The EU can provide a guarantee to Finnvera (e.g., 60–75%), which allows Finnvera to grant loans to companies with “lower collateral requirements” and at a “more affordable interest rate.”
Reading material if you’re suffering from insomnia:
EDIT: BioTechEU: 10 billion euros for biotechnology (December 2025 / 2026)
A couple more new AML studies, one from Finland, wondering why nothing works for TP53 patients.
----> TP53-AML doesn’t fail due to a lack of drugs, but because of the disease’s biology, intracellular resilience, and the immunosuppressive microenvironment that Bex aims to correct.
Drivers of clinical resistance to venetoclax and hypomethylating agents in acute myeloid leukemia and strategies for improving efficacy
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hem3.70282
TP53-mutated myelodysplastic syndromes and acute myeloid leukemia: a 3 comprehensive overview of targeted approaches
EU Horizon funding is coming—not yet for clinical trials, but for Clever-1 research. https://www.canserv.eu/
To InFLAMES in Turku. The purpose is to reveal the structure of Clever-1 at the molecular level. This is important for the development of the small molecule, helping to understand interactions with different cell types, the function of s-clever, etc., etc. This mass spectrometry is one part of understanding the structure; electron microscopy would be another. High-end EM equipment would already be in use in Sweden and the UK, apparently for free through research consortia. X-ray crystallography is a third method, if they can just get the large Clever into crystal form.
Just send all the money here.
It doesn’t provide an immediate boost, but at least in the medium term, it helps the BLAZE trial. Which is, however, quite significant for Faron:
UK clinical trial reform (February 2026)
Patients to benefit sooner as UK boosts clinical trials attractiveness with faster assessments and agile regulation - GOV.UK.
Maybe that “networking” will start to pay off.
Well, one could paint all sorts of scenarios from this:
”The company is increasing its funding targeted at the startup and acceleration phases of international growth for companies focusing particularly on research and development to 300 million euros from the previous 150 million.”
But let’s just wait and see for now. 
Regarding Faron, many seem to be focused only on how low the share price can still drop. In my view, it’s being overlooked that a rights issue is not a neutral event; rather, current owners have a clear advantage.
When the offering is a rights issue, it’s not just about how many new shares enter the market. It’s also about who is already in and gets to benefit from that position. At this point, the market tends to stare too much at dilution and too little at how ownership actually starts to count.
I also think the incentive for major shareholders is quite obvious here. Since they haven’t exited at this stage, my assumption is that they will be more likely to buy more than to withdraw. And significantly so. It would be perfectly logical—defending their position, supporting the offering, and stabilizing the whole situation.
That’s why I consider it quite possible that the market is lagging behind here. When the big players step in properly, the sentiment could change quickly.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1535610826000590?via%3Dihub
Cancer Cell 2026: TAMs are the center of next-generation immunotherapy. PD-1 is not enough without macrophage reprogramming.
High-level publication and authors: Consensus from Miriam Merad and other leading researchers in the TAM field on where immunotherapy is heading.
That publication is world-class. The fact that something similar to the technology Faron has developed is now featured on the “radar” of a journal of this caliber is a massive seal of quality.
The professionals on the forum can describe it more eloquently.
A couple of analysis updates
Carnegie, which updated on Feb 11, 2026, after news broke on Feb 9, 2026, regarding the financing solution, still justifies its target price using a DCF model, where future earnings are discounted by the WACC rate, which is also a “fear factor” or the investor’s required rate of return.
Carnegie raised the WACC percentage (12–15% → 20–30%). Meaning, to an extremely high level. For example, 200 MEUR 5 years from now in today’s money with a massive 25% WACC is: 200 MEUR/(1.25)^5 = approx. 65.5 MEUR. The assumption remains: “Our model assumes an upfront payment of USD100m, a total deal value of USD600m and a 20% royalty on net sales.”
Reasons include the cancellation of the partner deal, HCM convertible bonds, and the increase in the number of shares. This results in a lower target price (€3.1–3.8 → €1.0–1.8).
https://access.dnbcarnegie.com/publication/396ca8b1-81f2-4547-469c-08de68e3797f and download the analysis from there.
H.C. Wainwright is on its own levels as before. The analysis or commentary was written on Feb 23, 2026. Even after the share issue announcement, the analyst finds positive aspects and doesn’t focus on the financial risk of disappointments like Carnegie does. He highlights faster approval (comm: does require FDA confirmation that front-line 2b can be used for r/r marketing authorization and OS wouldn’t be needed for the final front-line), the evidence already shown in r/r, and that by doing Phase 2b themselves, they get a better price from a partner after de-risking.
Target price £10, or approx. €11.40. Buy rating.
Who writes at Wainwright: Patrick Trucchio covers the Healthcare sector, focusing on stocks such as Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, COMPASS Pathways, and Alnylam Pharma. According to TipRanks, Trucchio has an average return of 26.6%and a 49.29% success rate on recommended stocks. Copying Patrick Trucchio’strades and holding each position for 1 Year would result in 48.39% of your transactions generating a profit, with an average return of 25.4% per rating.
Managing Director of Equity Research at H.C. Wainwright whose research focuses on biotechnology.
He has a Buy recommendation on the majority of the stocks he follows. Seems to be a trend among boutique banks. “Strong Buy” is at the top of the scale, though not as a recommendation for any of them. For these banks, “Hold” would mean “stay away for now.”
Well, these perspectives encapsulate the risks and rewards right now.
The market dictated, Faron whimpered. Friday’s close was 0.626 and with 20% off that, we are at exactly 0.500, which is likely the subscription price to be set on Monday.
80 million more shares and 40 million in “chips” in the till. This should take us to the 11/2027 readout, and why wouldn’t it since that’s what was promised. The staff could probably be furloughed for a year while the trials are running, unless they work hard on partnering at the same time. And why wouldn’t they.
It was a surprise to me that the share price didn’t rise higher, but if it’s a rights issue, then it’s to the advantage of those shareholders who subscribe.
Next week we’ll be wondering about the queries on the forum as to why people can’t participate in the offering. Hang in there.
I was wondering if Clever isn’t mentioned at all in that review article, but when looking deeper behind the paywall, there is something there. MATINS and Bex are mentioned, and reference is made to the Cell Reports article by Rannikko et al., and they write: ”CLEVER-1 (STAB1), a scavenger/adhesion receptor that restrains antigen presentation and T cell priming, and shown to be an effective adjuvant target in humans” and it even made it into one image. The article’s focus is mostly on the TME of solid tumors; AML and MDS are mentioned once in the text. Most of the writing is about CD47 drugs, where they are trying to steer development in a safer direction and pondering if efficacy will be maintained, and about TREM2, where monotherapy efficacy has been found insufficient and combinations are needed. LILRB activity has also been observed in phase 1 in leukemia. More articles have been written about all of those than about Clever, especially the former ones.
In BEXMAB, Bex is not a monotherapy but used with aza (azacitidine). Furthermore, there is no information yet on what proportion of the preliminary efficacy is due to Bex’s macrophage/monocyte effect and what is due to the energy deprivation of blasts. Thus, it may be difficult to take a stance on Bex’s macrophage effect in blood cancers in a review article about macrophage therapies. Upcoming investigator-initiated trials in solid tumors will partly rectify the situation in the future.
The review summarizes that modifying the TME through macrophages could become an important pillar in cancer treatment.
There have been observations in the thread about the development of cancer vaccines, CAR-T therapies, etc., and expensive cell modifications. However, even those modified T-cells find it difficult to attack cancer cells if there is an immunosuppressive wall of macrophages in the way, so those technologies do not compete with the likes of Bex but rather need them to support their efficacy. The review confirms this perspective.
Translation of the closing words from behind the paywall: ”Next-generation therapies can reprogram pathogenic macrophage subsets (such as M2 macrophages, ed. note) into immunogenic effector cells (such as M1) while maintaining or enhancing anti-tumor functions. This paradigm shift positions macrophage-targeting interventions as a revolutionary pillar of cancer immunotherapy, offering the potential to overcome treatment resistance, broaden the achievement of durable treatment responses, and open new therapeutic opportunities in various cancer types.”
Image as proof (not quite a recommendation to head to the market square yet)
The Mount Sinai / Merad group knows Bex very well and even highlighted it as an example in the macrophage checkpoint field. This came up in the STAT+ profile article on Merad in the fall, where Maija was also interviewed.
A Chinese company that supplies research materials to laboratories.
https://x.com/EricTopol/status/2027773034875261235
Topol has woken up and is painting a picture of accelerating development, where T-cell editing and macrophage targeting are central to building next-generation cancer treatments.
What about all these famous, respected researchers being on this track? And in increasing numbers. What was that company that’s a pioneer in this?
