Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

"there are still a lot of people in science, government and cautious but powerful lobby groups who are still against any sort of human challenge study."
Are there? I think the debate about it was entirely valid, and was concluded positively months ago. Assuming the characterisation phase continues to be successful, there seems no reason or grounds to revisit that debate. The extension is presumably due to new variants so may well have more urgency than the initial phase, especially if the aim is glean knowledge to guide vaccine choices for booster jabs this winter.

End of the initial characterisation study was already announced, along with it's extension. The extension probably means a fairly lengthy delay to the main contracts, and therefore to revenue, slightly offset by some additional revenue from the extension. I would hope the extension is on significantly quicker timescales than the original, but who knows.

However, if any significant data has already been generated regarding transmission etc. that should give quite a boost to ORPH if and when published - it would give DIM much more visibility and credibility, for example, and possibly be beneficial to POLB too. Success from the characterisation phase should lead to rapid approval of the main study, imo.

"We have never seen such a coordinated, sustained effort to generate real-time genomic surveillance data at this scale and pace, and this is why the UK is world-leading in the genomic sequencing of SARS-CoV-2."

https://www.hpcwire.com/2021/07/29/how-uk-scientists-developed-transformative-hpc-powered-coronavirus-sequencing-system/

80p threshhold guy probably needs to up his game to 90p on these results? Big slowdown in customer growth blamed on Nigerian Sim card registration, but profits going through the roof and into the stratosphere anyways - looks seriously undervalued on these numbers.

Market overreactions are always surprising. It's surprising how surprising they are.
SP down about 30p on a dividend roughly half of that, suggests market makers are far too sensitive to fairly predictable buying before XD, and selling afterwards. Spread is nice and low though: good opportunities for nimble traders.

I had a clear line of sight, but couldn't bring myself to pull the trigger

Not with AJ Bell (or Trading 212), but mine was paid on dividend day: 23rd July. Payment by cheque is quaint, I would question why do they do that when other providers obviously use faster methods. Possibly it keeps costs down? Good luck Sunny.

Share Price up 19p so far today, dividends only worth 17.36p - will be interesting to see what happens after ex-div on Thursday. Some profit taking is likely, but it looks like BMY has been re-rated based on the trading update, with some downside worries more or less eliminated through strong proof of the validity of the diversification strategy. More to come here, surely, with higher margin business growing so strongly?

"overheads are down. Whilst these aren’t visible from the recently reported numbers due to increases in staff numbers to facilitate the company’s increased pipeline of challenge studies, this can be seen from the pro forma numbers and will have a bigger impact on 2021 numbers as Open Orphan moves into profitability."

We were supposed to have "moved into profitability" last year, surprised CF still spinning exactly the same story, for over a year now. The £6 million additional losses in H2 cannot be explained away by a retrospective "increases in staff numbers" never mentioned before: that is nonsense and should not be accepted by anyone seeking to understand the true financial situation. An £11 million loss is surely due to a lot more than staff costs. What are the specific staff levels required, for which contracts, and why they are so expensive? How many more staff are needed to win new contracts going forward, and how much will they cost? Apologies for negativity, just being honest: we need realistic guidance on costs, not a fob off.

Thanks glynbristol. On the face of it, that's a bland article stating the bleedin obvious "Two key considerations emerged: the justification for such research and the management and minimization of risks." Well, you don't say? The decision to issue an RNS about this suggests CF is worried about waning credibility of the vaunted HC study contracts and wants to counter it.

It is interesting that the UK is now preferring the Pfizer vaccine to AZ, and there are concerns in the US about the J&J vaccine's effectiveness against the Delta variant. It is this sort of reasoning CF should be using - the ongoing threat and urgent need for vaccine comparisons is much more compelling than anything in that article. The NEJM ought perhaps to be looking into why the HC programme has progressed so slowly during a pandemic, compared to, say, vaccine development - 9 months after announcement we are nowhere near even the end of the characterisation study.

Looks like you were spot on Janus1 - a tremendous update for the first four months, continuing the trend and confirming consensus views for the year. Latest acquisitions generating significant revenue, non-consumer division growing strongly. Holders being rewarded well here, with management reading their markets nicely.

Sort of Janus. BMY is a rare riser in todays market. I'm speculating it's due to people jumping in 10 days ahead of an unusually large dividend - if so, there will be a corresponding fall if they all sell when it goes ex-div. Rise could be for other reasons though, analysts perceptions of BMY may be evolving.

Latecomers getting on board the dividend special ?
XDD on 29th - get ready for the big jolt ( :

"the results weren't bad per se"
Nobody here predicted an increased loss. Neither did CF. Some expected a profit. The results were bad in themselves, bad compared to expectations and guidance, and still haven't been fully explained. Pretending they weren't bad risks making the same error of judgement - that's why we need to hear what happened to the costs, and what is being done about it. Most people seem only interested in contracts and revenue, and CF seems happy to just talk about that. Costs are key here, and the lack of transparency is the main reason for the temporary drop, imo.

Another recycled story. Groundhog day?

Never mind Tom, "Mail today", but who knows about tomorrow? ( :

Impressive summary of Nanoco's promising position in an increasingly credible product line. This point was a neat double-whammy: " operational trading companies which actually practise their IP, such as Nanoco, typically enjoy higher success rates at trial than those who do not".

Presumably the recent sudden price drop was due to rumours about this "fundraising", but with risk reduced cheaply, it's a positive development.

Yes deepjoy, some good reasoning about the price dip - we can now price the dividend effect @ about -3.5p, and he also talked about backers taking money out of ORPH to invest it in POLB, probably another few pence off, then there's the general market downturn on inflation fears. Seems like we can possibly expect some kind of resurgence now based on the grand re-opening of CF's mouth, but the costs issue remains unresolved, afaic.

Thanks BurtonD, interesting short interview. Some good questions, but she missed the most important one, imo: why did costs get so completely out of control last year, increasing the loss far more than expected or guided, and what is being done to make sure it doesn't happen again. No guidance at all on this issue, the main reason for the dip, imo.

Great news confirming the continuation of the HC studies, although it is somewhat disappointing that they are extending the characterisation phase rather than moving on to the study proper as originally anticipated. On the other hand, it is a logical step based on increased knowledge.

XS date was key, but the completion of the spin-off may have some influence on SP, as could the actual market valuation of Poolbeg's assets - potentially an inflection point?