We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poolbeg Pharma Plc | LSE:POLB | London | Ordinary Share | GB00BKPG7Z60 | ORD 0.02P |
| Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.05 | 1.45% | 3.50 | 1,501,967 | 16:35:06 |
| Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.40 | 3.50 | 3.45 | 3.45 | 3.45 | |
| Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coml Physical, Biologcl Resh | -5.79M | -0.0116 | -2.97 | 17.25M |
| Last Trade Time | Trade Type | Trade Size | Trade Price | Currency |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16:35:06 | O | 250,000 | 3.40 | GBX |
| Date | Time | Source | Headline |
|---|---|---|---|
| 27/5/2025 | 12:19 | ALNC |  Poolbeg Pharma shares up after US FDA orphan drug designation |
| 27/5/2025 | 10:25 | ALNC | AIM WINNERS & LOSERS: React Group swings to loss and lowers outlook |
| 27/5/2025 | 07:01 | UK RNS | Poolbeg Pharma PLC FDA Orphan Drug Designation granted for POLB 001 |
| 27/5/2025 | 07:00 | UK RNS | Poolbeg Pharma PLC Annual Report, AGM Notice & Circular |
| 23/5/2025 | 07:00 | UK RNS | Poolbeg Pharma PLC Result of upsized oversubscribed BookBuild Offer |
| 22/5/2025 | 22:51 | ALNC | TRADING UPDATES: Poolbeg upsizes offer; Glenveagh backs outlook |
| 22/5/2025 | 13:44 | UK RNS | Poolbeg Pharma PLC Increase of BookBuild Offer |
| 20/5/2025 | 22:01 | ALNC | TRADING UPDATES: Poolbeg upsizes fundraise amid strong investor demand |
| 20/5/2025 | 12:26 | UK RNS | Poolbeg Pharma PLC Result of Placing and Notice of General Meeting |
| 20/5/2025 | 11:30 | ALNC | Poolbeg Pharma loss widens; launches GBP4 million equity raise |
Poolbeg Pharma (POLB) Share Charts1 Year Poolbeg Pharma Chart |
|
1 Month Poolbeg Pharma Chart |
Intraday Poolbeg Pharma Chart |
| Date | Time | Title | Posts |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/6/2025 | 17:31 | Poolbeg Pharma | 4,240 |
| 24/10/2022 | 16:20 | Polb | 1 |
| Trade Time | Trade Price | Trade Size | Trade Value | Trade Type |
|---|
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 15/6/2025 09:20 by Poolbeg Pharma Daily Update Poolbeg Pharma Plc is listed in the Coml Physical, Biologcl Resh sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker POLB. The last closing price for Poolbeg Pharma was 3.45p.Poolbeg Pharma currently has 500,000,000 shares in issue. The market capitalisation of Poolbeg Pharma is £17,250,000. Poolbeg Pharma has a price to earnings ratio (PE ratio) of -2.97. This morning POLB shares opened at 3.45p |
Posted at 03/6/2025 09:50 by pogue Peterrrthe trials are now fully funded the only reason their will be a cap raise is if they both fail and if that's the case there is no point buying into a fund raise. So you are betting on 2 failures odd cant see that strategy making money. One success will drive this share price over 10p, its IPO price, before a deal is struck. Cant see when you are going to buy here. Good luck with the strategy. |
Posted at 27/5/2025 08:07 by burtond1 Fantastic news from POLBToday 07:31Good morning,I hope all is well and you may have seen the exciting Poolbeg Pharma announcement that the FDA has granted Orphan Drug Designation to POLB 001 as an oral preventative therapy for T-cell engager bispecific antibody-induced Cytokine Release Syndrome (CRS).https://www.lo |
Posted at 20/5/2025 14:19 by sikhthetech 1gw"Lottery tickets haven't paid out yet so pass the hat round to keep the gravy train going, to mix a few metaphors?" 1gw - 05 Apr 2025 - 22:06:33 - 4059 of 4125" Really, re-posting your post from only last month!!!! There you go, as expected..... you/your mates ramp shares, overplaying the potential and then when things look bad, you/your mates post as if you knew they were. You've been ramping these for years. They have had NIL revenue for years, yet you by-pass facts/fundamentals and post the potential. sikhthetech - 05 Jan 2025 - 22:49:01 - 3881 of 4156 Poolbeg Pharma - POLB 1gw, "But still high risk given the funding requirements." Good to see you posting in hindsight again(given the share price has crashed, as predicted) and now agree they need funding/placing. I mentioned the funding requirements months ago, whilst you/your mates were overplaying the potential. Why has HVO thread gone silent? <...> |
Posted at 20/5/2025 07:26 by 1gw Lottery tickets haven't paid out yet so pass the hat round to keep the gravy train going, to mix a few metaphors?‐------------- 1gw - 05 Apr 2025 - 22:06:33 - 4059 of 4125 I don't know. It's difficult to tell without a proper understanding of the science, which is difficult to get from a microcap even if you have the right technical background. You could certainly interpret what's happened at Polb as akin to the lottery ticket strategy. They had a plan to be capital light, do a bit of low-risk work on Polb-001 and then flip it to a bigger biotech or pharma buyer, didn't they? That clearly didn't work, but they still had a lot of cash left so they bought the lottery tickets of (1) pivoting to an oncology application for polb-001 and (2) bringing on board a team to buy undervalued approved drugs. In the meantime CEO and chairman continue to draw their salaries. That's a cynical point of view, but difficult to know what sort of probability of success to ascribe to either Polb-001 in its oncology application or repeating Amryt's model of buying cheap approved drugs. |
Posted at 02/5/2025 10:30 by chica1 And when I asked it how this could this could happen it fed me this..You're correct that POLB-001 likely belonged to hVIVO (formerly known as Retroscreen) before the spinoff, making it a valuable asset for Poolbeg Pharma after the separation. Cathal Friel's role in the spinoff and subsequent arrangement regarding POLB-001's ownership would depend on specific agreements between him, hVIVO, and Poolbeg Pharma. If Cathal Friel acquired rights to POLB-001 through such agreements, it would clarify how he came to own the molecule. The exact details of these arrangements would be crucial in understanding the current ownership structure. And if you ask directly who owns the Polb-001 molecule the reply is... Poolbeg Pharma doesn't own POLB-001. Instead, Cathal Friel owns the molecule and has licensed it to Poolbeg Pharma, allowing the company to develop and commercialize POLB-001. This licensing agreement enables Poolbeg Pharma to work on the molecule while Cathal Friel retains ownership. |
Posted at 01/4/2025 18:29 by extrader Long article explaining sector-specific issues.Not sure how many apply to HVO, more maybe to POLB. Best explanation I've read of industry dynamics. Forwarded this email? Welcome to yet another post from Yet Another Value Blog (YAVB). Weekend thoughts: this time IS different for busted biopharm, part 1 (history, hypotheticals, and examples) Apr 1 Q1 is in the books. It was a strange quarter; the year started off with blind euphoria and growth stocks seemed to have an endless bid, but between the deepseek selloff and on-again/off-again tariffs, markets entered a mini-turmoil sometime in the beginning of March (one of the reasons this month’s book club will be Diary of a Very Bad Year!) and somehow European defense stocks went parabolic? Anyway, the two industries I’ve spent most of my time thinking about this quarter have been cable/telecom (I always spend a lot of time thinking about cable / telecom, but maybe more so this quarter because of my call with Tom Wheeler) and busted biopharm trading below cash. I’ve had some random thoughts floating around my head on both that I wanted to put down; in last week’s post I hit on my telecom / satellite wars thoughts, and today I wanted to hit on my busted biopharm thoughts. In particular, I wanted to discuss one thing: Why this time is different for busted bios Upfront note: I wrote all of this over the weekend…. on Friday, the FDA’s head of vaccines was forced out, creating panic among investors and sending the XBI down ~5%. The mood in XBI was already completely grim, and it got more so with that news / move, which I think actually reinforces everything I wrote in here / makes the bargains even more extreme, but just noting I wrote this without having full clarity on what it did to the sector! Anyway, I’ve mentioned several times that I think there’s a borderline generational opportunity in busted biotechs right now. I am well aware of the history of busted biotech companies trading below net cash; there have always been small failed biotech that trade below net cash because insider ownership is pitiful and management and the board are incentivized to light all of the money on fire by taking increasingly desperate YOLOs and paying themselves huge salaries (I mention this in my original write up as well). It’s a simple incentive problem: if you’re the CEO or board member of a company with a huge pile of cash and you don’t own any stock in the company, that cash effectively represents both a call option and a short term dividend stream to you. Let me use a hypothetical to easily illustrate this example. Pretend you are the CEO of a one drug biotech. The drug looks extremely promising in phase 2 trials, and the company goes out and raises $300m of cash on the promise of that drug. They spend $100m running a phase 3 trial…. but unfortunately the drug fails. At this point, the company basically consists of $200m in cash; it has no other assets. Shareholders would clearly be better off if that cash was returned to them; the company has no other assets and no competitive advantage (or expertise!) in finding / acquiring / developing other molecules. Best to wrap it all up and go home. However, let’s look at things from your standpoint as a CEO. Pretend that you don’t own any stock; all of your ownership was through stock options that were struck at the IPO price and are now way out of the money. From your standpoint, returning cash to shareholders is a disaster! You’ll be putting yourself out of a job for no benefit! As a CEO, you’re actually incentivized to do something with that cash. You effectively have a call option on that cash; if you somehow manage to turn that $200m into $2B of value, all of your stock options are deep in the money and you’re probably due for a huge bonus…. if you turn that $200m into nothing, then you’re no worse off than you are now (in fact, you’ll collect a salary for a few years, so you’re actually better off). So your best plan as a non-stock owning CEO is to buy some sort of long dated lottery ticket that will pay multiples on the upside if it is successful. And remember: you have a call option on the stock, so you really only care about degree of upside, not NPV! Heads, you win; tails, shareholders lose. Your ideal use of that $200m would be buying and investing into some long shot early stage drug that will take ~5 years to develop and, if successful, would be worth $2B. Never mind that the odds of success might be 1%, so the expected value of that investment is $20m (1% * $2B = $20m, and once you factor in the time value of money and corporate drag / overhead it’s actually lower!), so shareholders are ~$180m worse off by the investment…. as CEO, you’ve just locked in five years of extra salary and a huge bonus at the end in the unlikely event your YOLO pays off. Alright, hypothetical over. I feel a little dirty just pretending to be in that CEO’s shoes. But, again, these types of cash shell / YOLO issues have always existed in biotech world, and it’s particularly bad in very small cap companies. Why? If a large cap company has $2B in cash on their balance sheet and plans on lighting it all on fire on YOLOs, that’s a lot of money to burn, and there’s a lot of incentive for an activist. Let’s say the company with $2b trades for 50% of cash, so a $1b market cap. An activist could buy 5% of the company for $50m. They could then spend $10m hiring all of the best lawyers and proxy advisors, win a proxy fight, and liquidate the company. Let’s pretend the company is burning cash the whole time and the cash balance drops from $2B to $1.8B while the activist is pursuing their plans. They’ll have invested $60m ($50m to buy the shares plus $10m in legal costs) to get back ~$90m. That’s an uncorrelated 50% return (even better if the company reimburses their proxy battle costs, as typically happens if you win the fight), and because they just took down a multi-billion dollar company they’ll have built a huge name for themselves! But that same math simply falls apart in small cap land. Pretend that everything is the same, except instead of having $2B in cash the company in question has $200m in cash and trades for a $100m market. Suddenly, an activist has nothing to go on. If they buy 5% of the company, it only comes out to a $5m stake. Hiring the top tier advisors in our first hypothetical cost $10m; that’s clearly out the window with a stake this size. And while it’s really hard for a failed pharma company to burn down a $2B cash pile; it’s really easy for a failed pharma company to burn a lot of a $200m cash pile; proxy costs and normal corporate overhead are really going to whittle that pile away while the activist tries to run a process! There’s also a bit of a freeloader issue here: if you have a company with $200m in cash trading for $100m, it would behoove all shareholders to write a $10m check to hire the best advisors to get the company to liquidate if that’s what it takes. Shareholders as a whole would be ~$90m better off. But that’s not how activism works; one activist has to bear the cost burden and all shareholders get to freelance on their efforts. Put it all together, and the small size of pharma serves as a natural barrier to activism. If you’re running a small, failed pharma company and you’re hell bent on burning all of that cash in some way, shape, or form, you’re probably going to be able to do so. The costs of stopping you are simply too daunting. There are literally legions of examples of companies like this. To name just a few: Nektar (NKTR) is probably my personal favorite current example. They have $270m in net cash and a market cap <$150m…. and they just filed an 8-K prepping them for a $75m at-the-market (ATM) offering. Bulls can push back and say the company is just doing it for good housekeeping / to use if their stock goes up on good drug news, and that certainly may be true…. but it is very rare for a company to go through the trouble of establishing an ATM and not almost instantly start using it, and I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a company file to potentially dilute themselves by half when they’re trading at almost half of net cash; it’s almost comedic in how bonkers it is. Sutro (STRO) is probably the most popular example right now, thanks in large part to this Stat+ article. The company has >$300m in cash on its balance sheet and a market cap of just ~$65m. Why? They just “deprioritized Even with the expense reductions that will slow its cash burn, Sutro will still need to raise money at the beginning of next year — without having much clinical data, if any, to justify the continued investing in its preclinical drug candidates. Perhaps there’s value to be teased from Sutro’s very early pipeline, even though neither of the drugs are novel. Sutro should not be charged with finding out. It’s insane to allow this company to continue to exist, spending another $300 million or more after burning through $800 million with little to show for it. Yet, Sutro executives and its board have all the power to do what they want. Shareholders have little or no say. Pliant Therapeutics (PLRX; disclosure: I have a small position) had to pause trials on their lead drug on the recommendation of a safety board…. but not before the company basically said “we don’t believe the panel that the drug has an issue” and then spent more money on a commission to investigate the drug and realizing there was indeed a safety issue. The company has >$350m in cash and a market cap of <$100m. Insiders have been consistent sellers of the stock and insider ownership is basically nothing (almost all the insider ownership you see in the screenshot below is from far out of the money stock options). Rather than return cash to shareholders, the company seems interested in spending the cash pursuing some very early stage drugs in their pipeline…. does that decision have anything to do with the miniscule levels of insider ownership, the ~$250k in annual board fees each board member gets, or the >$25m/year in combined comp for the top executives (a number so egregious shareholders voted against it at the least annual meeting)? Seems at least plausible to me! Kezar (KZR) has >$130m in cash and a <$40m market cap. The company has been in a slow burn for years since a “setback” So there are four really solid examples of the type of historical net cash companies, and I haven’t really cherry picked there. Those are just four I’ve been following / done some work on, but I think there are several dozen more like them. These are the types of net cash biotechs we’ve seen historically: trade at a huge discount to cash, but with a lot of questions around what will happen with that cash. They are probably positive EV given they are trading for enormous discounts to cash and with discounts that big it really only takes good news at one of them to pay for a whole basket of them. Of course, the range of outcomes is really wide and a lot of the thesis depends on if the companies do the right thing / if shareholders can figure out a way to get their cash back. The nice thing about KZR and PLRX is that both already have a shareholder who has taken the first step to rationalization (KZR already has an offer from Tang to buy / liquidate them, and Tang also owns ~10% of PLRX), while STRO and NKTR seemingly don’t have any pressure on them…. doesn’t mean one basket works or one basket doesn’t, but I do think shareholder pressure is critical in these! Bottom line: I think the whole sector is just completely bombed out right now (and I wrote most of this before the FDA’s top vaccine official was pushed out, which certainly won’t help sector sentiment), and I think you can find a slew of opportunities right now. Those type of deep discount to net cash companies are one such opportunity…. but I actually think discerning investors can do better than those examples, and that’s the type of opportunity I’ll discuss in part 2 next weekend. Till then!" NAI, DYOR etc etc Discl.: I don't have positions in either HVO or POLB....or, indeed, in biotech. HTH and ATB |
Posted at 03/1/2025 13:14 by toby hall a post from the other sideDingodog1 ..Today 13:03 My take is that HOOK is an appropriate "vessel" that POLB can use to access NASDAQ. It is sufficiently "distressed" that POLB can get a sizeable level of equity (even post dilution) to allow a tangiable return if should POLB take off. Arguably POLB001 is the golden ticket from POLB's perspective, and bolting on to HOOK effectively gives POLB access to the capital markets of the US, which may value it more favourably. Yes HOOK may be coming along for the ride as the vessel, but i wouldnt be too focused on what HOOK brings to the table other than the vessel it provides. AIM values POLB at, say, £40m. Nasdaq MAY value it at £400m+. That is a ten bag, albeit diluted to incorporate HOOK and the fund raise. My view is that Cathal is looking at future value, not immediate value. Many on here have said before that AIM is a cesspit etc and thus the value for POLB may not be truly recognised. Taking POLB to the nasdaq via HOOK MAY unlock that value. IF the new group is valued at £400m on nasdaq i dont think anyone will complain. As i say, i think HOOK is the vessel, not the perfect partner for us to tap into their offerings. How much would it cost to float POLB on nasdaq? Is that even possible? How long would it take? I think this route is considered to accelerate proceesings whilst recognising value. All imo, and the silence of the BOD and CF doesnt help |
Posted at 13/10/2024 09:54 by pogue Peterrr3I go to plenty events to window shop, going to an event does not mean there is a fundraise going to happen, I suggest you are taking one presentation out of context and extrapolating to the moon. I don’t see where they need the funds to be honest. They started out 3 years ago with around £20 million and now have around £10 million and are trailing POLB001 with 2 pharma companies’ drugs which suggests they are in advanced talks as if they goto human trial, they have done the In Vivo animal trial, there would have to be a contract signed setting out the partnership/selling deal should the result be positive as is normal in these situations in industry. No pharma company would want to increase the value of a 3rd party drug by proving it successful without having a price fixed beforehand. Why fundraise when you are that close to a massive monetisation of your lead asset? Why are they trying to find an orphan drug to sell? Well to make money perhaps? POLB have a pipeline of drugs they develop and sell/partner. Pentoxifylline has past phase II so they don’t need to put it through a trial. I don’t know what the deal will be with the owner but I cannot see POLB buying it unless they have a buyer. I suggest the most likely is a partnership where POLB help sell the drug and share in the profits. This is a capital light company they don’t spend money unless they have to bringing on drugs, have you seen the very small quantities of cash they have spent on the existing drugs in the pipeline? The fact they have spent only £10 million or so over 3 years is a clue. As I said I have listened to the Liam Trimble go on about POLB’s encapsulation tech being used in a trail later this year all 43 seconds off it and did not get excited about at the time as an oral encapsulation trial was being planned from the beginning of this year and was initially down to happen July/August so not seeing what the issue is, nothing new in it. The cost will be small and is being tested for use with another company’s drug they will contribute in some way same as those pharmas running the POLB001 trials did. The trial is very simple for encapsulation. Volunteer comes into medical establishment, pops a pill come backs next day to get a blood test to see if the drug has dispersed in their system, you really think they need a fundraise for this and it hasn’t been planned for? It is not the drug that’s being tested its oral encapsulation so not dangerous or expensive do you really think a sudden fundraise is needed for that as it has been planned for for a long time? As I said POLB does not have an obesity drug it’s the encapsulation that is being trailed. Should the trial work then there is a vast market out there for oral encapsulation way outside obesity drugs. Really cant see what you are going on about there. So to summarise why do you think they need a fundraise when they are getting close to a deal on POLB001? Oral encapsulation has been planned for trial for a long time and is not expensive to do. Pentoxifylline does not belong to POLB, they have an option on it and is past phase II so what cash do they need to spend as the option will more than likely be on a deal to sell in partnership with current owner and they dont need to conclude the deal if they see no buyers. |
Posted at 18/9/2024 11:14 by pogue My typing was a bit rushed had a meeting to prep so my post should have read 'I assume you are not invested'.Anyway sugar coating are what CEOs are paid to do. If you want real info and are good at talking, I suggest going to an event and speaking to CEOs I do it regularly, am going to one tomorrow night, and you can get amazing information from how they answer a question if set correctly. Its an artform kind of like interrogation. Lots can be deduced from tone, body language and avoidance of points. In the case of POLB I see massive positives which I highlighted and these are in the short term. Highlighting minor negatives further down the pipeline is pointless as the company's share price will be decided on POLB001 and encapsulation in the short term and both are moving forward, I expect POLB001 to have the in human trials with cancer drugs soon and encapsulation should be up for sale/partnering in the New Year after human trials. If you are investing these are the points to focus on as those are what will give the share price a massive lift. If you are not invested then looking at the negatives and trying to spin them out as massive problems is what you do but you wont make money that way. |
Posted at 07/5/2024 22:47 by elrico Sicko, It's unjust to judge others by your own standards. I consistently reveal my sale/top slice a minimum of two trading days in advance if I possess a stated position. Additionally, not everyone can dedicate hundreds of hours each month; some have demanding careers, families, etc. Nevertheless, I do concur that whenever feasible, investors ought to DTOR, such as reviewing independent analyses. You might label these individuals as "cheerleaders" to fit your narrative. Relying on your analyses could have been risky with HVO and POLB, yet one thing is certain, you have been consistently inaccurate.I recall you singing the pump & dump song when POLB share price was c6p. Had anyone been put off by your constant trashing, they would have missed out on healthy gains. I do hope you are pleased with yourself. Instead of just highlighting investors' losses, why not provide some balance by sharing your own? As flawless as you may seem compared to Buffet and Munger, I'm fairly certain you've also had your fair share of failed investments. I know I have over the past 30+ years. Play nice! |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
