closing auction nonsense, page-7

chil020 - astute question - haven't really seen any discussion of that aspect, mostly posts have discussed how ST excused PRR any penalty fee for ceasing the arrangement and bought a few more shares and speculation about how the still necessary funding will be otherwise achieved.

My speculation was that alternative funding must have been pretty strongly lined-up to cease the ST arrangement prior to being in a position to announce the new arrangement and for ST to be happy enough about their cash-cow being slaughtered to not insist on compensation.

The effect of ST churning through allocated shares has been discussed a few times, without really satisfying me about the effect, except to accept the logic that regular selling out would tend to dampen price - and as they were allocated shares each month, no compensating support effect by them buying more on market, but I don't think the effect of them being on our side of the fence has been discussed.

Again, logically you would think it at least removes the dampening effect, to whatever extent that was a factor, but my feeling is that they are not some sort of market manipulating monster - they are effectively in the legitimate business of venture capitalism. When an experienced venture capitalist first supports and then effectively provides a further vote of confidence for PRR, I am happy.

I wonder if the present SP surge is more around expectation of a new funding solution than listing although listing is linked to that issue in the sense that listing on Nasdaq is to access the US capital market.

Of course, the results is the big ticket item and adverse effect de-risking is no small thing. We knew that was the case from earlier local phase trials, but 'foreign' (lol, Australian) results are not viewed as ridgey didge by yanks who now have US evidence of the same thing.

Great to see the SP starting to move up a bit when many longer-term holders have felt it was starting to feel a bit over-due. Everything in its own time, I suppose, being guilty of speccing 'maybe even into the 40's" during a previous surge.

As far as the DNDN comparison is concerned, some commentators have pointed out that in fact the market for Cvac, should it work on other cancers as well, is actually a lot bigger than DNDN. Not interested in getting so far ahead of events myself, working well enough on one cancer will be sufficient outcome for me.

cheers.