Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
I looked over someones shoulder and they have shrunk by 10.
No you f'wit, no one knows because they haven't told us yet, and that wasn't the point of the study anyway.
And your question is almost nonsensical anyway until you mean out of the 10? tumours how many have shrunk, rather than what percentage have they shrunk by.
barc, if you were making a profit then it could be tax advantageous to not have it has income but to have it as investment instead. But we aren't. I'm not concerned about 0.6% dilution. The other issues re: sales i'm more concerned about, BUT I am thinking of leasing as sales.
Nicky what's Ubers mcap, it's losing shed loads, somehow never made a profit of huge revenues.
They are probably limited on implications until later trials. Draw your own conclusions but they can't give you theirs.
Uber are losing a damn site more than that, but have a much higher mcap. Can't even make a profit with a nearly fully depolyed product, which is just software.
That's nearly word for word the motley fool article. With some really weird word choices at the start, 'using their inventory ' ' the agency used'
Pile of junk.
What? Like a refund?
Woland, a tiny tiny bit of caution. I can't do the sums right now, but there is a very high likelihood that we'd get the result that we got and still have 2% chronic, and there is a low likelihood that the 11% acute could still happen, given our sample sizes, essentially we could have gotten lucky with who we picked. I think given all of the other indicators tumour to plasma in particular I think it's likely that the results are truly indicative, and I remain very very confident that I can retire in the next 12months and then probably unretire out of boredom.
What's the option, write to the FCA, that's been done with shed loads of evidence.
These are the rules of the game, they might change in the future but these are the rules right now.
If they are that much of a risk then play a different game. I certainly wouldn't be on AIM for a 5% divi, for growth that is in the realm of 5-10%, not worth the risk. I'd only invest on aim where there is a chance of much much more.
However, looking at the main index, I lost a shedload on barclays when they were forced to buy another bank that was failing. Look at BT's graph down from 500 to sub 200. So would I invest in single companies on the main indexes, probably not, Risk exists everywhere. Look at 10% inflation and what that's doing to money under the matress.
Safebreaker, do people accept it, probably not, but it's the risk that has to be taken as those here can do absolutely nothing about it, other than not invest. But when you see something that you think is special in the longer term that's the price that you might have to pay.
If II's are going to get on board then we still wouldn't know about it, it'll be at least 4 weeks after SD, maybe more, they will have internal processes. However we need to look at scale, lets suggest that they invest £15m, roughly 5% of the companies MCap, that's going to need additional approval as it's a decent chunk of a company, but what's the upside, maybe hitting £150m, so £135m profit if they sold which would be tricky without dropping the price. £135m is a nice lump of profit but it's not enormous, not for big IIs. Reality is they'll be working at sub 5%, so to be meaningful that'll be the smaller IIs.
I used to work at an investment/insurance co. in procurement and reg reporting, and I asked about smaller company investing after a company wide presentation ra ra session. They do have teams that focus on smaller scale businesses and they do have expertise to understand what was said.
So eggy had turned up I see, at least once possibly twice.
Dollar to pound?
There's no accounting for increasing market size due to better tolerability and more cycles being achievable.
Yet another nail in UK PLCs coffin.
Which special unit size?
Cleaving just means it's found the FAPa, the question is are the tumours in question susceptible to dox. And technically are aren't and dox is not recommended as a treatment for them.
But, and this is my personal conjecture, if dox is as nasty as it is when it hits the skin (see the images of injection site damage when injecting goes wrong), then i'm quite sure it will do a lot of damage to the tumour, and the only reason it's not recommended is that ithe tumour isn't more susceptible to dox than normal tissue is, so to get enough into the tumour (pre AVA) would kill the patient.
Holding it as a scoop for the the journo that topped and tailed the SD?
Uber has never made a profit. 37bn of rev bags can't make a profit from selling a software service. I'll take their mcap.
CBA, having a long lunch break.