....following on from my previous post, I should have...

....following on from my previous post, I should have re-iterated that there are risks but as far as I am concerned, they haven't changed (and the risk Bennelong pointed out is definitely in the set).

Also, I've got a comment on the current market cap.

I think a few posters have mis-judged the pre-announcement market price as representing a probability weighted value that reflects the consensus chance of success. This is wrong, and it is wrong for a good reason.

Expected values (i.e. probability weighted outcomes) are only relevant when an event can be repeated many times. And, while we apply this in finance a lot from a portfolio point of view, it does not and should not apply to every security.

I'd argue that opportunities like the HyAct trial are too rare -especially in Australia- for an expected outcome to be the relevant number for assessing valuation.

So what is the relevant number? The short answer is that it's undefinable and depends hugely on market sentiment and the conditions prevailing at the time. If the market is relaxed with a focus on return over risk management, then I'd suggest there's a tendency for the discovered price to drive higher than a rational probability weighted valuation. But, if the focus is on risk and capital preservation (as it always should be), then I'd expect the stock to trade down significantly against the rational expected value.

The market is focused on risk at the moment and is wary of biotechs and double wary of Alchemia. There are many stale bulls that bough years ago in the 60 cents and, quite understandably would be happy to provide liquidity to whoever is willing to buy.

Capital preservation is paramount. That's the story IMHO.