Silence Therapeutics Share Discussion Threads

[vonmoger] 11/2/2020 08:47

If Ross was going to be CEO it would of been announced as such I would guess.

1gw, one could also take a different view that a CEO announcement is more imminent, as they( the major shareholders) want Ross who has been here a long time... To make sure there are no mistakes for the deal+listing pipeline. Ross was over at JPM... Best to keep him involved while it all goes down. Just speculation,

K, I don't even remember sln1234... Maybe it was part of Sr pharma?

[1gw] 11/2/2020 08:13

Perhaps he's decided to stay and oversee an auction of the company to arwr, drna and any other interested parties. We can always hope.
[pure speculation]

[kreature] 11/2/2020 08:04

Does that mean Ross to be ceo here?

Hey this change of protocol seems to be causing a long delay in the start of the 1234 trial, or whatever it’s called, I don’t remember any more

[1gw] 11/2/2020 07:27

It doesn't sound like a CEO announcement is imminent here, from what e-therapeutics said about Iain Ross this morning:

"Iain Ross is standing down as Non-Executive Chairman to concentrate on his interim Executive Chairman role at Silence Therapeutics plc."

Perhaps also of interest to some long-term holders here is that Ali is taking over as CEO at e-therapeutics and Richard Griffiths is stumping up cash for their placing. Small world.

[kreature] 09/2/2020 11:21

Does the rnli thing work on corona? I guess it’s only a matter of time until the sheeple will be demanding their injections right?

[1gw] 07/2/2020 20:14

Interesting speculation from Dirk Haussecker on twitter this evening. Responding to a question on why DRNA raised more cash yesterday when they already have a very healthy cash balance, he suggested maybe they might be interested in SLN. He provides a logic but admits it's a longshot.

I've thought for some time that ARWR buying SLN would be a neat and logical (if not a very high probability) end to the saga which started with Ali (for SLN) buying nearly 10% of ARWR and suggesting a possible corporate transaction.

So what price could SLN fetch if DRNA and ARWR could be persuaded to bid against each other for the prize?

[1gw] 07/2/2020 16:37

416p close in the books. Nice to top the two 408p's.

[1gw] 07/2/2020 15:54

And as you can see from my declared purchases of ARWR, I believe that ARWR market cap can be justified.

[1gw] 07/2/2020 15:53

STT,

current values, according to Yahoo! Finance are:

$3.9bn ARWR
$1.4bn DRNA
$0.4bn SLN

What's your explanation for such a discrepancy in market caps of companies in the same sub-sector? ARWR has executed very well and is probably a year or two ahead in the clinic, but even so.

I still think that undervaluation relative to sub-sector peers is one of the key planks of the SLN bull case. Do you not?

[sikhthetech] 07/2/2020 15:48

1gw,

Weren't you ramping these on the back of a read across from ARWR...oh you were...
Yet ARWR are falling.. why not a read across now...
;-)


oh and ramping these on the back of Ali's tweets - but he sold...
oh and big deals, new ceo etc etc etc..

Just hot air, so far...



1gw - 20 Nov 2019 - 19:53:12 - 48142 of 48757 Silence Therapeutics (the old SR Pharma) - SLN
Just to revisit the apparently prophetic throwaway remark by David Solomon in October 2018 - suggesting (as I interpreted it) that SLN might start ramping up towards the $1bn market cap level because at the time ARWR and DRNA were.

Current market caps (Yahoo! Finance) are:
$4.6bn ARWR
$1.6bn DRNA
$0.5bn SLN

So even though SLN has made remarkable progress towards the $1bn, DRNA and (especially) ARWR are still well up the curve ahead of it, suggesting there could still be quite a way to run, if we're lucky.

[1gw] 07/2/2020 15:37

In case you hadn't realised, K, I'm not a day-trader. I bought into SLN in May 2016 at 130p and bought again at 130p, 102p, 93p, 72p and 74p over the following year or so before the price started to move up.

First time round I bought ARWR at £1.90/£1.95 in Feb 2017 and £1.33 in May 2017 for an average of a bit over £1.60. I sold out at just over £2.20 average in August/September that year.

I bought into ARWR yesterday on the back of a 40% or so fall from the high and what I thought were some good clinical results and a very confident conference call. I don't expect to have caught the exact bottom (although it would be nice to have done so) and may buy more if it falls further.

I have also bought it, as I said, as something of a hedge. i.e. if RNAi turns out to be a winning technology over the next 10 years it gives me a small hedge against SLN turning out to be a loser in that sub-sector.

Hope this helps.

[kreature] 07/2/2020 15:07

Just trying to help. Looks like it's going sub 40 ?

[1gw] 07/2/2020 15:03

Is that for my benefit k?

[kreature] 07/2/2020 14:45

ARWR still falling

[kreature] 06/2/2020 21:26

good call von. note to self, listen.

[vonmoger] 06/2/2020 20:32

Yes that was what I suggested instead of shorting here. Not that shorting either is for my taste. I don't have the stones.

From memory the context was that, sln doesn't have a CEO, hasn't dosed sln124, has a possible bankrupt partner in MNK etc. Problems that everyone knows already and have been reminded of repeatedly here... Whereas ARWR has a CEO, reliable drug pipeline and good partners so no one knows the problems there. I didn't short it though, everything wonderful with hindsight etc. All the bad news known in one case and all the good news in the other.


Maybe some of those ARWR investors have been choosing SLN this year, after Jp Morgan.

Gla

[kreature] 06/2/2020 18:35

ARWR - whoops ? It's down nearly 7% to $40 - PE ratio of 60!?

Is that the one Von said I should be shorting at $67 a few weeks back ?

[1gw] 06/2/2020 15:33

Meanwhile over here, it would be nice to close over 408p. At this stage it looks like we might have a shot at it, but who knows what the gamers have got planned for the last 60 seconds today?

[1gw] 06/2/2020 15:14

Surprised to see ARWR trading down today after what I thought were good data and a positive earnings call yesterday.

So I've swallowed my pride and hedged my RNAi bets a bit by buying some around $42 (£32), having sold out at a bit over £2 in 2017! May buy some more.

Edit: and did, buying another chunk around $43.

[1gw] 06/2/2020 10:55

I think I'd agree with all that VM, although I'd hope they could announce the new CEO well before the end of the quarter.

But I also think Kreature's (& presumably other shorts') thesis that SLN is a grossly-inflated AIM story-stock with no real science behind it and a worrying history of both C-suite/senior management turnover and lack of institutional investors, is also quite a convincing story to buy in to, if you're that way inclined. MNK & Takeda give some validation to the science, but you can argue MNK was a special case given its opioid litigation exposure and acthar pricing issues, and Takeda could be said to be just dipping its toe in the water at this stage. And while I think the read-across from ARWR and DRNA valuations is fair, if it turns out the SLN RNAi platform is flawed then clearly they cease to become fair valuation markers. What are more difficult for the shorts to dismiss, I think, are the SLN360 pre-clinical results, but at the moment there's no "independent" validation of those (such as would come from a licensing deal or clinical results) so shorts can believe that somehow they're not telling the whole story.

All of which means, imo, it's set up for the bulls to stay long and the shorts to hold their positions until for one side either the pain gets too great because of price moves, or some news comes out which undermines their argument.

Not for the faint-hearted, as I may have suggested already.

[vonmoger] 06/2/2020 08:30

1gw, Whilt I understand your points re SoL and collateral for loans - its not really a credible reason for the increase in SoL, imho, possible but not probable. The voting rights changing hands on stock lending, I hadn't thought of. But given the stock is tightly held, call it 60% by individuals + Mallinkrodt - these guys aren't loaning out their voting rights. So the SoL as a percentage of available shares is even higher. But I guess that is just a reflection of tightly held. I'm not even sure how many actual shares would be available to borrow for the SoL to increase - as you put it for the ammunition to increase, from here. Personally though, here is hoping that they can increase it further.

Given the apparent correlation of the share price and SoL in the past - no dividend to take advantage of, its likely that it is impliend shorts. For me it is the only reasonable conclusion. Personally I find it amazing that a stock with clear gap risk would have this much of its free float shorted... it is bewildering.

The last time the SoL went to zero there was a call it 400p up move. It did that from a lower high in SoL than today. Technically the bounce of the daily RSI at 30 around the lows in Jan on volume, a couple of solid weekly candles and a 50 day moving average falling to approx 417 and falling faster each day now... give me cause for optimism, when I add in the appointment of a CEO, likely end of this quarter + imho a material deal announced end of this quarter... makes me very optimistic on the impending trajectory...

[1gw] 06/2/2020 08:05

Some pretty impressive stuff from Arrowhead last night. Hope SLN isn't letting the grass grow while they wait for a new CEO.

[1gw] 05/2/2020 19:50

If you look at what happened with the SoL in October/November - going more-or-less to zero as the price spiked, it seems to fit with them being principally in support of short positions which were then closed out as the price went up.

I looked at this in 2018 (post below) and there it seemed credible that SOL/short positions building up could have ultimately led to the long slide down from 200p.

So that's perhaps the flip side. If the rise is due to short positions, and they still have ammunition left then in the absence of positive news from the company it may at some point be enough to start another slide. Once a slide starts then shorts can recycle - closing winning positions and then opening new ones. I would hope that (positive) news is getting fairly close now (new CEO or new deal) but who knows?

I think SoL can be in support of other things - maybe collateral for loans? But I also think that voting rights normally transfer with loaned shares - so if a declared shareholder is loaning and their voting rights go below a threshold they would have to give a holdings notice.

So it seems to me most likely that there's a correlation here between SoL and short positions. The worry of course is that the shorts know something. But it is odd that there are no declared short positions (i.e. > 0.5%) if most of that 6% SoL is related to short positions. It is also encouraging that the shareprice has recovered from 300p to around 400p if short positions have been increasing during that time.

Anyway, I'm hoping for an almighty short spike if the company can deliver a really good non-dilutive deal. Time will tell.

--------------------------------------
1gw - 05 Oct 2018 - 16:37:13 - 47597 of 48744

Interesting to compare the shares on loan position with the share price chart. According to Euroclear, SoL monthly average this year is as follows:

1.4m Jan (average shares on loan)
1.4m Feb
2.6m Mar
4.3m Apr
4.2m May
4.2m Jun
4.1m Jul
3.9m Aug
2.3m Sep

So it looks like a significant increase in short positions in March and April (assuming the SoL correlates to short positions) may have helped to knock the shareprice off its 200p perch.

[vonmoger] 05/2/2020 17:24

On the 15 Jan Tesla short interest was only 1.36 days to cover for average daily volume.

The implied short interest and implied days to cover ratio here is somewhere around 50.

Even if it's half that...

[vonmoger] 05/2/2020 17:19

It's impressive, I thought the December numbers were too good to be true. The gap risk higher for these implied shorts is a clear and present danger, for them. It creates big optionality for longs.

Is there any reason that anyone would borrow these other than to short them? Clearly there is no dividend to collect and there must be a cost to borrow them.