Member Info for bald_eagle

Over the last few years 50p or thereabouts has been a good buying price...so it's possibly the same now.

But there is the slight chance that the Corona Virus - or worldwide efforts to combat it - cause an economic slowdown....which would be bad news for bank stocks.

Also Brexit trade negotiations with the EU could go nowhere and we end up with an 'Australian' deal starting in January.

Plenty of uncertainty to keep the doommongers happy and make life interesting for investors.

The Chinese can do things that we in the West can only dream of, so our ability to fight or even delay the virus aren't comparable to what happened in China.

There may come a point when the powers that be decide that containment isn't worth the economic damage and mitigation is preferable....only time will tell, hence the uncertainty. Once people have got used to 'living' with the virus then things will probably calm down. How long that takes is the big question.

Of course in the UK & EU we also have the Brexit negotiations to look forward to.

86 people quarantined inside a Valencian Brothel and 86 of them are men!!....would that be poetic justice or a definition of hell?

Benefits of Corona.

In the short term governments will try to contain the virus spreading....which is probably impossible. There also seems to be a delaying tactic....delay the spread in the hope that warmer summer weather causes it naturally to peter out (although it could return next winter). In the meantime the scientists might create a vaccine by then.

As investors we have to assume that the market won't like the uncertainty or risk of a global financial slowdown (recession!!).

To come on here and pretend that people won't start behaving in strange ways (stop eating Chinese food or beating up anyone 'Oriental') is missing the point. This is going to create unstable financial markets for months to come IMO. Investors need to prepare for that possible rollercoater ride....and hopefully find a way to benefit from it (possibly in the long term) or hedge against it.

Some are probably ordering a big bucket of sand from Amazon to stick their heads in.

RustyB, you are the biggest disappointment about this share...I can uderstand STT1...but you are just beyond the pale....beyond the oxidised pale even.

Grow up, grow a pair, get used to it.

Oh yeah...go stick your head in a bucket of sand....where it belongs.

LTU, the chances of your assumption being correct are quite low IMO. This 'deadline' isn't the cliff edge you think it is (again IMO).

Don't forget that Thornton & Ross have until the end of today to supply the test data to the regulator...so any RNS that FUM would be required to issue would be next week or possibly after business close today.

LTU, I suppose IF you are a FUM investor I was indirectly saying that you might be 'peeved'....for that I apologise if you were offended and have never in your entire life shown any degree of 'peevishness'.

Based on your 'assumption' I suppose IF Thornton & Ross had not supplied the necessary test data to the regulator and IF the regulator was then obliged to void the TPR submission then FUM would presumably be obliged to issue an RNS to that effect.

The fact that FUM hasn't issued an RNS (as yet) may suggest that either your assumption is incorrect OR that Thornton & Ross supplied the necessary data to the regulator in the required timescale.

LTU, did I say you were 'peeved'?

LTU, so you're assuming that the regulator will void the TPR submission if Thornton & Ross don't supply the requested information by the end of Feb 2020 deadline? That's quite an assumption...on what do you base it?

LTU, so if FUM were to issue an RNS that told us: "Thornton & Ross have responded to the MHRA request for additional data on TPR by the end of February 2020 by supplying the required information prior to the 1st March 2020"

What would that actually tell us and would it really be worth an RNS.

You were somehow expecting Thornton & Ross to hand back the TPR rights to FUM or FUM to take back control of TPR from Thornton & Ross. It could happen at some point in the future but I don't really see why it should happen now. I expect Thornton & Ross to have supplied the requested additional test results to the regulator who will now study that data & make a judgement, which can - based on past experience - take an unexpectedly long time.

To issue an RNS costs money, I don't think it is an inconsequential amount. Also investors would get a bit peeved to see lots of pointless RNS's (& FUM wasting resources on issuing them). The AIM authorities might also dislike a company inapproriately using the RNS system .

I agree with The.Italian, there was no requirement nor expectation that FUM would update the market on Thornton & Ross supplying the regulator with additional TPR test information. The need for an RNS would occur when the regulator gives their ruling or if there is meaningful news that impacts FUM, supplying the regulator with additional data doesn't merit an RNS IMO.

News pending....You're thinking TPR possibly?

Tombi1, so basically there is no way to find out what happened to the way FUM describes Dermasys....which seems to have changed in their RNS's in December 2019 to say it's patented.

I'm a little disappointed that in their 'transparency' they won't respond to reasonable requests for information. Which IMO isn't price sensitive information in any way.

It just leaves an unanswered question. Mr Barder used to be a lot more transparent IMO.

Just got a reply from Futura Medical (or their PR company) about whether Dermasys has a patent....make with it what you will:

"By way of introduction, Optimum is a specialist healthcare IR and PR firm which is working with Futura Medical to support its ongoing investor relations.

Shareholder engagement and feedback is important to us, unfortunately Futura Medical is unable to answer individual enquiries to avoid selective disclosure and for regulatory and compliance reasons."

IMO it's not exactly market sensitive to confirm whether Dermasys actually has a patent (when their website says it does). Mr Barder used to be a lot more communicative with shareholders.

Apparently Altyn have a plan:
- Altyn plans to ramp up to 500kt production (ore) during 2019 based on the current infrastructure
- The next step (possibly for 2020 or 2021) is 800kt per annum.
- To reach 2 million tonnes per annum after 6 years.

Note: The CPR report does suggest that some of Altyn's assumptions appear quite optimistic (they would have to be one of the best mines in the world, top quartile)....so there is a risk that Altyn might not reach their targets (no big surprise for long term holders I suspect). But IMO if they can show a steady increase in mined ore towards 1-2 Mtpa then the SP will follow.

Lots of risks but the rewards could be high IMO.

Dofmeister, thanks for the information. Plenty to absorb at 299 pages.

It seems to be a collection of documents. The CPR starts at page 126 for all those interested.

Greg, IMO the only way for Altyn to substantially increase their SP is for a sizeable increase in the gold produced (on a profitable basis) and/or to have a clear plan to increase mined ore to reach the targeted increases.

It's almost pointless having gold at $1600 per ounce if they aren't producing much gold. If they were producing 60,000 ounces (never mind 100,000 ounces) at $1,600 I can almost guarantee the SP would not be less than a penny per share.

Are there shorters driving this SP lower?

There's going to be a bit of financial pain for cruise companies until the implications of this virus get some perspective. I expect in a few months people will get used to living with it and get on with their lives. Life will return to some sort of normality...and the scientists will probably create some sort of vaccination.

The cruise companies have a big question on why such a large % of their passengers caught the virus however.