Member Info for alfista

My opinion is that the company buy backs are attempting to support the share price.
It's another of those where the management make lavish and ambitious claims, attempting to divert attention away from what is quite a serious housekeeping matter. I suspect it won't go away, and that they'll have to register a provision to adjust down the value of those two "acquisitions". Having said that, if they can officially answer the queries, then I'd be proven wrong. Then, you have to factor in the little matter of outrageous energy costs affecting production, nobody can be immune to that threat IMHO

Social media is a puzzler to me Welly. You go looking for FF+, and are disappointed at what you see. But how can it be used to attract new customers who aren't looking for it. I confess that, in my own business, I've never found the key to unlock a return from funds invested. Personally, if there was an anti social media, it would suit me just fine :-)

Yes it is, but it's also an indication of the expenditure needed for repeat productions. Anticipating a big rise in orders, it could be that there would need to be a multi million inventory, which would be great news as long as the funding model is clear to us. BH haven't invested what they have for nothing IMHO

How can you tell? The whole point is that the financials attribute a large value to two acquired businesses that don't have a history that can be ascertained. All it would take would be for the company to release an RNS giving a full explanation to rebutt what Iceberg have reported. they have failed to do that so far, and, honestly, it does appear that you are an apologist for them.

As I always do, let the blowhards have first go, I take some time to read in full what's in the reams of small print.

The business model of Provexis is on the verge of a step change. From the semi passive role of maintaining the IP, the full commercial aspects of procuring, stocking, and selling worldwide is under total control. A big challenge, but with the distinct benefit of being focussed entirely on Fruitflow, rather than being a small part of a colossal product range. As pointed out in June, there is a much higher margin accruing to the company going forwards, and any prospective customer has the advantage of dealing with the very highest level of technical knowledge.

IMHO we need better clarity on financing needs, dependant on the method decided to cover this, then, of course, we need to see ByHealth start to launch products to get the payback from their massive investment.

Well, if you think the practical issues of energy and mortgage costs don't exist, then you live in a different world to me.
You make the bull case on nothing but hope, I make the bear case based on what is actually happening, plus a material uncertainty. Your choice, but don't chew me out about it.

Not really, I just stumbled across the story about the Iceberg reports, and can't find a satisfactory response from the company. Either those 2 companies had the value they have attributed to them in the acounts, or they are worthless non assets. Their auditor should clarify how the valuation was created, then I may have the inkling it's a buy. On the other hand, they have a lot of energy intensive businesses which are severely affected by high European energy prices, with the distinct possibility of have production curtailed during a critical shortage this winter. Added to that, they supply to the building industry, which is catching the storm of rapid hikes in mortgage costs. Don't blame me if I don't share your view of rosy uplands, I can see from the reports that the board are full of uber bullish types, but I can't see how they'll overcome the practical issues for a fair old while. Good luck to you if you can see something I can't, that's shares though isn't it. You pays your money ....

Are you for real? Read my posts on here, I've spelled our precisely what my concerns are.

no crying here, just deep suspicion.

Look at the newbies on here licking each other's posts.
That gets my suspicions raised even further.
The company stands accused of wrongdoing, surely it is entirely necessary for them to refute the two specific accusations, that they had notified acquisitions which were not as stated. I accept entirely that shorters will make statements which support their positions, but it's my opinion that the company is required to answer these two matters.

Isn't that what most folks have been hoping for?

No need for the formality.
The cases quoted by Iceberg, HFL and Ezi Floor, are certainly puzzling aren't they? Why change the names so close to the transaction dates? If you've spoken to the company, and they have explained this to your satisfaction, I'd be surprised. they must tell the whole market anything of importance, not an individual. You may want to keep your head down if market rules have been broken.
To my mind, an official RNS clarification is required pronto, because silence is not golden, or helpful to the share value.
IMHO

That's a fine piece of work, quite comprehensive.
Use of Fruitflow medically would surely be subject to a lot more regulatory work. That seems to have been the case for so many potential benefits, from alleviating symptoms of air particulate pollution onwards. Initial studies look very promising, but lack of ability to throw resources at it tends to mean nothing further happens, only the discovery of yet more potential benefits. We have something here that could better the lives of so many folks, in so many different ways. If only we could crack the first hurdle, and achieve the aim of expansion through self funding.

So, BB, which part if the Iceberg report is misinformation please?
Are the transactions they've referred to strictly arms length business , as the law requires, or are they in house paper shuffles which add no value?
That appears to me to be the crucial point.
So, what's the answer

Consider also that there would have been the need to provide some liquidity to the OTC market.

Don't discount the presence of Mr Lucas, and the other "group of investors" who took part in placings.

There's also ample evidence that "bad news merchants" will arrive at the precise time MM's have dipped the sp.

Just saying.

The actual selling responsibility comes under Provexis' brief from next year, and I expect we will see more news on that soon. I did suggest to Mr Ford that we'd see a full on marketing strategy outline, but, of course, this wasn't something he was able to discuss. Frustrating, but rules is rules.

Errm. Unless I'm mistaken, the credit crunch was a phenomenon of 2008/9.

Looks as if you believe they have the Market to themselves? Not the case, not even close.
If you think they can protect dividend yields in the coming period, set against the worst supply crisis ever seen, then I think you are dreaming. IMHO