Summit Therapeutics Share Discussion Threads

[chrisatrdg] 20/10/2017 21:39

A further decline on the NASDAQ tonight now showing £1.76 using an exchange rate of $1.32 to the £.

Looks to me that the above re-rate has done some damage & that the 'previous road show' has not convinced punters that Summit is about to go places.

I sincerely hope that we have positive results in Qtr 1 2018 for DMD.

[football] 16/10/2017 18:58

It's a sorry old share price stateside today

[luminoso] 16/10/2017 16:31

Yes agree, Poseidon. There is a risk that the experience of missing out on that spike will lead to selling early on another spike. Which is why I,d rather Summit are taken out, leaving me no decision to make !

[poseidon2] 16/10/2017 15:50

Not sure I enjoy being reminded of what might have happened!
I was online at the time and watched open mouthed with my finger on the sell button as the price rose.
However, my flawed logic was that there just had to be some fantastic news on its way.....
Only myself to blame and of course a little greed!Probably sell too soon next time!
GL all.

[luminoso] 16/10/2017 09:45

We,ll agree to disagree then.

[jag63] 16/10/2017 09:01

We could argue the point all day long, but the catalyst for profit taking by PI's was the profit taking of the II's which stopped the rise to 20p and caused the crash of the share price Always easy in hindsight obviously, and the rise was quick, 3 weeks if I remember correctly, but was on the back of excellent results in the first trial so I wouldn't say on no real substantive news. You don't want to put any blame on the II's for causing the share price to fall that's your prerogative, but I still do and that's my view and remains so no matter how much you argue the point.

[luminoso] 16/10/2017 00:22

The IBT holdings announcement came first. Difficult to say therefore who started the selling and was the catalyst. I blame no-one but myself for not taking profits at the time. I certainly would not blame Lansdowne for causing the crash. That was down to gravity ! The rise was too far too quick on no real substantive news and could not be sustained - obviously easier to see with hindsight ! Meanwhile, Lansdowne remain extremely heavily invested long after the event.

[jag63] 14/10/2017 11:18

I'll agree with you that the crash was about profit taking across the board, II's & PI's, but the catalyst for profit taking was Landsdowne selling at the top, quickly followed by IBT. I remember at the time both Freedosh and myself got in touch with IBT. I made the mistake of not selling at 20p and watched my £50K profit dissolve as we fell to £1.03 new money. I won't be making that mistake again.....just waiting to get back to the £4.00 (20p) :)

[waterloo01] 13/10/2017 19:59

Agree they have been very supportive over the years and in it for the prize of ezt approval.Cheers

[luminoso] 13/10/2017 19:46

I don't remember that crash being down to Lansdowne, to be honest. They certainly sold some after the spike in Sept 2013 to go from above 29 % to below 28%. International biotech trust sold a shed load quickly after the spike, so may be more guilty. Lansdowne then seem to have stabilised around the 27% mark in the spring of 2014, after the big placing around then. I think the crash was more about profit taking across the board, IIs and PIs as the spike was huge on the back of a patent award and clearly not sustainable. Lansdowne look to have been a pretty solid supporter over the years.

[jag63] 13/10/2017 11:28

I thought it was just me, the RNS is as clear as mud. Always wary of Landsdowne - haven't forgotten the rise from 5p - 20p old money when Landsdowne sold and crashed the share price

[luminoso] 13/10/2017 11:04

Looks like little change, so could be just the recent placing of shares has adjusted their percentage ? You're right though, it's fairly unintelligible, as many holdings RNS's are.

[waterloo01] 13/10/2017 10:33

Luminoso, quite right, Lansdowne. Can't make head nor tails of the RNS. Have they increased, reduced, no change?

[mirabeau] 13/10/2017 10:21

Summit received a buy mention in the IC yesterday if anyone's interested. See the MTFB for the entire article

[luminoso] 13/10/2017 10:17

Hi waterloo1. Thanks for your observations recently on the presentations. Just one thing re Summit's cornerstone investors, I think you meant Lansdowne rather than Lanstead ( who had a funding deal with IMM ). Similar names but very different entities !

[chrisatrdg] 12/10/2017 22:36

Will Biotech Continue To Boom?

Enjoy the read.

[multibagger] 12/10/2017 08:04

CRISPR and DMD...of topical interest....

[chrisatrdg] 11/10/2017 21:59

The link below tweeted by Summit this evening allows you to click through the presentations & related talks - have fun.

[chrisatrdg] 11/10/2017 20:54

I agree waterloo01 & the years go ticking by which for me means I need to claw back some of my investment in the next tax year which currently will be at a profit.

Listening today I felt that the 2 projects will go on for years & clearly they will need more funds to complete phase 3 for C-Diff as I am not sure who will go in with them unless the US organisation that has recently funded them will give further support.However there is clearly a medical need for this C-Diff drug to work.

The problem is that the more they 'go it alone' the deeper they get & they will then need a pharma to be interested enough to do the rest of the heavy lifting.

Finally I thought the idea of having their own 'conference' was rather good & I look forward to the next one.

[waterloo01] 11/10/2017 19:04

Chris, that might be true, and the antibiotic was the original reason I invested, but they aren't exactly rushing it, with the larger trial starting in the 2nd half. At least they have much of the funding (but not all) via Barda and the data looks excellent.

The cornerstone investors here (Lanstead in particular) and much of the market has given little value to RDZ (might have changed of late mind) and the 'prize' is the rare disease area of DMD. My take, partly based on today but also 'informed' by them not releasing data from the open label trial (as originally suggested), is that the results will be 'equivicle', and will get good patient feedback but data will be more limited, and it's data that matters, or should do!

Key here is not only showing patient signs of improvement (ad hoc and 6MWT)but demonstrating it to the FDA, and it's never been hidden that proving that Utrophin is providing real benefit, is somewhat elusive. Today's presentation and answer to broker questions says they are further forward but a long way to go. All IMO.