Register
Login:
Share:
Email Facebook Twitter

Exclusive: Hayden Locke, CEO Emmerson plc, a low cost high margin potash investment | Watch Now

Exclusive: Hayden Locke, CEO Emmerson plc, a low cost high margin potash investment
Richard Slape, Oil consultant - Avoiding Losers and Picking Winners, his personal strategy


Member Info for The.Italian


Premium Member

Send a private message to The.Italian

Member Since: Fri, 7th Apr 2017

Number of Share Chat Posts (all time): 956
Number of Share Chat Posts (last 30 days): 186

Last Posted: Wed 22:48


Post Distribution over the last 30 days




Wed 22:48

excellent and well considered points ivy. this is the most important meeting in motifs history. need to get it right.personally i have been entirely relaxed about the time scale and have always thought it was going take somewhat longer than the initial announcements suggested.i hope this is a good sign indicative of the best possible preparation etc.not out of the woods yet by a long way but feeling a lot better than yesterday.
Wed 22:39

wacoy actually i did post to that effect early this morning.it was dismissed as semantics.its not but i didn't have the time to return to the point.im not trying to over egg it .would have been extremely surprised if it had been refused but just think its a small positive if viewed accurately.
Wed 22:16

intersting and informative post yanis imo
Wed 22:09

just a point of detail but there have been a couple of posts today stating or suggesting that motif was entitled to a meeting with the FDA. this is not correct.it was entitled to request a meeting but it was entirely open to the FDA to grant or refuse a meeting once it had considered the content of the response package.obviously it would have been very surprising if it had refused a meeting as it had already stated it required further data.however it could have done so and the inference to be drawn is that the response package contained at least sufficient evidence or information for teh FDA to conclude that a meeting was justified.i regarded this as a small positive step although i was surprised by the extent of the market reaction(there may of course be other factors at work in this area) my point is simply that the granting of the meeting was not a forgone conclusion and is evidence that motif have provided something which the FDA think is at least worthy of further consideration.its a small thing and for lths all that really matters is whether we get approval or not (and of course the finance question) but its significance should not be underplayed by suggestions that he meeting was obligatory.i would also just endorse ivy comments in that i personally expect to hear news of the finance arrangements sooner rather than later and that they will give a strong clue as to the future direction.what those arrangements will be i do of course have no idea.
Wed 17:54

agree with that.what type of arrangement i have no idea
Wed 13:28

ian think you mean 2 billion spend.but agree with the sentiments.
Wed 13:20

good man birds eye.obviously they are going to have to do some sort of a cash raise but it may not be the apocalyptic event that one or two have suggested.
Wed 11:20

back in auction
Wed 10:58

fair point Jay p.agree with that
Wed 09:37

afternoon bignose.yes i did a small double take at the reference to eight more etc as i recalled there were far fewer shown when you pointed out a little while ago that most were active and only a couple to go.i didn't look further (is regent fatigue setting in?) i expect we will get completely different figures in the next announcemen!.lol
Wed 08:42

only a few trades so far but all indicative buys with steadily increasing ask.Level2 looking weighted in favour of bid
Wed 08:37

the FDA is not i repeat not legally obliged to grant a meeting. it can refuse .obviously it would be surprising if it were to refuse after stating in the CRL that further data needed but to suggest it had no choice is incorrect and misleading.the inference to be drawn is that the response at least warrants the holding of a meeting
Tue 22:28

keithbfk at the risk of being accused of frivolity id now say sod the fountain just give me a small canteen! in our particular desert a canteen would be better than nothing.seriously i still think we will get somewhere .there have been lots of pieces of this particular jigsaw put together over the last 3 years or so .if pomander were still here he would probably still be talking about stake building and takeovers and perhaps thats where we will end up. The jigsaw may be smaller than we first though but if it does get finally assembled we may still profit in the end.just musing to keep up spirits
Tue 19:15

interesting posts today.sidmr yes do expect the venturex holding to be disposed in some way through jm.he always seems to have a way of dealing with these sort of things and the financial clout to do so..i just hope its done in the shareholders interests and not just an exercise in clever financial engineering.agree it will be good to remove the historic legacy holding.prof z i agree thats its good to draw a line under the tax case my spleen yesterday was largely directed at the failure to make provision in the accounts which i felt was unjustified.anyway its history now and the removal of uncertainty is a positive.bignose yes interested to see what further anuouncwwements bring.blinkerd action imo to rely categorically on counsels advice re the tax position.all litigation carries risk and particularly so in tax matters.some provision should have been made in the accounts.probably the financial position at the time made it prudent not to, but anyway its history now.i always take heart from your onwards and upwards approach its the only way really but I'm afraid I've reached the point and particularly the age where the prospect of being taken out at say 70centd is looking more and more appealing..now wheres my crystal ball!
Tue 18:42

agreed Ivy.im going to stop posting on the speculation and simply await events.mistake to get too involved personally
Tue 18:36

zimzimmer.entirely agree with you last sentence. apologies for fuelling the speculation must try to resist the temptation .also agree with your thought re the good doctor.i have reached an age when even retired policeman seem young to me but a 21 year old doctor?.could be a PHD of course but still a bit young for that and not entirely sure that his posts demonstrate the objectivity and critical analysis ability which would be expected of a doctoral thesis.just my opinion
Tue 18:29

Golden Dust clearly we are not going to agree about calamaris interpretation of matters and i respect your right to reach whatever conclusion you come to on this but just to comment on the suggestion that perhaps the pr people will have been advised by their lawyers to reply as they did..im afraid i don't buy that.obviously they could not state that they did not consult experts as that would be misleading and possibly actionable in some circumstances.however i am sure the ingenuity of the pr dept could have come up with some anodyne or meaningless response(e.g. we are not in a position to give out any information not already in the public domain etc)which would not lay them open to any comeback.equally the could simply not have responded. they are under no obligation to respond to investors queries.ok that might not have looked good and would give rise to conspiracy theories galore but i don't for a second imagine the company is remotely bothered about that.aim companies don't exactly have a good history of responding openly to questions in times of difficulty.i was expecting at best a meaningless response and probably none at all hence my take that its a positive.i entirely accept that this is just my interpretation and can be entirely wrong but i don't think it can be assumed that motif felt constrained to reply for legal reasons.for the record i entirely agree with your concerns over funding. its all going to come down to timing of the FDA response, the attitude of potential funders and associated matters which we can only guess at.I accept entirely that this is a very perilous situation and may still end in disaster.it may also end in a much more positive way if we get approval.
Tue 17:31

calamari in turn i would ask that you read carefully what i have said.i have not stated that you have categorically said new trials will be required.i said"almost"categorical.in your post of 15.42 you state that it sounds like they have already done everything they can short of new phase three trial.this seems to me like a fairly categorical conclusion to that effect and it make no allowance for the possibility of other issues such as labelling being an appropriate method to proceed to approval.your 16.11 post carries a similarly strong implication which i do not feel is currently justified by the information in motifs statement.i may be wrong but so may you.rest assured i am fully aware of the approach of the FDA to the approval process and am under no misapprehension that they will take any decisions on any grounds other than safety. the financial stability of motif is of no concern to the FDA and as you can see from my history here i have never endorsed any posts claiming that theFDA should have regard to the companys position or indeed the wider need for antibiotics.i am therefor unsure why you should suggest albeit only by implication that i am under such a misapprehension.only time will tell which of us is right.
Tue 16:49

calamari neither you nor i know what motif may be required to do.your conclusion is that they will be required to carry out further trials.that may prove to be correct but at this point it just does not sit well with the statement that no indication at that point of further trials being required. if the crl had said we have had your evidence on liver tox including the experts opinions but we need further data about issues "x"and "Y' then if such issues were ones which inevitably could only be resolved by further trials motif would not have been able to make the statement of no indication of them being required at that point.my point is that your almost categorical statement that further trials will be required is simply not supported by the companys statements to date.this may change but in my view your conclusion is not currently justified.i accept of course that you are perfectly entitled to reach it, as i am to reach mine.
Tue 16:14

no calamari.false conclusions.they would not have stated no indication at that point of further trials if your reasoning were correct.


Sign up for Live Prices
Top Recommended
Hot Chat Topics
Top recommended posters in the last 30 days
Alfacomp3,300
langtro2,796
Wassatt2,690
Troajan2,543
kenny1002,491
RichKen2,291
BoomerBower2,097
knuttie1,826





Member Login

Forgotten your password?
Email:

Password:


Don't have an account? Click here to Register Free!




Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look. While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.