London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East and have access to Premium Chat. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Twatcher yes i may have been a long way off on 40m tests, but that's a factor of 4 not 10. I was making an assumption that it wasn't for the full cost of each unit. Having looked at the Abingdon prospectus i now have the full picture thanks, i'm not afraid to correct my statements. I never once said they had received £10m, only there is a £10m agreement. The cost price to Omega is not all raw materials. In their cost price they have labour, machine depreciation, overheads. Probably with the high volume output that's probably minimal so perhaps 60-65p might be right.
"Twattcher you have left out the labour cost from the 75p"
I have indeed, and forgot there is of course an input for that in the costs.
BTW that's how you see that you were wrong, admit it and don't spend the next 5 posts turning black into white.
I agree with you but please note the 75p cost per unit doesn’t include reagents - these are provided by AH. This is just cassette, film and production cost.
These claims of 4m tests are laughable.
Well said ??
Twattcher you have left out the labour cost from the 75p
I have not sold, I remain concerned as previously pointed out. What I don't like is people stating things as facts that are just plain wrong. Stating that abingdon has received £10M and thus have the raw materials to make 40M tests, is just plain wrong. Funny how overstating raw material purchasing capacity by a fact of 10 isn't see as ramping, but stating the exact facts is deramping.
I'm also at a loss how the mythical £10M equated 40M tests. thats a raw material cost of <25p. Finncap advised omega gets £1.50 a test, with a gross margin of 50%. Omega has subsequently advised their margins will be a bit higher than that. But that still suggests a raw material cost of 60-80p.
There is no £10.3M cash for upfront.
and £10.3M doesn't get you anywhere near 40M+ tests.
But somehow I'm the problem here for pointing out these extreme inaccuracies.
So the prospectus says 10m tests. So £10.3m to supply 10m tests and they currently have ordered 1m. So we are guaranteed another 9m ordered. With scope to go to 15m. That's exactly my point backed up by Abingdon prospectus that there is already more than 1m tests on the table with the government.
Yes its there in the link!!! It's a funding agreement for £10.3m. You cant argue with it it's in black and white!
I don't care if £1m is in Abingdon's bank or £10m, i never said they have received £10m to date, it's all going to end up in suppliers accounts. The point is they saw fit to agree a £10.3m credit facility for the purchase of components to supply an undisclosed amount of tests, funding agreement, letter of credit whatever you want to call. Clearly £10.3m not just 1m tests.
The fact they have gone to the trouble of blacking out the number of units is interesting!
"I'm not personally concerned with how much cash Abingdon are holding upfront vs what has already been paid and what is still to be paid. The point is there is finance for £10.3m of components."
First it was cash... "plus £10m quid for components for the next batches. That's probably 40m tests+"
then you doubled down.... "No it's £10.3m for components, which makes a lot of tests"
then it was a letter of credit.... " it is a letter of credit for the purchase of £10.272m "
Then it was "The £1m Abingdon received from the Government is for the development of a smartphone reader App"
And now its "wellll, i wasn't really bothered about it"
You crack me up.
So lets be clear, they don't have £10M in cash from the gov for materials , they don't have a letter of credit for £10M.
There is a framework were they may get advances of up to £10M for raw materials. There is a framework for up to 10M tests, that might extend to 15M. They have received approx £1m in cash for raw materials. They have received an order for 1M tests. As I said about 5 posts ago (and you wrongly argued against in series of posts), it appears the cash advances are commensurate with the confirmed test orders.
FACT is de-ramper cost people money to... as when they try scaring and de-ramp some people panic sell , like who sold around 41 today... goes both ways
Maybe if they just admitted they had orders it would be clearer!
Why all the cloak and dagger stuff anyway?
10 million for materials is a bloooody lot of tests!
Agree chuggley, he sure is. Changes his tone everytime he changer position. ..very obvious, and very filtered. As Is ianf, disgusting twit
Twatcher is trying hard to spin negative. And wrong. Did you sell out and now want back in
Twatcher i know the 1m for the app is not for materials. See previous post i've apologised i didn't realise the prospectus stated cash upfront, i was wrongly deducing you had picked up the 1m figure from the app funding. But my point about £10.3m of funding remains.
Not really sure what we are trying to debate here now there is an upfront funding facility whether Abingdon hold cash or otherwise.
I missed the bit where you moved the goalposts and said the £1M was for an app.
The £1M for the app was a loan (not reimbursed expense) from innovate uk.
"In September 2020, Abingdon Health announced that it had secured £1 million of loan funding from Innovate UK to fund the accelerated development of AppDx® to enable a fully quantitative smartphone based solution."
Innovate UK has NOTHING to do the DHSC.
This is entirely separate from the "UPFRONT CASH" they received from the DHSC.
"the Group agreed with the DHSC that it would receive support in the procurement of raw materials to manufacture the finished goods. The Group has received nearly £1 million of cash up front for this contract"
Can you described the raw materials that are required to make an app and what are the finished goods.
Quite an interesting insight as to how someone is prepared to see black as white, even when it's written down in black&white.
TWatcher - i stand corrected on that, i have not committed the prospectus to memory. But that's even better and it doesn't change the fact there is a financing letter for £10.3m for components whether they hold cash or have . Referring to part C of the agreement,
1 If supplier requires payment upfront, DHSC will pay upfront,
2 Payment on delivery DHSC pay abingdon on delivery, abingdon pay supplier on deliver
3 Supplier paid on terms, DHSH pay in time with terms
I'm not personally concerned with how much cash Abingdon are holding upfront vs what has already been paid and what is still to be paid. The point is there is finance for £10.3m of components.
Abingdon says "The Group has received nearly £1 million of cash up front". That is an exact quote, from abingdon, in writing, in the company prospectus.
Merchant banker says "Its not cash upfront it's reimbursed expenses"
You really do what a recount in Georgia
Twatcher - sorry disagree
1M units have been purchased at an undisclosed purchase price. Lets assume £5 each. £5m.
Prior to that the government have agreed to pay for £10.3 worth of components. Abingdon buy them and invoiced the government. Its not cash upfront it's reimbursed expenses. It may be that £500k of components is used in the 1m order. Therefore the amount due for the 1m order £4.5m.
There are two distinct contracts.
1 Funding for the advance purchase of components and
2 the purchase of 1m tests.
Clearly £10m of components is more than 1m tests
The £1m Abingdon received from the Government is for the development of a smartphone reader App
If you want to delude yourself and others that you are right with some alternate facts, then go right ahead.
You said:"UK RTC already have a contract for first 1m tests plus £10m quid for components for the next batches."
The lead of the consortium put in black and white they have received nearly £1M in cash.
"The Group has received nearly £1 million of cash up front".
They have it in the bank, its in the financial figures under contract liability "£939,512". It's CASH they have that needs to be assigned to a contract, and its just under £1M.
And now you're onto a letter of credit. Do you want a recount of Georgia again ?
TWatcher no it's not.... it is a letter of credit for the purchase of £10.272m worth of components in order to make an undisclosed amount tests for future supply to the Gov.
"No it's £10.3m for components, which makes a lot of tests"
Are you being deliberately vague ? That's the framework contract, just like there is a framework contract for 15M tests.
Abingdon has confirmed they have received £1M, just like they have confirmed they have received an order for 1M units.
It appears rather clear that the money for the raw materials comes in at the same time as the orders. And whether that is the relationship or not, it is absolutely certain that abingdon has received £1M (actually just under £1M), because that is the figure abingdon says.
"In order to mitigate against this, the Group agreed with the DHSC that it would receive support in the procurement of raw materials to manufacture the finished goods. The Group has received nearly £1 million of cash up front for this contract,which is shown as a contract liability in note 19"
"UK RTC already have a contract for first 1m tests plus £10m quid for components for the next batches. That's probably 40m tests+"
They have £1M as you well know for raw materials, as that's what abingdon said. Given they have received £1M for raw materials, and received an order for 1M tests, it's highly logical to conclude that payment for raw materials is commensurate with the placement of orders. Thus far there has been an order for 1M tests.
Also the tender for antibody tests is no longer up for grabs they are not inviting any other bids. Its UK RTC test all the way.