Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

" What I was deeming irrelevant was the idea that the coming election has had any impact on 'delay' decisions by IES management on 'alleged' deals, or whatever your point was. "

I see, so you were referring to the secondary point I made rather than the main point, but didn't say so. The afterthought was suggesting that expectation of an imminent change in administration might account for customers delaying signing deals, for the obvious reasons of uncertainty over tax changes and changes to other regulations and incentives affecting their own finances. If that was what you curtly dismissed as "irrelevant", as you now claim, any particular reason for that?

Not from Turkey then?

Staggering stagnancy stats Markshares, but Moany man? Annoyed? He loves the world and everything in it - he's practically the fifth Beatle. How does it feel to be one of the beautiful people?

Hilarious WH doublespeak Ivy: the leading vaccines out of the "more than five" (better known as 6) he has invested in distribution for are, in fact, from the UK and Germany

Interesting angle, Jatw. Isn't this a more localised issue though, because the majority of prospective Ant investors were presumably from Shanghai and HK, whereas Pru (and AIA?) stakeholders are perhaps mainly from elsewhere?

The Chinese were probably actually right to question the harmfulness of a lending model they don't understand, but the way it was done, particularly the extreme lateness, seems indicative of the communists' casual, confused and contemptuous attitude towards the financial markets.

The regular contract wins demonstrate the total accuracy of CFs assertion a few months ago that he thought it was obvious how to "fix" Venn, and later, hVivo. It only took him a matter of months. His even earlier assertion - that data is the new oil - is surely also true, but is taking longer to tap financially. We now have a rapidly improving "picks and shovels" company as a solid bedrock, the bonus of expanding COVID-19 work into the foreseeable mid-term, and an imminent windfall from our share in the now unique universal flu vaccine, not to mention the malaria one. What many of us hope is that, ultimately, all of that becomes merely a sideshow by comparison with a successful data and data analysis business.

The SP certainly seems to depend more on politics than on performance these days. Barclays 1505p target price is a reminder of how far it has fallen compared to a professional assessment of underlying value. The political slant is not necessarily unrealistic though, as Pru's prospects are clouded by the increasingly nasty authoritarian region they operate in.

Not necessarily, big players like the tech giants and the Chinese Communist Party obtained most of their data about us for free, for example. What ORPH owns is a great library of data about a specific area of health, which is definitely worth something, but how much is dependent on a number of factors. Competition between big players is one, but AI capability is perhaps the biggest, because unless patterns can be found in the data which enable an marketable algorithm, the data is not of much value to the wearables companies. That's why the ball is really in their court, and ORPH is reliant on competition to pull off a successful auction BEFORE any such value has been established. A partnership where efforts and profits are shared might be a realistic alternative.

Great find Butty, it confirms a lot of our speculations: the new sensors create the opportunity, the algorithms amplify sensor data into something useful, they are exploring ways to create more algorithms for different conditions, and some data for this can be obtained from other sources. This sentence puts the idea in context though: "Desai stressed that the sensors in its devices are for health and wellness purposes, and that users shouldn’t rely on the device for clinical information."

Unclear why the SP has been falling, possibly some big shareholders unhappy with what they perceive as poor corporate governance, i.e. management greed? Could just be profit taking though, as it doubled over the last year, or uncertainty over the effect the US election might have on trading.

Good to see another product approved and the company poised for commercialisation. SP has drifted substantially, but things still happening behind the scenes.

Glad to help Moany. BTW you've twice attacked the ethics committee, for no apparent reason, but they provide a useful independent review. The people you should direct your demented unreasonable hostility towards are the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, who will actually approve the study (or not).

Challenge trials are already being worked on, but the actual study doesn't commence till January. How can they do it any earlier when the vaccines are not even ready yet and the challenge virus has not been manufactured, and the volunteers have not been screened? Also, how do you sack an ethics committee which hasn't even been convened: who would you send the notices to? What will you do about the media backlash and criticism from the medical community? Wouldn't it perhaps be better to just continue with the agreed timescales and follow the sensible and reasonable regulatory steps?

My own research shows the price went from 11.44 to 10.10 during ramper Z's chosen timescale. His crystal balls are wonky.

It probably comes down to a mutual assessment of just how rare and valuable the data actually is. Although the hVivo data is deep, long and rich in detail, there will certainly be virology data available elsewhere, which may be an alternative route to success for 'the Wearables'. No way for us to gauge this, probably very difficult even for those close to it, which argues for some kind of partnership. CFs instincts may be against that, but I trust him to make a right decision, and I credit him for spotting this opportunity out of nothing - value hiding in plain sight.

Interesting viewpoint Swape. The ethics might have to wait until someone actually transmogrifies the data into something genuinely useful, but assuming they can, you are obviously right: it should be made available to as many as possible. Before that though, there has to be a financial incentive to move it forwards. Most investors seem keen to see a fast sale and recoup a dividend ASAP, which was CF's idea for the entire company until shortly after he bought hVivo. There would be no problem with that if it was seen as a non-core asset, like flu-V, but it seems more central. If OO is now being treated as a longer term project, Greend100's idea of sustainable recurring revenue (CF has never specifically mentioned it) has more business logic.

Interest from Amazon ups the stakes. Their recent entry into the health space with Halo makes the wearables story much more credible now, imo:
"The gold standard in the medical world for body composition analysis is a DEXA scan (dual-energy absorptiometry), which can cost up to $100 at a lab. The Halo app does it all using your smartphone camera. Once you take your photos, the app automatically eliminates everything else in the background, calculates body fat percent based on body indicators, and then creates a 3D model of your body, which is both cool and terrifying. "
https://www.cnet.com/news/amazon-halo-new-health-app-fitness-tracker-metrics-include-body-fat-tone-of-voice/

It looks like it's the data, not the databases, where the action will be, as they will probably need to transform it into a different format, i.e. algorithms for their apps. There must still be some uncertainty about how easy or even feasible that is, but you can see why they are interested, and in serious competition with Apple.

Good perspectives from that article on timescales and reassurance for OO investors that a successful vaccine doesn't signal a downturn for virology work:

"it’s possible that we could have a vaccine this side of Christmas,” [said Kate Bingham, head of the UK’s vaccine taskforce]
“But, you know, I’ve called it a slim chance and I think it is a slim chance. I think we’ve got a better chance of generating that data early next year"

" Expectations of what the first vaccine will do are probably way too high. It will not end the pandemic. To be approved, it needs to be at least 50% effective.

Dr Nick Jackson, from CEPI, the coalition on epidemic preparedness .. says even when we have vaccines in use, safety will still have to be monitored. "the continuous monitoring for safety after these initial licenses is also going to be absolutely paramount”."

"I presume that e-discovery may relate to emails etc. These will be important for establishing wilful infringement and hence damages."

But as I said just a few posts ago, the opposite is likely true: the aim of this motion is to limit email evidence and other digital data because history shows it is not usually relevant to these disputes, costs money, and slows things down for both sides

The signed deals really are starting to stack up Swape, and beyond 2021 too: can't understand how anyone thinks this is overvalued on "fundamentals" when the evidence keeps pointing the other way, but each to his own