Member Info for wyndrum

BV, my last post to you was deleted, all I did was ask for you to justify your position.

However, my whacky idea would chime with AS saying at the outset that they may never get to MTD which is why only 4 cohorts were needed. It just had to prove you could ramp up the dosage safely. That would explain his surprise when more cohorts were demanded.

However it seems to me that the response in the patients was not as predicted/expected so they have moved about to look at other cancers to see if that might prove to be more effective.

Which is all well and good but it might not be quite the universal panacea we have been led to believe.

It would also explain the lack of obvious interest from BP?

"Watch the price before close of business on Friday."

Why? what do you expect to happen?

Well, I am still waiting for an explanation that has any sort of logic to explain why, the longer the trial progresses (several years), the lower the SP goes that does not mean, its all working fantastically well and exceeded everyones expectations.

(I thought AS based on that, would have been able to sell a better raise than at 50p don't you think, based on TIms, clearly not simplistic after all comment of, " It's simple really though pre|CISION delivers a drug to the tumour and only releases that drug at the tumour site. It works and the trial results so far show that"?)

"If it gets to 1p on news that may change perception in a very positive way"

Well, I'm ready when they are.....

Maybe it doesn't work in quite that simplistic way.

What if the amount of Dox in the tumour is not completely related to the destruction of the cancer cells?

In a way you take Vit C but once you have all the body can absorb the rest is excreted, so you you just can't keep upping the dose with an expected improvement of what Vit C does for the body.

So yes by getting it to the tumour reduces many and much of the side effects but does not have as much affect on the Tumour as expected?

That would prove for Tim it works and also maybe explain why evermore cohorts were needed and 2wd too, to see what changes there were in the results.

Maybe that's why they are targeting different Cancers?

Anyway I am sure that's a load of old crap but perhaps the very first line wasn't.

Yeah, if only someone of the BoD dealt with doing deals and the money side of things......(did you like that, Tim?)

Energy, you said you expected the sale of DX to pay off the loan back in Jan. Still want to stay by that educated guess?

Ok Ald, I do get everything you say, but its this "oh, nothing that happened before counts" when this is EXACTLY what they said previously.

If everything is overseen by the FDA then where is fast track approval gone? Its normally matter of months. Its been years now I think?

It comes down to how much you trust what you are being told.

This company has a history (some might say culture), of being less than honest. So when they say everything is fantastic, are they telling the whole truth, or just enough in a form of words to IMPLY progress.

How are we to know?

You believe implicitly that they are. I am more sceptical. (I have history on my side, you have hope.)

Opti, when you say: " Predicting the when is a mugs game, " and then say "Within three years this will re-rate, might be within one."

You pretty much contradict yourself.

This company has through the trial moved the goal posts in no. of cohorts, in dosing timelines and the actual cancer(s) it is targeting.

It originally said P1a and P1b would take in total 2 years.

Nothing it has said has come to pass from what it expected. Along the way It has made what seem to be poor commercial decisions and changed its CEO at a time when the hard yards seem to have been done. It has poor communications to the point of misleading investors.

The shareholders have seen huge capital destruction over this time and now talks of listing elsewhere as maybe, the UK market may be running out of patience.

(DG has reminded us all here that the Nas is not always the panacea a lot believe.)

But no, this is a done deal that can't fail.

OPti, "what is the history of any start up Biotech bringing it's tech to market until it does? You could say that about literally every single one until they do. "

That is very true.

Now tell me, how many fail? If the odds show that most young bio techs fail then is the market right or wrong to be wary of another one proclaiming that have the missing link??

As for AIM being a rubbish market, I think a lot of that is due to rubbish companies coming to it and fleecing both II's and PI's alike with a never ending begging bowl.

There are likely to be too many failures for the "market" generally to pick out the gems.

Like Thorn says, if/when good news does happen there will be plenty of time to buy at whatever upward price and still do very well with little or no risk.

Its just the greed here of small bets wanting to believe they can transform their lives with one ticket.

Investing typically does not use that template. (Yet more actual proof that none of us here are investors in the way some like to profess.)

It is the never ending conversation about markets ability to "value" companies accurately.

The way i see it is this:

There is no such thing as accurate valuation. It is simply an arbitrary set of fundamental indicators built on historic price action. ie P/E rations, Debt to equity, RoE, profit margins etc etc and these values vary depending on what sector you are looking at, so not remotely universal, and as I say, based on then, what the SP did in the future.

Then, using hindsight, conclusions can be drawn so that when certain fundamental criteria are met it can indicate if a company is over or under valued . (Personally it all sounds a bit like TA to me but hey ho, lets not go there...)

So a company releases its latest annual or half annual figures and the SP reacts. The reaction is projected on what the likely impact on these figures will be 6-12 months further forward, assuming nothing changes. Theses future projections are based on figures that are usually 3 months out of date.

So the "valuation" is always forward looking on out-of-date data, no matter what system you use, and is therefore like any glimpse into the future, not particularly that reliable.

Further, if an RNS comes out say for AVCT, and it is a great result and the SP goes after a week to 500p per share. Is that now valued correctly or is the market still under cooking it?

For all the arguments for and against, all we have is the Share Price. When we want to sell we might think it should be twice the price it is, but so what, it is what it is, so how can it be wrong when its the only price available?

You might think it is wrong so don't sell, thats your choice, but if you HAVE to sell (for whatever reason), then the current SP is exactly correct because its the only game in town.

If you think it is rigged or the market is hopelessly inaccurate in its way of valuing stocks then why invest in it?

It will never, ever be "accurate" in any sensible meaning of the word. it will always only and ever be an opinion.

I think here what we actually discuss is how much money can I make. We play around with words like research and other companies that have been sold and all the rest, but if we felt between us all that 500p per share was about right and the price was 480p would we be here? Would we buy it?

Any share that has the potential to multibag quickly clearly has a high risk of failing, thats why the risk reward is as it is.

And thats why we are here. We are all down to our core, gambling that we are the only people that have read the test results and know, absolutely, know what will happen over the next 6-12 months. Anyone who disagrees cannot see the nose in front of their face. Its just us lucky few.

Only we could have said that 6-12 months ago when the SP was double what it is now. Yet we have all the ACTUAL evidence in the world that shows we don't know what will happen in the near future, but still we delude ourselves that we are

The problem with your logic Opti is that the fall as a percentage is way way beyond the dilution ratio to the stock.

And the time element has been self imposed by AVCT, so how was anyone expected to realise they were either lying or were inept?

AIM SP high = Company doing great (even if it’s just hype and sentiment).

Who cares? if it hits your target figure, you sell,... (don't you? Otherwise how do you ever know when to sell?)

AIM SP low = Company must be failing (completely ignoring actual progress and fundamentals).

Whats the point of great progress and great fundamentals if the SP keeps falling? Could there, possibly, be a chance that the market mis matches the price to the individuals expectation is correct?

The market will re-evaluate this stock when unequivocal "good" news is released. That way the "useless" AIM market will actually change its collective mind when new, better data is presented.

The assumption (false I think) is that the market is wrong. There is no acceptance that the market could have interpreted the data better than the individual, esp as the "market" is made up of a whole range of experts as well as punters. I accept the market can misprice a stock that does not last long and certainly not years!!!

It just seems supremely arrogant to dismiss the market in the way you do. and yes, IF as you have agreed, IF all goes well (which is the whole bloody point of these never ending trials), then yes the SP will be re priced. But that will be on the back of new better info. It will be alogical and predictable outcome.

All you are saying is, if all goes well then the price will go up, which no one has ever contested. You are simply gambling , by buying in before that theory is proven that you will get in at a cheaper price while taking the risk you could lose it all.

And thats fine, but the market is more risk averse than you.

Christ what are you...7!

It does not make aim corrupt or only sentiment driven or any other box you want to put it in.

Oh for gods sake, give up on the "i don't read his posts."

You are as transparent as an ice cube.

The fact is you claim not to care about the SP only the science. The fact also, you can't see that the two are not always entwined shows your naiviety.

Looks like it opti, still thats what happens when you believe the CEO and the RNS's.

Still well done you for expecting the SP to fall as more and more detailed positive data was released.

(How did you do it? Is this the way small companies operate, lower and lower SP all the time better and better results are posted?)

" Now it’s just a case of sitting back, waiting, and watching the results roll in. Simple as that."

Given I have been watching for at least 3 years the results "roll in", why has the SP continued to fall?

Trouble is, personally speaking I have little involvement with th small cap nas stock.

Therefore it is instructive to hear DG's experience.

Again it just feels to me that AIM isn't the problem. It looks like we are shooting the messenger.

I can see (potentially) an ND listing going ahead but it will be primarily for funding not for shareholders gain per se. Which might I concede happily coincide.

imo, If AVCT crack it then wherever it is listed becomes irrelevant. ND only becomes an issue if they don't get a deal and are forced to go it alone, then a new market listing rears its head. But if that is the case then the terms might not be as good as we hope for.

(And here's a forecast for you... if AVCT do ND list I bet all the BoD will have new much higher pay deals commensurate with this US-Based company, for doing exactly the same job they are doing here.

Us PI's are not the movers or shakers in any of this. We have no voice or power, we just keep our fingers crossed we get swept up in any obvious success.

Lets hope

What happened to the TR1 buying and big move up monday etc etc?

(fwiw, 39p is now a resistance level that the SP is currently struggling to break through. I mention it only because Friday seemed to bring out a lot of posters who are thinking SP action is indicative of future moves.)

"It's a networking conference rather than a scientific conference so they'll be going over old data with a view to impress and network with the various business development professionals there."

Great... after 4 years they still need to convince somebody...anybody....that they are on to something.

Tends to lessen the credence that they are already in negotiations for a "deal" don't you think?

Or are you all going to spin it that this is just yet more good news while the SP still languishes?