It is rather. My pc has been playing up a little lately (due, probably, for another rebuild), so it could have caused the problem
Anyroadup, thanks for your feedback.
Morning The.Italian.
What I meant was that when I click on the "View more Plethora Solutions Holdings Plc share chat", for example. I then see a list by subject. Each subject can then be opened listing all associated posts. Before, when I clicked on the "View more.........", I would see a consecutive list of posts by time stamp.
Maybe I have somehow inadvertently clicked on a view button which shows them by subject ? I'll look around the webpage to see if there is a filter or flag button which I have accidentally invoked.
Meaning the share float must be small
Todays volume is only .044%, so very little for the large drop.
Remember, most of the HK investors just follow the crowd and know nothing about the company or the product. They just invest and sell after the trend.
Not necessarily, some just may need the money and are cutting their losses. Alternatively the MnMs could be lowering the price to trigger stop losses. Who knows who may want to buy shares. It could even be some entity linked to a us licensee. It’s anybodies guess.
As long as there is no further dilution, the sp will go up on news.
If it has indeed changed, I would hazard a guess it’s to ensure when LSE police delete posts, they capture all who post under a deleted subject. I don’t suppose it will work if posters change the subject matter ?
Anyone noticed that BB posts are now listed by subject and not time stamp when scrolling past the first page. Unless there is some switch which I have accidentally invoked to show historic posts by time stamp ?
That should have been “hoovering”
The M&Ms who it would appear are hovering up the shares must be laughing at their good fortune/luck.
Another 20% down as I write. That’s about 50% down in 4 days.
Market cap at about 22mil gbp. And back to where it was just before the DLI take over but now with twice as many shares.
And JMs rights take up is worth about 35% less
Certainly looks like some may have decided to take the money and run, yet there is only a matter of months before the announcement that the Chinese have submitted and the FDA process will have moved onto phase iii.
I’m sure he will def want a return, as will Jamie. It’s just a pity they didn’t get their act together sooner.
According to the report we have 7mill usd cash in the bank, however. Last year their operating costs were 6mill, yet there was also the loan which I assume paid for the phase II, meaning operating costs excluded the phase II costs. if that is the case, the company, therefore, will need to sort out a US license agreement to pay for it, although that is probably part of the deal? As such, I would suspect we will hear sooner rather than later on a licensing deal, otherwise JM will yet again need to sub the company to pay for it ? I don't recall reading anything regarding costs associated with phase III, if it happens, in the report. Seems we may have reached a catch 22 with regard the phase III. ie, will the company be shafted by a licensee since they will know there is no money for a phase III ?
Or Simply put Quite Easily Done....lol
Morning The.Italian.
Yes, I concede on that regarding not having a chance, although I would assume the OTC price and the ever closing of the patent window will mean a can price will be well below the original 100euros. This means probably more than double the number of sales will be needed to achieve any significant income,so let’s hope the OTC encourages sufferers to come out the closet wearing dark glasses and they buy at least 4 cans a year….lol
CI,
Not wanting to throw too much water on the fire, but the statement "we are now more hopeful that the royalty income
will experience exponential growth from 2023 and beyond" is misleading given it is referring to sales in "Europe" which you have appeared to miss in your cut'n'paste. The statement is of course made by JM who always makes absurd statements in the reports and the public domain (remember the "money tree" from 8 years ago) as well as other such guffs.
Even with OTC, which will have a huge discount/can, I cannot see huge sales coming in given the initial launch was a disaster with sales, in their word, "disappointing". They would need to sell probably more than double the number of cans to even come close to the expected income/royalty as projected when first launched.
What I am positive about, however, are the launches in China, which could happen next year, and not so much the US which, based on the way the company has "endeavored to bring the product to market as soon as possible" statements before, will, I am sure, take much longer (phase II = 4+ years). That's unless a licensee steps in and takes control which should accelerate matters since "money talks".
I may be wrong, but I feel China will be the turning point given the number of sufferers we are looking at (nearly 5 times that of the US). Even with a discounted price / can, it should still add up to a reasonable amount which should increase exponentially.... ;-)
just my opinion of course ;-)
So I would suspect its due to the capital reduction, otherwise everything else is quite positive.
The markets always knee jerk over react. Just have to look at the drops around the world these last few weeks due to the banking scares. And these knee jerks have become more volatile due to the impacts of inflation and interest rates following 3 years of covid, however. When they turn, they can jump pretty quickly which, I’m sure, will happen here.
The writings in the report do indicate a lot more than usual that things will start to come good this year.
Just my opinion of course ;-)
The.Italian,
Totally agree, however. Surely due to the recent rights issue, there are effectively less free shares to trade, even if the dilution increased the number by 2 it must have an impact on what's freely available. Would this become even more apparent with the 20 to 1 consolidation and the number of free shares although I still don't understand the need for 20 to 1 as opposed to 5 to 1 ?