Turn £100k into £1 million

tigerspill

Easy.  A horse at ten to one. 

Old_Lifer

BrockStoker -    As long as you have fully researched a company and  firmly believe in it's  eventual success and as long as that continues  to be the case,  I  would continue to hold the shares and while the share price remains low  I would top-up on any dips in the share price    That way, a significant holding can be built -up.

It is quite possible  for a small company to give you a significant return.   My best performing company  in the year just ended    showed a profit of around 2000% on the amount I had invested over a four year period and two others where I have also built-up sizeable holdings  ended the year up  around 1000% and 600%.   Of course there are other companies where the price has remained low  but I like to think of these as my 'sleepers'.

BananaRepublic

BrockStoker said:

You might succeed, but I’d bet against it. How about ten to one odds?

I'd give much better odds than that, but that comes from a fairly deep understanding of the science and the company. Just as importantly though (if not more so), I'd say the the odds of it being worth less than $100 per share (in 5-10 years) are less than 1 in 20 or 30. That is mostly due to the data we have already seen, which (once again) has been under valued by the market. Quite simply, the data suggests that at least two treatments for different indications are better (by a long way) than any other competing treatments. Even if only one of these treatments were commercialized, the current share price is more than justified.

What the annalists are missing is that this tech (RNAi) works in a repeatable and predictable way, both safe and effective, mainly down to the fact that it "hijacks" a naturally occurring defense system that is present in all human cells. Perhaps some suspect it, but are too frightened to stick their necks out. The implications are staggering.

People who invest in small start ups know that the potential returns are huge, but the failure rate is high. The one success easily makes up for the bucket load of failures. 

Absolutely. The trick is finding the hidden gems before the majority realize. It's not easy, but chances improve when looking in sectors that are not easily "picked through" by many people *if* you are able to understand the sector/science better than most. Even with all that some luck is involved, although I'd argue that the chances are better than ever today as there are many new disruptive technologies just starting to come through.

I did try the "buy 10-20 stocks" strategy at first, but it's not easy to keep an eye on/get to know 10-20 stocks in-depth, and money is also spread very thin, which is not a recipe to make millions. The answer (at least for me) has been to only go with my best ideas, or in other words, the stocks I have most confidence in get over weighted. Between my wife and I, we hold 5 individual company stocks currently.

As an aside, until recently I worked for a small company that designed and made touchscreens, used in sectors such as cars. They had some big name customers. They developed a chip that gave better performance, allowing whizzy new features. The directors were telling us that shares would go up ten fold when they were bought by a big company. And we were generously allowed to buy shares. Well yes, maybe, but that was based on many assumptions, and was far from a done deal. For example, had one of the key technical people died, they would have been in deep doo doo. Or a competitor could appear with a better product. One of my memories was of the heating going off at 3pm, and the office getting colder and colder. And in my last year we had no xmas party. Not even a pub lunch. Lastly the pension contribution was 3%, the legal minimum. Signs of a healthy company?

Thanks for the relevant tale, but, and with all due respect, your (ex) company is not Arrowhead. Sure a "key" employee could die at any point (in fact, one just did I'm sorry to say), but I'm sure Arrowhead's CEO has taken precautions to limit any potential damage by not keeping all the eggs in a single basket. Our CEO has made some very shrewd moves, and is obviously highly intelligent, so I'd be surprised if that was not the case here.

It's also hard to understate just how disruptive RNAi is already proving to be. Our CEO knows this, and is leveraging it to the max - a good example is the recent deal with Takeda, which is on terms so favourable to Arrowhead, they are unheard of within the sector, and possibly outside the sector, but I only really know one sector well! So we have some Big Pharma players (JnJ, and Amgen are also partners) willing to pay serious cash to even get a tiny piece of the action. That speaks volumes IMHO.

All of this is just the very tip of the iceberg, as those who do more than scratch the surface see.

I'm seeing some very healthy signs of late, including active hiring of new employees, new patents being filed, ongoing trials being expanded, and analyst price targets being upgraded on an almost constant basis (they are having trouble keeping up). Would you say those are signs of a healthy company?

I don't think you can compare a new kind of smart phone screen to an effective treatment (or even a cure) for something like hepatitis b. The former is just another iteration in an already existing tech, while the latter is truly disruptive game changer (and it's not the only one they have!).

So, yes, points noted that sometimes something can come out of the blue and throw a spanner in the works. It can happen to any company, but what really matters is how management would cope with a curve-ball every so often, and the record here is admirable from what I have seen, so I'm happy to have a sizable chunk of cash invested.

Absolutely. The trick is finding the hidden gems before the majority realize. 
I didn’t realise it was so simple.
Venture capitalists invest in many firms, and the golden goose makes up for the many dogs. I’ve worked in several companies that were going to be worth a fortune. I’ve seen them hiring loads of new staff, expanding to new sites, registering patents. Analysts quoted in articles in magazines predicting a billion dollar market in a few years time. You say say quite a few times “I’m sure”. I guess I’ve worked in too many companies and seen the disparity between public statements and reality. One UK company I contracted for was bought by a large American company. They discovered that it was a turkey that had been dressed up to look good. The management trousered a fortune. The staff had been told that they would get life changing bonuses. Instead they got redundancy. That said, I’ve worked for successful companies too. Good luck with your guaranteed success story. 

Retireby40

tigerspill said:

Easy.  A horse at ten to one. 

9/1 would be more than enough

Thrugelmir

Retireby40 said:

tigerspill said:

Easy.  A horse at ten to one. 

9/1 would be more than enough

Try finding a bookie to accept the bet. 

BrockStoker

I didn’t realise it was so simple.

I didn't say that it was. The whole point is that it is not simple, otherwise if it was, everyone else would get there before you. Having said that, I think having an understanding of the science can give you an edge, and help flag up something that others have missed. Weather on not that thing (company) turns up/is noticed by you is obviously an element of luck.

Venture capitalists invest in many firms, and the golden goose makes up for the many dogs. I’ve worked in several companies that were going to be worth a fortune. I’ve seen them hiring loads of new staff, expanding to new sites, registering patents. Analysts quoted in articles in magazines predicting a billion dollar market in a few years time. You say say quite a few times “I’m sure”. I guess I’ve worked in too many companies and seen the disparity between public statements and reality. One UK company I contracted for was bought by a large American company. They discovered that it was a turkey that had been dressed up to look good. The management trousered a fortune. The staff had been told that they would get life changing bonuses. Instead they got redundancy. That said, I’ve worked for successful companies too.

Yes, it could go either way. I have yet to see any evidence of the former, and have seen plenty to back up the later though, so I remain as sure as I can be about a small company.

Good luck with your guaranteed success story. 

Who said it was guaranteed? I've said from the start that nothing is guaranteed.

However, I do think Arrowhead is a safer bet than any other tech/biotech company that I'm aware of. If you can point out specifically why that might not be the case, please feel free to do so. Otherwise, it's just hot air...

kinger101

Albermarle said:

There is a dead cert running at Plumpton this afternoon, currently at 10/1.
For a small fee, I will tell you its name .

That's no good.  OP needs a 9/1 to covert £100K into £1M.

Retireby40

Thrugelmir said:

Retireby40 said:

tigerspill said:

Easy.  A horse at ten to one. 

9/1 would be more than enough

Try finding a bookie to accept the bet. 

Plenty will take it. And then make a quick phone call to the jockey and trainer and give them a nice 50k-60k late Christmas present to race at 70/80%.

kinger101

BrockStoker said:

What the annalists are missing is that this tech (RNAi) works in a repeatable and predictable way, both safe and effective, mainly down to the fact that it "hijacks" a naturally occurring defense system that is present in all human cells. 

You've massively oversimplified this.  If it was that simple, we'd have had more than two RNAi-based pharmaceuticals developed in the two decades that scientists have researching it's potential in medicine.  Nothing is safe and effective until it has passed Phase III clinial trials (usually multiple) and been approved by regulatory agencies.  Even if you can get the right RNA to the right cell, it doesn't mean it's going to be safe.  

BrockStoker

BrockStoker -    As long as you have fully researched a company and  firmly believe in it's  eventual success and as long as that continues  to be the case,  I  would continue to hold the shares and while the share price remains low  I would top-up on any dips in the share price    That way, a significant holding can be built -up.

Thanks for the support Old_Lifer. That is my plan. Ideally I'd like 2000+ shares, which means another 500 or so more (current hold is 1575). I'm not sure if the share price will hang around long enough for me to buy that many with new ISA money at the start of this approaching tax year, but hoping it will.

It is quite possible  for a small company to give you a significant return.   My best performing company  in the year just ended    showed a profit of around 2000% on the amount I had invested over a four year period and two others where I have also built-up sizeable holdings  ended the year up  around 1000% and 600%.   Of course there are other companies where the price has remained low  but I like to think of these as my 'sleepers'.

Yes it is amazing what can be returned in a short space of time with the right stocks. I was specifically seeking companies that were either undervalued and/or close to turning a corner when I started out, and out of 20+ most made significant % gains within weeks/months, and a few in the low 100's of %. I did have two or three losers along the way (one of which since turned into a winner), but ditched them before any real damage was done.

The biggest dilemma with such a disruptive tech as I believe Arrowhead has, was, do I hang onto all my other biotech stocks seeing as I believe Arrowhead will continue to surprise (in a good way) and grow in a way that could disrupt many other companies, including many of the companies that I held at the time. While I think the risk level either way might actually be not far apart, in terms of keeping an eye on a portfolio of 20 or so stocks, or even 10 for that matter, there is no comparison. Of course, it only works if you have supreme confidence in your carefully selected investment/s.

If the worst happens I only loose what was a £40K punt to begin with, and I still have other assets/investments to fall back on. The best case scenario is worth that risk, at least to me. Either way it has been fun/educational, and kept me occupied while the world around me was falling apart.