Member Info for wyndrum

Buying or selling incl shorting in not manipulation. It is a straightforward transaction.

Manipulation is creating a false market in the SP. below:

In a legal or contractual context, manipulation refers to the act of unfairly influencing, distorting, or altering a process, transaction, or outcome for personal gain. This can involve misleading information, deceptive practices, or taking advantage of loopholes to create an unfair advantage.15 Apr 2025

Bookmark this too, would you:

Watching will respond immediately to anything I post with an isult.

Now when I ask her to substantiate her view of SP manipulation (which is illegal by the way) there is just silence.

Ginge, who also has been known to be less than polite, makes the bold statement of only one outcome from the upcoming staement next week, but when questioned will not explain why.

The reason I bore you all to death, is that whether you agree or not, I explain the reasons for my views. It is not surprising to me that these optimistic or positive, or SP-defending views are never answered when questioned.

The best I get is some wag adding up the amount of question marks I make in a post, but never are the actual questions answered.

" The only conclusion I can reach is that there will be good news on Tuesday morning"

Why?

We already know what we know, so we don't need to go through that.

Forward funding is probably the issue that needs to be addressed. Are we agreed about that?

If we are, there are 3 (broad) options.

1: An outside, non-dilutive finance injection (License deal ?)

2: A dilution based cash raise.

3: No mention of forward funding

I am not sure, based on silence thus far and CC saying its all about BP waiting for phase 2 data, which is years away, and probably too early for P1b data to be assessed and published that good news is the only conclusion?

The SP which is irrelevant I know, continues to fall which suggests the market has no intimation that any sort of non-dilution finance is in the offing coupled with the very obvious fact of, why would you not say so as asap? Why would AVCT hold back this info for any reason?

Options 2 and 3 offer no support to the SP.

Given none of us know what will happen I am surprised your deductive analysis has dismissed the other alternatives.

"Manipulation !"

Jane you are always quick to insult, so could you not do that to this question please:

You are claiming the SP is manipulated, could you explain any evidence you see for that, or even why it would be being manipulated?

What do you see as the purpose of presumably illegally keeping the price at all time lows?

Please answer because it is you that has this claim.

It seems close to me based on the statement:

"Xeros is passing an inflection point. We have six companies going through technical verification, this is the pre-JDA process, and each of them is a significant global player. Alongside this, interest in our technologies continues to increase, with particular near-term excitement for our microfibre filtration and domestic laundry platforms. "

And more so with this from the RNS:

"We are also in discussions with three major washing machine brands for our external filter. Any one of these JDAs could be potentially transformational for Xeros. Not only do they bring some immediate revenue, but they are also the pathway to the scaling of our technology and subsequent royalty payments."

Drip feeding bits and bobs into this now. The risk is still a RI, but the wording sounds less "hopeful" than previously and more about i's dotted and t's crossed. (imo dyor etc etc)

Hi Van,

Can't disagree with any of that.

I guess I am a bit more expectant of a better statement. I think the recent design win is the fabled turning point, and while I too with others would welcome an "eye watering forward looking statement." I don't think it has to be that good to be very good for the SP.

The market cap of the company I think fairly reflects the potential alongside the perennial "jam tomorrow" status it has made its own, one almost cancelling the other out. However if some monetary value can be assigned for the coming months to satisfy the possible event of any more RI's, then that would do it I think (imo dyor etc etc)

A lot hinges on the FCA trial. I think it is largely factored into the price already, so a positive outcome would cause a rerate I think. But I agree, this was a treading water update with no new real news to move the stock forward.

"I retired early, made my money,"

Ice, did you make your money through stock picks?

(You have stated before you are are quite young so to retire early would take, I imagine several £100k's?)

(Its just when I look at your BB posts the 3 companies are at all time lows, so thats what prompted the question.)

"“You can buy in later,” they say, sure, once it’s 5x higher and the red dot’s already landed."

A bit more goal post moving then. So now with no risk I might buy in at 150p. I imagine several here would have average above or around that.

So 30p is the magic buy price is it? Not 130p or 100p or 80p or 60p or whatever top up price you kept telling us you had bought more of.

Plus: "The strategy here is simple the more data, the better the deals" what? we have got 4 years of data and the SP has fallen?

The implication is that the data so far then has been worthless. It will hinge on the P1b results?

or could it be, the money trumps the science?

Possibly Grace, although if you can show firm orders from blue chip companies it might not be so hard an ask. It depends on the timescales. The cash burn is what? £250k per month? maybe £500k does it. And it looks like the patents have value now as collateral.

Or if (and I agree more likely) a RI, again it might be only for £1-2m, so perhaps bad but not at bloodbath levels?

Looks like another RI could be on the cards... although if it is as close a run thing as they say then maybe a loan gets them through.

"when in doubt do nowt" is nearly always the right course of action...(I hope!) :0))

I I was Pedro, I would get more sense back than talking to you.

I imagine there will be a knee jerk reaction, however most countries now are committed to higher defence spending as well as a replenishing of stocks.

So it might be an opportunity to top up if there was a large fall (10-15%?)

"A bold new future awaits us." yes Flip and so does a bucket full of sand to put your head in.

Tim, put all the animosity aside if you can for just one post.

When you say "Still waiting for a few new "concerned" long-term holders to pop up."

Are you saying that there is no need to be "concerned"?

A fact is that future funding will be required to complete the trial. To date we have had fairly vague intimations that a ND listing is being looked at. Similarly vague is the talk about some sort of deal to fund the next stages.

Is it reasonable given the cash burn to be concerned how this is to be funded because if neither of the 2 options above came to pass then what are the alternatives?

Should shareholders be concerned that the SP is now at 30p?

It just seems that your remark that I highlighted suggests that anyone who is concerned has an ulterior motive to express that concern, or simply should not be concerned at all.

Given the history of a still declining SP 4 years into the trial is it not reasonable and sensible to air concerns, rather than try and shut down that conversation before it gets started?

Chris, I highlight extremes only to, in turn, highlight some of the hyperbole used on this BB routinely.

And again, I think you are quite right, it only has to improve things a bit to be commercial. and yet still, after 4 years of proven safety, it still has not proved itself sufficiently for it be licensed or bought out. That's odd. (well it is to me, if its as good as stated). But its better than that CC has called the next bit "the beast!" (Sounds like AS all over again.)

And again what is for you, "a tidy return" from here? 50p, 60p 100p? What are your expectations now?

Chris, I did not say AVCT had missed the boat, what I actually said was "Due to the time it takes to get these things through the system I would hope AVCT still has some time left to commercialise its product ..." And I am not saying that AVCT have dragged out the trial either. I am simply saying that the time extensions, for whatever reasons, have the likely effect of reducing the value of the tech due to its shortened use to the market.

My point is, regarding early buy outs, is that do happen, so why (given this is what it purports to be), has AVCT not been bought out? This is meant to be the biggest game changer in cancer treatment in decades. Its not meant to be just another good tweak to continue to fine tune effective treatment.

Apparently the data is not yet compelling although its been 4 years of data. It just seems many here want it both ways. It has exceeded expectations which has culminated to date, with no deals or licenses or buy out offers, with a never ending saga about where future funding might come from with a SP at all time lows.

It may well be AVCT have a deal up their sleeve already but silence is not a reasonable reason to infer that that is most likely.

Maybe Chris, but no one has bought out AVCT yet have they? Yet other "new" technologies are being acquired by BP. What do you infer from that?

I thought the value now was in the next trial that is not due to start until next year? How long and how much will that cost? Don't know? Me neither.

All technologies become redundant, the pace of change is accelerating. Originally Phase 1 (A&B) was due to be completed by Q2 2023.

We are still to the best of my knowledge still recruiting for P1b. All because it has exceeded expectations,? How does that fit with the lack of deals and low SP and concerns about future funding and now its all about a trial that has not even started?

These, to me, are red flags. If you see it all being peachy then I don't know what it would take for you to reconsider your choices. But like everyting , its up to the individual.

Only its not ours. Its the new way of dealing with tumours whereby you program T cells to specifically attack only the tumour which can be done in minutes rather than hours and sometimes weeks with other therapies.

The clock is ticking and its yesterdays solution to tomorrows problem.

Due to the time it takes to get these things through the system I would hope AVCT still has some time left to commercialise its product however as I have continually pointed out here for years, every time extension allows alternatives to potentially over take AVCT's approach.

I don't "blame" AVCT: its taken probably the best part of 15 years and when they started this was cutting edge, but novel ways of dealing with the same problem have surfaced and as an analogy, while these new companies are developing Hydrogen fuel cars, AVCT is fine tuning the latest diesel engine.

There had better be a deal in the background...(I am not holding my breath.)

Again you are both assuming there is a licensing deal to be had.

There is no evidence that this is the case.

CC was vague that some small companies were interested but basically it helped them more that it did AVCT so was a non-starter. She was not turning down those offers to be greedy but simply because it would not have produced enough or any immediate income.

What we seem to know is that this is too early for BP to get involved. So who we do license it to, at this in fact, very early stage?

The milestone payments that seemed to have dried up (presumably because it was another tech dead end), were "only" for a few £m so given the minimum of what £25-30m?

It may all happen as you guys think, and great if it does obviously, but silence has never before worked out with AVCT and like it or not it is a serial failure on commercial applications, so quite why anyone would want to jump the gun at this stage is for me less likely than simply some sort of heavily discounted RI.