Member Info for wyndrum

Careful D, Ice said he thought the money from the DX sale would clear the CLN loan. (But he won't discuss how his analysis was so wide of the mark)

Again, he bases his argument around all or nothing.

You don't have to sell every AVCT share. Taking or adding money to the table is a prudent exercise in either limiting losses or maximising gains.

Hi Jan, you think Nvidia need ramping.... :0))

A fair point MM99, however I am not sure what the point is in him advertsing the competition?

Why would he do that?

"Unlike the generic broker notes you keep clinging to, which are based on outdated Phase 1 biotech templates and blanket risk metrics, my thesis is built around what Avacta is actually delivering, in real time, with real data."

Who says there generic? Just because they use the precedent of typically what happens to small bio tech companies that promise, "their tech works and is not like all the rest"?

The fact is we don't know "lots" about the data, we just know what AVCT have released Thats not the same thing. For instance, do you think that during the trial there was an issue over half life? Have we ever been given an explanation as to why there were 3 extra cohorts that were surprisingly unexpected?

Do you think they are learning as they go? Do you think that is why they are now targeting other cancers? If so, could it be, (not saying it is), but could it be, that they got mixed results and needed to fine tune it to other cancers that might be more susceptible to what they are attempting?

My point is, there are so many unknowns in this that your paper is worthless simply because of the "known" data is in fact only partial. You don't have the full picture to ask the right questions or to get a better odds of success or failure, or even what success looks like.

How much did you think Launch would go for when it first went up for sale? Did you revise up or down the longer it went on? Were you ultimately surprised at the sale price? All of your thoughts were based on the info you had at the time. It was not based on what AVCT told you.

(Its odd that me being an amateur clown, had a better insight from the word go then many here, but I guess I just got lucky, again)

"As for your laughable “they’d sack you at an investment house” line you clearly haven’t read a single institutional biotech note in your life. They’re built on exactly the same precedent based, forward looking models. Not biased and highly accurate and logically laid out."

What about Deutsche bank's assessment? (That won't count I know, because it contradicts your view).

What about the other one that's cited highlighting the chance of success. (That's wrong as well I believe)

What does the house broker think the value is (Given that will be as biased as it comes) I bet we believe that one.

And in all this, and don't forget a short has been running years..., what has the SP done since all of these reports and incl. the sale of Launch?

But the SP simply is irrelevant until its not, is also part of your argument. Then when it goes up, the market will understand and be correct after all....

For all I know your scenario will pan out but it is only one of a myriad of future paths that may come to pass. You have simply picked the one that you hope for the most.

All your logic is, is this: If it works its worth billions. Every one, I mean every one, knew that already. That why we all bought.

You have already admitted its all about IF

You then go on to say "And comparing it to religion? That’s what people do when they’ve run out of actual arguments"

When YOU SAID "The burden of proof isn’t on me to prove something you admit we can’t see. " That is absolutely faith driven. Those were your words.

This biased document you produced is based (on your words), IF and believing in something you cant see or prove.

Can you imagine if you worked for an investment house and gave them that paper? They would laugh while they were writing out your P45.

Flip: "Wyn - how do you know BP haven’t made any offer?"

Seriously?

This "no news is good news" thought process is just barmy! When in AVCT's history has ever this applied?

One, look at the SP.

If an offer was made we have to be informed. If the offer is so low as to be rejected out of hand, then the offer was meaningless, or it may also show in FACT what BP think AVCT is worth.

No offer has been made

"The burden of proof isn’t on me to prove something you admit we can’t see. "

At last! It absolutely IS ON YOU prove your research. Its not structured at all, its built on sand. You keep citing precedent but that at the very least begs the question why hasn't BP been to AVCT already. The fact that it is you who constantly ignore this huge flaw in your argument makes your "paper" ridiculous.

("The burden of proof isn’t on me to prove something you admit we can’t see. " Is a very religious type statement to make by the way. That's all about faith, not fact.)

" You argue there’s “no interest” while simultaneously acknowledging we don’t see what’s happening behind the scenes. "

But that cuts both ways!!!!!!

You don't know there is interest either! You are assuming there is. But with no evidence. My evidence is a lack of communication that there is, that a constantly falling SP over the whole length of the trial confirms that this is MOST LIKELY.

Its not me that has to prove anything through data!!! THERE IS NO DATA sufficient for BP to make an offer.

Its you that is making assumptions based on silence, based on no info, and inferring there its all going on behind the scenes that you can't see and have no knowledge on and that this will become apparent when an offer comes in.

Amateur hour! from you! well that made me smile.

Flip: "Wyn - how do you know BP haven’t made any offer?"

Seriously?

One, look at the SP.

If an offer was made we have to be informed. If the offer is so low as to be rejected out of hand, then the offer was meaningless, or it may also show in FACT what BP think AVCT is worth.

No offer has been made

"but it won’t change that biotech value is dictated by data" so therefore the data to date is not good enough?

Thats what you are clearly saying, right?

If P1b is simply going to confirm whats gone before (P1a) then why haven't BP moved?

Competitive pressure. Oh come on... they only bid when other companies come forward. Is every example you look at the result of a bidding war? And doesn't a bidding war push prices up? so why would BP want to pay more by waiting?

Clear data milestone, so obviously then, there are no clear data milestones so far. (You said it, not me).

Strategic fit. Great if they can't recognise the "Strategic fit" now then, seriously, when?

Your whole position is based on various assumptions on what has happened to other companies being translated over to AVCT. There is no evidence that this WILL happen. It is not balanced. It does not look at why money has been so hard to raise if this is so obviously a company that will be sold for billions, it does not address the lack of interest to date by serious investors, it does not address why comms is so bad. it does not address in any logical way why the SP continues to fall. (Your argument is frankly embarrassing (or as you would say "genuinely hysterical" that its the market's fault). Where are they on FDA approval? Why did it take so long to get through P1a and to start dosing P1b?

You can't answer these questions because we have never been told and never will. So your rebuttal will be an opinion, not factual. And thats the hole in your "paper". Its just an opinion. (How can AI know what is going on behind the scenes with AVCT when we don't?) Garbage in-garbage out

So again, you parrot -like claim that no one ever contradicts your thesis is simply because you ignore every rebuttal and say it doesn't count.

The problem with Ice's logic, (that the SP is irrelevant as BP knows the value of AVCT) is that as BP have not made any offer then it suggests they do know what the value is.

Ice refuses to view the present as it contradicts his belief and therefore has to imagine a future (which by definition he can't know) to support his view.

If BP are waiting for more data, it logically suggests the data available is not sufficient to again support Ice's logic.

That then leads onto: if the data to date is insufficient is there going to be such a turn around in new data to change anything?

If P1b is such a straight forward confirmation as to what has been reported previously then BP would already be all over this.

I don't like analogies but its like selling a house that is fantastic and way below market price and you have invitations for some interested people on a private showing so as that can be able to buy it before it goes on the open market and they miss out.

Yet no one puts an offer in.

We have lots of examples of other bio techs being bought out early. But here is AVCT with the greatest breakthrough in cancer treatment being studiously ignored.

I find the argument that perhaps AVCT's Tech is not what many here think and all the circumstantial evidence supports that. (no offers/deal no TR1's, hard to raise finance, change in cancer targets, longer trial, no FDA approval.)

The alternative is a slightly fantastical argument that the market is wrong, that BP don't know what is going on, or that large investors have no knowledge of AVCT and that in 3 months time all we change when P1b data is released.

As an example of how little we know about what goes on behind closed doors:

Avct made one payment in cash.

Simple question: Why?

Why do that when they did, and not the previous quarter or ever since?

I can read an RNS that they "Judge" it at the time, but do we know what reasons were used to come to the judgement they made when paying in cash then, but never since?

Its up to anyone here to decide if this is important or not, but spending £2.5-£3m in cash of (our) shareholders money which looks to me either on a whim to confound the market, or possibly worse, financial ineptitude, strikes me as an important insight as to what goes on behind the scenes in AVCT Towers.

But the one thing we all do know, is that we will never be told and we will never find out.

But thats ok, after all we are only shareholders, only part owners of the actual business.

"The wise ones bet heavily when the world offers them that opportunity. They bet big when they have the odds. And the rest of the time, they don’t. It’s just that simple."

Given that then, as there are no TR1's issued for years, what do you infer by that inaction?

" In the event that any well exceeds that obligation ceiling, the partners will share excess costs in proportion with their respective project working interests, ie 50/50."

So its capped unless its more than that in which case we go 50/50 on any extra costs.

Therefore if it was $1m to drill a well, He1 would pay $450k plus another $275k.

Is that right?

They haven't so far....

Pete, He1 have sated its £10m over 5 years.

I was just using a broad brush to show why the current valuation is not being influenced by the stream of RNs's from the US.

Obviously there is an asset in Rukwa. Also there is no valuation on it yet being disclosed. However the market seems to think all in all, until new news is released £60m is about right.

Why everyone here is so precious about this stock here as though anything posted has the slightest affect on the SP is beyond me.

Its an exploration company that has to date been terrible for long term holders but for some, very profitable who have come in much later.

What the future holds remains to be seen. If Rukwa is as good as forecast then Blue Star is peanuts. Which makes you wonder why they bought it. (well, it did me anyway). I am hoping it will be excellent value for money, but it still will pale under the shadow of a "good" ML acceptance.

My belief is that it was and is an insurance against unforeseens in TZ

There is nothing in the history of your posts that suggest you have any insight to this company specifically or investing in general.

Your lazy assumption that the SP is simply because it on AIM is testament to that.

Rick, the SP is not based on the US arm. It is projected to generate £2m per annum. Say it does and say just for ball park figures that prices HE1 at 10 times earnings, you get a Mkt cao pf £20m.

Currently Mkt cap is £60m.

As a result its all about rukwa and further, you can see, while the US arm is going to plan, why none of it makes any difference to the current SP.

It is their ace-in-the-hole so that if for some reason Rukwa did fail then the SP would fall by about 2/3rds but HE1 would still exist and the BoD would still have (paying) jobs.

Hope so Jay, as I have doubled my holding this morning.