Member Info for Blue83

I think the request is made because in the view, or argument put forward, by the DHSC there is a simple flaw to the defense that will undo it. We have speculated here often what that may have been amidst much push back against discussion by the likes of Larry & Karen telling points made by shareholders as invested as themselves that they were "traders" who need to "jog on" etc. It was just sad guys.

I still reckon the timing of the dispute is the best clue. The DHSC withheld payment & commenced dispute for deliveries after the day NCYT announced the release of PROmate on 16 Nov 2020. Can they have expected, against all specific references contained in the 29 Sep 20 contract for ex-sig, to receive PROmate instead? There was not enough information available to the public to understand why or how they might have thought that & hence why a sensible forum of discussion might have helped PIs avoid huge losses Larry & Karen.

No doubt the timing in context of announcement of release of vaccines developed in Project Warp speed in the first week of November, seemingly timed after result of US election) & the DHSC switch to purchase huge numbers of lateral flow tests from Innova, subsequently banned from use in the USA by the FDA for inaccuracy). That scam would have also been interesting as a topic for discussion & with hindsight role of China too. It seems to me NCYT got a jump on the whole market through having a branch set up in China in 2019 on a mysterious epidemic that became a selling exercise of Chinese products.

Good for you andy.

There is relief at evidence of progress on an expectation they could set among the scant guidance possible on so many others.

There can't be much cash left for wages this month & next without some new finance. I wondered whether the risk of being taken off the market brought the SP so low or whether it was the accumulated drain in confidence from what they have told the market over all these quarters/years. Lets hope the LCD does not turn out to be another benefit in theory rather than in commerciality.

I think they said on 28 Sep that tests sold in the NY area had been provided last quarter in the disappointing sales figures (by reduction against sales in the last quarter rather than as an Admin expense for doubtful debt (not sure why that method)) on the basis that payment had held up by their customer due to the LCD determination process. Does that sound right? If so, perhaps sales/results will be improved by release of the provision and return to recognition of the normal run rate & breaking sales of $1m p q?!

The call seem to have new realism to me - new emphasis on directing sales to primary care physicians and a sharper knife ending to end at $1m pq burn end of 2026. Can we guess it would cost about the same as the entire mcap now? Does that sound like a case for the fresh capital to be done privately or would the prospect of the business at the end of it be attractive enough?

Basis for my guesses:

They start at burning $10m pq and achieve $5-3m during (calendar year) 2024, can we think of total outflow being c$46m to 30 June 2026 (say run rate starting Q2 of 8,7,6 | 5,4,3,3 | 3,3,2,2 = 38) with net revenue inflow of c$26m ( 0,0,1 | 1,1,2,3 | 4,4,5,5 = 26) so discussions underway to finance c$20m - call it $25m or 100% dilution of mcap.

Agree, it'll be a steal

VA is not even mentioned when they were working on 59 centers in June 22 having 2 completed then and 7 near complete, 8 expected to be complete by Dec 22 and a cloud based interface supporting nationwide coverage by June 23. Was that all a dud or now on hold for the new ownership arrangements?

By Tuesday they may only have $5/3m left of the $25m at June if they spend at $8/9 pq, that is enough for 8-4 weeks or to 16 Jan at the latest so high fiving a distribution agreement in the Middle East really will be "wind and p**s" without a new plan.

Setting tests as standard at MS would be a breakthrough - good suggestion Andy. Why didn't they mandate more tests in the first place. It seems not all MS clinicians use the test even now with IT in place and as McCulloch put it "rivers crossed".

The demand for tests has been so little influenced by efforts that it is hard to understand the case for current costs if there isn't a Plan B. Has effort gone on providing requirements of health system administrators or insurers or teams of consultants with too little contact with the clinicians who place orders? Doesn't it have the feel of an IT project carrying on developing functionality, almost for its own sake, without practicality or commerciality? Or perhaps of a business focused on the representatives of the real customers without understanding the real levers for demand of its product. I wonder whether business development spend their time with health system administrators or IT with insufficient contact with clinicians to be able to influence their decisions to order a test or not.

So does a problem seem to be that insurers sign up to coverage for their policy holders without linking with PCPs or the representatives to establish what access they will need to use the test? I don't understand why resources covered in the burn of $9m per quarter are not more able to bridge the gap somewhere given the urgency so that anywhere would do if the are going to have to dilute c25% just keep going 6 months.

I took it as a bad sign they started this quarter by setting expectations lower so agree on c 1,000. Their tactic of announcing whatever they can in advance of quaterly result was dissappointing too so perhaps SP will a drop before the FDA decision.

I was disappointed that the McLain took the opportunity to point out that revenues for the March quarter will be held back by the transition to commercial payemnt at Mt Sinai. (at 12.40-12.60 on the recording https://edge.media-server.com/mmc/p/oub5knjk)

I hoped that although process may have changed at Mt Sinia volume might have maintained overall revenue level which was only $1.2m QE Dec (not up much on QE Sep).

They must be waiting for FDA to support the next cash raise, or hopefully, perhaps the better case of FDA approval followed by a period in which revenues are material and do positively surprise everyone "to cross the rubicon" as they said.

Hasn’t the VA been disappointing? No mention of centers expected to be offerring tests by now or by YE that was so topical back on 31 Oct. The fruit of that verbage was covered by saying the " VA was complicated" & reiterating hopes for the cloud offerring. Let’s hope for another rubicon crossing

hope that it is not all the info we get for this quarter, we need more specifics to understand the progress made towards "the news rich short term" if it is not to feel that they have been crying wolf again. Lets hope revenue was $1.2m or plus with better volumes & deterimation due otherwise it will seem they roll out news to raise for a placing & are still living in their unaccountable lifestyle.

Cash balance $16m was at 30 Jun 22 with burn say at $1m pm meaning 9 months later cash may be at what $7m? so news is needed to shore up the current mcap of $9.5m & SP at 5p or 6 cents. Even if the burn had left $10m, they still need a report of revenue or some collaboration or buy out its over 100% dilution to raise $10m now at 6 cents & if they did not raise equity they could take on debt without visibility of revenue.

It seems like junk to me now. My thoughts are with Barbara Murphy, what a shame : (

TRSL nearly the same - even the $19m they had at Dec 22 for a burn of something under $1m pm (so $16m now?) seems unlikely IMO to support the time it will take YE22 revenue c $30k to up sufficiently.

I am out, what a shame, sad day.

GL to you all.

After such bad decisions here, I wonder whether RENX will finally deliver on just one of their promises this month as I have decided they never deliver on what they say.

The market IMO wondered what had been going on during the protracted wait for FDA approval. Would approval release a number of deals in the pipeline OR would the pipeline be unexplored & actually fraught with a new set of hurdles that had not been addressed in the extra (unfair) year of waiting. It turns out to be more evidence of the later which brings funding into sharper focus that if they had announced any deployments out of a pipeline.

Just in case EKF scan BBs like this, I echo a couple of previous comments

"The disappointment is that inside information not available to private investors has made them the short term losers." Vigneron

& as unhooked puts it "I didn't expect a company like EKF to be so leaky!"

Agree - previously thought EKF tried to do the right thing in the right way so its a greater disappointment for its governance to seem to be tainted. It will be interesting to see an RNS particularly if a clever II reports an increase in holdings (presumably from a net increase having sold & bought back in)

European Respiratory Journal 2022 60 seems to have been issued in Sep 22 for info

"Prof SSH and Wilko will retire with reputations intact" - hardly!

The two took Interferon into a trial EITHER without understanding the effect the Standard of Care would have on its function and therefore its likely benefit OR they understood that benefit from Interefon would be inhibited when combined with the SoC treatment but went ahead regardless. In either case, investment in the representations they make has been undermined by what - 95% ish? So big dent in reputation.

The medical experts at Venrock Healthcare seem to have much stronger basis for reputation. Perhaps they twigged what would happen way back in Nov 20 when they pulled out or just appreciated the economics of public heath would drive less costly/more widely available treatments hard to be chosen in SoC better, & at todays SP roughly 19 times better rep!

Lets hope there is more to it, otherwise, they have not understood the metabolics of Interferon & have a diminishing cash balance left unless there is more to it than that. : (

GLA

Presume vote was carried

I looked on the 4D web site but can not find today's vote results, they redirect to Link & 4D or DDDD does not come up on their search.

It is the cash burn coupled with the absence of a plan for building revenue. AN proposed a gentle approach, it has delivered next to nil, we can not tell how much spent last year was one off on FDA or discretionary spend & how much related to a continuing sales effort that is not delivering - all we can see is underdelivery and a cash crash looming.

Hoping for a takeover of stake built towards a takeover

Commercialisation is just not the skill set of these directors.

Even the appointment of a M&A/ finance specialist as a Non Exec suggests an acknowledgement of the deficiency and an illustration of it in chosing one currently providing the same role to Novacyt! Wouldn’t you check how successful the specialist you bring in is currently & steer clear of one delivering prospects that bring the Mcap to trade to under the level of the cash they hold (effectively representing a discount for managment ineffectiveness)

AN may disapprove of PIs who want a drive to profit, but look at that another way, & see revenue as a best available measure of how widely this wonderful technology is actually being used. Is it not massively, massively under delivering on the good it might be delivering in the world of breast cancer?

Best wish for 2023 must be a takeover at the rate of underachievement so far & no, it is nothing to do with financial headwinds affecting cancer detection, it is about the relationships.

Most likely case seems to be as jakeyork puts it "languishing as a basket case" adrift burning resources on R&D for technology that will be equally under used.

If they don’t backtrack, they’d buy tests from China & making sure to get the cheap ones that haven’t been tested properly & tend to show -ve results as a cost saving measure like they did 2 years ago.

The branch NCYT has in China was the reason for the headstart it had in testing 3 years ago. There must be a similar advantage in ground knowledge now on variants that may emerge in the millions of new infections per day.