The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
no point doing any financial modelling on NCYT for a few quarters at least until the rev is a bit less volatile , cashflow forecasting for Nova would be frivolous as it's all quite fluid at the moment, in fact's totally unpredictable
That's a commercial matter, what has it to do with investors? who do you think you are? IF you are a shareholder you have certain rights but you do not have a right to request information regarding the day to day running of the business or information which may be considered commercially sensitive. In fact you have very few rights as a shareholder, and by default people like Mandy who are responsible for investor relations give very little information.
Every email claiming to be from Mandy reposted on this bb is a makey uppey one.
Firstly as the person responsible for investor relations if it was a real email she would have replied naming the Co.s correctly you. TATA is valued at $311, 000,000,000.00 and is a global company. TATA MD at $0 and has no business footprint in comparison.
Only an idiot would think the difference is pedantic.
The answer to the instrument question gets weirder, what does 'now' mean, how/who manufactured them before 'now'?
Also the language used is like a TV advert from the 1960s "We are saying with PROmate you can improve your cycle time"
Still thinking it's makey uppey, unless Mandy is actually a bit illiterate and low intelligence, which I doubt she is.
I think I might get in contact with her to find out.
Feel your pain, got in Aug 21' for the winter spike, and missed 2-3 chances to exit with 30% profit. Nursing a drop of ~70% today. So the idiots on here really grate on me with their stupid obtuse link spam and nonsense conspiracy theories.
Confident I'll get my money back but like I said it's 4-6 Qs to turn around the lousy culture, the BoD, the portfolio and sales. But I can see it happening now, just need to wait and depending on events maybe even increase my holding.
The only issue I have is the uber negative language they've been using in comms. It's unusual behaviour.
Well I wouldnt say all in, but Im held hold holding same as Wilson and others… #fullyloadedFlakeys :)
Yeah but it ain't NCYT shares you're holding, and I wouldn't be surprised if Willy wasn't holding yours too.
CS the depth of research is linked to intelligence. Quality of posts is also linked to intelligence.
Did you miss all the months of the gang squinting at marketing images for TATA MD, a tiny Indian start-up, swearing blindly that it was a q16 on the filing cabinet behind the ring binder, and therefore we would most likely be testing all of India in a matter of weeks. Yippee.
Unfortunately self awareness also requires intelligence.
You have to have a negative feeling regarding the dispute based on Novacyt own words.
But it's Primer Design Ltd that's named by the DHSC in the dispute. I don't understand why the liability isn't limited, or why the BoD seem to have put the whole group in the mix instead of isolating Primer Design Ltd. Novacyt SA is also named but guessing that's because they are the owners, because if it was contract related it would have been Novacyt UK Holdings Ltd.
Internet searches put risk management/low liability as a pro for having Ltd companies as subsidiaries, so why does there seem to be no risk management/low liability with Primer Design Ltd, we're told if the case is lost the liability is to the entire group. Can't be true.
one thing is everyone seems to put owning the majority of shares as a requirement. I still think it's not necessary because shares are owned by investors who want a good return so want the company well run (or taken over and run better) so will vote for what's best for the company which is what a CEO and/or a company that took over should want too, so everyone should be on the same page, and if todays board can get all they want voted through owning nothing relevant why does a majority holding count.
Although I wonder, as Novacyt had ii's back then whose shares were prob non-voting, Lab21 may have had a majority of the voting share float at the time.
But does it matter, the takeover was only a few years ago, Lab21 SH sold up for a profit since then which was the objective, no-one noticed I bet and Novacyt carried on. GM still turned up and did his job
Lets go full techie. Here's a PWC tutorial, it's for the US again.
https://viewpoint.pwc.com/dt/us/en/pwc/accounting_guides/business_combination/business_combination__28_US/chapter_2_acquisitio_US/210_reverse_acquisit_US.html#:~:text=In%20a%20reverse%20acquisition%2C%20the%20financial%20statements%20of%20the%20combined,connection%20with%20the%20reverse%20acquisition.
you may need to fiddle to get it up, if page is shaded, do a back page and should be ok.
Only had a quick scan but looks an interesting read, here's one answer re financial statements ( I had read that, but didn't understand, it was a bit vague)
"The legal acquirer is the surviving legal entity in a reverse acquisition and continues to issue financial statements. The financial statements are generally in the name of the legal acquiree because the legal acquirer often adopts the name of the legal acquiree. In the absence of a change in name, the financial statements remain labelled as those of the surviving legal entity. Although the surviving legal entity may continue, the financial reporting will reflect the accounting from the perspective of the accounting acquirer, except for the legal capital, which is retroactively adjusted to reflect the capital of the legal acquirer (accounting acquiree) in accordance with ASC 805-40-45-1."
"**************/Share Acquisition
The other most common reverse merger structure involves a ************** or share acquisition, whereby Pubco acquires Privco as a wholly-owned subsidiary through the issuance of Pubco shares, cash or a combination of both. It is similar to a triangular merger in that after the merger is completed, Privco is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pubco. The advantage of a ************** rather than a triangular merger is the lack of additional state filings in connection with the formation of Pubco’s wholly-owned subsidiary and the filing of the merger documents. In addition, ************** agreements are typically used where Privco is not a U.S. based company, as cross-border mergers are nearly impossible and may be prohibited under the laws of Privco’s incorporation."
https://srf.law/resources/reverse-mergers/
Best explainer of reverse takeovers I can find atm. It's US, but works for Europe. Also note it's best method for cross-border reverse takeovers
This the bit you keep seeing and not understanding.
"**************/Share Acquisition
The other most common reverse merger structure involves a ************** or share acquisition, whereby Pubco acquires Privco as a wholly-owned subsidiary through the issuance of Pubco shares, cash or a combination of both. It is similar to a triangular merger in that after the merger is completed, Privco is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pubco."
It has to be recorded like that. Like a takeover. That's why the reverse bit is important. Otherwise it is a takeover unless you understand it happened in reverse.
Also your Investopedia article explaining reverse takeovers is really bad, it's a cut and paste of a flagged wiki
Also your reverse takeover example you used to prove your other post wrong is a Reverse Triangular Merger, which is new to me but covered on the link.
It's a corp law firm and not a blog