The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode with London Stock Exchange Group's Chris Mayo has just been released. Listen here.
The trotsky, I think that 'no, not now' is the key point, but the possible reasoning behind it, attempting to create new solutions to many problems with the same fundamental tool kit so that at least one potential customer would recognise that the newly offered solution fitted their problem was sound, but no one was buying. It was too novel, china will only ever buy made in china (imo), and for everyone else 'we've never needed it before' was the answer. But given the cost of track and trace, if <1% of that made it's way into automated waste water testing, and not a apprentice with a jug, then he'd have been touted as a genius.
Someone will realise that the cost of monitoring and acting early is much much less than the cost of not doing so at some point, hopefully we'll still be around.
No point in me selling now, what's gone is gone, what's left is bottom draw.
Mb53, why can't it present any data that is market sensitive, all they have to do is announce it beforehand or indeed on the morning of. The way you are taking suggests that there can't be anything sensitive presented at that point, which is seven weeks away, which taken to it's logical conclusion suggests that no one can ever discuss anything in the future that they haven't already released today.
18 months ago quint was very very much in favour of a single stock portfolio (PRTG, probably approaching a decade put from medicine in the field). Since then he's gone much wider, and also more random and seems to be trading vs his started position of research and hold. He's sometimes pro Avacta and seems to get it, sometimes against it, suspect it's mood related.
Buena, I'm not making a claim that the high values are ramping. If making such a claim then there are two options, it's either a deramp or there is an appropriate value in mind. So the question is what is that appropriate value, and perhaps some logic behind it rather than just 'it's too high'.
Personally, the answer depends on how it is achieved, if there is no buyout then it'll be a while, but I can see profits of conservative 750mn pa being easily achieved with room for growth therefore supporting a pe ratio of 15+ so c 10bn.
Under the buyout scenario, even low multiples of revenue would deliver a similar result but quicker. I think a buyout is likely as the creation of new competitor would viewed as a threat by incumbent, and they would see the tech as a competitive advantage.
I think this is all conservative as it's only really counting 1 drug and not the platform, and there's no uplift for competitive bidding. I'm happy to wait.
So you have no figure of an mcap trust you think this should be worth? You don't have a reasonable level for this to reach
Starbright, so what's it worth then? If you think most high values are a pump, what do you think it'll reach?
Also blocked for referring to pig serum, not even a comment against Avacta, Chris seemed to deserve a block though, delay =/= stepping aside, that would be effing ridiculous.
According to ade it's happening a lot.
Don't forget the frozen hydrogen stopping work claim.
I assume you're taking the ****? H2 does not have a freezing problem.
RAH is this is 'others have failed' comment? Can't recall all of the sentence around it.
1.5bn is UK and US only, no Europe no Asia, Australiasia. I'm discounting Africa as they are too much of developing economy, and 1.5bn is based on current usage of doxy which is very constrained in terms of number of doses and health conditions/age. I see that increasing.
Rah, aren't these take over values as a multiple of future peak sales? Indicating that if you have future peak sales of 1bn (to keep the sums simple) then a future owner is willing to pay a range for 3 to 15bn for that revenue, with a middle ground of c9bn. And that's priced for a drug, not a platform.
Starbright, to me that's quite reasonable, as a take over is a very likely end game. And it's important to note and reiterate that it's agreed future sales, in some instances they haven't been due to appear for many years so are estimates. For a future owner that would be 100% of revenue, and as others have pointed out if we don't get brought out then it'll be a pe ratio exercise based on a high profit margin and whatever percentage of the market we can grab. Not being brought out however means we need a lot of infrastructure to manage the production, distribution, support etc. Even with this a high pe can be justified if the market is growing, which given a choice between side effects and no side effects, as clinician you'd opt for no side effects so it would grow. Again this is for one drug not a platform, put platform revenue and profits into the sums and the result is reasonable.
Yes pricing action isn't supporting it at present, but its based on what solid information and fundamentals are visible now.
No, lfi diagnostics, seemingly beneficially owned by her husband.
This is their quote from linked in:
--------------------------
Kaizen Clean Energy
Kaizen Clean Energy
939 followers
20h • 20 hours ago
Follow
Excited to announce our agreement to provide KCE's integrated solution to support Extreme E's goals of taking their event series to 100% carbon neutral hydrogen energy.
Working with ENOWA and our technology partners, our systems will generate carbon neutral #hydrogen onsite for fuel cells to support event power and vehicle #charging.
--------------
That looks to me to be H2 generation.
Lead is about $2k per metric ton, that's a nice number, could possibly be a premium for 'green' lead?
Wiggly, they have to match the index, so until the 30th the index held Avacta. They might have taken the opportunity to set themselves up to take advantage of an known date where there would be sales, but they could not have reduced their position until the 30th.
Blocked for too much posting whilst drunk
I'd say the longer it takes the better, up to a point. If it was quick then it's a smash and grab get the money leave a dead carcass behind. And that collection of cash could have been achieved rapidly. Longer must mean that something more meaningful is going on, afterall what else could they be doing. But too long and any cash generated gets sucked up in fees. I think we're approaching too long personally.
Isn't a qual (the value put on providing an additional year of life at a level of quality) about $150k in the US and £70k in the UK? These start to provide an upper limit to costs.