Silence Therapeutics Share Discussion Threads

[1gw] 13/1/2020 18:07

Edison quoted him as holding 2.62% didn't they, although I don't know where they got that number from?

If that is correct, it would mean he still holds around 2.1m shares and hasn't even sold all of the ones he picked up in October 2018.

[kreature] 13/1/2020 17:57

"How many’s he got left Sikh?"

No need to disclose below 3%. So it's unknown, but the trend was heavy dumping imo

[1gw] 13/1/2020 17:40

Personally I'd suggest that for an ex-CEO (left in June 2018) to keep holding 2.9m shares from 4th October 2018 (share price around 113p) while the share price went as low as 40p and to keep holding through last year's recovery (still had 2.9m shares as of 24th July 2019) was indicative of a fair amount of conviction in the company and its science.

[mdw1] 13/1/2020 16:50

How many’s he got left Sikh?

[sikhthetech] 13/1/2020 16:24

1gw,

"Ali made the comments on 2nd September when the share price was under £2. He finished his declared sell on 23rd December when the share price was around £4 and heading down (perhaps because of his selling)."

That's the point... pump and dump at a profit..
Clearly Ali doesn't have conviction in the science or SLN prospects. Otherwise he would be loading up big time..

[1gw] 13/1/2020 14:40

VM - the Quark teprasiran trials have validated an older platform, the "naked siRNA" one, not the current generation GalNAc one.



Takeda and Mallinckrodt have given some validation to the SLN GalNAc platform by agreeing the deals, but that's a different sort of validation to the one you'll get by seeing SLN124 (or any other asset) pass Phase 1 trials with no off-targeting issues.

Other companies' GalNAc assets also contribute to the assessment of risk for SLN GalNAc assets - which is the point Ali was making in his tweets on Inclisiran.

It's all a question of risk. The perceived risk to me as an investor goes down when big pharma signs license deals for SLN assets, especially ones with big up-fronts. But it doesn't disappear. It will then go down again when a single SLN GalNAc asset passes a clinical trial, and again when the particular asset I'm trying to value passes a trial.

And as I said before, I really struggle to reconcile Edison's assessment of 5% chance of success (i.e. 95% chance of failure) for SLN360 with some of the other assessments, although I acknowledge assessments coming from Ali (who had a financial position as well as a history as CEO of the company) or David Horn Solomon (who was CEO at the time) can't be treated as completely objective.

[kreature] 13/1/2020 13:53

not sure that I've mentioned moon-phases yet. I was just wondering how targeting can be so precise.

[1gw] 13/1/2020 13:35

You're going to close your short, then k?

[vonmoger] 13/1/2020 13:34

K, 1gw

Takeda, quark etc. Have already validated the platform. FDA has already approved drugs using RNAi.

That is why the valuations are high and going higher.

Talking about sln124 manufacturing, moon phases, sugar, livers or whatever other fanciful ways of trying to say the science doesn't work... Is simply that... fanciful.

FDA approval of more than 1 RNAi drug, big pharma buying in with multiple deals. I can have my opinion you can have yours.. But the money is flowing big time. Valuations are only going hugher... Only one company left to do deals with... Musical chairs... Heavenly glory...

[kreature] 13/1/2020 13:21

Tempted to avoid this one for a while but I don't know. Another VP of something or other left this month by the look of it. Is it normal to have such a high staff turnover in small pharma ?

[1gw] 13/1/2020 12:36

It isn't easy, that's why RNAi companies are valued so highly and why big pharma is partnering with them. SLN has patents going back many years.

And it does need proving - of course they need to demonstrate success in the clinic at each stage for every asset they progress.

The valuation of SLN is a risked affair. Valuing it as Edison have done, for each asset you need to assess a value if successful, a cost if unsuccessful and a probability of success. You also need to associate a value with the platform itself, as Edison appear not to have done.

The question is what risk do you associate with each asset at each stage? Clearly there will be a lower probability of success pre-clinic than after (a successful) Phase 1. I believe Edison's 5% probability of success for LP360 is too low, which therefore imo provides upside to their valuation.

But each investor has to come up with their own valuation methodology and their own risk weightings.

[kreature] 13/1/2020 12:29

I would have thought targeting is rather difficult to prove? Hence the trials? Apparently works with the p.e.t. test on sugar thirsty cells, but sugar delivery to only 1 part of 1 cell in the liver? Can’t be easy

[1gw] 13/1/2020 12:15

Ali made the comments on 2nd September when the share price was under £2. He finished his declared sell on 23rd December when the share price was around £4 and heading down (perhaps because of his selling).

I was just trying to offer some suggestions of where to go for further information, on the basis that kreature's comment about being interested was genuine.

I fully appreciate you're just here trolling stt.

[kreature] 13/1/2020 11:02

Dog does hunt? Perhaps it was a hint? I can’t find the exact expression. Only:

[sikhthetech] 13/1/2020 11:00

1gw

"again ref some of Ali's tweets, in particular the 2nd September tweets on MDCO/Inclisiran data."

You mean the tweets just before he sold!!

[1gw] 13/1/2020 10:52

Perhaps read Dirk Haussecker's blog on off-targeting? It's a risk, but sln have been going at this for a long time trying to perfect their designs and I think the industry is building a reasonable track record on GalNAc/siRNA in the liver - again ref some of Ali's tweets, in particular the 2nd September tweets on MDCO/Inclisiran data. But until we see some phase 1 results, we won't know for sure - hence the "monkey talks" and "dog does hunt" sorts of comments from the former CEO.

I still think Edison's 5% probability of success for SLN360, which underpins their valuation, is surprisingly low.

[kreature] 13/1/2020 10:37

True I know nothing about the science, just interested. To target one particular cell and reach it seems incredible. In this case something within a cell?

[hsm12] 13/1/2020 09:39

This is laughable. You make some good points on management, trial delay, etc. It's clear that you know nothing about a drug company or science. You are just hopping around trying to create uncertainty. Even if they explained it to you, would you be able to understand any of it? Stick to the Daily Mail like investigations.

[1gw] 13/1/2020 09:19

I guess that would depend on whether the buyer(s) still wants more at that point... in which context let's hope management are selling the story well at JPM20.

[vonmoger] 13/1/2020 09:13

1gw

At this rate they will be out in a week...

If the share price has been stable with SocGen selling... What will happen in a week when they are no longer selling...? Hmmm...

[1gw] 13/1/2020 09:06

Soc Gen still selling as of 9th Jan. Shareprice seems to be holding up relatively well given the continued selling. But who is buying?

Soc Gen holding

3rd Jan 5.6m shares / 7.2%
6th Jan 5.2m / 6.6%
7th Jan 4.6m / 5.9%
9th Jan 3.8m / 4.9%

From Friday volume looks like they had a day off.

[1gw] 13/1/2020 07:39

And I agree that high c-suite/top management turnover is a concern. The question though is how much of that is driven by "upgrading" (deliberately recruiting higher quality) or the former ceo wanting to choose his own people vs how much is down to staff leaving because of a difficult work environment or concern about the future.

[1gw] 13/1/2020 07:34

I don't think lack of a ceo prevents a deal, I just wonder if the right ceo might allow a counterparty to offer better terms. ie whether the risked value of an asset would be higher (and therefore deal terms better) because the counterparty would lower their estimated execution risk.

[vonmoger] 13/1/2020 05:53

1gw

I don't think they need a CEO for a deal. They just did the Takeda agreement without one. I would assume that started with DHS at the helm and was finished with Iain Ross...

As Iain has been associated with the company for a decade and the platform and technology has been better by 4 other pharma's (Takeda, mnk, quark, alnylam) I don't see the lack of a CEO as an impediment to a deal in Q1.

Gla