Buy
Sell
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Vectura Group Plc LSE:VEC London Ordinary Share GB00BKM2MW97 ORD 0.0271P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  -3.40 -3.17% 104.00 1,154,718 16:35:05
Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price
103.40 104.60 106.40 102.80 105.00
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology 160.50 -104.80 -13.20 627
Last Trade Time Trade Type Trade Size Trade Price Currency
18:49:05 O 2,413 104.00 GBX

Vectura (VEC) Latest News

More Vectura News
Vectura Investors    Vectura Takeover Rumours

Vectura (VEC) Discussions and Chat

Vectura Forums and Chat

Date Time Title Posts
28/10/202018:41Vectura - An emerging Pharmaceutical Co.10,376
04/4/200619:42A winner.87
04/4/200608:05VECTURA HAS 20M AND DEVELOPS DRUGS6

Add a New Thread

Vectura (VEC) Most Recent Trades

Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
2020-10-28 18:49:22104.002,4132,509.52O
2020-10-28 18:49:22104.005,5485,769.92O
2020-10-28 18:49:22104.0024,12925,094.16O
2020-10-28 17:42:10104.7617,21418,033.04O
2020-10-28 17:35:19105.811,7621,864.30O
View all Vectura trades in real-time

Vectura (VEC) Top Chat Posts

DateSubject
28/10/2020
08:20
Vectura Daily Update: Vectura Group Plc is listed in the Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker VEC. The last closing price for Vectura was 107.40p.
Vectura Group Plc has a 4 week average price of 97.80p and a 12 week average price of 97.80p.
The 1 year high share price is 121p while the 1 year low share price is currently 59.10p.
There are currently 603,214,519 shares in issue and the average daily traded volume is 1,663,037 shares. The market capitalisation of Vectura Group Plc is £627,343,099.76.
28/10/2020
18:36
boadicea: A point of minor interest - I just calculated roughly that since January - the GSK share price is down about 25% (ca. 1750 to 1320p) the VEC share price is up about 10% (ca. 95 to 104p) I hope this is a good indication of which way the wind is blowing.
12/9/2020
11:40
brucie5: I note this speculation from earlier in the year by alord53: VEC has now, I believe, been admitted to the FTSE 250, and Blackrock's increase may well be a sign of new instis needing to get on board? -------------------------------------------- Imo GSK will not let Vec to entry FTSE 250 GSK in case of loosing appeal will buy Vectura and its not in their interest to let Vec share price go up ! Hikma also may look to buy Vectura if Advair will approved and GSK will lose . To buy Vectura with a lot of cash not bed for Hikma - may be ?!
28/8/2020
15:33
a1ord53: Imo GSK will not let Vec to entry FTSE 250 GSK in case of loosing appeal will buy Vectura and its not in their interest to let Vec share price go up ! Hikma also may look to buy Vectura if Advair will approved and GSK will lose . To buy Vectura with a lot of cash not bed for Hikma - may be ?!
26/8/2020
12:56
polaris: 15th September for interims. The impact of any buyback is a function of the normal volume and free float. VEC signalled a very long time ago that they would spend up to £20 M in buybacks. Eventually, this was split into 2 x £10 M tranches, the first running from October 2019 to mid March 2020 and the second started on the 1st June 2020 and about 75 % complete. In an totally balanced market, where you still need to make the assumption that the cash on the balance sheet does not 100 % reflect in the share price on any given day, then the number of shares bought back will increase the EPS and, for a fixed P/E, will increase the share price by that difference in EPS x P/E. The market isn't quite so simple and so the actual share price change will reflect any number of contributory factors during the period of the buyback. These can be operational, wider market, influence of new investor entrants, exit of existing investors, news or just the trading range...etc... If the cash on the balance sheet is fully taken into account in the price then a buyback has a net zero effect. What you find is that cash is discounted to some level cf. a company with a nominal zero cash pile and identical EPS. It's just one of the quirks of the market. Companies with large cash piles cf. market cap tend to trade at a P/E discount to their peers...odd but true...despite them having much more flexibility as a result of having a cash pile. This is best described as the difference between EV and market cap, the former takes into account debt and cash, whereas the latter does not. What can move the share price during a buyback is that a larger trader can piggyback, whether long or short, to take advantage of the underlying rules that govern the buyback. That's a bit complicated to explain here but it is related to effective volume and effective market demand arising from the coupling of the buyback to a market player. The upshot is that SPs can move more than expected in a buyback period cf. a balanced market scenario. We just have to live with it. VEC are not directly involved with the buyback. They mandate and fire-and-forget until the mandate is complete, within the guidelines/rules agreed with the external mandatee. VEC have to do it this way, otherwise they are unable to announce price sensitive news. It is similar to a director buying shares in the open market. They can only do it at certain times as they are carrying out a managerial role in the company and taking advantage of undisclosed news is the very definition of insider trading. By mandating an outside player to perform the buyback then VEC can continue to operate normally. Any collusion is also insider trading. VEC published their rules for the buybacks and i have posted the link here in the past. The wider market players can read this document and trade with that in mind...a certain advantage, albeit small, for the algos. In many cases, when the mandated buyback ends the share price falls back. Why? That is how the demand aspect of a market works. It matches the buyer and seller pressure. If a buying pressure dries up and the selling pressure remains the same then the share price falls until balance is regained. So, to some level a buyback can provide a level of support, although the absolute impact will be a combination of the average daily volume to average daily buyback ratio. In a totally liquid market, a buyback has no effect as the increase in trading volume is insignificant. That is not to say that companies do not use nefarious methods to pump SPs via this route. The classic is to borrow to make buybacks, which boost the EPS and the SP, despite being net zero on EV! As many director share awards are based on share price and/or EPS then certain thresholds can be reached to get a larger award. The more you understand a balance sheet the less likely you are to get involved with companies that do this. VEC is not one of these, IMO. They have a large cash pile that is not adequately reflected in the share price They used a combination of a special dividend and buyback to return this cash to shareholders over the last 12-18 months. If they win the GSK appeal then there will be another wad of cash that will likely be returned over next 12 months in a similar way. Sure the management will make a little on their performance related bonuses, depending on exactly how they are worded, but there is no such thing as a perfect world! ;-)
26/8/2020
00:57
blackcrossinresidence: I'm not generally a fan of buy-backs but this one at least was done with cash and not debt and it did allow one of my holdings (Edinburgh IT) to sell up and exit without upsetting the VEC share price. As for buying their own shares in order to get into the 250 - is that actually legal?
25/8/2020
13:15
a1ord53: Justice, dark forces already starting to knock down share price - from 119 to current - dripping down and GSK also put a cap on share price plus buy back people Numis being keeping share price lower in order to buy more back. Somebody persistently uploading a lot off stock showing big sizes offers every day( visible in L3). So momentum not now on uptrend. So all this plus competition , which also trying to enter into 350 and also “helping”; Vec share price to go down. Management looks like the previous one - just thinking about their options and not buying stock ....
18/8/2020
15:40
polaris: I do not presume anything about the contribution of the buyback tranche 2 to the share price rise, just that the average buy price of the current tranche is up 15 % at current share price cf. average buyback price. Buyback 1 was impacted by the Covid-19 spike down towards the end. The average buy price for the whole tranche was 87.95 p. Post Covid-19 spike down the price recovered to mid-90s. Since last October the share price has increased from 87 p to 113 p. During the same time VEC have spent around £16.3 M buying back and cancelling around 18.1 M shares (not including the vested options). That's a nice rise, whatever you attribute it to.
12/8/2020
17:37
a1ord53: CT re BTG -I was thinking/ sure that share price will go down to 5£ and closed my position almost all at average 6.8 £ threw tremendous fluctuations . Regret not to close all at 8£ when share price first time hit 8 £. After this was suffer - same as with Vec after it hit 2£ . Hope this time we all will be luckier and more knowledged. If Advair, Elipta, divi and GSK case go to Vec , share price can go up to 2-3 £ very fast. Good luck this time to all.
19/5/2020
14:30
popper joe: OK, this is a long one, so skip to the next post now if you get bored easily 😉 I have also now read through those 2 court documents that Paul summarised yesterday and so I decided I would share my thoughts, not least because writing them down will help me to remember them!!! I have been puzzled by this case right from the beginning and struggled to comprehend what the argument was actually about, so I read both documents from start to finish to try to get a better understanding. The whole case revolves around a single Vectura patent-991, but an earlier Vectura patent-224 helps to grasp the complexities. The particles of the active ingredients used in dry powder inhalers are typically 5 to 10 microns in diameter. For reference a human hair is around 50 to 100 microns diameter. These small particles present challenges when trying to deliver them in to the lungs, because, amongst other things, there is a tendency for them to clog together. To overcome this clogging and to aid dispersal, drug companies would fix the active ingredient on to a larger “carrier”; particle. This carrier particle would typically be lactose and would be around 75 microns diameter. The force associated with inhalation would then cause the active medication to separate from the carrier. The active ingredient would make its way in to the lungs and the now redundant carrier would be swallowed.The problem with this was that in the presence of moisture, the lactose could destabilise the active drug. In the year 2000, Vectura solved this problem and were granted a patent for the invention of coating the lactose particles with Magnesium Stearate (MgSt) to create a barrier between the lactose and the active drug. This was patent-224, which GSK licensed from Vectura in 2002 in an agreement that covered over 200 patents. In 2010, this agreement had to be renegotiated due to reasons that were not disclosed in the court document. Within that renegotiated agreement, Vectura listed some additional patents that they had been granted subsequent to the 2002 agreement or which were pending agreement. One such pending patent was patent-991. (see below) These additional patents were listed separately as the “non assert” patents and the agreement included a clause that stated that GSK would not need to abide by any of the non-assert patents until the 2010 agreement expired in July 2016. Back to 2006, and whilst GSK were developing the Ellipta range, one of Vectura’s scientists visited GSK and advised them that to further improve flow and dispersal, they should consider coating the active ingredient with MgSt on the outside. Remember, patent-224 coats the lactose and results in the active drug being on the outside of the MgSt, whereas this idea was to put an additional layer of MgSt on the outside of the compound. This suggestion prompted GSK to carry out a series of studies in to the effect that this would have on dispersal rates. One of these studies was “Study 2” and considered a series of mixes consisting of drugs that were and were not coated with MgSt. These mixes all included Vilanterol, which is used in 2 of the 3 Ellipta products. The study concluded that coating the active particles with MgSt gave a 3-fold increase in dispersal as opposed to coating just the lactose. In 2012, Vectura received patent-991, which covered this new application. In 2013/14 GSK launched the Ellipta range, using a process that in simplistic terms coats a particle of lactose with MgSt, deposits active drug particles on the outside and then further coats the whole with MgSt. In other words, it reaches the same end result as described in Vectura’s 991-patent. However, because of the restriction in the 2010 agreement, Vectura could not assert that patent, but were able to assert patent-224, which covered the coating of just the lactose. And so, we arrived at July 2016, when the 2010 agreement and the 224-patent expired. At that point, Vectura were free to assert their 991-patent, but GSK denied that they had infringed 991. The patent covers: “A particle of active material and particulate additive material on the surface of that particle of active material,” and “Wherein the additive material PROMOTES THE DISPERSION of the composite active particles upon actuation of a delivery device.” I have added the capitals, because this is the crux of GSK’s appeal. They have challenged Vectura to show that the MgSt in their Ellipta range promotes dispersion. In the original trial, Vectura referred to “Study2” from 2006, there case being that this was GSK’s own work and it had concluded that the coating of the compound with MgSt (in the way described by patent-991), did indeed promote dispersal. But GSK’s appeal is based on their assertion that Vectura should have carried out tests on the actual mix that now goes in to GSK’s Ellipta range. To this end, they supplied Vectura with an amount of their commercial mix to conduct trials. However, Vectura chose to refer back to trials that were carried out on mixes that differ from the commercial mix, but are arguably representative enough. GSK argue that results from Study 2 do not prove that the MgSt in their Ellipta range actually does promote dispersion and that read-across from the trials is not valid. One might ask the question of why they would apply the outer coating if not to promote dispersion, but I suppose there may be some other purpose 😉 Anyway, the Vectura response dismisses this argument and quotes a number of patent cases that have been before this actual appeal court that were successful based on representative evidence. So that is where we are. As Paul says, there are other grounds that GSK are appealing on: In addition to Study 2 being conducted on a different mix, they also argue that the process that they now use to produce their commercial product is different to that used in Study 2, therefore Study 2 cannot be used to prove dispersion. But Vectura have countered that by pointing out that the patent is for an end result of a coated particle, not the process that achieves the end result. They object to Vectura’s Lawyers having repeatedly referred to the profits that GSK have made from the Ellipta range compared to the limited royalties that Vectura received. The argument being that this caused bias with the jury. Vectura have countered that it was incumbent upon the GSK Lawyers to raise such objections during trial. They have several complaints about the way in which the final damages figure was arrived at. But again, the Vectura counter-argument seems to address all of their challenges. When I first read the GSK appeal, I felt that they had driven a coach and horses through Vectura’s case and that we had just got lucky with the Jury. But as I read the Vectura response, I became much more confident. Every argument that GSK have offered has been clearly dealt with and I will be very surprised if the judgement is overturned. It is also worth mentioning that all of the above arguments that GSK have put forward in their appeal were present in their post-trial submission when they asked the Judge for a retrial. And the Judge rejected them.
03/5/2020
10:32
polaris: VEC had been profitable for the last 2 years, last 4 years if GSK hadn't reneged on their patent agreement in the US...at the operational level. The write-downs are down to the fact that SKP and VEC were both similar market caps in the mid £100's M and now the combined entity is around £500 M. That is a lot of accounting to go through the books. Most of that is down to the failure of the pre-merger VEC products to make it to market. There's been a whole raft of them and quite a few of the early stage ones disappeared over last 18 months. Without the SKP assets, VEC would have been unviable. Best case scenario is that GSK lose and the appeal is seen as frivolous, to increase the damages. I'd doubt that extreme so just an uphold of original decision and so the maximum return is around $200 M by mid 2021. Patent runs out in mid 2021 and it may be that the litigation is only resolved around the same time. That's around £150 M. VEC have around £75 M in cash on the books and the PCRX milestone cash is worth £24 M at same exchange rate for GSK damages. Then add in the operations cash-flow. VEC price is well underpinned by cash. Flutiform continues to grow revenues and the manufacturing revenue is key to base value of VEC. The royalties from the Japan sales isn't to be sniffed at either. Once you add in the royalties from the the main ex-VEC products: Ultibro/Utibron/Seebri then anything on top is clear profit for VEC, with its streamlined R&D strategy. There are quite a few marketed products that add to possible profits: Forspiro Airbufo, Forspiro Airflusal, Breelib FOX nebuliser, Rayos and some legacy products. Hopefully to be added this year: QVM149 (triple with Novartis) and VR315 (generic Advair). Longer term: VR2081 (US generic Symbicort), VR354 (US generic Breo Ellipta), generic Trelegy and probably a third from the series depending on sales. VR730 (the generic pMDI inhaler). Nebulised therapy work (need an update here on the progress). Other depending on the CDMO progress. I am particularly interested to see how VEC now develop the Lyon manufacturing site towards contracted work. But note how many of the original VEC developments have hit the buffers: VR475, VR647, VR506, VR465 and no doubt others I cant remember off the top of my head. It's not all positive...
Vectura share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
LSE
VEC
Vectura
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20201029 06:16:59