Replies to post #257521 on Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[Turner2017]

You make some very good points.

Devils advocate though...Missling most likely have the data by now. Assuming the data is good to great....why not release the data first and then do this financing deal at a much higher share price? Or maybe a secondary? Just my opinion.

[ChrisMissing]

I think LPC takes their 80,000 shares which is their commission for these transactions and sells them immediately and collects their approximately $400k. When Anavex wants to sell some stock and collect the cash for that sale they put the stock to LPC and lpc sells it immediately making either pennies on the transaction or may be losing pennies on the transaction but either way their money was guaranteed with the 80,000 shares that they received as a commission.

[frrol]

Equity finance companies aren't investors per se.

But they do DD to make sure they understand the short term risks of the company they provide underwriting service to, and to price that service accordingly.

[nidan7500]

sokol

Either way, it's a good deal for Anavex.

If the trials are positive, Anavex may not need to sell much, if any, stock to LPC. Anavex could sell stock to others at a higher price, and/or Anavex may find some other favorable option such as a partnership.

If Anavex's current trials are not so positive (as some here think), Anavex can sell stock to LPC, use the capital to seek to salvage what it can from current drug trials, and conduct new trials for AVXL 2-73 and for its other drugs down the road.

Any way you look at it, Anavex is planning to remain in business, and will need more capital beyond its current one year capital position. Additionally, LPC is willing to risk a large amount of its capital because it thinks the payoff may be huge enough to take that risk.

Another way of stating this is that:

(1) Anavex is willing to give up some ownership if its future capital needs for drug development or its future situation demands it, and

(2) LPC thinks the award is worth the risk of providing a substantial amount of that future capital to Anavex.

Therefore, on balance, this agreement is positive for Anavex and its shareholders.

I agree w/this post in terms of direction (nominally positive business move) and emphasis...(REMAIN IN BUSINESS). I would expand and add to that line of thinking. (what's next? we have only scratched the surface on CNS Cellular Homeostasis possibilities) We want to declare victory, but, we have just learned (acquired) some critical new CNS scientific facts from this trial which must be taken further. So, our portfolio of things we know we do not know just got a lot bigger and we must evaluate further. The growth of new knowledge must continue and AVXL are the best qualified set of resources to do that. IMO, that is what he is doing, he is building a longer runway.

We know that FDA (and other models)-TRIALS processes have failed in the past w/the PASS/FAIL ( 1 or 0) one or zero thinking. Past trials rules are (by design) constrained to single shots. Recently, Some New rules show promise for partial success or use while it gets clarified, etc. We start to see terms like QOL -Quality of life- RWD-RWE being used. All good stuff but it is still a form of PASS/FAIL as far as WS-REGULATORS-insurance companies-politicians are concerned and their set of rules drives everything. Well, guess what, that is just wrong thinking and it gets us what we have seen in some CNS solutions (Homeostasis-Autophagy).

We see some (like BIIB) who get themselves all tangled up w/redoing the numbers to get trial approvals. Very sad. All B/C the process is what it is and it's broken. It rewards chasing a symptom but does not punish for any toxic (unintended wink-wink, nudge-nudge) side effects. In fact the current process allows the developer to simply get creative and write a label that allows them to sell it while the warning label is telling users to be careful. (it's all good) That has been defined as a (WIN-WIN) under current rules. There are also other unspoken conditions which everyone remains silent on. Years later, These develop when some body function or organ becomes damaged/stops/malfunctions b/c of undetermined toxic side effects...this is knows as the OOOOPS-labeling clause (legal action follows). So, the current process is a closed loop as long as you do not wonder if the science couldn't do better.

So, this (AVXL LPC) deal supposes a different process goal. What if we looked at the trials process as a continuous learning trial/opportunity. One that can produce valuable scientific data/products but also keeps on going to complete the learning process.
This is a condition where we get good(pass) trial results (BUT-AND) we develop new knowledge from the trials which we want/are compelled to follow up on. (why do we always have to go back and start at zero again?) This is certainly the process required to fully understand the benefits of CNS Cellular homeostasis. (it's complicated) It has to keep going, IMO. That is why he is cutting this finance deal. Brilliant. But according to the current rules we are obligated to do the pass/fail thing. NOW WHAT??. Technically, you have passed the trial but you want to continue on w/most/all of the same patients. As they live their NEW NORMAL lives. W/new goals-criteria.

AVXL have applied Precision Medicine methods and rules and (I claim) they have a lot more runway left but the rules say...(IT'S GOOD ENOUGH) . What do you do? And while you are thinking about the answer you must deal with how to close the existing trials as they have winners. BTW, you will gonna run out of runway and money some day.
The current trials processes may inadvertently constrain continuous application of the CNS Cellular Homeostasis thesis science development. It gets better, because it is getting better

How about getting more big money to sustain ops while you do both market the just approved treatment and continue on with the new knowledge and planning for an even better CNS treatment. Remember CNS diseases present many unplowed fields of continuous opportunity. Lets not be constrained by a trials process that does not meet our needs. There must be a way we can have our cake and eat it too. It looks to me like the current trials rules never contemplated CNS CELULAR HOMEOSTASIS AND THE CONCEPT OF CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT. We now know that life does not work that way, it is a continuous flow, it ain't over til' it's over.

https://www.knowablemagazine.org/article/living-world/2020/single-cell-studies?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=originals&fbclid=IwAR0XhoBZ7XaX5FkuyoTSixFfbRcalytpl0RTtpoz7Z7qdydU09Ozjg0vQ0g

Summary, you write some new rules of how to have your cake while you are eating it.