EQUITY RESEARCH REPORT - WILSON dated 18 Jan 2022, page-119

Well I think, there are many ways to judge a CR. Of course it wasn't ideal. But looking into the evolution of growing companies that tend to raise capital at different points in time prior to commercialisation it shouldn't be a surprise that we observe the following:

1. Continuous Capital Raises to Fund until a milestone is reached. For biotechs these are trials.
2. Capital Raises are almost always at a discount.

Looking at capital raises specifically, I tend to look at capital raises then in two parts:
1. How much needs to be raised, and is raised;
2. At what share price, discount rate etc.?
Basically the answer to these two questions reveal if long term holders will get rewarded or shafted and to what degree. I mean this is all part of asking who will join the company to bake and share a piece of a cake.

More often than not, biotechs aren't derisked until commercialisation - so it's a long journey and dilution and losing money prior to commercialisation will all depend on entry timing, price etc.

In my opinion, we can look at a few metrics to see if LTers were really shafted:
I) The stock price at each cap raises
(IMO they've raised at consistently higher SP and this is not a bad achievement)
II) The design of the cap raises
- IMO they really did give a thought towards LTers by giving us the same investment offer as the CR.
- Arguable, but the result of the SPP showed that the manipulation did not necessarily lead to them getting more oppies. (You could have applied beyond your entitlements but we all know what happened there)
- And whilst I did think the 1:9.4 ratio was piss poor, there is also an alternative that they underwrote the whole thing and don't offer it to LTers.

Given the above observations, I tend to think that the double dipping of oppies didn't play out. Rather it was probably not being well advised on getting a great institution on board.

I follow Dimerix and they did a similar thing to ANP - with some important differences ofc - but I think getting the right Insto, allocating the right amount for SPP is key if they did not want to underwrite. Given how important it was to raise the funds, I have no clue why they offerred such a big amount whilst without a back up plan.

Anyhow, IMO ANP's design was well intentioned - just wasn't smart about it. Dimerix on the other hand got a great insto on board (or at least it seems that way thus far), and they rewarded LTers by doubling their oversubscribed SPP allocation from $2m/$20 to $4m/$20m.

Not sure if I've got the exact details right here but you can see how people appreciated the gesture (extra allocation - from 10% to 20% - especially when the SP has never looked back since (never below the CR).

Anyway, I do hope ANP ups their game. Mistakes happen. I'm not going to complain like no tomorrow - I might as well sell if that was the case.

I just hope they can learn from it and deliver on their timelines.

As always happy for constructing different opinions.