Renovo Share Discussion Threads

[amt] 10/3/2011 10:11

I cannot imagine that the average length of service is particularly long for most employees so they will not be much redundancy to pay out. Gartmore have built up a big stake so they I would assume will be keeping an eye on costs.
Basically the market cannot be bothered to wait 6 months or so for a 30 to 50% gain but often seen that before.

[jebenn1] 10/3/2011 09:23

- I agree it seems odd that the predicted value at wind up is not more than 15p. But there are very few times over the years when I have been in a situation of not understanding the market valuation when I have been right and the market has been wrong.
The wider market either knows about a liability we don't or is nervous about something which might happen.
I am happy to hold for the while because I certainly don't think it's overvalued but anyone buying into this company now must be barking if you ask me. (I realise a rational approach would equate keeping money in with buying anew but I won't right it off yet.)

[sir rational] 09/3/2011 20:44

Small molecule of hope left here

[2bozmo] 09/3/2011 20:37

What is there to take over? They haven't produced a drug that works and with 10 employees that are left unlikely to either.

[hollerich1] 09/3/2011 18:51

someone is buying this stuff, can someone tell me what is going on, could gartmore take this over

[addict] 09/3/2011 13:12

Gartmore still adding

[alimo] 09/3/2011 00:52

What did the Juvista team do for the whole 12 months - during the Phase 2 trials there were progress checks made all the way through the trial. Surely the money everyone was being paid during the 12 months could or should have elicited some info about the progress at the 6 and 9 month stages - so why was it suddenly such a big surprise to find that it didn't work on the 350 adults - but it worked on the children. If it worked on the children why are they dumping Juvista for them? Surely children would prefer to be treated with Juvista and have their scars revised/reduced and while they make up a smaller market for the eventual product, surely it is worth marketing Child Juvista to the whole world, and from this revenue (which might only be 100s of £millions and not billions), we should afford to look again at what wasn't done right during the P3. The science doesn't change, and it is thoroughly documented in Lancet, so the results shouldn't change either. Sir Rational is wrong - there's literally hundreds of medical articles saying that his guess is wrong, and that the 'molecules' are good.

Is everything in the medical business run like the English playing cricket with absolute fair play, or is there (like what's happening in the cricket game today), room for modern malignancy or just pure industrial sabotage, when such big stakes are being played for?

Is there no room for an EGM to show shareholders exactly what went right with Phase 2 and then what went wrong with Phase 3. I've seen the pictures of the P2 which were pretty convincingly good. So WE ought to be able to see what the pics are like for the P3, with some professional analysis or some highly expensive guesses about what went wrong.

What I don't want to see happen is Shire coming along and snapping the lot up for peanuts instead of £s, after say a year or even sooner, when some of the dust has settled, and hey, they might even want the Prof et al, with all their experience in getting things right, to join their science team at even a bigger salaries than they are getting now. In the USA would this not have signaled a Stock Exchange Enqiury?

[supernumerary] 08/3/2011 20:13

I've little doubt that Juvista works for some scars on some patients in some circumstances. The problem is that they've run out of time and money to discover the appropriate targets, particularly as the subset will be much smaller than originally envisaged and hence the potential return.

The major mistakes were surely to drift too far away from the Phase 2 trial, and not to have designed an adaptive trial that would have allowed them to unblind after say 100 patients. At least then they'd have known much earlier that they had a problem and would have saved an awful lot of shareholders' money.

[sir rational] 08/3/2011 19:52

Molecule no good

Simples

[sbs] 08/3/2011 19:43

I think that's unlikely. I think that they had a good (but risky) idea, but it didn't work.

If they've got any sense, they'll go on to the next good idea.

[alimo] 08/3/2011 14:09

How did Juvista make its primary and secondry targets for children as reported in Nov 2010 and then fail for adults - odd?

[filbert3] 08/3/2011 12:12

And because shire have terminated the lease anyway because they don't want it.

[sir rational] 07/3/2011 21:23

Because the molecule is worthless?

[hollerich1] 07/3/2011 21:02

this will be a takeover target, and i won't be surprised if it shire llc, because why lease something you could have.

[bill182] 07/3/2011 15:48

I see a purchase has just gone through for 1.2 million shares. At a value of £188,000, not to be sniffed at!!

[hemehem] 07/3/2011 14:05

Calmed down now.

[amt] 07/3/2011 12:50

Thank you.

[madmonkflin] 07/3/2011 12:48

the reason it was lowwer was that there was defered income they have now released to the P&L.

[amt] 07/3/2011 09:24

Something not making sense here. At 30th Sep they had 33m of net assets. Now they are saying they have 44m net cash before redundancies and other trial costs. The analysts on the conf call didnt ask the right questions and so we are no clearer as to what the postion is. It could be a lot worse than the 44m they mention. Can anyone put some light on this.