Member Info for B_A_B_A

My understanding and experience of broad, multi supplier framework arrangements is that they are not a guarantee of any work. They normally facilitate agreement of rates (so price per test in this instance perhaps) and then enable contracts to be awarded under the framework expediently. So that means, in my opinion, that when DHSC wants something from Microgen under the framework then the t&cs will already be in place, the rates agreed, so a contract will be raised quickly and relatively simply to provide what DHSC requires. In summary, being admitted onto a framework will not have a minimum value for any of the companies on the framework, it’ll be a variable effectively between zero and the max framework value. Extremes of that range would obviously be unlikely; no single company will win all of the framework value and no single company ought to receive nothing (although the latter can happen).

Our LFT, when it’s released, can only tell you if you’ve had the virus - not if you have it now.

It was announced in the RNS in November:
‘As Novacyt's NPT system continues to be deployed across the NHS, and globally, this improvement in workflow efficiency for COVID-19 testing is expected to make the system one of the quickest and easiest to use PCR platforms in its class’

Exmex - okay, but as far as I see that didn’t include or refer to promate (ie. what promate consisted of - the name obviously didn’t exist), it was based around direct-to-PCR RNA extraction kit (exsig™ Direct). In which case, I again believe that promate was much later, in November, and as a fast response to the DHSC issues

Apologies then, my mistake. I can only see mention in the 16th Nov RNS though, 6 weeks after DHSC contract announcement. Could you tell me which RNS I should be looking at where Promate is mentioned in July please?

The RNS is clear on where the contract is at. Still in phase 1, with the extension to phase 1 being discussed with DHSC. We are nowhere near phase 2 yet.

Promate was an afterthought and was developed (quickly and successfully) through necessity because phase 1 arrangements just weren’t working for most hospitals - those without advanced laboratory set-ups at least.

‘Don’t celebrate yet, more work to do’ sounds to me much more like a statement in the context of the pandemic. As in ‘we are doing all we can as the annual statement demonstrates but we (collectively) have much more work ahead in this fight before we should start to celebrate’.

I don’t expect any massive follow up announcement imminently, we’ve just had our update. Believing so is just misleading ourselves IMO. Doesn’t mean that there might not be announcement of follow on work for DHSC in the short term but the RNS already explains where we are at with that.

Novacyt’s LFT is to test whether an individual has had the virus previously, not whether the individual currently has the virus - so isn’t competition for the LFTs that are causing, seemingly, so many issues. An inaccurate antibody LFT wouldn’t have anything like the same implications.

I believe that it’s due to the fact that ARB is OTC listed in the USA, viewed with even more suspicion than AIM is in the UK. The following comment on stocktwits a few minutes ago appears to validate this: Issue is its a OTC and no one really wants to touch it right now.

The fact that we are main market listed in the UK appears to have no bearing either.

As the tender was released in November of 2019 it isn’t COVID related, just normal DHSC procurement during ‘peace time’.

Not sure whether I’m missing something here but the tweet just appears to be advertising the fact that we have antibody tests available to support vaccination programmes - doesn’t imply at all that we are selling lots of those tests or that we have any current involvement at all in supporting any vaccination programme antibody testing needs either here or overseas, so not sure how an RNS might be warranted.

Following the link in the tweet to the more detailed article confirms that for me - it’s a marketing exercise.

That aside, it’s great to see that the sp is starting to return towards true value!

Indeed, but it isn’t unreliable antibody LFTs that the government, and we as a general public, are having issues with. It’s poor quality antigen LFTs and as per the R&D RNS, we don’t have one of these in the pipeline - or didn’t at the back end of last year.

If we’ve started to develop one between then and now then great, but it won’t be coming to market any time soon. We have the best PCR tests, and hopefully soon the best LAMP test also. Those ought to be enough Id have thought.

The antibody LFT is scheduled to be launched during Q1.

Ask your broker perhaps?

The true spread has been less than 1p almost all day. The sell price has been higher than the buy a few times as well, by up to ~0.5p

Sorry for slow response tufa - it was only another 1250 shares at 13.46 this afternoon.

Bought some a few minutes ago on HL. Quoted instantly.

I would say that the account very likely belongs to someone like sharehunter, and there seems to be many of those on Twitter. Almost certainly not him/her though as he/she sold out some time ago iirc and now ramps other shares to death instead.

Does that Twitter account not look at all dubious/ unreliable to you?

ShaunP, I believe that andrewba’s point is that Novacyt are not able to produce every test that is needed in every country around the world. This pretty much goes without saying and doesn’t need evidencing IMO; it’s as self evident as you can get. The second point I read as meaning that the company might perhaps forward sell goods for delivery once manufactured, again a reasonable suggestion I’d have thought?