Member Info for Blue83

& still a long way to go : - (

Y, thanks

If we wanted to buy, wouldn't we place orders with our brokers, they'd hunt around to buy from known players or direct us to do the same - perhaps that is the where the CFD comes in. Amassing a target percentage is worth a strategy, meetings, timetable, plan & corrective measures depending on what the SP is doing, isn't it? Like by 1 Nov x %, by 15 Nov y%, target z% by 30 Nov etc

Polygon disclosed interest in the CFD column.

That would be where shorts being a contract for difference in the case of selling (at a set price) before buying (later)to satisfy the stock they owe would be disclosed.

I have seen it used in another situation where a stake is being built like here. Does that mean that the contract they have for difference is like a payment on account to buy - i.e. buying at a set price from some institution before the debt is settled by the institution assigning title of shares to them? The institution might either hold those shares or have gone out and bought on a market (without triggering TR1 requirement on themselves).

Is that it?

If so, I suppose that means Polygon would be able to ask the availability of more shares acquired under CFD & the downward pressure on the SP might come from Polgon & however many institutions are supplying them CFDs.

I wonder what they suspect that the note says.

The meeting seems to have been AFTER the go ahead date mentioned by Randox. Is the suspicion that the publicly available contract was subsequently varied in a private meeting? If so, documentation is crucial, surely normal government process would have required an addendum or side contract to be drafted (& made available under usual rules)?

Perhaps privately agreed undocumented deals are behind the NCYT dispute.

How else would we explain the DHSC's apparent claim it was entitled to swap out exsig for PROmate, in contraction to the contract? On the other hand, why would Mullis buy 60,875 shares at 817p on 12 Nov if he knew the swap out had been agreed. Was that because he expected Phase 2 to be linked to swap out? You have to ask where is a signed piece of paper documenting what was agreed given the existence of a full live contract, don't you? Perhaps this is why NCYT hasn't announced the triggering of Dispute Resolution Processes under the contract as ABDX has done but refer to "negotiations" instead.

It seems more than coincidence that the last payment to Primerdesign for the delivery of exsig was on 29 Nov to cover exsig delivered up to Sunday 15th Nov, the day before PROmate was launched 16 Nov.

No, its the year before, their financial statements said they were approached and "asked" to go ahead on 31 March 2020 (not 2021) to build the testing facility that they diverted their resources into before widening their operations to remote PCR testing. IMO Randox weren't an enemy, they had similarities to NCYT being well established & not unqualified to provide urgent PCR testing for the expected surge. IMO it is how Paterson was involved IMO & what he gained in there not being a competitive tender and market price comparisons in the process. It is one thing in that urgent situation to procure under emergency rules but where was a break clause for value for a money check & maturity in the market to supply tests put in the timeline? Not having one is not conscionable IMO esp if there is a private benefit to the person brokering the deal on behalf of the government (ie Owen & perhaps others).

Randox financial statements disclosed that the go ahead date was 31 March, I recall. Randox have been in this business since 1982. I'd have though the tender at that stage wasn't as fishy as it became, I wonder what they know about what was discussed. Interesting to find out. Okay, Labour are after Owen Paterson but wouldn't it be equally in the public interest to see who exactly in the DHSC(by name & authority) signed off on the PPE contracts like Ayanda where the sample goods required in advance under the contract turned out not to be fit for purpose when the ordinary procurement people saw them?

Guys - Have a look at the financial statements YE 20 particularly the Annual report on remuneration on page 23 of the document (p25 of download). Gabriele Cerrone was worth £10.5m in YE20 (YE19 £0.4m) including £10.4m "realisation" bonus on raising the enterprise value (i.e. ramping the SP) & Kunwar Shailubhari £1.8m (YE19 0.9m).

They took the opportunity of Covid to scam the market with prospects Sanji sums up correctly as not that evidenced in truth for their own pocket IMO.

https://ir.tizianalifesciences.com/static-files/eefd92e3-743f-4571-ac64-5a243742975a

If you look at the trading details of shares, the shares we hold are in Novacyt SA & are denominated in Euros.

This link is to a company called Novacyt UK Holdings Limited (registered number 12031776).
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12031776

Note 18 on page 23 of the financial statements filed for YE 31 Dec 2020 disclosed the ultimate holding undertaking as Novacyt SA, the company we hold shares in and note 11 on page 18 shows the purpose of this entity is to hold investments in UK businesses such as Lab 21.

The other record https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/FC033649
is of a Foreign Company (FC) called Novacyt which is sloppy administration for naming Novacyt SA. I should imagine overseas entities need to register a Branch in the UK which in this case was BR018736 along with the financial statements of the trading entity which in this case is the company that we hold shares in along with the financial statements of Novacyt Societe Anonyme (the name is given by the auditors on page 11 of the download - no registered number given nor page number on the document). These are a set of consolidated accounts for the Novacyt SA group that in the UK would ordinarily include statements of the holding company but not here. Page 10 of 82 in the financial statements or 25 of the download shows names of the companies consolidated into Novacyt SA (group) including Novacyt UK Holdings Limited (UK top co).

It looks as though they closed a branch registration for Novacyt SA to me, not sure why, nor why they need for it has gone, its housekeeping as unexplained as everything else in this business's style.

Qu Li is still a director of Braveheart Investment Group Plc according to Companies House. It would cost £2 to confirm what is registered for IQ-AI Limited as it is registered in Jersey but she is not mentioned on the company website so there is no reason to question her resignation as announced in the 2 Sep RNS. Doesn't than mean they have freed up her commitment to IQ-AI but continued here, or perhaps intensified whatever she's up to for BRH?

Ndn71 - there Articles of Association set out just that - Articles i.e. rules agreed that those involved will operate with each other. So for example they define that there will be share capital, how it is denominated (say 1p or whatever) nominal value, the classes of shares such as they have any and their rights.

Companies can set themselves up with a Golden Share under their Articles. Synairgen has not done this. It only has one class of share all ranking them same as each other in terms of their rights and entitlements. The best place to check this is in the latest financial statements - see link below.

https://www.synairgen.com/umbraco/Surface/Download/GetFile?cid=1d075af0-8f73-4d97-ba52-d391ad185246
See Note 17 on Share capital on page 51

You will see that back in 2015 the AGM voted to empower the Board to issue an unlimited number of new shares, which may be of general interest on this BB

"At the Company’s 2015 Annual General Meeting held on 22 June 2015 shareholders passed a special resolution removing the restriction on the Company’s share capital and amending the articles of association of the Company so that the number of shares the Company can allot and issue became unlimited.
All issued shares are fully paid."

HarChris I agree but it shows the value placed on predictability. EKF has reliable leadership, credible non execs & projections. NCYT made public a contract with dispute resolution & a year after an organisation blocking dispute started why haven't terms been enforced? Perhaps it is in shareholder's interest not to (!!!) but this does undermine reliance that can be put on expectations put into the public arena. It also shows a gap in the information available to the market on all the good stuff that is going on & could be going on with outstanding success such as deployment of Q machines in NHS. If we had numbers deployed & targets it would build confidence that when they say they can not offer guidance from 6 weeks time it is not because of some reason that might make revenue fall off a cliff next year & rightly value the SP much lower than EKF

Got it, can't recall my bank balance at Jun, it was just a guide. I also have in 12m inflow to Dec - also just a guide. Take it all together & the value attributed to future business is at the level that not much is factored in for YE22 while there was a stall decked with products exhibited at the NEC that stands as counter evidence. Wouldn't it be helpful if they commented on how many Q s were deployed, what their ambitions are?

It seems to me they may also have ear marked some amount of cash not to be used until the DHSC dispute is settled in case the goes they way the do not expect it to. It would be imprudent not to so perhaps there is even less free. It seems strange not to have taken advantage of it given the unique opportunities in the past 9 months. It would have been better to buy into the market in style of EKF than grow organically but I suppose they did not have a Chris Mills to tell them that.

Anyway GL, hope this goes up. KR

I think when you look at the SP as the uninvested would see it it breaks down

* 77m cash reported at June = say 108p
* cash inflow in H2 of say 12m out of 50m revenue in expectation 100m for whole year YE21 = 17p
* no guidance on YE 22 but 100m revenue can not completely stop call it the balance 220 -108-17 = 95p or 67m mcap
say 67m cash inflow in business after YE21 which is roughly that there is an underlying non covid business generating £5m pa in perpetuity at 4% growth.

That is a numerical breakdown of the way the SP Angel valuation from a year ago model would explain the CURRENT SP.

Guidance on YE22 would contradict the doomsday scenario above in the minds of uninvested market, unfortunately a lack of guidance rules it in.

Poidster made excellent observations as usual about the expanding demand for Q machines in the NHS for localised PCR testing that will not go away. Any indication from the company of the value and strength in this market would help.

An uninvested person would not wish to estimate numbers of instruments currently deployed and their usage volume nor the ambitions of Primer Design for supplying more machines in YE22. Those figures at least in round terms so the size of underlying stable state business, not part of the PCR & potential growth were calculable.

Just doing anything that businesses usually do might help at this stage to distinguish NCYT from the PCR testing market that Savid & Boris seem to have in their sights as being over priced & not as necessary as mass access to lower quality alternatives.

moniman - P/E ratios are part of a financial valuation models that bases price on future expectations of profit and the level they run at in perpetuity. Big question is the shape of the future business - what do they assume it'll do long into the future.

Take valuation by SP Angel on 21 Oct 20. It recommended SP 1,463p of which 638p came from cash flows (CF) projected from YE20 to YE25 with 823p the terminal value of business going forward from YE25. They use a discounted cf to find present value of future cf of 10% factoring risks & the cost of finance. THE critical figure in the calculation is base for valuation of business cf in Years time and the growth assumed for it in perpetuity. In this case YE25 estimated 59m euros growing at 4%.

Harchris - I have been through the whole range of business growth to FTSE. The key thing for the IIs is the predictability & visibility of numbers - hence why I go on about it & get accused for deramping or being a trader. If you are sitting in front of this spreadsheet & plug a number for YE22 revenue in as "we can't say", i.e. input a zero then the DCf collapses & risk shoots up so the SP has to base on cash & luck.

Lets ignore that the BoD have not invested in this themselves & assume they are timid, disorganised, have non execs out to lunch & just don't know how valuations work rather than are working for their own benefit against the SP somehow as it seems at times

I have reproduced the DCF model SP Angel used & put a scenario here as illustration. Hope you can read it, formatting not great.

YE21 = revenue 100 generates fcf 6m (being Hi outflow (12) + H2 inflow 20)
YE22 = revenue 100, operating cf 20m, free cf (after tax of 0 ) 20m
YE23-25 = revenue 50 operating cf 20m & free cf (after tax) 16m
with the terminal business making revenue 50m & fcf £16m growing at 4%

The SP based on 71m shares in issue = 497p of which the terminal value is 267p.
If we could be growing at 5% by YE25 it would 553p & if the business made fcf 22m as base for 4% growth = 523p

If we add in £49m revenue in YE 21 from DHSC it adds 64p & I'd hope for 20m recovery of exceptional & damages sadly only 28p share obviously clearing the air would lift assumptions of revenue potential & growth so it would flex figures up more (hard to guess I had 150p at one point).

HarChris, businesses do start with backers. They build up confidence rather as richard leonard said they had tried to do over a year ago but could not offer the discount the II wanted (to offset their risk in making a big commitment that they wouldn't unwind in time if the got wind of it.) These guys have not enforced contractual terms, held back information, not driven the narrative on their products as Poidster's post showed could be done so well, not shared KPIs & have PIs scrambling around for clues & warnings.

Agree with those saying columns swapped so sales value $13. 965 for 1.413m tests & reconciliation to UNICEF $120m spend

Also see Novacyt as a donor
https://www.unicef.org/coronavirus/donors-and-partners
Links & reconciliation below if anyone is interested.

Perhaps 1m tests were taken out of value paid to NCYT at $7.14 but included by Unicef as a donation & in total value figure 1,413,504 - 1,000,000 = 413,514 tests sold at 7.14 = $2.952m revenue (made up $2,894m just for test at $7.14 each + whatever the extra is $58,000 on the lot )

https://www.unicef.org/supply/media/9776/file/COVID-19-In-Vitro-Diagnostics-Supply-Assessment-and-Outlook-Update-October-2021.pdf

On page 7 see section starting
5. COVID-19 Diagnostics Market Situation
5.1. Current State of Supply

& end para 2
To date, UNICEF has procured 8.74million rRT-PCR diagnostic tests (Figure 1 and Figure 2, next page) and 6.87 million Ag-RDTs (Figure 3, next page) from 17 manufacturers for 82 countries, reaching a value of USD 120.98 million (Figure 1, 2, and 3).

Adding figures up quickly for ball park tally:
Figure 1 shows total quantity of tests 2.5 & value $40.9m correctly
Figure 2 totals (described wrongly) "quantity" 52.6 (inc 13.965 Primer) & "value" 6.2 (Primer 1.413)
Figure 3 shows total quantity of tests 27m correctly

Number of tests procured has to be 2,519 + 6.2 to get to "8.74million rRT-PCR diagnostic tests (Figure 1 and Figure 2, next page)"

Value has to be 40.9m + 52.6 + 27 = $120.5 (tally with statement USD 120.98 million (Figure 1, 2, and 3))

https://www.unicef.org/supply/media/7446/file/Primer-Design-Genesig-COVID-19-CEIVD-RTPCR-Test-Reference-Note.pdf
Primer Value $ = 13.965/1.413 = $9.88 each in line with $7.14 on price detail + something extra, kit, transport? exchange?

Great post as always Poidster. Thanks v much.

Don't we all wish that we could be running a tally in number of Q machines deployed & the potential for next year? It is like a ready KPI useful by customer & market & market segment that a revenue model could be built starting with existing numbers & going forwards to show probable future sales /possible sales /top target so usage volumes could be estimated based on history & hey presto, we'd begin to get an investment proposition more palatable for IIs.

troublesome & steve - I have noticed that the government is inclined to pull stunts which is what concerned me, why are they slow in the desktop review for tests of this quality & how has Innova been such a winner when the FDA say they faked data in their applications - its obviously cost & the politics of showing a position to the public. Our blood should boil as it rightly does over their other conduct.

That is a quantified estimate of the downside.

The market available for those 48 authorised to continue selling increased by the amount previously supplied by those not on that list so there is a +ve opportunity that we don't have a number for.

Less the risk of PROmate not being approved after 3 months for some reason we can not expect, like madcap politically motivated nonsense requiring the UK testing industry to fight a class action against or similar. A remote risk but announcement for Promate being accepted would have ruled out such unexpected eventualities.

lets hope so

Part of the risk here is what the government is up to, they have added this approval process, slow walked it & picked 48 tests for an extension. We know they are against PCR, is it a stunt to weed testers down to their favourites? None of the BoD buy into the prospects they present to us, have they seen writing on the wall? & what was the DHSC led to believe to make resolution of this dispute so protracted, beyond all limits available in the contract for it to be resolved by?