Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

Think that ones behind a paywall Bermuda? Here's another:
http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/news/memory-professor-david-newland-1936-2020

FDA considering emergency authorisation of an antiviral pill which apparently halves the risk of death for people infected with COVID-19:
https://www.ft.com/content/e1a059dc-ab09-47c0-b7b9-2b79dd1c911b

If transparency is clear then the issue revolves around how the rule is worded and how it is generally interpreted. The answer is probably long, boring and quite likely amounts to "nothing to see here", but it is a journalistic duty to raise the questions and hold power to account. One might even criticise the press for not noticing earlier, given the longevity of the alleged discrepancy? They may have only been provoked to report on it following interest in the Nancy Pelosi story mentioned earlier in this thread? (she registered her husbands financial activity as required, and was subsequently hailed as a share tipster, and then also accused of insider trading)

" AN is top notch and utterly professional. Great communicator."

Didn't he get a bit close to his microphone during the Q&A though? lol
I was impressed with ANs unusual precision about timing and numbers, hope the reality is close to the theory.

Good question davyuk. Assuming it was a successful dual listing I don't think there would be any dilution, because the new shares would be sold, potentially even at a premium, thereby generating capital and retaining overall value per share. Benefits would include increased liquidity, greater market capitalisation, a cash pile, and probably a higher valuation. There would be some costs as well, of course. According to this site, dual listings are linked, so a soaring SP in the US would presumably be matched here: https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/trading-investing/dual-listing/

*PTAB that is (Patent Trial and Appeal Board)

I agree with Basscadet. Those accusing the WSJ of smearing may need to look in the mirror - the story is based on evidence, which is a lot better than assumptions. According to this website, the WSJ is not particularly biased politically: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/wall-street-journal-media-bias
Corporate shenanigans would surely be focused on the PATB anyway, judge hobbling now seems pointless.

Thanks Phantom. Extremely positive and encouraging. As a newcomer Dibs, I'd gently suggest that there are lots of companies out there and a limit to how many people can follow. With three major milestones anticipated in the next six months though, there is a good chance AGL visibility will improve, and if the FDA response is positive then we should really gain some traction.

yet their articles seem to indicate that they truly are foolish?
https://www.fool.co.uk/investing/2021/09/21/why-did-the-prudential-share-price-crash/
The price did not "crash" because "the market’s big investors don’t much like the idea " of the HK fund raising - it was obviously no surprise to anyone and irrelevant to the temporary blip. If Osborne avoids Pru because of the "relatively low dividend" then why is he invested in Aviva, when M&G's yield is so much higher? When he posits Pru as a Chinese play, he's missing the entirety of the rest of Asia, which is ignorant and misleading, and when he asks "those Chinese live longer than western customers, don’t they? " the answer is "no, Alan, they don't, apart from Hong Kong": https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/

Finally, when he concludes that "there’s a risk that traditional Prudential investors will shy away from the company now. So I reckon we could see some share price weakness over the next year or two", he doesn't seem aware that there is a completely new market of investors just opened up in Hong Kong, and Asia generally, or that Pru now offers a more focused appeal to non-traditional investors. So applying the full facts to his line of reasoning produces the exact opposite of his assessment.

Despite giving all his reasons for not investing in the past, he then suddenly changes tack and blurts "Prudential is definitely on my list of candidates. And I might finally buy some." His justification is that " the Chinese market {has} got to be one of the best ways of looking to expand the business in the decades ahead." Again, it's not just China and the changes have been flagged for months, Pru's policy has been Asia-focused for a decade or more, and all the caveats he listed are still in place, in fact the dividend is even worse now, so his given reason for a U-turn also makes no sense whatsoever.

Pru reporting an estimated $2.4bn raised in HK, and planning to use it to redeem $2.25bn of high-coupon bonds. Seems like they've got $150m spare cash for a celebration party?

Looks like they burned through £7.6m cash in six months, but following the fundraising they sit on just under £40m: comfortable position with plenty of flexibility for rapid growth. Launch of services a great way to demonstrate capabilities as well as kickstarting revenue, and no shortage of customers it seems, even before FDA approval.

Looked at from a more positive angle: first half organic sales have gone from zero to £0.1m, with more to come in the second half and on an ongoing basis. The purchase of Albyn has been immediately successful. Further fundraising is always a possibility to fuel growth, but with revenue visibly increasing, both organically AND from acquisitions (it all counts!) the need for it is surely diminishing.

Those paper manufacturers at Hansol seem to have become QD aficionados, it's good they've patented their work so no scumbag can steal it from them

Hi all. Yesterdays news was compelling, and SP looked reasonable, so took a punt. My 3rd pharma related investment after ORPH and CREO. Saw the video from about a year ago saying approval anticipated in "a minimum of 6 months". No mention of the maximum ( : Apparently a possible NASDAQ listing following approval would potentially put rockets under this, with the main worry being whether the game-changing technology is just good to be true? News appears to substantially confirm it's efficacy, as far as I can tell. FDA approval is likely the key to everything, as others have observed - revenue, re-rating, and visibility.

Asian investors seem to love the mildly discounted price. Smiling Mike claims "a focus on achieving long-term double-digit growth in embedded value per share", so a radical policy change from the last 5 years then? ( : Hope the worst is in the rear view mirror for the SP now, good reason for optimism over future results presentations.

Seems like the broker's trying to revive the rumours that raised the SP earlier in the year? Schroders thought long and hard then walked away, apparently because they regarded the actual process of merging the businesses too risky (?) The Times was suggesting it could be attractive to a company specialising in business transformation who could strip out inefficiencies. Anyone who knows M&G will tell you this would mean destroying the culture there and rebuilding from scratch ( : Some big American firm might be overconfident enough to attempt it? Management should show clearer signs of transforming and modernising the business themselves: the market seems to regard this as a cheap unloved antique

Maybe simply money returning to the market after the China scare? The money had to go somewhere and perhaps some are diversifying into other territories.

Justification for the SP drop is that analysts were expecting more, but if they were expecting more than this great set of results then the SP should not have been so low in the first place! Looks undervalued now, with management vindicated and prospects transparently positive.

The new conservative guidance should help restore confidence and momentum in the SP, but CF is surely biting his tongue - underselling must feel so negative ( :

So basically it's... ORPH in the Underwhelmed?
I'll get me coat

Great find Confounded. Ongoing ethical arguments seem unconvincing - the knowledge gained already demonstrably far outweighs the relatively small risks, can't see how anyone could reasonably argue otherwise now - slight risk to a consenting few versus absolutely certain and higher risk to the entire world population, seems like a no-brainer? One thing the Economist didn't comment on is the relatively slow progress of the human challenge study, still in phase 1 almost a year after announcement: slightly ironic when it's primary aim is to speed up the acquisition of knowledge. Vaccines were invented and rolled out from scratch quicker than that.