We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Silence Therapeutics Plc | SLN | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 535.00 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 535.00 | 535.00 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 04/11/2021 14:39 by 1gw No advice intended but my understanding is that the SIPP rules (AJ Bell and Interactive Investor) are down to provider policy. HL as far as I can see is prepared to let you buy and sell in the SIPP post-delisting.The issue AJ Bell refer to and (as I understand it) the reason ADS's can't be held in an ISA post-delisting is that the ADS's are not "shares", they are effectively derivatives with the underlying investment being the Silence ordinary shares, which will be unlisted. It seems crazy (to me) given the Nasdaq listing for the ADS's - surely an unintended consequence? Today has been somewhat frustrating for me. HL came out with their instructions last night and they confirmed that they couldn't be held in an ISA. I expected a bit of a dive in the shareprice, the same as happened after the II instructions, and was ready to buy more. And there seems to have been a steady stream of sells, but today they seem to be almost exclusively AT trades rather than the O trades I would expect from HL clients selling up. And the price has held up very impressively so far. |
Posted at 02/11/2021 14:52 by 1gw Interactive Investor put out a note late yesterday afternoon (at least to me) saying that they expected SLN ADS's not to be eligible to be held in an ISA or a SIPP, so I suspect there's been a bit of panic selling this morning.From a bit of googling, and then from talking to II and Hargreaves Lansdown, I think II may be right in general about ISAs (i.e. it looks to me as though SLN ADS's perhaps can't be held in any ISA after the delisting of the underlying SLN ordinary shares) but for SIPPs I think they're just describing the II SIPP policy rather than the requirements of the tax legislation. It's a shame because I had already sold most of my shares in my Barclays ISA (which doesn't allow you to hold US shares) and bought them back in my Interactive Investor ISA account, thinking that would be able to hold the SLN ADS's. So today I have been buying more in my HL SIPP and selling the remaining shares in my 2 ISA accounts. I went to the General Meeting yesterday, which was a fantastic opportunity to talk to the directors as I seemed to be the only shareholder (other than directors and advisors) there (second time with SLN I have been in this position). I have to say I came away encouraged about both the business and the delisting. Since the general meeting I have been in touch with SLN IR about the II note, hoping that they might be able to find a workaround. But having googled the ISA rules, I suspect they can't which is why I have sold out of my ISA positions and bought the shares in my SIPP. This is offered in good faith as my understanding of what has happened, but no advice is intended. Please check with your own providers/advisors about your own accounts. I would be interested in anyone else's experience for comparison, particularly around ISA and SIPP holdings. |
Posted at 29/10/2021 22:04 by tony mahalski Need US biotech investors to validate : how do we know ? Get a buyer or two add £1.70 then get SLN360 safe and anecdotal good snd shares are £8 |
Posted at 29/10/2021 09:21 by 1gw For anyone interested it looks like you can now buy and sell SLN ADS's on Hargreaves Lansdown. I asked HL if they could add SLN ADS's ahead of any delisting and this morning it looks like it's there. Interactive Investor already have it on their system. |
Posted at 19/2/2021 08:35 by vonmoger Given the volumes in the US (still very low), difficult to make the argument that the new shares issued to new investors are providing additional liquidity.It appears to me, that other probably private investors, given the volumes are bidding up the US shares. It does not appear to me, that the new biotech investors are selling any meaningful number of shares with the share price up call it 20% in a week from the placing. Probably private investors to private investors... given the size of the transactions. This share is still as tightly held as ever... in increasing the liquidity of the shares the new listing so far has been a failure... it is doing alright for the share price though. I suspect we will need to be above GBP7 equivalent or higher to increase the volumes in the US share listing. Given the volumes in the UK this month.. I would assume there is still a healthy short interest via that SoL data to propel us higher. The US close and the UK open on Monday will be good to watch. I reckon I will be having a good laugh. |
Posted at 08/2/2021 14:03 by 1gw Today's 6k filing details the number of shares each investor has taken and $ amount invested.As I read it, by far the largest investor is BVF Partners, investing $25m (1.1m ADS's) through various funds (e.g. Biomedical Value Fund, Biotechnology Value Fund, Biomedical Offshore Value Fund). Next is Adage Capital Partners, investing $10m. As well as the 4 biotechnology institutions identified in Friday's RNS, there are 2 biotech individual investors (Franklin Berger and Chris Capps), plus $1m from 3i, LP. So no doubt in my mind that this is the conclusion of the "biotech investors" process disclosed by Iain Ross in March last year (as opposed to some more recent dash for cash). |
Posted at 05/2/2021 16:54 by 1gw Using selective quotes again there STT. The issue with the "biotech investors" idea has always been how to reconcile a straight sale of equity with the statements about non-dilutive funding. I think probably the rationalisation in this case is that the company believes having those biotech investors publicly commit to the company by buying equity adds value to the company, similar to how they saw Mallinckrodt and Astrazeneca licensing products as adding value - and both MNK and AZN got equity.So the quote in context from my earlier post was: "Yes, a bit of a surprise given their statements about non-dilutive funding. But then there were also those statements about negotiating with biotech investors." And what makes you think something has happened to some of their cash? They've obviously been spending some of it on operations, but I'm not aware they've "lost" any. As far as I can remember they've always talked about being financed out to the Phase 1 data readouts on SLN124 and SLN360, with the implication that at that point they would be able to raise further non-dilutive funding by out-licensing one or both assets. As it happens, they have recently been talking about going further than that (funding Phase 2 of SLN360 themselves) and ramping up their pipeline. If you read this morning's announcement it is all about getting biotech investors on board, which happens to come with funding because that's how they get them on board. From this morning's RNS: "This financing marks an important step in our journey to increase awareness of Silence and position our company as a global RNAi leader" "Our goal at the outset of this process was to increase appreciation for Silence and build our global shareholder base" "We believe we achieved those objectives while strengthening our balance sheet to support the continued acceleration and growth of our mRNAi GOLD™ Platform." This is a process that was already underway in March last year. It has taken longer than we expected to get to today's announcement, but it has finally happened and they have issued equity at a price far higher than we might have expected when the process was first disclosed. |
Posted at 05/2/2021 15:20 by 1gw sikhthetech. The company told you in March last year that biotech investors were doing due diligence. The company told you in July last year that the planned Nasdaq listing did not mean that there was a change of plan regarding biotech investors. The company has now told you that biotech investors have agreed to invest.The company has said the existing cash runway covers them up to key Phase 1 clinical readouts in SLN124 and SLN360. The company has also recently announced a proposed start date for SLN360 Phase 2 and is talking about ramping up the pipeline so that they have 2-3 IND's per year from 2023. Now that the biotech investor negotiations have been finalised, the company is able to secure additional financing to cover the program beyond the Phase 1 readouts that it had previously said were financed. This additional funding also makes it more credible that they could retain SLN360, their key asset, as wholly-owned through Phase 2, rather than out-licensing it after Phase 1 readouts. What's so difficult to understand? No conflicts there that I can see. And I think the $40m from Astrazeneca is due to be invoiced fairly soon (I would guess on the 1 year anniversary of the deal being signed) and is expected to be received in 2Q. |
Posted at 05/2/2021 14:11 by 1gw I wonder actually, if the ongoing biotech investor conversations were a factor behind the reason not to raise at the time of the Nasdaq listing. That's always seemed odd to me, especially given the woeful liquidity on the Nasdaq following the listing.The biotech investors might well have wanted "first dibs" if they were to lend their names to the shareholder register and the company may have wanted some of those names on the register before trying a public raise or putting an ATM in place. And then perhaps it was just a case of allowing the shareprice to reach a level where the board and/or the major existing investors were happy to dilute to let in the biotech investors. |
Posted at 09/9/2020 13:02 by 1gw The whole point of the IPO was for the Registered Holders to start selling! The idea was to make the shares available to US investors (beyond the existing OTC listing) and hopefully that would allow the "fair" value of SLN to be recognised."The Registered Holders are offering their securities in order to create a public trading market for our equity securities in the United States." The question is what price are they prepared to sell at, and what price are the investors prepared to buy at? We know that SLN has been talking to US investors for a couple of years now. 'Solomon has a US IPO in his sights as CEO of UK-based Silence...' 'Solomon...spends a week a month in the US building share-of-voice with future investors. "I'm telling the story over and over, so that when it's time for a transaction, we'll have that support base," he said.' Yesterday it appeared that US investors were not prepared to pay the price the Registered Holders wanted. (Reported) volume was pathetic for an IPO and SLN will have been disappointed not to get more volume after all the hoo-hah of ringing the opening bell (even virtually). But we don't know if that is just tactical (not wanting to appear too eager, hoping Registered Holders will reduce their price expectations) or reflects doubts about the value or reflects relative lack of awareness given everything else that is happening in biotech - especially development of Covid19 treatments and vaccines. Early days yet. First investor presentation tomorrow, interims on Monday and then more investor presentations after that. All to play for, and I understand the Registered Holders not wanting to cave and sell (much) at the current price if they believe that the company is fundamentally undervalued vs US peers. |
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
