Avacta Share Discussion Threads

[wan] 25/2/2017 19:28

Lentjes...Read the original announcement -

"Mr Albin will invest a total amount of GBP12,500 per annum in new Avacta shares. He will purchase the shares on a quarterly basis, purchasing GBP3,125 of new shares on each of 31 March, 30 June, 30 September and 31 December. The purchase price of the shares will be the average mid-market closing share price for the five trading days immediately prior to each quarter-end. The terms pursuant to which Mr Albin will purchase his shares are fixed and he has irrevocably committed to such terms."

Just to be clear though, in March Albin did not buy £3,125 worth.

[lentjes] 25/2/2017 18:03

Correction

Q2,Q3 & Q4 2016 purchased and Q1 2017 outstanding

[lentjes] 25/2/2017 17:47

Wan

He purchased in Q2, Q2 & Q4 so Q1 still outstanding

[wan] 25/2/2017 16:11

Thanks I missed it because it has now been titled "Issue of Equity" (which it is), but that will be the Q3 i.e. 30th September, so 31st December is still missing. It is more transparent to call it an issue of equity.

[lentjes] 25/2/2017 15:05

Wan

There was a RNS on 4th October where he picked up a further 3225 shares although it does not give a purchase price so that looks like his Q4 commitment

[wan] 25/2/2017 14:26

Lentjes...If you recall the original agreement, Micheal Albin entered into an irrevocable binding commitment to purchase shares on each quarter e.g. 31 March, 30 June, 30 September and 31 December. As you point out, he effectively made the 30th June purchase on the 7th July. But given that he appears to have missed two quarters, has he not honoured the irrevocable commitment then? In my world irrevocable means it cannot be changed, but like a lot of things with Avacta....things get routinely changed and it's all about as clear as mud!

Albin's irrevocable agreement -

[lentjes] 25/2/2017 13:28

Or hanging on until the share price falls further

[wan] 25/2/2017 12:42

One might assume then that he prefers the hard cash!

[lentjes] 25/2/2017 11:26

Yep understood and the price of the shares is the average over the previous 5 days.

My point being he has now waited almost 6 months since his last purchase so what is he waiting for ?

[wan] 25/2/2017 09:40

Lentjes...To be clear though, he does not buy shares in the open market. In short, he foregoes some of his arguably exorbitant fees (check the AR) and receives shares instead, further shares which are then issued by Avacta.

[lentjes] 25/2/2017 09:11

Makes you wonder what Michael Scott Albin is waiting for before buying his quarterly tranch of shares. Only 4 weeks left before he has to put his hand in his pocket.

He started / committed to the agreement when the share price was £1.15

[wan] 19/2/2017 17:31

Dec2000..."getting out of control" is an overreaction! If you go back a few pages to my post 935 you will read some good exchanges in response to me putting a decent case that Avacta has been a perennial under-performer. The chart at the top of this thread paints a thousand words!

Lentjes...If you also read back a few pages it will be clear that there is little evidence of me simply criticising any positive posts. I may challenge the specifics or general thrust, but on the whole and certainly compared to some threads, this one is 'very' measured, orderly and cordial!

I am ultimately on the side of the private investor, and it's just unfortunate that some investors will not like any degree of criticism. I believe that even some good news flow has the potential to bring out sellers (if any buyers emerge!) i.e. there is a queue at the exit, because the door to that exit is routinely closed by the market makers. Hence the share price performance often reflects the one step forward and two back syndrome. Management suggest that recent progress has not been recognised in the shares....it's because there are many willing sellers stupid! Investors who are sellers and who ultimately have no faith in the management or what the management state!

The fact is, alternatives to antibodies have been around for a very long time with some having been established since at least 1999, but antibodies are the ones that have flourished and the ultimate commercial breakthrough in therapeutics for non-antibody alternatives has still not arrived.

In non-therapeutic applications antibodies also dominate, with many non-antibody alternatives now suggesting that their offerings are superior to antibodies, yet despite these apparent advantages and being available for a very long time, again a breakthrough in non-therapeutic applications has yet to emerge.

Avacta are quick to announce a collaboration, but fail to announce when a collaboration has come to nothing, leaving us to try to work it out for ourselves!


Here are some excerpts from one of my recent previous posts (965) -

"Anyone with the slightest thought of Affimers disrupting the antibody market will be very disappointed as Antibodies and the plethora of alternatives will almost certainly coexist, but given the wide array of existing and emerging alternatives, the non-antibody market will not be controlled or dominated by any one technology! That's not to say alternatives to antibodies will not ultimately prove successful, but it is likely to be a highly fragmented market as they all have similar attributes, albeit some may command niche markets, which may prove enough financially, but in some situations niche might not provide the level of value inflection ultimately hoped for.

Although I remain open minded, in my opinion it is unlikely that Affimers will prove to be particularly superior to anything else out there, and whilst there might be room for several protein scaffolds across the range of therapeutic and non-therapeutic applications, it appears that there will be far more than just a few alternatives vying for a slice of the same business.

Furthermore, several of Avacta's previous collaborations have come to nothing (and did not get a mention in the AR), does this indicate similar in terms of increasing competitive offerings, or that Affimers failed to meet expectations? One would assume that it's one or a combination of both of them."
(END)

Recall that Avacta dropped the development of Affimer microarrays, despite predicting imminent revenues from such. So we have heard it all before regarding imminent revenues! I very reluctantly let that go at the time (albeit I did challenged the rationale/decision), but it is yet another example of failure to deliver on the promise/strategy. Given Avacta's past history, I think we can assume that the microarrays simply did not come up expectations, which implies (along with other failed collaborations) that Affimers are perhaps not as perfect as Avacta imply.

I remain of the personal opinion that unless Avacta can delivery exceptionally strong revenue growth in 2017, they are likely to need to raise further funds in 2017. Perhaps especially so, given that some are predicting that with the introduction of MiFID II in January 2018 reshaping the landscape for "independent" research, it could become an increasingly difficult market for SMEs looking to raise capital.

[danatkins] 19/2/2017 13:16

It's easy to blame the management if things take time or don't work out. This is a different company from seven years past. The product either has value and will be proven in the near term or yes maybe something else comes along that's better. It's a 50/50 gamble however I do believe affirmers have there place. Market is fickle and untill we get a stream of hard data the market will stay fickle. My view is the Co. Have achieved some traction in the last few years. No one said this would be easy.

[danatkins] 19/2/2017 13:16

It's easy to blame the management if things take time or don't work out. This is a different company from seven years past. The product either has value and will be proven in the near term or yes maybe something else comes along that's better. It's a 50/50 gamble however I do believe affirmers have there place. Market is fickle and untill we get a stream of hard data the market will stay fickle. My view is the Co. Have achieved some traction in the last few years. No one said this would be easy.

[poacher45] 19/2/2017 09:29

dec2000 and others suggest you read back through the last 7 years results to see all the failures and broken promises. This company has not delivered and will never deliver and in my opinion it is down to very bad management.

[lentjes] 18/2/2017 13:26

Well done dec2000, you beet me to it

Wan

During your extensive research over several years nobody critised your post even though in your own words over recent weeks it all appears to have been bull sh*t and hype by Avacta and you fell for it hook line and sinker.

Now for some reason you appear to critise any positive post about Avacta and coming across a little bitter & twisted.

It's clear you are now totally anti Avacta but would suggest you should show the same respect that others gave yourself and if you are so disillioned with Avacta I would suggest it's time for you to jog on

[ffp] 18/2/2017 13:12

Good post, thank you.

[dec2000] 18/2/2017 11:58

This thread is getting out of control. As far as I can see, there are indeed a number of scaffolds.. and some of the companies that developed them have been acquired by others, some have gone on to be valuable in their own right (eg Molecular Partners) and some have recently done potentially significant deals with others (eg Pieris). We need to keep these things in context and even in perspective.

We have to remember that some significant partners have done deals with Avacta (Moderna and Memorial Sloan Kettering) OK these are subject to performance but these organisations would not even bother to start unless they thought that Affimers had promise. Then we have to remember that the biggest shareholder is IP Group and they are not fools. Far from it. Also Avacta has reported good progress with the therapeutic Tx side of the business and we have the testimonial from Ramzi. Next remember that the Scientific Advisory Board consists of some very significant indeed eminent people who would not bother if they thought Affimers were a waste of time. Finally remember that the company has generated genuine revenue in the Reagents and Diagnostics space for paid-for projects with other biotech companies and Alistair has indicated that we will see the first proper revenue for Affimer powered products in 2017.

My take is that it is very frustrating that it is taking time, but this is inevitable and what we need is patience. Also remember that the big institutions are not selling.. so the fall in the share price is due to private individuals selling and this happens because of the drip of bad comments in sites such as this!!! Lets have some patience and sense ! Then we will see the share price rise not fall!

[lantanatony] 18/2/2017 10:18

Wan,if you read my thread ,you will see I am also dissatisfied with some aspects of the way Avacta has performed.
However,Affimers do have their place,just have a look at the Patents.
The big question is can Avacta roll out the technology.
Therefore,Avacta remains a punt but it still could be a very good one!

[wan] 17/2/2017 17:59

I am not a scientist (which I often declare), but I do make a significant effort to gain an in-depth understanding of the companies I invest in, including their technology, existing and emerging competition (all of which is not easy). At some point though we have to look much closer to home in terms good corporate governance and tangible delivery, including on the stated strategy. On these counts, and in my book at least, Avacta has failed miserably!

Unique sometimes means niche and relatively small, but I would be interested to learn exactly what unique place you think Affimers have attained/secured thus far?

[lantanatony] 17/2/2017 17:11

Wan
I understand you are a property developer.
However you come across like a senior Bio Chemist.
Affimers do have their unique place in this broad marketplace.

[wan] 17/2/2017 16:26

That doesn't mean that another scaffold can't do the same as Affimers. Unfortunately I have come across a number of people that thought that there were no competitors to Affimers....well they were wrong and there is even a scaffold technology based on Ubiquitin!

[the drewster] 17/2/2017 15:14

Dr Ramzi Ajjan "Having worked with Affimer technology for some time now I am absolutely astonished by what we can do with these molecules. We have been trying for years to reduce blood clot formation. However this is very challenging because clots are made up of a complex network of fibrin fibres and the cells get trapped in this network. If the network can be made less compact it is easier to break down.”

“The work we have done with Affimer molecules simply would not have been possible with antibodies. The large number of Affimer reagents we screened would not have been technically possible using antibodies and we've now been able to identify new therapeutic targets.”

I'm sure you've spoken to him doing your research, but if not, you should.

[wan] 17/2/2017 09:18

The Drewster...Affimer scaffolds are not unique per se, as there are many other available options in terms of other scaffolds/antibody mimetics (I have a lot of research to back that up!). Alternatives to antibodies (with apparent advantages over antibodies) have been around for a very long time (some nearly 20 years), but the lack of adoption suggests that antibody mimetics are not the panacea for medical science you appear to suggest, hence the distinct lack of adoption!

[the drewster] 17/2/2017 08:54

I hope it is nothing seriously untoward. Affimers offer a truly transformational opportunity for medical science, and it would be a real shame for that potential to be lost by some internal political bickering.