Maybe through examining the absurd you get clarity on what is a vague statement to something more tangible and workable.

When the info changes you will sell. Or new stocks will come before you and you will buy. Thats why you manage your portfolio. But why are you managing it and not a fund manager? Presumably you think you will do a better job and make higher returns. (I hate to break it to you, but time is not the defining characteristic of a trader.)

How has that gone so far? (no sarchism intended)

So now time has gone by and you will wait how much longer and what rate does the return have to be?

Time is a crucial component of returns. Its an obvious statement but some here with their remarks seem to either wilfully ignore it or simply think maybe because they are (young(ish)) that time doesn't matter. well, guess what....

Anyway, fingers crossed the latest info will start to reaffirm that this stock is going somewhere upwards rather than its several year recent trajectory.

Ice, I just wish you would be a bit more circumspect with your language.

I do not "spread fear". I simply look at alternative scenarios.

One example recently was whenr I was expectaing a discussing a raise, one of the objections to it was, AS said don't worry about funding and chuckled. With the implication everything was fine in a way that would not hurt stck holders.

I said one way of looking at that is that it could still be a dilution and because it was already sorted out there was no worry (at least to AS.) I was again as usual accused of FUD.

Its not spreading fear to examoine different outcomes to the same info released.

Its the type of language you use (and of course others) that stops this BB being truly helpful.

Nothing we say here affects the outcome. All we can do is look at what may or may not come to pass and see what is most likely through discussion and making a rational case for whatever side of the argument one believes in.

I just don't know what some here are so frightened of? Its bizzare.

"Has to be a balance between fear and greed."

Err... no, it really doesn't......(and shouldn't...)

Gracie, what ever happened or didn't (i saw it coming for instance, though not at the 50p level)), the SP result would still have been the same.

All this blaming others (without any knowledge or facts),is just deflection.

DTW, one day it will dawn on you that is not just about the science.....

This is an INVESTMENT BB, it is reasonable to discuss the investment side of the business and what may or may not cause the SP to rise.

The fact that you have been absolutely, 100% wrong in every expectation of progress with the science does not jolt your belief in the science, coupled with your breath-taking arrogance one iota, is quite something to behold.

JT, when you say " ...especially when you are operating on a shoestring budget like Avacta"

How many 100's of millions, does it take not to be shoestring any more?

( I think its close to £200m so far and they have produced since 2006........