Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

A joke? It's a reasonable assumption based on how the market reacted when the Pfizer test results came out. When it is authorised for emergency use, it will be the very first vaccine to become available and surely it is perfectly logical to expect stocks associated with COVID-19 to be affected in the same way.

Accusing a perfectly reasonable and sensible comment of being "subtle deramping" suggests paranoia. The stock will almost certainly bounce back as it did last time, as I said, so there really is no need to be defensive or insulting. The Financial Times expects emergency authorisation next week, with distribution starting shortly afterwards.

Can't imagine what you mean Lollers, merely responding to MrDribbles polite request for additional questions. He has previously expressed concern over the evil fish-stealing EU stopping us from eating haddock with the skin on. Surely we should discuss all aspects of this urgent topic and how it affects Orph?

"Global pandemic. Looming unavoidable market crash & global depression. Any other questions?"

Is it eating haddock skin which makes you dribble so much, MrDribbles?

With the Pfizer vaccine likely to approved in the UK next week, I see the SP going down in the near term, but probably bouncing back a week later.

I don't see this reaching £1 this year or next, but possibly getting close in 2022 if we're lucky. Bit greedy right now though - already up 400% this year, despite no revenue from data.

Why is there suddenly a "legal services" dept, and why did it change it's name from ST FRANCIS HOUSE LTD to ST.FRANCES HOUSE LTD after just 3 months?

Not clear which "sign off" people are referring to here. The UK govt has already signed a contract with hVivo, so for the London challenge study, all we're waiting for is approval from an ethics committee, presumably occurring next month. The design and manufacture of a COVID-19 test strain for phase 1, the characterisation is study, is already well advanced.

As far as the Leiden proposal goes, that will also require regulatory approval, eventually, but so far all they have is volunteers and an idea. "Researchers have not yet decided to conduct the trial"
https://www.firstwordpharma.com/node/1777730?tsid=6

Another great post from T3 - this point worth noting for the risk-averse:
"As study sponsor, Imperial will be liable for any negative side-effects volunteers may experience in this study. "

Last year XPP cancelled the Q4 dividend (36p) and the Q1 dividend for the current year (est 18-20p). It seemed overcautious at the time, and proved to be so, with XPP actually benefiting from COVID-19 in the form of extra healthcare and other sales. Management were well compensated for this good performance, but shareholders missed dividends unnecessarily, and when they resumed in Q2 they were at the same level as the year before, i.e. a reduction in real terms. It will be interesting to see what the Q4 dividend will be in January, and whether any "special" dividend will be forthcoming to correct the iniquity. If not, even more shareholders might rebuke the remuneration committee at the next vote.

Following amerloque's excellent research, but with a shiny new thread.
It seems probable that the whole case hangs on what amerloque has identified - were nanoco guilty of inequitable conduct in the form of misleading the US patent office. While on the face of it, that seems ridiculous, why would they? It is clearly a common defense in such cases, and the devil is in the detail. We know that ME has said in the past that they patent things strategically, because published patents sometimes give away clues to rivals. This is presumably the tiny bit of wriggle room Samsung are attempting to exploit on a grand scale. Absent compelling details, that still seems to leave Nano as favourites in this case, because MEs previous statements are evidence of someone seeking not to mislead, but simply to prevent theft.

In the results, there were a large number of fairly unusual costs: bad debt provision for COVID-19, office relocation and property restructuring, goodwill impairment, charges associated with business restructuring. Reads like a clearing of the decks, total of £112m. Bad debts to small businesses destroyed by the pandemic might mean another provision next year, but the other items are presumably likely to be lower? Sage are possibly gearing up for the competition for new business arising from the new wave of small companies likely to spring up when the pandemic eases.

QD bioprobing visualised: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927776518302194

It's a small, earnings neutral project, but it revivifies the comatose life sciences dept and shows there are still small hints of life outside the court room! There is also a Human Challenge study for COVID-19 due to run from January - May in London, the first in the world to deliberately infect volunteers, also funded by the UK government. Virology is attracting a lot of worldwide interest for obvious reasons, and has been underfunded for years.

Thanks Ted and Spinner, great posts. The key value in ORPHs data seems to lie in it's progressive nature, i.e. the possibility of there being detectable patterns. Although our data is not unique in this respect, as some here seem to think, it is a rare set. You seem to assume that accurate biomarkers are present, which seems possible, but scientists have been studying this for some time without much apparent success. Perhaps the wearables companies believe their AI can find something, and are willing to bet on it. If so, and if they are successful, they could potentially open up a whole new field of virology as well as revolutionising world healthcare. Seems a bit like science fiction, but then, so did wearables a few years ago! I suspect their aims are considerably lower than that though. You also seem to assume that these aggregated patterns are applicable to individual cases: that may be a very difficult hurdle to overcome. I remain sceptical, and anticipate a fairly modest outcome for OO, but hope I'm wrong!

"the fourth significant deal to close in three weeks. "
Funny, what happened three weeks ago?

You are describing how a wearable takes measurements Spinner7. That's also not what the question was. How does the wearables data and OO data link up? There needs to be an efficient matching up process for which even the components don't yet seem to exist?

The question was not what data OO have, but how that data can be used by a wearable device. When asked, people here shrug their shoulders as if that is unimportant, including the CEO, and in some ways it is, because we're just selling data, not applications. One idea is that it might be possible to parse the OO data to identify biomarkers which indicate a likelihood of illness, maybe even the type of illness. These biomarkers could then be used to create an algorithm which is capable of translating data available from the devices sensors into a rough diagnosis or warning signal. Apple currently use advanced algorithms to amplify and enhance data from it's optical heart rate sensor into various useful health measurements, so there is some progress in this area, albeit with limited accuracy so far.

This new data-driven wearables company in Boston seems to be ahead of even Apple for health monitoring: https://www.builtinboston.com/2020/10/28/whoop-raises-100m-unicorn-hiring
There is no hint of being able to diagnose specific diseases like CF was suggesting, but it does apparently give a stress reading for exercise workouts, and it is interesting that it focuses on wellbeing, rather than fitness

Well that was a very early COVID warning in October, but it only really got bleak on the markets mid February. Hopefully we are into a much more optimistic phase for the next few months. Although Biden will take a softer approach on trade, I'd expect him to be tougher over human rights, which could affect Pru in HK. Some sort of deal is needed to encourage the Chinese to abide by the agreed schedule instead of unilaterally grabbing control. That seems at least a possibility with the new administration.

Do you still maintain your long held view that Ping An will eventually make a takeover bid gold5? That would certainly be lucrative, but might face regulatory hurdles, or hurt UK national pride! (the Man from the Ping?)

"You gave detail nothing.

You came on here basically stating he's lying on wearables and just pulling numbers out for people he's speaking to. If you choose to impugn his reputation without evidence you get treated as a punk. Ok Bud.

Timescales have not got vaguer all around the same period. When you run a business that you build from a few million to over a hundred then start talking from experience. until then it's best you don't denigrate a reputation. Deals worth tens of millions take time; he's delivered and will deliver more. You just blah,blah blah."

You are mistaken. Details are CF's own words, extracted from his presentation. He claimed the wearables opportunity was only announced 6 weeks ago, when it was actually being debated on this board 2 months ago. That is defensive, and suggests the deal is far less imminent than he anticipated. "up to ten" potential buyers is woolly, because it limits only the top number, and could even mean zero. Previously he has said "one or two" companies are interested, still oddly vague, but at least it ruled out zero. Why doesn't he know the number? His original self-imposed timescale was an auction by the end of the year, now he talks about something undefined in "a few weeks". So the outlook has demonstrably weakened and is more opaque than previously. Nothing I said was derogatory, it is simply reasoned analysis of one aspect of the business. Resorting to insults and putting words in my mouth (again) was popular, but naughty. As I have said before, I trust CF to get some sort of deal in this area, and I'm not suggesting, as you claim, that he is "lying", but his words lack confidence, clarity and consistency. It is simply a fact that his guidance on the issue has changed, and not for the better. Don't see what's wrong with facing up to that, and can't see any need for an emotional overreaction when someone merely points it out

I see it steadily growing in line with the official policy of a progressive dividend - they've managed to do that so far, during two of the most challenging periods any newly floated company has had to face. Jatw is right to warn that it depends on financial performance, and they may decide the policy cannot be maintained. It is even possible they could cancel the dividend altogether, like many other companies have done, but that's unlikely, imo.