Hvis noen ønsker å være etterpåkloke kan de heller spørre seg om hvorfor de ikke gjorde som Radforsk og tok litt chips av bordet da aksjen var skikkelig dyr, sånn at de hadde penger til å bruke i emisjonen.
7 Likes
Nå bekreftet vel Einarsson at de kun brukte 5 millioner i emisjonen, så de ble godt utvannet og bidro i så måte minst like mye til kursfallet som småaksjonærene…
I så fall er det i tråd med spekulasjonene som var:
5 Likes
Usikker på detaljene. Vi vet med sikkerhet at de garanterte for 5 millioner, men brukte de 5 millioner? Tegnet de mer? Eller mindre? Aksjonærlistene mandag vil vel gi svar okke som.
Har du hørt podcasten?
Ja, dog med kun ett øre. De bekreftet beløpet der?
Jo men sånn som han ordla seg, så kategoriserte han jo omtrent Photocure i samme nivå som småsparerne. Så synes ikke han var noe ufin i å påpeke det samme fakta som vi har gjort her på forumet.
1 Like
“vi garanterte for 5 millioner og tegnet for 5 millioner”. (37:00 omtrent)
1 Like
Da bør Einarsson se seg selv i speilet og ikke være overrasket over hvorfor kursen falt så mye og tegningsrettene ble verdiløse. Om ikke en institusjonell investor som Radforsk kan tegne for rettene sine, hvordan kan man da forvente at småaksjonærer skal kunne gjøre det. Einarsson er dyktig medisinsk, men ingen finansmann det er helt tydelig.
4 Likes
Skummet forøvrig raskt gjennom Targovax sine slides fra deres presentasjon i kveld, og synes det er forbilledlig at de åpner bøkene på den måten. Skulle gjerne likt å se at PCIB gjorde det samme.
2 Likes
At Radforsk ikke ville benytte alle tegningsrettene, tror jeg vi skal tilskrive forskningsstiftelsen statutter. At Einarsson ikke har spesiell kommersiell teft er en annen sak.
Apropos slik teft; i PCIB-systemet mener jeg den er sterkest representert hos styrelederen.
4 Likes
Jeg var forberedt på mange ulike scenarier og en rekke forskjellige finansieringsløsninger.
Jeg var derimot ikke forberedt på et så kraftig kursfall, at tegningsrettene skulle bli fullstendig verdiløse og at kursen skulle falle til og med lavere enn emisjonskursen.
Jeg var heller ikke forberedt på ytterligere forsinkelse av pivotal fase eller treg innrullering og forsinkede extension-resultater.
Jeg er heller ikke forberedt på eventuelle forsinkelser innen FimaVacc…
7 Likes
Jeg håper at ledelsen er oppegående nok til å skjønne at de MÅ levere her. De har ikke råd til flere forsinkelser i år, den kvoten har blitt brukt opp og vel så det.
4 Likes
Må si jeg synes det er viktigere å ha en ledelse som sikrer og har kompetansen som trengs for å få igjennom godkjenning og skriver søknader som blir akseptert, enn at det blir utsettelser, som i mange tilfeller er utenfor deres kontroll. Dette er prosesser hvor en er helt avhengige av eksterne aktører for å holde timelines. Det blir for enkelt å skylle på ledelsen her. Det en burde være veldig glad for er at en har en ledelse som har klart å få igjennom godkjenning etter godkjenning på pengemidler(som bidrar mye til den lave burnraten PCI BIotech har) og f.eks. at de faktisk nå står overfor en fase 3 studie som blir pivotal og med potensialet for AA.
Jeg tror mange her ikke er klar over hvor heldig en er som har de ansatte en har i PCI Biotech. Jeg velger ledelse som får ting godkjent og igjennom 100 ganger fremfor en ledelse som leverer ting på tiden til en hver tid, men som ikke har styr på det regulatoriske og ender opp med søknader som gir avlsag, eller om vi hadde endt opp med en normal fase 3 studie. Da snakker vi ihvertfall om at det hadde vært lang vei til markedet.
Nei, tror ikke folk er klar over hvor heldige PCI Biotech aksjonærer er. Når kortsiktige kurs nedganger og utsettelser er det største problemet så sier jeg meg selv fornøyd. Jeg anser det som de minst kritiske punktene for et selskap jeg skal være investert i. Det sagt, jeg er langsiktig så forstår at folk som er mer kortsiktig kan ha annen oppfatninger.
13 Likes
I heard the podcast and from what I understood from the “wow data and patent”, it lines up perfectly with the last fimachem patent published April 2018 and the fact that the principle investigator Dr. Jörg Trojan is allowed the publication in ESMO October 2018 i.e 6 months later. Now I’m wondering about fimavacc data and if they need to patent it before going public, especially if we believe that it is a WOW data. Intellectual property is far more important to us than data publication, so it would not bother me if I have to wait little longer.
16 Likes
Over time in biotec can become very lucrative.
1 Like
Bra å vite at Radforsk ikke hadde rådd til å signe for alt. Jeg er rikere enn Radforsk 
1 Like
JE touched on something very important i.e. the protocols that govern data publication, I personally did not know about this before, even his interviewer did not know about such terms in the contract between company and trial sites. As much as wish for PW to have enlightened us about this as much as I ask myself: is it really his job to educate the market about these industry commun practices? May be not, it may also be well assumed that an investor should know about this as this is not company specific but rather an industry standard
I have yet so much to learn and I’m glad we have good writers in this forum who have voluntarily taken that task to help us understand not only the technology but also the industry in general
Good luck to all
8 Likes
Here is mainly what was said during the podcast. My technical english is not so great, so you might have to figure out some parts yourself. =)
- Regarding the share issue:
Jonas says: It has not been as expected, at least not the stock price. Before the drop today, it was at the subscription price, something which I didn’t think would happen. But the market is the one who is deciding.
If you look at who is sending the price up and down it’s basically traders and small shareholders. Right’s Issue (fortrinsrett emisjon), which is normally very shareholder friendly, failed due to PCIB being a special case with a lot of small shareholders, many of which did not have enough capital to subscribe without selling shares, thus sending the price down quickly.
- Alternative to Right’s Issue:
For us, Radforsk, as a long term investor, the most important thing was that they could secure enough fundings to complete this study.
Could they have done this with a normal issue? I don’t know. But the risk is that, if they said they would go out and get 360 mill NoK, but only got for example 200 mill, that would be very negative. On the other hand, it could have ended up with them getting more than they wanted, which would be very positive. But this is a bit of a gamble. It’s very easy to look back and say what is right and wrong.
From Radforsk’s pov, we are invested with a lot of money in a technology we strongly believe in. We are shown VERY good data/information from PCIB (same info as everyone else I assume). We are told they have agreed with FDA and EMA regarding the Pivotal Studie which may, after interim analysis, end up with AA. To accomplish this, PCIB said they needed 360 mill NoK. PCIB has now got the money needed, and now it’s just for us (Radforsk) to wait for the data from the Pivotal Studie.
- What did Radforsk do?
We guaranteed for 5 mill NoK, and we subscribed for that amount. Did we use all the subscription rights? No, we were not able to do that (not enough money I assume because of the size of the Right’s Issue). So we just had to sit and watch as we got “watered out”, but that’s fine, then new shareholders can be part of the company.
- Regarding Nyenburgh:
They guaranteed for 99 mill NoK, but we don’t know what they did. It may be that they had to take some extra shares, but we don’t know. It may be that they have bought shares and subscription right, but we just have to wait and see. New shareholder list will be released on monday.
And here comes the part which there has been some discussion about.
- Elisabeth says the following:
I’ve understood that they are going to present on 21st october, I’ve gotten a few questions about it. What is it they are going to do? No? No? Nothing…? You are shaking your head?
Jónas interrupts her: Nooo I, no (sounds a bit reluctant, shaking his head), now, now, you’re talking about ESMO now (sounds relieved)? That’s an update on the dose escalation study. I’m going to ESMO myself, so that I should know (laughing).
- What can we expect at ESMO?
We can not expect any effect data from the extension study. Those data are not ready yet (according to PW whom he talked with). We will get an update, with probably a cutoff, which is later than what we have got earlier, which is about the dose escalation study.
- Why does it take such a long time to get data presented?
We’ve had a lot of questions about that. Every company get that question. I’ll try to explain in detail.
If you, as a company, will do a clinical study, you have to make a contract with a PI (Principal Investigator) and his hospital. The PI is in charge of the study.
In that contract there are a few important points.
1: If the company is paying for the whole study, they own the data, and may use them later.
2: But, there are no hospital with self-respect that does not agree to such a contract without having publishing rights. PI and the others who are in the study, has the rights to publish those data when the study is finished.
3: No one but the CRO knows how the study is going, until the study is finished. A doctor at one hospital can see that his patients are doing well or not, but he does not know how it’s going in the other hospitals. To gather all the data and study them takes a lot of time. Jónas himself is/has been sitting in the board of some companies and talked with those who are in charge of the clinical studies, but he was not able to get any info from them, and should not be able to either.
4: Only the final data can be published.
5: Can the company go out in public when they have the final data? No, the scientists (doctors I assume) will get 3-4 months to finish a publication which they can send to a publisher or present at a conference. This is always a requirement from all doctors participating.
6: So, can it then be published? No. When the publication is finished it is sent to the company. Then the company has 1 month to evaluate the data. Why? Because they have to see if there is some new data which they did not expect to see. Data which might be "wow, we did not expect these results, we need to patent this before publishing. The doctors are then told they have to wait up to 6 months before publishing because of patent applications. If they publish it, the company will not get the patent accepted. A patent cannot be known anywhere else if it is to be accepted.
There is nothing a company wants more than to show the world “wow, look at these data, they are amazing”. But this is how this world is functioning. Strict rules when it comes to presenting new data, apply for patents and so on. You may sit in the board and know the results for months, without being allowed to publish them. It can be so frustrating not being allowed to tell anyone about the amazing results. It’s not like the company is holding back info because the data is good or bad, that is nonsense. They have to follow strict rules. That’s why it takes such a long time to publish data.
35 Likes
To put it into perspective, if you look at the fimachem patent application
there are 3 key dates:
Priority date: 14/10/16, it is considered to be the effective date of filing for the examination of novelty and inventive step
Filing date: 13/10/17 this is the actual filing date for the application as is
Application Publication date: 19/04/2018, patent application is automatically published 18 months after the priority date (effective filing date) according to international patent law
If we add to this the publication date at ESMO by the principle investigator 21/10/2018, we can easily see that it takes exactly 2 years from the priority date to presenting the data in a conference or a journal. I guess this is what JE was trying to highlight, and it must be hard for management and board to be sitting on the data for such a long time, seems like not only investors patience is tested here after all
8 Likes