Nanoform Finland - Small is beautiful

[jerej]

@JusaVaan

The stock price jumped sharply almost 1.5 years ago when preliminary promising results were announced. Since then, it has been declining, and it feels like sales have accelerated, perhaps because the signing of the agreement was somewhat foolishly planned for last year, and when it took a long time for anything concrete to be heard about it, doubts apparently arose as to whether anything would come of it. I suspect (based on my own hopes) that Enza was also hoped to be a larger source of income as an independent money-maker than what can now be outlined based on preliminary information?

My view is that certain funds are likely selling this stock regardless of what happens on the fundamental side. If investors withdraw their money from funds, the stock may have to be sold at whatever price it can be dumped on the market. However, this is a relatively low-liquidity stock, meaning the sell side can be much larger than the buy side. The biggest spikes* in stock trading have been in November 2024, when Keel Capital sold its holdings, and now in recent weeks at the end of 25Q2, when funds often make changes to their holdings. The ownership list will be updated soon…

• i.e., the biggest ones recently, over the last year or so.

[JusaVaan]

I have the same understanding that a couple (?) of larger entities, especially those with specialized expertise in the field, have decided to clear their positions almost regardless of the price. It started with Keel Capital (which, according to information here, ceased operations).
In my opinion, the company’s situation (development) and the development of its market value are somewhat contradictory.

[mestaripancho]

The small-scale venture turned into an expensive lesson, thank you and goodbye. Bankruptcy calls with such a flaky bunch. I wish others luck, I’m out.🫱🏻‍🫲🏼

[BoomDriver]

@mestaripancho

in 2020, the listing was done with a market value of 230 million and now 75 million…

In response to the broader valuation discussion above:

Let’s recall what was promised in connection with the listing, which was done at a rather high valuation.

"Business objectives that the company expects to achieve by 2025 are:

1. Nanoform at least 50 drugs per year
2. 25 operational production lines, of which 5-10 are GMP lines
3. over 90% gross margin
4. approximately 200 employees
5. be cash flow positive."

Traditionally, a sign of excellent management and business is that at least what is promised is delivered. So how about Nanoform? As I understand it, not a single metric, with the exception of the number of employees and a relatively insignificant gross margin, is anywhere near the originally set targets, even though, as I understand it, the company has been able to operate for five years without clear setbacks.

In addition to a poor track record, what worries the layman most is that the company has not succeeded in launching GMP business on a large scale, neither in terms of concluded projects nor production capacity (122024 one GMP line instead of the promised 5-10). So even if the company succeeds in selling its “product”, it seems to the layman that production-related challenges are the new black swan waiting around the corner, which has not yet materialized because nothing has been sold yet. Production reliability would seem to be a very important feature if a pharmaceutical company wanted to commit to launching a new product with Nanoform’s technology. Without knowing the pharmaceutical industry, it is difficult to say how easily large-scale manufacturing outsourcing would be handled.

So, in my opinion, at the time of the 2020 listing, things looked significantly more promising in the big picture than today. Large investors have apparently also drawn this same conclusion, and the development of the market value also reflects this.

Despite the poor performance, one would hope that such companies would continue to list in the future. We received good funding from risk-hungry investors for testing a truly new concept.

[JusaVaan]

It’s true that the goals set at the time of the IPO are far from being realized.
On the other hand, back then it was mostly talk, and at least according to the company, successful nanoformulation projects, production capabilities, and collaboration relationships are currently on a completely different scale than at the time of the IPO. And there are several different product candidate projects underway, and perhaps from that, concrete results will slowly start to emerge, along with the necessary evidence to gain sufficient credibility in front of big pharma.
The company shouldn’t ramp up numerous GMP lines before there’s a need for them. That would incur additional costs. I’ve thought that non-GMP lines can be converted/Fimea’s permission sought for GMP lines as needed.
At least I haven’t gotten the impression that the problem is in the ability to ramp up production, but rather in acquiring customers, specifically GMP customers.
In my opinion, when evaluating the 2020 goals, one must also consider that back then, biotech was experiencing a boom, whereas now it’s been a “recession period.” So, I don’t believe it’s solely due to the company’s poor performance that things haven’t progressed as quickly as hoped during the hot years.
But I don’t deny that you also have a very valid point.
My own feeling is that I’m going to be patient and wait to see if confidence-building news slowly starts to trickle in.

[mestaripancho]

Well, one can be naive about everything, but if 100 million is being wasted and nothing valid has been achieved, then either,
A, the unproductive management should be replaced, or B, the whole business should be sold to a competent team.
Surely in 10 years, something concrete should have been accomplished…

[JusaVaan]

Well, I don’t know if it’s necessarily the case that nothing valid has been achieved. Nanoformulated drugs haven’t been brought to market for production, and certainly no profit has been made. They do have proper equipment and probably competent employees, and the work, for example, Takeda will apparently validate in its presentation these days as well.

[jerej]

I’m borrowing this image from the Faron thread, which has a link to an explanation of the development of biotech valuations over time. https://keskustelut.inderes.fi/t/faron-pharmaceuticals-innovatiivisia-laaketieteen-ratkaisuja/2655/9760

This doesn’t perfectly fit Nanoform’s story, as Nanoform doesn’t actually develop drugs but rather formulates them, but it does give a good picture of where things stand and what to expect. Furthermore, those phases don’t fully correspond to this case either, insofar as generic drug substances are already being nanoformulated.

In my opinion, we are now roughly at the bottom of the valley of death. In 2020, we were at the peak of euphoria, where low interest rates also drove valuations upwards. Now we are at a stage where money is burning and there is still very little evidence. In addition, funds are selling the stock, perhaps having already lost faith. A value inflection point will be reached when there is evidence that drugs are being brought to market. I would guess that this will only happen around 2027.

Currently, it’s worth paying attention to how the company starts receiving signature and milestone payments. These have now started to be published in the quarterly reports (black bars in the image below). This should give some indications of what to expect from the profitability turnaround.

Payments from development projects alone are not enough to keep the company afloat, but those other payments may already start to mend the cash flow.

" Based on term sheets for several key markets like the US,
Japan, Germany and France, we see that the total potential
value the nanoenzalutamide project could bring to us and our
ONConcept partners is EUR 10m+ in potential development
milestones up until launch, EUR 25m+ in potential commercial
milestones and significant profit share after launch if the sales
and market share estimates we have received from our future
commercialization partners are realized"

That doesn’t cover all costs yet, but there are other projects. The management seems confident that the cash will last until the turnaround. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have bought the stock recently. Whether to trust the management’s judgment is everyone’s own decision.

However, this stock could well fall for the next two years. Especially if sentiment sours. Who knows about these things. Catching falling knives is an art form. Time diversification is definitely worth keeping in mind if one wants to stay involved.

[Latupuikko]

Updated May

Ownership structure - Nanoform small is powerful

[JusaVaan]

Hmm. According to this, the 25 largest owners have not made any significant changes to their ownership since the previous month. Others unchanged, negligible reductions: Danske Invest -20k shares, Norges Bank -approx. 16k shares. Häggström Albert increased +25k shares.
Are there any large owners through a nominee register that don’t stand out? As mentioned above, the impression has been that some larger owner is dumping shares on the sell side, regardless of the price?

[jerej]

Some of those holdings have not been updated at the beginning of June. The following changes are from the updated ones:

owner	change
DANSKE INVEST	-20k	Danske’s analyst target price seems to be 3€
NORGES BANK INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT	+16k	previous update from January
HÆGGSTRÖM ALBERT ALEXANDER	+25k	bought after the previous news

The share turnover in May was about 2.3M shares, so some large owner must be selling. Is it some of those owners who have not updated, or are there large nominee-registered owners missing from the list who are selling?

The only ones from that list whose ownership has not been updated recently are:

owner	shares	date
ARBEJDSMARKEDETS TILLAEGSPENSION (ATP)	3695000	2025-04-01
BAILLIE GIFFORD & CO	1389063	2025-03-31
MANDATUM FUND MANAGEMENT	838553	2024-12-31
HIGHCLERE INTERNATIONAL INVESTORS LLP	808055	2025-03-31

[mestaripancho]

Maybe -5% down tomorrow🥲 It’s even tragicomic to watch this company’s performance. Will it be ten straight days of red on the board?

[Latupuikko]

Nanoform starts Pivotal Human Bioequivalence Studies of Nanoenzalutamide -...

The trading volume just keeps increasing. Hopefully, the seller will soon run out of shares.

[jerej]

These nanoenzalutamide trials should be relatively short. In the latest presentation, the plan has been to start the trials in Q2 and the first readout already in the summer. It will likely not take many months before we get the first results.

[Latupuikko]

Nanoform’s share price is surging – reported on new research and agreements Nanoform kirii hurjassa kurssinousussa – kertoi uudesta tutkimuksesta ja sopimuksista | Kauppalehti

“By the end of the year, we will have research results. If the results are good, as we believe, the next step is to launch the products in the United States in 2027,” says von Haartman.

[JusaVaan]

Business Finland granted Nanoform a highly favorable loan of 5 million euros to advance the nanoapalutamide project up to the bioequivalence study. The interest rate is 3 percent BELOW the market rate or at least 1%, and if the nanoapalutamide project fails, the loan may not have to be fully repaid.

If this allows Nanoform to retain 100% ownership of the drug candidate before commercial-stage partnering, milestone payments and royalties could generate good cash flow for the company in the future.

Recently, two external specialist investors also joined as financiers for the nanoencorafenib project. They provide the funds for the project, and Nanoform pays its share with the value of the drug candidate.

Now, things seem to be progressing nicely, and at least the financiers appear to have faith in the company’s technology and operations.

[Latupuikko]

Talouselämä selvitti: Näissä osakkeissa piilee suurin tuottopotentiaali

Paywall but nothing new under the sun

"According to the listing, Nanoform Finland has the greatest return potential, with an expected return of 197% for 2026.

Compared to the target price, there is significant upside potential, and the valuation of the volatile stock is currently low compared to its history. The development of nanoforming technology requires significant development investments, and the direction of an early-stage development company is largely determined by individual news received from the company.
Positive news was received in June when the company announced it had started studies with Nanoenzalutamide and concluded its first license and supply agreements in Germany. Agreements are also expected in the coming months in the United States, Japan, and France,"

[jerej]

The owner list has been updated again. It seems Baillie Gifford & co. offered the June sale. The said firm has been removed from the top 20 list; its previous ownership in the end-of-March update was about 1.4M shares.

[jerej]

Invitation to Nanoform's Q2 2025 Report Presentation

Q2 report August 21, 2025 and link to the webinar at 3:00 PM.

The presentation will be broadcasted live and participants may access the event via audiocast and teleconference through the following link: https://investorcaller.com/events/nanoform/nanoform-q2-report-2025

[jerej]

Q2 report. Nanoform Q2 2025 report: Continued progress on many fronts, supportive first preliminary pivotal nanoenzalutamide study results – Nanoform small is powerful

Two highlights from it:

1. Preliminary results for nanoenzalutamide now from August. It seems that nanoenzalutamide might dissolve slightly slower, as the peak concentration is lower, but lasts longer, because the AUC (area under curve) is ultimately comparable.

“In August Nanoform received the first preliminary results from the first arm of the pivotal clinical study of nanoenzalutamide…
… The results demonstrated that nanoenzalutamide in fasted study subjects showed matching plasma concentration (“AUC”) compared to the reference product, and slightly low peak plasma concentration (“Cmax”). Nanoform and the ONConcept® consortium’s initial assessment is that the results are supportive for nanoenzalutamide to progress to the markets underpinned by an adjusted regulatory strategy.”

2. A significant amount of material has already been produced on the bioline as well.

“In April, our Bio R&D team achieved a 10x scale-up of our Biologics technology, by producing 2kg in one continuous run on our pilot GMP line. This supports our efforts to show the commercial value the technology can bring to the fast growing field of high-concentration subcutaneous injections of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs).”