Member Info for bald_eagle

Tombi, did I say MED doesn't work?

Also Professor Ralph undertakes research and has even appeared on FUM webcasts....I suppose he does that work as a form of charity and never accepts any payment. When a company employs a consultant to do some work I don't expect they have to list that payment in their results....it would go under R&D. It doesn't mean that there isn't a finacial link between the consultant & the company.
So Prof Ralph is not a totally independent voice IMO. He still has to protect his reputation obviously...that's probably why he uses such meaningless phrases like 'fascinating', which IMO can mean anything. If he had said 'revolutionary' or 'exciting' I would have been more impressed.
I am not negative about FUM or it's products BTW, just that I feel that some people may get carried away by soime of the hyperbole and need more facts in order to make good investment decisions.

Tombi, of course Professor Ralph is paid by FUM. He does work for FUM and gets paid for that work. He has a finacial link to FUM and 'probably' wants them to suceed. To pretend otherwise is either mnisleading or shows a distinct lack of knowledge how FUM operates.
Of course there is nothing wrong with FUM paying academics like Prof Ralph to undertake research, it is perfectly legal and aboive board. But to say he is totally independent is wrong IMO.

I don't wish to impune the reputation of Prfofessor Ralph but he is paid by FUM and will feel obliged to back up the FUM storyline. I'm not sure if 'Fascinating' tells us very much.....'Exciting' would have been better IMO.

This was the same academic who put his name to the analysis of the first MED trial that found that MED had the same effect as the Placebo, and he failed to investigate further. The potential partners then questioned the validity of the 'rapid speed of onset claim', which led to the recent trial, which was supposed to differentiate bewteen MED & Placebo (through increased concentration of the active ingredient)....it didn't. Placebo had the same effect as'active' MED. So what do they do? They 'discover' that Placebo has some magical unknown therapeutic effect that just happens to equal the 'active' MED. SO they are now running with Placebo and Prof Ralph finds it 'fascinating'. I find it fascinating too but probably for different reasons.

...and getting products approved by the regulator takes ages (or it takes FUM ages). So even if the news about TPR isn't as bad as you seem to think the prospect of a viable money making product may be years away. The big danger for TPR is that even if it is a viable product the amount of money needed to make it successful would be possibly substantial (given that the market leading competitors have almost unlimited marketing budgets).

LordTP, TPR has nothing to do with Viagra btw.

The most recent news on TPR was from the interim results (11th Sep 2019):

"UK partner Thornton & Ross (a subsidiary of STADA AG) received feedback from UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in February 2019 requiring additional laboratory work to be conducted to support the UK filing. This work is progressing, and we expect to respond in Q1 2020 within the timelines agreed with the MHRA."

I guess LordTopUp is referring to the TPR update possibly due in Q1 2020 which may have a significant impact on the SP. However quite often with FUM - especially when dealing with regulatory bodies - the news is just further delay. The results of the additional tests could be negative I suppose, although since we don't even know what they are then that would be guesswork. Probably the medium to long term risk for TPR is that Stada (THornton & Ross) don't believe that the potentially large investment in marketing TPR isn't worth the risk...but I doubt the next TPR update will answer that.

Based on the current SP I doubt the market has allotted much value to TPR, so unless the update is really bad or really good news then the SP may not be bothered much IMO. More than likely the update will be an announcement of more delay i.e. awaiting the verdict of the regulator.

Once they do have regulatory approval the pressure will then be on Stada/Thornton to invest heavily in TPR, that may be the point when the good or bad news happens (again IMO).

Jonah, good luck with your investment, I honestly wish you the best of luck. Same for Mr Barder, I wish him the best of luck too. For if he suceeds them FUM & FUM investors will do well.

However based on the things Mr Barder has done over the last year or so I no longer trust him. Which was a real shock for me, because I used to think he was 100% genuine. No longer.

Jonah, I haven't had time to investigate yet, so I am only taqking what people say at face value. I do know that partnerships in the past have gone wrong before with FUM, so FUM tend to put in a timelimit in their contracts to prevent companies sitting on a product and doing nothing. If progress isn't made by the partner then FUM has the option to take the product back. I presume it is something like that. If you know for certain then you can enlighten me and other investors of what is going to happen to TPR.
Thanks.

Jonah, good morning to you too.

I was aware of TPR. Indeed one of the FUM directors (ex-Glaxo I believe) thought that TPR had massive potential and that FUM should develop it in-house. Mr Barder decided that they didn't have the resources and it didn't align with FUM's business model. So they agreed a partnership with some pharma company (I don't think I had heard of). I was not aware that the partnership agreement was coming to an end (all good things come to an end) - and given that MED is suffering 'teething' problems - the TPR news could be really important to FUM's future. The partner might continue their research, they might offer to buy the rights or they might hand it back to FUM....all are possible options.

So please don't tell me that I don't know FUM.

I just wasn't aware that the decision on TPR was imminent. I have trouble enough remembering when the MOT, home insurance, road tax, energy tariffs, etc etc, are due for renewal.

Now I am aware I can factor that into my investment strategy.

IDG, you obviously have an unusla investment strategy. IMO LordTopUp is quite correct to inform potential & current investors if there is a decision pending that could influence the SP (the decision on TPR). I must admit that it wasn't on my radar, so I thank him for bringing it to my attention. I will investigate and decide myself it is important.

IMO LordTopUp is quite balanced on the issue. If TPR is returned to FUM then it may weigh heavily on the SP (and could make things difficult for FUM's business model). If the TPR news is positive then the SP will possibly get a boost.

Obviously any potential partner for TPR will know that FUM are struggling and could use that knowledge to negotiate a better deal for themselves (a bit of speculation on my part).

It would be a 'shame' if a TPR RNS appeared and investors didn't know it was coming...for if they had they might have made some preparations.

How are they going to run a trial with the Placebo as the thing under test? What are they going to run it against?

The regulator is probably going to be OK with FUM's new 'magic Placebo' product because it presumably doesn't contain any active ingredient but do FUM have to justify any claims made in respect of
- onset time
- claimed benefits for ED sufferers

I don't see what the current trials will be able to compare the Placebo against. I suppose they would have to run the trial against a gel from another manufacturer (that didn't utilise Dermasys).

I do hope that FUM aren't ultimately trying to patent the actual 'Placebo Effect'.

I do know that Big Pharma aren't going to had over huge piles of cash without proof - they don't invest on wishful thinking. They have already rejected FUM's claims on rapid speed of onset just over a year ago....so FUM is going to have to prove to them that they have something real & verifiable to get any more investment IMO.

Have we had the actual trial results yet?

They seem to have dumped the active ingredient (glycerol trinitrate) and are going to get regulatory approval for what is effectively the placebo - on the assumption that it's the action of Dermasys (evaporation) that causes the erection (rather than the pretty nurse applying the lotion). It would be good to know the trial results for severe to moderate ED patients, if they showed a significant positive reaction to Dermasys + placebo then they may be on to something. Otherwise It could be the 'pretty nurse' effect!!

RTB, your hopes for a gradual increase in gold production seem a little unambitious and would be unlikely to cause much excitement for investors. But based on past performance I can understand why you would prefer to see realistic and easily achieveable targets rather than their usual pie in the sky targets.
But I think it is time to spend the money needed to get gold production above 50K and hopefully towards 100K ounces of the gold. Over 40K and there should be more than enough profit to pay off the loan(s) and maybe even have the ability to reward shareholders. Approaching 100K production Altyn will be a serious player and gawd only knows whsat the SP will be. WIll we ever get there and if so when....gawd only knows but we stand a better chance IMO than at any point in the past (assuming the funding committments are real). The management just have to deliver (not a given).

I don't expect an update before late April/May when the Finals are released. If there is one before then it is unlikely to show significant process in terms of gold production increasing. However what would be more important are the plans for increasing production and possibly some production goals for the coming months/years (although they should perhaps be taken with a huge pinch of salt based on past experience).

A realistic plan for increasing production to circa 100K ounces of gold annually will give the SP a boost (I expect).

Stt1 seems to have set himself on one last concerted effort to 'get his message across'...the problem for him is that nobody is listening. It all seems a little too desperate IMO.

Tremor is possibly going to be a success....Stt1 will have to cry himself to sleep tonight (all alone as usual)

Yesterday?

Wouldn't a delayed trade have shown a date of last Friday?

RB, they used to give more regular updates, probably because they were new and full of optimism. I'm sure that IF they can get gold production up to forecasts - on a path to 100,000 Oz annually - on a sustainable basis then updates will return IMO.

They are still in the grip of a Kazakh winter, the money was arranged only a few months ago & unlikely to have had an impact yet, so current production is very unlikely to be much to write home about, which may explain the lack of any update. It would be sensible to update the market on how they plan to spend the money and to give us some production forecasts (for what they are worth) for the next 2 years.

I have noticed that the day traders and rampers have disappeared onto their next target. I expect they will be back at some point.

Positive news should impact the SP significantly IMO. Although there is always the risk that minority shareholders are screwed.

a rusty bucket...seemingly full of sand,...a tempting place to bury ones head.

Personally I just skip the offending poster (stt1)....mostly because he is highly repetitive, which bores me. I sometimes wonder why people respond to him, but it's a free country (for a little while longer)...so let them knock themselves out.

Mostly I find joy in imagining the look on his demented face when the SP increases by 13% in one day....where did he go so wrong!!!

More chance of a share buyback than a dividend, I would have thought.

It could be an automatic process, where an algorithm automatically tops up when their holding falls below the target.