Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. Watch the video here.
Hi belgrano - it’s probably more likely to be IFRS 15 which came into effect on 1 January 2018 and replaced IAS 15 - recognition on revenue on contracts. So more likely to relate to the revenue recognition of the milestone payments from the pharmaceutical company but admittedly not enough info in the RNS to be sure or to qualify.
The one thing that confused me in the RNS was when it referred to charges in international reporting standards may affect revenue. I thought that you book revenue when you sell something! Makes me wonder how Opti have been booking revenue in the past! To achieve revenue growth?!! Hmmm
It wouldn’t surprise me if Salinbas reveals something unexpected eg a significant resource of another commodity such as copper. View is just from something that I read about the company potentially getting involved in other commodities and perhaps that was a hint. Any other views?
Have done a little bit of research and i think that clinical trial records have to be kept for at least three years and that includes all patients consent forms, doctors notes, nurses notes etc so for the 11 people that had the toxicity issues surely they would have been followed up and their levels monitored and resolved. If I was to take part in a clinical trial that’s the least I would expect if my health was at risk! So why can’t they just got baxk to the records and establish what happened or do some further tests now. This whole thing doesn’t make sense.
I would love to know whether they presented the results to the FDA knowing there was a problem with the elevated liver enzymes or whether it’s down to sheer incompetence and that they didn’t think it was a significant enough issue. Hopefully it’s down to incompetence because they can do something about it. Whereas if they know there’s a problem they may as well stop now!
Have just listened to the Concall.
You can always tell when the BOD have messed up when you hear the CEO say they have a way forward rather than ask why they have ended up where they are and lessons that can be drawn from it (and which heads if any should roll). The problem seems to be that out of around 600 participants in the trial around 11 experienced raised enzyme levels in the liver around 3 weeks after they stopped taking the medication. This compares to around 6 in the existing competitor so almost double. And the raised levels were at higher levels than the competitor as well. So the BIG question is why did it take the FDA to point this out and what due process did the BOD undertake when the results were put together and prior to submission. Surely the chief medical officer or some other board member (CEO for eg) should have said - this could be an issue for the FDA so what can we do about it. The answer of course would be to do a follow up test on those 11 individuals and see whether the enzyme levels say 3 weeks later and to keep testing until those levels came back to normal. I am a mere GD if a mid sized co. But I would have definitely asked that question in a board meeting. So now the company is going to have to do a full trial again possibly at a cost of over £10m to address this which could have easily been resolved. STAGGERING. I guess the good news is that if they do it proper next time then this drug still has a good chance of progressing if it is found that the enzyme levels come down to normal (of course they may not and there could be permanent damaged) but what INCOMPETENCE. I have to say that the the CEO and CMO didn’t inspire any confidence and sounded like naval gazing wet lettuces. THet know they have stuffed up big style and are just hoping they don’t get found out.
I think before any further cash calls the BOD should commission and independent review if the stage 3 process and submission focussing on the liver toxicity issues and establishing:
What evidence they collected
What evidence they submitted
Any evidence held back
fDAs concerns
Why these concerns hadn’t been covered
Who in the company is at fault in misleading investors
Until this is properly investigated confidence levels are low
Your equity will only be diluted if you don’t invest in any equity raise or buy shares after the raise if we don’t participate in the raise. You cant expect to invest in aim related biotech companies without being aware that this might happen and being prepared to put in when it does to avoid dilution. Accepting a dilution is down to risk appetite of the individual investor. Only one in every 5,000 submissions make it to approval so we all understand the risks when we invest in this sector.
can Someone put me right on some basic assumptions based on info I have gathered. If both potential mines can generate 50,000oz gold pa which is Arianas target, with a seven year life (conservative) a cash cost of say $500 per oz (conservative) and a gold price of $1,300, then total revenues over a 7 year period are broadly 50k * 7 * 800 = $280m dividend by 2 (JV) equals $140m, in £ that is £110m less set up costs of mine say £20m and also admin cost of say £10m gives cash return of £80m which in my view is conservative. Am I missing something? . I know that some of this money will be spent on further exploration but that could give rise to even more returns. Company is massively undervalued in my opinion.
If you look at a company called Catalsyt this is an example of a resubmission of a phase 3 trial of Firdapse because of safety concerns and the drip was subsequently approved. This is just part of the process and the drug will no doubt get approved in due course. Be bold when other are fearful
I would have thought then that all they would need to do is a follow up of anyone in the trial to determine their liver condition now. Surely that would be relatively straightforward but I’m not a doctor although I have had a liver test and the results were available within a week!
Let’s not forget that, unlike say antidepressants or statins, antibiotics are a course of drugs taken over say 5-7 days. Therefore if there is any issue with the liver it would surely clear up once the course is complete. I think it should be easy to demonstrate no long term damage from existing data and presumably no one died during the trials. The fact that antibiotics is only a 5-7 day course is one of the reasons drug companies haven’t developed antibiotics as they prefer developing long term drugs (more profit). So for this simple reason in my view the liver issue will be solvable with existing data. If it was say antidepressants a different matter
On the basis motif bio costs around £15m pa to run, then even if it had been approved in March, they would have run out of money almost immediately. So there must be a commercial partner waiting in the wings ready to partner up and provide funds. So as long as the FDA do not reject completely, there will surely be funds available to get this over the line whatever is needed. So a strong buy for me
It doesn’t matter who the croupier is. It’s this casino you’re playing in that matters.
The only thing is the wheel could spin for some time yet before it lands on a colour!!
If you’re in a casino and have lost £100 and the croupier says - I’ll tell you what if you bet £20 on red and it come up,I’ll give you £1000 what would you do?
Hi Scott - that’s usually the way at it is with most CEOs these days. Look at Jeff Fairburn from Persimmon. Not exactly an entrepreneur but a company employee who got an HND at college and worked his way up to CEO and trousered over £100m in incentives. The only reason was governments help to buy supported by taxpayer. An extreme example but all CEOs are the same. Wouldn’t stop me from supporting another fund raise for motif if it gets over the line. Why stop now?